Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Sep 2012 16:53 UTC
Google There's a bit of a story going on between Google, Acer, and Alibaba, a Chinese mobile operating system vendor. Acer wanted to ship a device with Alibaba's operating system, but Google asked them not to, and Acer complied. The reason is that Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, which prohibits the promotion of non-standard Android implementations - exactly what Alibaba is shipping. On top of that, Alibaba's application store hosts pirated Android applications, including ones from Google.
Thread beginning with comment 535502
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[11]: Wait a minute
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 20:18 UTC in reply to "RE[10]: Wait a minute"
cdude
Member since:
2008-09-21

Why should Acer expect to be stopped for doing something that someone else is doing?


Two wrongs make a good?

Your analogy falls down because police do not know the blood alcohol level of every driver


See, here we see the reason for our disagreement. My believe is NOT that you can,drink and drive as long as the police does not know.

Google certainly knows that Haier has released an Aliyun phone and that they are an OHA member.


Certainly yes and they certainly did not care cause well, Aliyun OS is 0.1% market share. But once they saw that not caring results in others doing the same and riscing that the whole purpose of the OHA may die they saw the need to do something to prevent that, to keep the OHA and Android compatibility alive.

Andy Rubin explicit named the compatibility-story as one of the main goals google has. It makes sense for the whole ecosystem, for us developers and customers. We like to have that compatibility between Android manufactors. Its very important for us.

Lenovo's Le Phone comes with oPhone which is based on a Android version before Google bought the company behind Android. Google's Android of today has very less in common with the Android from Android Inc (no Dalvik for example, total different APIs, etc).


No. You keep arguing this based on a poorly written Wiki article. Please do some research. Telling you No over and over is getting boring. [/q]

Dude thus is not how it works. Either you provide sources, proof, like I did or you do the same Alibaba does: claim simething but fail to proof and at the end we know you just where wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[12]: Wait a minute
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 20:38 in reply to "RE[11]: Wait a minute"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Two wrongs make a good?


Again, you are assuming that Google is truthful, correct, and trustworthy.

You would rather presume that Haier has somehow duped Google rather than the simpler assumption that Google saw nothing wrong with Haier was doing.

But once they saw that not caring results in others doing the same and riscing that the whole purpose of the OHA may die they saw the need to do something to prevent that, to keep the OHA and Android compatibility alive.


Woah, woah.... Umm, this is my theory. That Google is being hypocritical and continue to move the goalposts based on their needs rather than on actual established rules.

I don't see how you can claim the above: that Google permitted Haier to do whatever it wanted to do because it was a small fry and can somehow claim that Acer should somehow have known that there would be rules reserved for them alone that Google would decide to enforce arbitrarily?

Andy Rubin explicit named the compatibility-story as one of the main goals google has. It makes sense for the whole ecosystem, for us developers and customers. We like to have that compatibility between Android manufactors. Its very important for us.


It makes sense for Andy Rubin, Google, and fanboys like you, but that does not mean there were specific OHA rules forbidding this. There was a day where openness mattered more to them. That day seems dead now.

Dude thus is not how it works. Either you provide sources, proof, like I did or you do the same Alibaba does: claim simething but fail to proof and at the end we know you just where wrong.


Sorry, this is how it does work. You are misinformed and can barely speak English. I feel zero obligation to educate you. If you cannot determine basic, well-established facts for yourself (like oPhone and LePhone being Android forks), I'm not going to spend all day educating you. Do it yourself.

Edited 2012-09-17 20:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4