Google allegedly told Acer to drop a rival phone, or lose Android partnership

[ScotiaBurrell]

Seems anti-competitive and opposite the 'don't be evil' motto they tout.

In the end, being 'open' is a marketing slogan meant to separate you from yourmoney.

Google has allegedly threatened Acer with termination of the companies' partnership on Android, forcing Acer to cancel the launch of a device running a rival mobile operating system.

Android is open source, of course. Anyone can use it, even without a partnership with Google (see: Amazon's Kindle Fire). But Google gives favored device-makers early access to Android, and some Android devices launch with Google branding. Manufacturers must also obtain a license from Google to install the Google Play store. Acer makes both Android phones and tablets.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/...dump-rival-os/

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by ScotiaBurrell

Seems anti-competitive and opposite the 'don't be evil' motto they tout.

In the end, being 'open' is a marketing slogan meant to separate you from yourmoney.


http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/...dump-rival-os/

In the end, being a "partner" and getting perks means certain things also including when you can compete and when you can't.

I would be interested in knowing who has that kind of relationship with Google and what they have given up, if anything, or a whole lot.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

In the end, being a "partner" and getting perks means certain things also including when you can compete and when you can't.

Uh-huh.
Acer likes partnering with Google to promote Android and undercut windows. And then they whine up a storm when MS does their own hardware.
Now they expect Google to stand idly by while they partner with Alibaba to undercut them.

Apparently Acer thinks partnerships are one-way streets; they get support for their hardware and their software "partners" have to meekly accept it when they get into bed with their competitors.

No sympathy here for either money-grubbing multinational corporation.

[afv011]

Compatibility is at the heart of the Android ecosystem and ensures a consistent experience for developers, manufacturers and consumers. Non-compatible versions of Android, like Aliyun, weaken the ecosystem. All members of the Open Handset Alliance have committed to building one Android platform and to not ship non-compatible Android devices. This does not however, keep OHA members from participating in competing ecosystems.

Source

[tompe]

So nothing strange at all with this. What Google did was a good thing.

[fjtorres]

Interesting little brewhaha, actually.
1- Android is (conceptually) Mutant-Java (Dalvik runtime) on Linux funneling service income (from Play, Maps, search, etc) to Google.
2- Alibaba created an OS that tried to clone Google's Dalvik and run that on Linux to funnel service income to *their* services. It is not 100% Android compatible.
3- Anybody can fork actual Android to their heart's content (like Amazon does) as long as they're not a member of the Open Handset Alliance.
4- Members of the Open Handset Alliance signed a contract specifying they would not shipped forked Android products that introduced incompatibilities.
5- Acer signed the OHA contract (which they can void at any time) and received access to the proprietary Android apps that add Google ecosystem services (and consumer value) as well as Google developer support for free as long as they are members in good standing of OHA.
6- OHA members can (and do) ship product with non-Google OSes (WP7, Win8, etc) and Google doesn't complain. Those OSes, however, don't try to run Android apps.
7- Google told Acer they considered Alibaba's OS an android derivative and that shipping product with it would be in violation of the OHA contract.
8- Acer weighed the value of OHA membership versus the expected gains from partnering with Alibaba and stopped the intro. Maybe temporarily, just to study their legal options, maybe permanently.

What I find interesting here is that Dalvik itself has a disputed heritage (the Oracle Java lawsuit) and that google is in effect saying that anything with a Dalvik-like runtime is an android derivative or fork and thus forbidden to OHA members. Given that OHA includes Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Acer, and pretty much all the Android Phone vendors that pretty much forecloses the market to any android clone phones and ensures that the service revenue from those phones goes to Google.

That makes OHA a multivendor walled-garden much like Apple's.
It also means Alibaba is going to have to sell its own phones.
Take the Acer name off them, brand them Alibaba, and case closed.

Just another small gotcha for the manufacturers using the "free" phone OS.
These gotchas are piling up, though...

Interesting indeed.
This story's not done. I'm thinking this one's going to court.

[Graham]

Um, if a walled garden is multi-vendor how is it still a walled garden?

The OHA seems like a pretty good thing to me, as it's allowed multiple vendors to move forward together, providing choice to consumers while remaining compatible - with the results we've seen in operating system market share. In fact you could say that the 'successful version' of Android is 'OHA' Android. So successful, in fact, that the biggest non-OHA competitor, Amazon, has taken pains to stay compatible with it, in spite of forking the OS considerably to create its own store interface.

Graham

[afv011]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I'm thinking this one's going to court.

I doubt it. Acer would have much to lose from getting out of the OHA, a phone without access to the market loses most of its appeal. They signed a contract and tried to circumvent it - and got caught. Lick your wounds and move on.

And Alibaba? They don't have a leg to stand on.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by afv011

And Alibaba? They don't have a leg to stand on.

They're the ones I think might sue. In China.
The heart of the argument is Google's assertion that, in effect, *any* Dalvik-clone on Linux is an android fork. That is legally debatable.

[fjtorres]

And it looks likke Alibaba is not going away quietly:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-575...-about-our-os/

Spelich told CNET in an e-mail that Aliyun is "not a fork. Ours is built on open-source Linux." And he added that Aliyun "has our own applications. [It's] designed to run cloud apps designed in our own ecosystem. [It] can run some but not all Android apps."

He also accused the Android ecosystem of being closed and restrictive:

Aliyun is an open-source based OS that is also an open ecosystem that allows others to host their mobile-enabled Web sites in our cloud and we make those Web sites available to users who use Aliyun OS phones. So we are an ecosystem that includes other Internet companies, whereas Android does not because it provides apps through downloads. It's the crux of the whole cloud vs. app debate. Cloud is open, apps system is closed because it is controlled by the operator of the apps marketplace. So you see: Two competing ecosystems, one that's open through the cloud, the other is closed and restricts users to only the apps that they want you to see.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And it looks likke Alibaba is not going away quietly:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-575...-about-our-os/

To Alibaba: cry me a river. They tried to ride on the success of Android without playing by the rules.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by afv011

To Alibaba: cry me a river. They tried to ride on the success of Android without playing by the rules.

Yup.
Thing is, it looks like they're doing to google as google did to java.

If they *really* wrote their own Dalvik-emulator without google code then it wouldn't really be an android fork, but rather a clone. Forks start with the same code base, not the api specs. And as the Oracle vs google trial made clear, that is perfectly safe.
As I said, this could get interesting.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by afv011

To Alibaba: cry me a river. They tried to ride on the success of Android without playing by the rules.

Since when did Chinese companies play by the rules??

[Graham]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Yup.
Thing is, it looks like they're doing to google as google did to java.

If they *really* wrote their own Dalvik-emulator without google code then it wouldn't really be an android fork, but rather a clone. Forks start with the same code base, not the api specs. And as the Oracle vs google trial made clear, that is perfectly safe.
As I said, this could get interesting.

Note that Google isn't going after Alibaba. They're simply holding Acer to the terms of the Alliance. The fact that this alternate OS can run many Android apps natively means that it's reasonable to apply the terms within the spirit if not the exact letter of the OHA agreement.

Spyke

[afv011]

There's a good analysis here.

Of course, Aliyun is trying to play both sides — remain separate from the Android ecosystem, while being Android binary-compatible. Although it does say its focus is on web apps. Obviously, what tipped off Rubin (as he alludes to in his Google+ post) and Google was the fact that Aliyun is running Android apps. It can’t have it both ways, so if it drops the APK, perhaps Google wouldn’t block the rim…