Alibaba Says Google Threatened Acer With Banishment From Android 352
Spy Handler writes "In a Microsoft-esque move, Google threatened Acer with banishment from Android if it went ahead with its new cellphone project with Alibaba (China's version of Amazon), using an OS called Aliyun. Acer has remained silent on the issue, but Alibaba reports that they received notification from Google, stating 'if the new product launch with Aliyun went ahead, Google would terminate Android product cooperation and related technical authorization with Acer.' A possible reason for Google's upset is that the Aliyun OS, which is not Android, can run Android apps as well as its own."
Microsoftesque? (Score:5, Insightful)
They could still use Android all they wanted if they did this, Google just wasn't going to go out of their way to help them. Don't they have the right to pick and choose who they work with?
Re:Microsoftesque? (Score:5, Interesting)
it would mean shipping it with no play store, with no google music and so forth...
(android isn't exactly free if you want to be "authorized", which means shipping with googles apps and googles api's, and yes there's a subset of the android api's that is for google approved devices only)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean just like the kindle and the nook?
Neither has android branding and both have good sales.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon and B&N are first and foremost content sellers -- were long before they got into selling first readers and then tablets -- and sell Kindle/Nook as tools for accessing the digital content they sell. For them, Google Apps (and, particularly, Google Play) would be a bad thing -- something that promotes the competition. So, yeah, for them, Android branding would conflict with the whole purpose of them selling devices in the first place.
For companies' whose c
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about Nook, but considering the Amazon app store is freely distributed, I think Amazon would be thrilled if Acer's devices can preloaded with their store instead of Google Play.
Google doesn't gain anything by restricting who can ship a device with it preinstalled.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean, entities set up for content distribution like Alibaba? Who Acer are in partnership with on this very device?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least in the case of CM, people do tend to flash gapps.
Amazon offers another store, and the nook is just a nice device to install CM on.
Re: (Score:2)
The key difference being that Microsoft never pretended their OS was "free" and/or "open" as Google has done.
Re: (Score:2)
Android is still apache licensed.
Not helping someone is not the same as hindering them.
not even revelant (Score:2)
the point is, we can't even substantiate any of this - and no matter what they do, it's not "banishment from android". Relevance was lost when this somehow made it to the front page. Proof that if the firehose isnt' watched vigilantly enough bullshit non-articles make it through.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
NOPE (Score:5, Informative)
Google Play works just great with Cyanogenmod, and google didn't "decide".
YEP (Score:3, Informative)
http://wiki.cyanogenmod.com/wiki/Latest_Version/Google_Apps
Google Apps contain the proprietary Google applications that come pre-installed with most android devices. Due to licensing restrictions, these apps cannot come pre-installed with CyanogenMod and must be installed separately. CyanogenMod does not require Google Apps to function properly, however, to take full advantage of the Android system, Google Apps are recommended.
--
For anyone not targeting modders that are willing to look this type of thing up
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoftesque? (Score:5, Informative)
Restraint of Trade (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but I think this represents restraint of trade. So not only is it (arguably) evil (TM) it likely also illegal.
Brett
Re:Restraint of Trade (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Restraint of Trade (Score:5, Insightful)
^This
Google has agreements and partnerships with various manufacturers to work with them and help them with Android. That hasn't stopped other companies, such as Amazon, from taking Android and running with it on their own. After all, it's supposed to be an open OS, so anyone can use it for anything at all that they want, really. If Acer is breaking an exclusivity agreement on which their Android partnership with Google is based, Google may simply be reminding/threatening them with the consequences of doing so, but that doesn't mean that Acer will be locked out of Android, just that they will no longer have a partnership with Google, which, once again, is hardly a deal-breaker.
Is it evil? Sure. Illegal, however? IANAL, but I find it doubtful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Restraint of Trade (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we even sure this is legit? Im not clear on why Alibaba, and not Acer, would have been the recipient of such a letter: Why would they be a relevant party? And why is it Alibaba, not Acer, who is raising the issue?
Ive been at slashdot and on the internet long enough to be suspicious when a competitor makes claims like this that are validated by noone else. Maybe its legit, but id want to see something more than accusations by a party with a vested interest in making google look bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably neither.
This story doesn't ultimately make any sense whatsoever. Other Google partners produce phones that don't run Android, and the idea that this has something to do with the new OS merely running arbitrary APKs is ridiculous.
none of them produce a device that isn't android but runs android apps.
Re: (Score:3)
cyanogenmod installs on devices without android branding and gives you full access to google services.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it installed by any of the manufacturers before purchase? No. Not the same thing. Of course you can do whatever the fuck you want to a phone after you buy it (as much as some manufacturers try to say otherwise...); that has absolutely no relevance to this though, as this is about them selling other phones that SHIP WITH a different OS that can run arbitrary APKs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No it is not you stupid troll.
Google owns the trademarks and can do with them as they like. They also have no reason to support a competitor.
Acer can still go ahead and make this device if they want to, android is open. Google is under no requirement to help them.
Uhm, proof? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a tabloid-esque move, /. posts a summary in which it treats an unilateral allegation as fact.
TFA at least makes it clear that Alibaba is making a unilateral claim and that neither Acer nor Google have commented on it. Furthermore, TFA makes it apparent that Alibaba is offering no letter, email, or voicemail as proof that Google told Acer to nix the deal.
Whereas the /. summary contains this line: "Acer has remained silent on the issue, but Alibaba reports that they received notification from Google, stating 'if the new product launch with Aliyun went ahead, Google would terminate Android product cooperation and related technical authorization with Acer.'" Which makes it sound as though Google made the threat to Alibaba directly, which isn't even what Alibaba is claiming.
Look, I'm not a big fan of Google. I think they very frequently ignore their own "don't be evil" advice. But I'm also not a fan very of sloppy editing and poor journalism. Come on /., put more effort in creating your summaries.
Jut lie M, jsut without any (Score:5, Insightful)
actual evidence.
Not the I expect much from the troll known as Timothy.
Re: (Score:2)
err.. troll editor known as Timothy.
Which Android Apps? (Score:3)
Single Source (Score:5, Insightful)
*if* true... (Score:2)
And no comments from anyone at Google and Acer...
It would seem a bit hypocritical to say "don't run against our ABI" after their line of defense was "ABIs are so generic" in the Java/Dalvik case.
Re: (Score:3)
No comments from Google Tokyo or Acer Taiwan [reuters.com]. Google (Mountain View) could make a statement about it soon enough. Given the timing of this, I'm guessing Google HQ has not had time to analyze what happened yet.
Though, Acer not commenting isn't unusual - Google could've told them to not mention anything about it publicly, or else they'll lose it as well. After all, what happens inside the OHA is probably covered by many NDAs (like Honeycomb source code).
Who is Alibaba? (Score:2)
It's on the internet, so it must be true (Score:2)
Looks like a complete cock-and-bull story.
C'mon Slashdot editors. Take two minutes and check this stuff out first.
Alibaba / Amazon? (Score:2)
I consider Alibaba a slightly inferior peer to EBay which puts it way, way lower than Amazon in my book.
Re:Google is evil (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Google is evil (Score:5, Informative)
Added to the list [slashdot.org]
Re:Google is evil (Score:4, Funny)
Paying someone to try to improve MS' image on slashdot seems like a really boneheaded move... which would not be surprising coming from MS...
Alright, you've convinced me that they're probably professionals and not basement dwellers. Still, shouldn't we be cheering them on for taking money from MS and giving them back very little in return?
Re: (Score:3)
For some reason there are some people who just can't leave these troll comments alone, just let it be moderated down so we don't have to see it instead of contributing to its visibility. Stop f
Re:Google is evil (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a little like people who advocate for a punctuation mark to denote sarcasm. If you can't detect sarcasm when you see it, you don't really deserve to enjoy it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's a shill. I am not.
I agree 100% with the sentiments that he expressed. Read Google's ToS. Look at the fines for privacy invasion that Google has. Yes, fine apps. Yes, uses them to rape your privacy in ways you can't imagine.
Will Alibaba's Aliyun do this? Who knows. But to believe Google isn't getting as evil as its competition is to be incredibly naive.
Re: (Score:3)
"seemingly Linux-friendly nick"
Not at all, since a genuine Linux geek wouldn't couple Debian and Ubuntu as a nick. Debian folks wouldn't advertise for Ubuntu, and Ubuntu users usually know little about Debian.
It sounds like barely thought-out bullshit from a shill.
You would rather be spied on by the Chinese? (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire mobile phone ecosystem is evil, starting with the carriers.
Re:Google is evil (Score:4, Informative)
This just establishes the fact that Google is not necessarily evil.
FTFY
Aliyun (alien?) is clearly written in code lifted from Android without Google's permission. While Android sources are available, that doesn't mean you can just take the source, change it as you see fit and sell it as your own. Pretty shoddy of Acer.
Re:Google is evil (Score:5, Interesting)
Free-as-in-choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, assuming you are just a member of the public with no contractual or similar limitations on your behavior, you can do pretty much (within the various F/OSS licenses applicable to the code) whatever you want with Android Open Source Project (AOSP) code.
OTOH, its not at all unlikely that the deal Acer has that involves "technical authorization", trademark licensing, etc., for Android -- not merely AOSP -- code also involves agreements by Acer not do some things it otherwise could do -- either with AOSP code on its own, or (as would be more relevant in this case) in terms of using Android-compatible third-party code, whether or not it is AOSP derived -- in exchange for all the special privileges with regard to Android that they get.
So its not at all hard to see how their flirtation with Alibaba's Aliyun OS may have conflicted with obligations they undertook as an Android -- not AOSP -- licensee, and resulted in a Google threat regarding the Android license.
Even if the Google threat story Alibaba is selling is true in broad outline (which there is nothing, AFAICT, other than Alibaba's claim itself to support), it still sounds like it is quite likely that it was Acer being reminded that they have to chose whether they want to be in the same relationship as the general public with respect to Android, or if they would prefer to keep the special privileges they've enjoined with regard to Android and pay the price that goes with that.
Re:Free-as-in-choice (Score:4, Informative)
Does it really matter?
Back in the day, Microsoft had a similar arrangement with OEMs. They had a "special relationship", buying Windows licenses at OEM prices, but the requirement was that they only sell PCs with Windows preinstalled, and nothing else. So it was also all about contractual obligations - except that US DoD didn't see it that way when it came to that anti-trust investigation.
Re: (Score:3)
Truth is, as most of the code on android is apache licenced or GPL (as the kernel) there is no need to ask google's permission to make anything with it.
Except for two things, some OEMs get advanced access to the code base before it's released to the general public and some OEMs get special access to the core Android developers if they can't get something to work on their own.
This is probably one of the reasons the two other Chinese government-sponsored forks of Android are still stuck at Android 1.6 and Android 2.3. It actually takes time to vet a new release of Android for NSA backdoors and security holes, and introducing your own backdoors into it. And I
Re: (Score:2)
Errr, isn't that what Amazon did?
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon was not a member of the OHA nor had any contractual obligations to google.
Amazon is not an Android licensee (Score:3)
Apple isn't an Android licensee and doesn't have the special "technical authorizations" Acer has with regard to Android (as distinct from the public license offers attached to the Android Open Source Project, which isn't the same thing as officially-branded Android.)
So, if there is a conflict between what Amazon did (which is different, but in some ways parallel, to what is at issue with Acer) and the kind of Android licenses that companies like Acer have, it wouldn't matter
Re: (Score:2)
Actually yes they can as long as they don't remove copyrights from the source or misuse Google's trademarks. Why would they need Google's permission to use and sell Apache v2 code when the license carries no such restriction?
Re:Google is evil (Score:4, Informative)
Whoosh? (I was hoping you're being sarcastic)
Of course you can "take the source, change it as you see fit and sell it as your own" (your own product, not the source files) as long as you meet the obligations of the license (which would boil down to GPL for most of it). There is no need to italicize the word "sell" either, because free software licenses don't require products based on the source code to be distributed for zero cost.
There is nothing that says you have to meet the obligation of the license right away either, because until you actually distribute your product, you're not even in violation. After such time the bare minimum (assuming GPL) would be to honour written requests to have the source code made available. Even that doesn't have to be for zero cost.
That's an evil move of Microsoft proportions, for Google to threaten Acer like that. It's just like what Microsoft did to IBM over OS/2.
Re: (Score:3)
That's an evil move of Microsoft proportions, for Google to threaten Acer like that. It's just like what Microsoft did to IBM over OS/2.
Are we sure this actually happened? It seems rather unlikely that Googlers could be that stupid. Clearly an official response from Google is called for, sooner rather than later, and regardless of whether the report is accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
"While Android sources are available, that doesn't mean you can just take the source, change it as you see fit and sell it as your own."
Is it GPL or not? If it is, then yes you can do just that
Re: (Score:2)
It is not, it is mostly Apache licensed.
You can still do with it as you like, assuming you are not under any contractual obligations to google.
Acer does not get android via the AOSP, they have a private deal with Google.
Re:Google is evil (Score:5, Interesting)
This just establishes the fact that Google is not necessarily evil.
FTFY
Aliyun (alien?) is clearly written in code lifted from Android without Google's permission. While Android sources are available, that doesn't mean you can just take the source, change it as you see fit and sell it as your own. Pretty shoddy of Acer.
What I don't understand is how Aliyun can even sell it. Not the mechanism by which they get money in exchange for some code, but how anyone would willingly pay these people for something they can get for free. What exactly is Aliyun adding to the Android base that isn't already there?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, look:
1) Brand new user.
2) Posts within the same minute the story appears.
3) Post has more text in it than can be typed in one minute.
4) Is full of irrational Google hate.
Yep folks, the irrational Google hater is back. From the tone of the posts, I'm not even sure anymore that he is a paid shill (they tend to be a bit more even keeled and dispassionate), and instead think that someone has an obsession with Google and his panties in a wad over the fact that no one else agrees with his arguments.
Next, I ex
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not necessarily irrational, or hatred for that matter. Although either of those are possible, it's more likely profitable. Between Microsoft, Apple, and FaceBook, I'm fairly sure there's no shortage of money for shill factories to bash Google. FaceBook was caught before, and I can't imagine that would stop such an honourable company from trying again. The other two are at least as likely to do the same.
Re:Google is evil (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not banning Acer from anything. You have completely misunderstood. They are terminating the privilaged cooperation they give Acer. Why should Google spend extra money an resources on assisting Asus, when the intention is that they use that assistence to build better Android products, not build competing products. This just puts Acer on the same footing as any other Joe Smo. It doesn't prevent them from doing anything they do now. Essentially Google recognized that Acer was leveraging Google's assistance, not to help build android products, but to help build competing android products. There is no lockout here.
You must live a pretty sheltered live in a closet to think that this is what "evil" is. You want to talk in concrete terms about vendor lock-in, greed, proprietary vs. open, then I'll listen. You start throwing around words like "evil" in this context then you just look like a drama queen.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How are you supposed to build a posting history if you can't post without a posting history though?
Do you really think this is the first time this person has posted here?
New account has only posted to this story.
Posted the very second one was able to post even though this account is not a subscriber.
Has a very linux sounding username, but is very obviously shilling for microsoft.
I don't accuse every fanbois of being a shill, just those who follow that M.O.
Re: (Score:2)
errr, who's asking Google to support this phone or this copycat OS?
Re: (Score:2)
Acer, they get technical support from Google to make android devices. Using knowledge gained under that arrangement to make an android based competitor likely violates some contractual obligation.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have the "why" from Google. So, this smidgeon of news doesn't establish anything.
Indeed, nothing from Acer either. All we have is a statement from Alibaba that is light on concrete facts... Actually, all we have is a *random website* that say Alibaba said this or that.
Folks, there is nothing to see here.
Re:Google's DICK MOVE (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone want to suggest any other search engines?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=search+engines [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, how exactly would google be cutting Acer off? Android is open source.
I suppose they might cut off support services, if Acer has some kind of contract in place for that.
It sounds like Acer was backing out of a deal with Alibaba and it was easier to say "Can't help you bro, Google is threatening to cut me off."
Re:Bull Shit. (Score:4, Informative)
Incorrect. Android is NOT open source. Android is a commercially licensed mobile OS. Google does however provide the same source code under an open-source license called the Android Open Source Project, or AOSP.
The difference between the two are very minor code-wise, but commercial access wise, they're much bigger.
First, the commercially available Android is for partners only - while Google traditionally works with a partner to release a flagship phone with the latest OS, the other partners often have early access to the new code prior to Google releasing it on AOSP. (And as we saw with Honeycomb, Google can prevent partners from releasing the code to AOSP. Google has also applied source code distribution restrictions on who may access Honeycomb source under what conditions).
Second, and more importantly, being a partner also allows you to license the Google Apps. So if you wanted the Play store, the only way you can include it in your image would be to be a commercially licensed partner. Otherwise you would have to release it without the Google Apps, and your users will have to manually install the Play store marketplace themselves (like what you do with Cyanogen).
Doing this means that Acer's tablets and phones would be like the random Chinese tablets and phones running AOSP - sure they run Android, but that's about it - you'd have to find and install the marketplace yourself (not sure if it requires root?).
Re: (Score:2)
HOW EXACTLY then does cyanogenmod manage to take the source code and create a version of android that WORKS JUST FINE WITH GOOGLE APPS? They have NO LICENSE.
Re: (Score:2)
By linking to people who illegally distribute the Google binaries. They used to provide them directly before Google threatened a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
you are telling us that cyanogenmod is illegal?
Re: (Score:3)
What he said is factually correct. The trademarked "Android" is not Open Source. It is provided on a contractual basis. AOSP is Open Source under the Apache license.
This is how Honeycomb AKA Android 3.0 was never released Open Source. It is also why there is no Cynogenmod 8, as that number would have been for Honeycomb.
Re: (Score:2)
Which android devices can you not install Google Play on?
Re: (Score:2)
Google Play requires your device ID, I believe. And hence, Google Play will not just run on any device on which a version of Android is installed. The particular version of Android needs to be "locked" to the device. This locking is, I presume, something only Google can do (in a legal way).
Re: (Score:2)
I bet Amazon would be interested in providing the default app store.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet Amazon would be interested in providing the default app store.
Why? They have their own app store, why would they want to give app revenue to Google? Does Amazon want me to install the Nook application on my Kindle?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1. Open your new device
Step 2: click here to install android functionality
problem solved
Re: (Score:2)
You WILL NOT be able to make a commercially succesful tablet / phone once you lose the right to bundle those apps stock!
I know, all those Amazon Kindle Fire's that have been flying off the shelves for the last 10 months are a sure sign of a lack of commercial success...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the second line, you fuck up?
Re: (Score:2)
hahaha
you can install android on a Barnes and Noble Nook WITH NO ANDROID BRANDING and then you have FULL ACCESS to Google services.
sure anyone can. that's why the mention of aftermarket installs. which is not really a way to go if you're a commercial producer the size of Acer. it's out of the box working or none at all.
sure, I can install hackintosh osx on any pc I want. can't sell one though.
Re: (Score:2)
Illegally, sure. But I doubt it's gonna go so well for Acer if they start selling phones with pirated software preinstalled...
Re: (Score:2)
Android is open source, Google Apps are not.
Google Apps run on Android but are not a part of Android.
Re: (Score:2)
A literal one? I'll get my rain coat. Or maybe a bunker would be better.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you were in after the MS trolls and shills created new accounts and started posting bullshit beginning with the first post.
I wouldn't mind the shills too much if they would just keep to one damn account and not create an entirely new account to shill with for each story.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you trying to say?
Google is not going to stop them from using android, but it will not help them to turn android into another OS either. Quite different than not allowing software to run on an OS.
Re: (Score:3)
I was merely wondering how Androidy Alyun is going to turn out to be.
Google aren't, as far as I know, bullying RIMs OEMs, so I wondered how much more of a threat Aliyun is to them.
Re: (Score:2)
RIM is not using android in anyway. Nor is it assisting them.
To suggest you might remove support is not bullying. It is merely a statement that you want to end a partnership.
I think Google would like to avoid a ChinaKindle if possible. They sure as hell would not want to help create such a thing.
Re: (Score:3)
RIM's new OS is not Android BUT IT CAN RUN Android apps http://developer.blackberry.com/android/ [blackberry.com]
That's why I find it an interesting comparison
Re: (Score:2)
It's NOT interesting
EVERY system with Cyanogenmod installed is ALSO running android apps without a license
But those mods are not a commercial product (Score:3)
BB10/ Playbook OS are. Remember RIM is actually SELLING Android apps.
So I'm able to compare the Alibaba/Acer product with BlackBerry 10.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think microsoft is doing a whole lot to support mozilla, they just don't actively shut it down. Google doesn't have to pay engineers to help acer if they don't want, microsoft sure doesn't pay mozilla engineers.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, AOSP is still apache licensed.
Acer can feel free to use it, just no support from Google. Assuming this is true at all.
BULLSHIT (Score:2)
WHY then are Barnes and Noble and Amazon using the android kernel WITHOUT THE ANDROID BRANDING?
It's the FUNCTIONALITY that makes android appealing.
Re: (Score:2)