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."
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: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:Google is evil (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.
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, not being licensed to have the official Google apps bundled on what you sell to users is a serious drawback.
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:Google is evil (Score:5, Informative)
Added to the list [slashdot.org]
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:Microsoftesque? (Score:5, Informative)