Google Pressured Acer/Alibaba Because of Android Compatibility Issues 255
An anonymous reader writes "On Thursday we discussed news that Google pressured Acer and Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba to cancel the launch of a phone running the Aliyun OS. Google has now addressed the issue, speaking out on the importance of compatibility for Android devices. Andy Rubin, who runs Android development at Google, said Aliyun was a non-compatible version of Android, which weakens the ecosystem. He pointed out that the Open Handset Alliance provides all the tools necessary to make it compatible. An Alibaba exec fired back, saying, 'Aliyun OS is not part of the Android ecosystem so of course Aliyun OS is not and does not have to be compatible with Android. It is ironic that a company that talks freely about openness is espousing a closed ecosystem.'"
It's not part of the Android ecosystem yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ironic (Score:1, Insightful)
For me this clearly looks like Microsoftesque move by Google.
At the same time we have honest companies like Microsoft who actually adjust to different markets and continue providing services even if they aren't the number #1. Just look at Bing - Microsoft doesn't make a huge hullabaloo about it all the time, no, they continue improving it and providing it to users. Google cries like a baby when it isn't number #1 somewhere.
Could you fucking shills at least remain consistent?
Re:It's not part of the Android ecosystem yet (Score:5, Insightful)
And if Aliyun fails to run an Android application, customers will see Aliyun as bad, and the platform will not prosper. Problem solved. Why does Google have to play nanny?
Re:It's not part of the Android ecosystem yet (Score:3, Insightful)
RIM isn't part of the OHA Android group Google runs.
What Alibaba and Acer are doing is a bit like what Bill Gates did to Apple in the 80/90s.
Act like you're their friend, get into the inner circle (OHA) with access to early internal technology and use that knowledge to build a competing product.
Then, when the time is right, knife them in the back.
PROFIT!
Re:It's not part of the Android ecosystem yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not part of the Android ecosystem yet (Score:2, Insightful)
Haha... thinking about it, this is also a lot like what Google did to Apple when the iPhone was in development. Google had people on the Apple board, who knew about the iPhone's development as Google was building their iPhone competitor: Android.
I guess Google may have a learned a lesson from good old Billy and Bally.
Re:It's not part of the Android ecosystem yet (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.winehq.org/about/ [winehq.org]
Wine says it runs Windows Applications. It should be OK for Microsoft to pressure companies to not ship Wine to avoid compatibility issues.
Ecosystem (Score:4, Insightful)
There's that word again. These "walled gardens" are more akin to zoos than true ecosystems -- all they offer is the convenience of finding the different flora and fauna together in one spot, with the restriction being how you interact with them. Some people could benefit from more direct interaction; still many others would be eaten by lions if given a chance.
Not the real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what weakens the ecosystem are the Open Handset Alliance members who promise to keep their phones up to date, then renege.
I bought an Xperia Pro in 2011 because Sony announced they'd be getting Android 4. It's currently running Android 2.3, released in 2010, because Sony have completely cocked up the rollout. The rollout started back in May, then mysteriously stopped. It might have something to do with it being so buggy it's unusable (hardcoded to AZERTY keyboards, even if you've got a QWERTY keyboard), but we have no way of knowing because Sony won't talk. They announced it was being rolled out a second time at the beginning of August, but there's no evidence of that in their shitty update software. Customer support stonewall, just saying that the rollout is ongoing. This isn't even for the latest version of Android, it's for last year's version.
This is what's damaging the ecosystem. iOS developers can happily target iOS 5+, released a year ago, and get the vast majority of users (more than 80%). If you targeted the year old Android 4+, you'd only be getting about 22% [android.com] of users.
Re:When Microsoft did it, it was evil. (Score:0, Insightful)
Sounds pretty similar to some of the complaints Oracle had with Android ironically. How it wasn't official and would fragment the Java ecosystem. At least they aren't yet sueing Alibaba so at least they aren't quite as evil as Oracle yet (but then again who is?).
Re:When Microsoft did it, it was evil. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oracle was suing Google over patents and copyright infringement.
Google was never a part of the Oracle PartnerNetwork, so Oracle could not kick them out.
This is not like Oracle suing Google at all, in any way.
Re:When Microsoft did it, it was evil. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if we're going to play Microsoft analogies, you could say that Alibaba is attempting to play "embrace and extingush". They wan to take advantage of the Android ecosystem while channeling users onto their proprietary platform.
In any case, You haven't established the validity of your analogy. What Microsoft did was refuse to sell Windows to OEMs who also offered competitive products like DR-DOS. Plenty of vendors offer Android competitors on their phones. What Google is doing is withholding cooperation from a company that is effectively using Android as the basis for a competitive product. The competitive product would be bootstrapped by having access to Android apps while steering customers toward apps that run exclusively on the network operator's service.
Where have we seen that carrier lock-in strategy before? Everywhere. That was the world of smartphone apps before iPhone, and having developed such apps before iPhone I can tell you it sucked for everyone except the carrier and handset maker.
IIRC Android is licensed under Apache, so Google can't "cut off" Alibaba from Android. Alibaba can continue to offer Android devices, even develop non-compatible Android derivatives, but they won't get help from Google. No technical assistance, no advance notice of plans, no labeling their products as "android" phones, no offering on-line access to the Android app store (although users could still side-load). Is that evil? Maybe, maybe not.
Google can't do right in some eyes (Score:5, Insightful)
They build an open source operating system. When they refuse to release Honeycomb, people start claiming they're going back on the open source commitment. They release ICS and JB source code less than a week after the official announcement. They literally give Android away for free - http://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429 [twitter.com]
Yet they get far more criticism than Microsoft and Apple running increasingly closed ecosystems. They get blamed for Android fragmentation. Now, when they decide to do something about fragmentation, they get blamed again. It's pretty simple isn't it, you join OHA and you maintain compatibility with Android. Or you don't, like Amazon, and take the source code for free and whatever the hell you want with it. Is that really so onerous for Acer?
When Android OEMs get sued with crap patents, Google gets blamed. Even when it's Samsung, a far bigger company who is making the majority of profits off Android (Google isn't making nearly as much), Google is somehow supposed to show up and save the day for them. When Google registers patents of their own, every time there's a Slashdot story about the pot calling the kettle black although Google have NEVER used patents to sue anyone except in retaliation, not their search patents, not their Hadoop, Mapreduce, etc. patents.
If you're an Android device used, you should be glad Google is doing this. The last thing we need is another Amazon. Try playing with a Kindle Fire - Amazon completely skinned Amazon and made it incompatible with normal Android apps. I have tried putting many in through apks, most install but almost none work properly. Despite coming with a powerful dual core processor, the devices are terribly slow and laggy. The browser is awful compared to Chrome or Safari on mobile devices. They could have gone with a completely skinned version of compatible Android, with their own skin but retain compatibility with apps. Instead, we get different versions of Android apps for the Kindle Fire. I am not sure this even works in Amazon's favour, they could still have sold all the content and made proper tablets offering real tablet functionality, not glorified content consumption devices with terribly proprietary software.
Here's the kicker:
You don't have to pay Google a cent to retain Android compatibility. Amazon could do exactly what they are doing now: run their own app store instead of using Google Play, use Nokia maps, use Bing as the default search engine, put their own browser in that tracks all websites you visit. Google's own Motorola branded handset, the RAZR M ships with the Amazon app store installed. I don't know why Google let this happen, it makes no business sense. But it's good for us consumers, you don't even have to be tied to the Google Play store.
Re:Android incompatibility with Java (Score:5, Insightful)
It also doesn't advertise that it's a Java SE technology.
Re:When Microsoft did it, it was evil. (Score:5, Insightful)
What? Apple's never released an open source OS and had it forked. Seriously, Apple suing the entire mobile world over rounded corners has nothing to do with this. What's going on here is very simple. Google has no problem with an independent company using the open source Android to make their own fork. Amazon and numerous other companies have done it without so much as a complaint from Google. What's not fine is for members of the Open Handset Alliance to support Android forks, because compatibility is part of the stated mission of the OHA. If Acer wants to build devices using an Android fork, then they would have to leave the OHA.
Re:When Microsoft did it, it was evil. (Score:2, Insightful)
So that means "Open" in this case is a loaded term and there is a scale of openness which Andy exploited to create the illusion of being open.
Forget about Google apps and the app store for a second.
Is Android as open as Firefox or Linux? No, development is done strictly behind closed doors, there is no way for anyone to submit patches or additional code and Google hasn't merged a single line of non-Google employee code. Where's the Android-dev mailing list?
There are not even beta releases of the Android versions so that smaller manufacturers and CyanogenMod can know what's coming. The code is thrown over a wall *after* or at the time of the release of the Nexus device, so the OEM making the Nexus like HTC or Samsung get exclusive early access and the rest are left scrambling to release new devices with the new OS or to update their old devices, why do you think it takes so long for OEMs to release updates? Contrast that with even Windows, which releases preview/beta/dev versions for everyone to use starting a year before release instead of playing favorites with one OEM.
Add to that the closed nature of Google apps and the app store and you end with something that can just barely be called "open".
Re:It's not part of the Android ecosystem yet (Score:2, Insightful)
I dont know that thats the customer being dumb. If they had an iPhone or Blackberry or something and were happy, and their first experience with "Android" was this Aliyun device, and it sucks..... seems to me "dumb" would be saying "oh well, ill just drop another $200 on another Android" rather than going back to what works.
I got burned on the Motorola Admiral, which has a zillion issues (bad contacts app, bad dialer, poor responsiveness, generally hating touch-based OS); maybe its just the vendor specific version of Android, but Id have to be stupid the next time my upgrade period comes around to get another android.
You know the old saying: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Re:Is this what Microsoft did in the 90s? (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got several things wrong..
1. Don't use any official Android distributions (operate as a niche/self-supported market, ie. Amazon)
2. Use any combination of Android and forked android-derived distributions, but can't join the OHA
3. Join the OHA and use only an official Google Android derived OS
That's completely wrong.
You have several choices:
1) Develop an Android compatible device [android.com], compatible with existing Android applications, and don't pay a cent to Google or anyone else for Android.
Sell your devices with getjar app store, Amazon app store, Bing as default search, Nokia maps, change the UI, whatever the hell you want as long as you don't break compatibility.
2) Do 1) and also join OHA. Still don't pay a cent to Google, still sell your devices with getjar app store, Amazon app store, Bing as default search, Nokia maps, change the UI, whatever the hell you want as long as you don't break compatibility.
3) Do 1) and 2) and also license Google applications and the Google Play app store.
4) Use the open source Android code (definition of open [twitter.com]) and do whatever the hell you want with it like Amazon, modify it, make it incompatible with Google's Store and current Android applications, don't pay anything to Google, don't join the OHA, get the source code for new versions of Android soon after Google announces them, make your own app store.
Acer chose option 3) for their current devices. Google said if they're doing option 4) with Alibaba, they cannot also do option 2) and/or 3). And Acer made their choice, nothing was forced on them. All Google could do was force Acer to leave the OHA and refuse to license Google Play and other Google applications to them. Acer could still make Android compatible devices, even continue to sell their current devices with the Amazon app store for example. They chose to remain part of the OHA.
the OEMs are already way behind in keeping official Android up to date in their design and production pipelines even with that inside track and help from Google. An OEM on its own trying to make an official Android device is thus at a large disadvantage against OEMs that are part of the OHA.
That's simply not true. Some of the first non Google devices to come out with Android 4.0 were from Chinese low end manufacturers who are not part of the OHA, much before the bigger well known OHA members. That was because the OEMs insist on customizing their devices to distinguish them from stock Android. And far from being uncompetitive, those manufacturers have been incredibly successful. Some have gone on to license Google Play and Google Apps. Want to beat Google? Make your own app store and your own apps that are better than Google's proprietary apps like Maps Gmail etc. Amazon are trying. Acer didn't want to take up that challenge. No one forced Acer to do anything. They made a choice.
Re:When Microsoft did it, it was evil. (Score:2, Insightful)
I do wish that they'd address the fragmentation issue with the same vigor.
There is no fragmentation issue.
There are older devices that can't run the latest version of the OS. So what?
How is that fragmentation in Android, and not in Apple?
You sound like you read all the headlines but have no clue what you are parroting.
Re:Dear Andy Rubin, (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see "Android" at http://apps.aliyun.com/index.htm [aliyun.com], just APK, which can be considered generic.
It's OK for Google to come up with "not Java", but it's not OK for Alibaba to come up with "not Android"?
Also, your first sentence is quite ironic. Let me fix it:
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Poetic justice for Google destroying Sun.
Re:When Microsoft did it, it was evil. (Score:1, Insightful)
I find it amusing that you're citing the forking of a project as a major problem, when that's always been cited as one of the key selling points for FOSS - the fact that no external vendor can force you to do something you don't want, because you can always take a copy of the source code and do it yourself.
I've seen nothing in any of this about Alibaba/Aliyun talking about expectations of using the Android trademarks, or demanding some sort of support for their fork from Google... no, this mostly seems to be about Google saying "Whoa, you can't build a system using our open source stuff that doesn't somehow funnel money into our bank accounts!"
And if you don't see the hypocrisy inherent in that - "embracing open source" while using "we own it, do what we say" as a cudgel to force people to conduct business in a certain way... you're simply not paying attention.
It would be like the Apache foundation coming after me for taking the Apache source code, building a fork of it with my own features and customization built in, and calling it "Comanche" on the market... if your source is open, the ability to do this is *EXACTLY* the intent of the writers of the FOSS licenses.
Re:When Microsoft did it, it was evil. (Score:3, Insightful)
It still doesn't make any sense, given that members of OHA can build devices using different mobile OSes (like Bada or WinPhone). And how is that different from an Android fork, really? Especially the one that's not even advertised as such?
Re:Not the real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no idea how such a dumb bug came about, but people have been complaining about it since May, when they first tried to roll out the update.
I've been keeping a close eye on that list. The unlocked version of the Xperia Pro sold in Europe has an SI of 1249-8527. That list goes up to 1249-8526 then skips ahead to 1250-1741. It's been that way for months. They specifically state in bold that they won't answer questions about when SI numbers will be added to the list ("added to the list" being a euphemism for getting the update). Until last week, the dates were completely different on the list - they showed that updates started in May, then stopped entirely at the end of June. Then people who hadn't received the update started demanding to know why the updates had stopped months ago, and the dates on the list all suddenly changed to August.
I don't know what's going on inside Sony, but there's quite clearly something very fucked up that they aren't talking about.
Re:When Microsoft did it, it was evil. (Score:5, Insightful)
All google is saying is that if you don't want to play by their rules, they won't give you support. Fork it, and you're on your own. Seems fair to me and they're not "going after anyone".