Its so funny to see people pick the loving, freedom spreading, human rights lover, freedom of information Chinese government over an American company that does nothing but fight for internet and information freedom. Pathetic people.
Yeah Samsung can fork android... oh wait unless android is useless without google, which it is. Without the play store and google's ecosystem android is worthless. Samsung is not stupid to throw away $8 billion they make off of android. All Samsung needs to do is look at Windows phone. Microsoft has a pretty ecosystem but they are treading water.
Life is hard without google apps. Really hard. Gmail, search, youtube, maps that is the ecosystem of all ecosystems. Most folks under 21 wont look at your platform without a proper youtube app.
Chinese goverment is mad because it doesnt have a backdoor to android to bend over the Chinese people out of its information. ANDROID IS TOO BIG FOR THEM TO CONTROL. So there mad. All they have are second rate hardware and software makers, they want a peace of the pie. Google is the only one with the balls to stand up to them. But instead of praising Google for have some morals, fanboys are out here throwing a live fest for the Chinese government. Never knew it could get this pathetic in here, but it has.
Chinese goverment is mad because it doesnt have a backdoor to android to bend over the Chinese people out of its information. ANDROID IS TOO BIG FOR THEM TO CONTROL. So there mad. All they have are second rate hardware and software makers, they want a peace of the pie. Google is the only one with the balls to stand up to them. But instead of praising Google for have some morals, fanboys are out here throwing a live fest for the Chinese government. Never knew it could get this pathetic in here, but it has.
New low record.
Putting aside the fact that your post takes more random turns than an art school film project, I'll address the last point:
No one really believes that the Chinese government's motivation in this is altruistic. It's certainly aimed at protecting the cartel of government friendly manufacturers in China.
That said, Google's track record of using the nebulous definition of 'Android compatibility' as a way to prevent competition on their turf doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence in the 'openness and freedom' of their platform. No matter how much they try to spin it as being 'for the greater good' or portray themselves as heroes.
In fact, the protectionist measures taken by Google with Android to lock out competition in certain areas is, in some respects, similar to the protectionist measures used by the Chinese government to maintain their own monopoly. So it's almost inevitable that they'd be butting heads at some point.
Google certainly dominates Android. But there is absolutely nothing stopping companies from forking Android. Amazon had demonstrated this quite aptly.
Google simply says you can't go half way. You can't pick and choose what you want from Google on your Android device. You want to fork Android? You're on your own for an ecosystem. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that stance.
Except this isn't true since they used the OHA bludgeon against the handset that Acer built for Alibaba. Given the mention of Baidu and Alibaba this is a direct response to that action.
I suppose that Google has pretty much written off China as a revenue source already but the PRC can still cause it heartburn.
Except this isn't true since they used the OHA bludgeon against the handset that Acer built for Alibaba. Given the mention of Baidu and Alibaba this is a direct response to that action.
Makes sense. I actually think Google was justified in the Alibaba case as they were most certainly trying to double-dip (fork their own version of Android and benefit from the ecosystem).
That said, the fact that any company which is part of the OHA is only allowed to create products which are 'Android compatible' is ridiculous. How exactly is that 'open'?
That said, the fact that any company which is part of the OHA is only allowed to create products which are 'Android compatible' is ridiculous. How exactly is that 'open'?
It's the whole point of forming the OHA... to make compatible versions so the ecosystem can grow, and apps can be shared.
As for "open", people have mistaken ideas about it...
"Open" is NOT about each company giving all their code to every other company, or even about every company controlling the core code (Google does that). "Open" is about everyone being able to see and use the core code.
"Open" also means that anyone can modify the source to differentiate their own device (say, by making it faster, or by adding a proprietary extension for air gestures).
Another "open" part is that they can leave out things like GMail and substitute HotMail if they wished.
Its so funny to see people pick the loving, freedom spreading, human rights lover, freedom of information Chinese government over an American company that does nothing but fight for internet and information freedom. Pathetic people.
Yeah Samsung can fork android... oh wait unless android is useless without google, which it is. Without the play store and google's ecosystem android is worthless.
Samsung is not stupid to throw away $8 billion they make off of android.
All Samsung needs to do is look at Windows phone. Microsoft has a pretty ecosystem but they are treading water.
Life is hard without google apps. Really hard. Gmail, search, youtube, maps that is the ecosystem of all ecosystems. Most folks under 21 wont look at your platform without a proper youtube app.
Chinese goverment is mad because it doesnt have a backdoor to android to bend over the Chinese people out of its information. ANDROID IS TOO BIG FOR THEM TO CONTROL. So there mad. All they have are second rate hardware and software makers, they want a peace of the pie. Google is the only one with the balls to stand up to them. But instead of praising Google for have some morals, fanboys are out here throwing a live fest for the Chinese government. Never knew it could get this pathetic in here, but it has.
New low record.
Idiotic post reached new lows, even by your standards. I don't use google and life is real nice. Tell me why I need google again? I see, to track me and show me ads.
Makes sense. I actually think Google was justified in the Alibaba case as they were most certainly trying to double-dip (fork their own version of Android and benefit from the ecosystem).
That said, the fact that any company which is part of the OHA is only allowed to create products which are 'Android compatible' is ridiculous. How exactly is that 'open'?
No, they wanted to use their OWN ecosystem and not Google's. All they wanted was a solid handset manufacturer with a half decent brand.
As for "open", people have mistaken ideas about it...
"Open" is NOT about each company giving all their code to every other company, or even about every company controlling the core code (Google does that). "Open" is about everyone being able to see and use the core code.
"Open" also means that anyone can modify the source to differentiate their own device (say, by making it faster, or by adding a proprietary extension for air gestures).
Another "open" part is that they can leave out things like GMail and substitute HotMail if they wished.
Except they can't.
They cannot see and use the core code without running into Google's OHA restrictions as shown by Acer/Alibaba. Meaning you can fork but none of the major manufacturers are allowed to make handsets for you.
They can modify their source to a point until they run into OHA restrictions as shown by Acer/Alibaba. Meaning you can fork but none of the major manufacturers are allowed to make handsets for you.
They can leave out Google ecosystem to a point until the run into OHA restrictions as shown by Acer/Alibaba. Meaning you can fork but none of the major manufacturers are allowed to make handsets for you.
If you can't get a major manufacturer to make a handset for you then you're f-ed.
And Google is inconsistent leading to this PRC response. Haier is a OHA member that makes incompatible android devices for Amazon as well as Alibaba as well but the brand isn't as good as Acer's. As to why Haier seems immune it's probably because they don't really care if they are black listed from any Google support or making Android branded phones outside of China.
The whole thing was simply stupid on Goggle's part. Their potential revenue stream in China was killed when they pulled out anyway and you don't become a major company in China without heavy ties to the Communist party. Meaning f-ing around with Alibaba on such a petty level simply insured more official sanctions and pissing off one of your manufacturers at a time when they were all pissed about Moto.
Samsung isn't stupid. They can see that working with Baidu and Alibaba in China is going to be required for success because most of Google's ecosystem is blocked in China anyway.
Hence Tizen which is clearly not Android but with the OpenMobile ACL can run Android apps. Expect a PRC driven Tizen fork that isn't locked to Samsung's SDK licensing by Baidu and Alibaba or a loosening of Samsung's SDK licensing and a Samsung phone for one or both the Baidu and Alibaba ecosystems.
And Google is inconsistent leading to this PRC response. Haier is a OHA member that makes incompatible android devices for Amazon as well as Alibaba as well but the brand isn't as good as Acer's. As to why Haier seems immune it's probably because they don't really care if they are black listed from any Google support or making Android branded phones outside of China.
One big problem was that the Aliyun OS app store supposedly included pirated Google apps. Not smart.
The other was that their app store included Android apps, so Aliyun was clearly trying to have their cake and eat it too. Either fork it or don't.
Or do like Amazon, and require developers to recompile and submit.
Quote:
The whole thing was simply stupid on Goggle's part.
Yep. In some ways it makes sense that they'd want to protect the purpose of the OHA, but it was definitely poorly handled.
"Open" also means that anyone can modify the source to differentiate their own device (say, by making it faster, or by adding a proprietary extension for air gestures).
And that's exactly what Acer did for Alibaba: forked Android and made a custom handset for them. Yet Google intervened and threatened Acer's OHA status for doing so unless they pulled the plug on the launch. Excerpt from the Guardian's article on it:
"The search giant lobbied Acer last week to halt its scheduled press showing of a new smartphone aimed at the Chinese market, pointing out that membership of the Open Handset Alliance - the group of companies forming the device, carrier, semiconductor, software and "commercialisation" sides of the Android ecosystem - forbids Acer from making devices that offer forked, or incompatible, versions of Android."
Every project I've ever seen or worked on which has the term 'open' in it (e.g. OpenSSH, OpenBSD, etc) freely allows forking. In fact, OpenBSD's origins are from a forked version of NetBSD. This is how the open source movement grows and thrives.
Google benefitted from many years of work by the open source community through basing Android on Linux (which, in turn, benefitted from its predecessor, MINIX). Yet they seem to use every tool at their disposal to prevent others from having the same freedoms they did whenever they are threatened with competition.
No, they wanted to use their OWN ecosystem and not Google's. All they wanted was a solid handset manufacturer with a half decent brand.
Note that I said 'benefit from the ecosystem' (not 'use the ecosystem'). As KDarling pointed out, their app store also included apps from the Android app store.
And that's exactly what Acer did for Alibaba: forked Android and made a custom handset for them.
You mean that Alibaba forked it. Acer didn't.
As an OHA member, Acer is not allowed to make a device with forked Android. They agreed to that when they joined.
Smaller manufacturer Haier should've likewise been reminded of their obligations when they broke their promise. By letting them have a pass, Google looked bad later on.
Re: "open". I think that Google should've used a different phrase to differentiate their project rules.
Right. But my original point still holds about Acer not being allowed to manufacture a device with a forked version of Android if they are a member of the OHA (regardless of who forks it).
Quote:
As an OHA member, Acer is not allowed to make a device with forked Android. They agreed to that when they joined.
Smaller manufacturer Haier should've likewise been reminded of their obligations when they broke their promise. By letting them have a pass, Google looked bad later on.
Re: "open". I think that Google should've used a different phrase to differentiate their project rules.
And this is where I have a problem with Google. So many people are sold on the idea that Google is the 'liberator of the internet' and promoting 'open source' and 'freedom'. As someone who has worked a number of years on open source projects (including the Linux kernel itself), it boils my blood when I have to argue with these people about what is truly behind those things. And how Google, at the end of the day, is still a company out to make profit (just the same as Apple).
Thus, when push comes to shove regarding freedom vs things which threaten their bottom line, they'll pick the bottom line. Which is fine, that's how business works, we all know and accept that. But at least be upfront about it instead of selling people on the image that you're somehow better than Apple because you're more 'open'.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Good to know. I don't have a battery bay on my handset. So I revise the comment to Korean designed handset, which is also where the profit goes.
I don't know why Samsung don't have a "Made in XXXX" label on the box, like everyone else does.
All part of the smoke and mirrors, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Does Google have more control over Android that Apple does over iOS?
Does Apple tout their wares as being "open" in a seemingly meaningless display of pure marketing?
Originally Posted by hill60
I don't know why Samsung don't have a "Made in XXXX" label on the box, like everyone else does.
Because having to put "Designed by Apple in California. Made in China." on their products and boxes would be embarrassing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
I don't know why Samsung don't have a "Made in XXXX" label on the box, like everyone else does.
They do. Both my Galaxy Nexus box, and the back of my Tab 10.1, say "Made in Korea". Edit: so does my old Galaxy Tab 7.
From what I've read, Samsung builds their higher end devices in Korea for better quality control.
It's the lower priced stuff that's made in Southeast Asia countries where labor is cheaper.
Yeah Samsung can fork android... oh wait unless android is useless without google, which it is. Without the play store and google's ecosystem android is worthless.
Samsung is not stupid to throw away $8 billion they make off of android.
All Samsung needs to do is look at Windows phone. Microsoft has a pretty ecosystem but they are treading water.
Life is hard without google apps. Really hard. Gmail, search, youtube, maps that is the ecosystem of all ecosystems. Most folks under 21 wont look at your platform without a proper youtube app.
Chinese goverment is mad because it doesnt have a backdoor to android to bend over the Chinese people out of its information. ANDROID IS TOO BIG FOR THEM TO CONTROL. So there mad. All they have are second rate hardware and software makers, they want a peace of the pie. Google is the only one with the balls to stand up to them. But instead of praising Google for have some morals, fanboys are out here throwing a live fest for the Chinese government. Never knew it could get this pathetic in here, but it has.
New low record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
Chinese goverment is mad because it doesnt have a backdoor to android to bend over the Chinese people out of its information. ANDROID IS TOO BIG FOR THEM TO CONTROL. So there mad. All they have are second rate hardware and software makers, they want a peace of the pie. Google is the only one with the balls to stand up to them. But instead of praising Google for have some morals, fanboys are out here throwing a live fest for the Chinese government. Never knew it could get this pathetic in here, but it has.
New low record.
Putting aside the fact that your post takes more random turns than an art school film project, I'll address the last point:
No one really believes that the Chinese government's motivation in this is altruistic. It's certainly aimed at protecting the cartel of government friendly manufacturers in China.
That said, Google's track record of using the nebulous definition of 'Android compatibility' as a way to prevent competition on their turf doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence in the 'openness and freedom' of their platform. No matter how much they try to spin it as being 'for the greater good' or portray themselves as heroes.
In fact, the protectionist measures taken by Google with Android to lock out competition in certain areas is, in some respects, similar to the protectionist measures used by the Chinese government to maintain their own monopoly. So it's almost inevitable that they'd be butting heads at some point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
Google certainly dominates Android. But there is absolutely nothing stopping companies from forking Android. Amazon had demonstrated this quite aptly.
Google simply says you can't go half way. You can't pick and choose what you want from Google on your Android device. You want to fork Android? You're on your own for an ecosystem. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that stance.
Except this isn't true since they used the OHA bludgeon against the handset that Acer built for Alibaba. Given the mention of Baidu and Alibaba this is a direct response to that action.
I suppose that Google has pretty much written off China as a revenue source already but the PRC can still cause it heartburn.
I haven't been close enough to a Samsung box to see, but that's required by US law, so it must be there somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Except this isn't true since they used the OHA bludgeon against the handset that Acer built for Alibaba. Given the mention of Baidu and Alibaba this is a direct response to that action.
Makes sense. I actually think Google was justified in the Alibaba case as they were most certainly trying to double-dip (fork their own version of Android and benefit from the ecosystem).
That said, the fact that any company which is part of the OHA is only allowed to create products which are 'Android compatible' is ridiculous. How exactly is that 'open'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
That said, the fact that any company which is part of the OHA is only allowed to create products which are 'Android compatible' is ridiculous. How exactly is that 'open'?
It's the whole point of forming the OHA... to make compatible versions so the ecosystem can grow, and apps can be shared.
As for "open", people have mistaken ideas about it...
"Open" is NOT about each company giving all their code to every other company, or even about every company controlling the core code (Google does that). "Open" is about everyone being able to see and use the core code.
"Open" also means that anyone can modify the source to differentiate their own device (say, by making it faster, or by adding a proprietary extension for air gestures).
Another "open" part is that they can leave out things like GMail and substitute HotMail if they wished.
Idiotic post reached new lows, even by your standards. I don't use google and life is real nice. Tell me why I need google again? I see, to track me and show me ads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
Makes sense. I actually think Google was justified in the Alibaba case as they were most certainly trying to double-dip (fork their own version of Android and benefit from the ecosystem).
That said, the fact that any company which is part of the OHA is only allowed to create products which are 'Android compatible' is ridiculous. How exactly is that 'open'?
No, they wanted to use their OWN ecosystem and not Google's. All they wanted was a solid handset manufacturer with a half decent brand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
As for "open", people have mistaken ideas about it...
"Open" is NOT about each company giving all their code to every other company, or even about every company controlling the core code (Google does that). "Open" is about everyone being able to see and use the core code.
"Open" also means that anyone can modify the source to differentiate their own device (say, by making it faster, or by adding a proprietary extension for air gestures).
Another "open" part is that they can leave out things like GMail and substitute HotMail if they wished.
Except they can't.
They cannot see and use the core code without running into Google's OHA restrictions as shown by Acer/Alibaba. Meaning you can fork but none of the major manufacturers are allowed to make handsets for you.
They can modify their source to a point until they run into OHA restrictions as shown by Acer/Alibaba. Meaning you can fork but none of the major manufacturers are allowed to make handsets for you.
They can leave out Google ecosystem to a point until the run into OHA restrictions as shown by Acer/Alibaba. Meaning you can fork but none of the major manufacturers are allowed to make handsets for you.
If you can't get a major manufacturer to make a handset for you then you're f-ed.
And Google is inconsistent leading to this PRC response. Haier is a OHA member that makes incompatible android devices for Amazon as well as Alibaba as well but the brand isn't as good as Acer's. As to why Haier seems immune it's probably because they don't really care if they are black listed from any Google support or making Android branded phones outside of China.
The whole thing was simply stupid on Goggle's part. Their potential revenue stream in China was killed when they pulled out anyway and you don't become a major company in China without heavy ties to the Communist party. Meaning f-ing around with Alibaba on such a petty level simply insured more official sanctions and pissing off one of your manufacturers at a time when they were all pissed about Moto.
Samsung isn't stupid. They can see that working with Baidu and Alibaba in China is going to be required for success because most of Google's ecosystem is blocked in China anyway.
Hence Tizen which is clearly not Android but with the OpenMobile ACL can run Android apps. Expect a PRC driven Tizen fork that isn't locked to Samsung's SDK licensing by Baidu and Alibaba or a loosening of Samsung's SDK licensing and a Samsung phone for one or both the Baidu and Alibaba ecosystems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
And Google is inconsistent leading to this PRC response. Haier is a OHA member that makes incompatible android devices for Amazon as well as Alibaba as well but the brand isn't as good as Acer's. As to why Haier seems immune it's probably because they don't really care if they are black listed from any Google support or making Android branded phones outside of China.
One big problem was that the Aliyun OS app store supposedly included pirated Google apps. Not smart.
The other was that their app store included Android apps, so Aliyun was clearly trying to have their cake and eat it too. Either fork it or don't.
Or do like Amazon, and require developers to recompile and submit.
Quote:
The whole thing was simply stupid on Goggle's part.
Yep. In some ways it makes sense that they'd want to protect the purpose of the OHA, but it was definitely poorly handled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
"Open" also means that anyone can modify the source to differentiate their own device (say, by making it faster, or by adding a proprietary extension for air gestures).
And that's exactly what Acer did for Alibaba: forked Android and made a custom handset for them. Yet Google intervened and threatened Acer's OHA status for doing so unless they pulled the plug on the launch. Excerpt from the Guardian's article on it:
"The search giant lobbied Acer last week to halt its scheduled press showing of a new smartphone aimed at the Chinese market, pointing out that membership of the Open Handset Alliance - the group of companies forming the device, carrier, semiconductor, software and "commercialisation" sides of the Android ecosystem - forbids Acer from making devices that offer forked, or incompatible, versions of Android."
Every project I've ever seen or worked on which has the term 'open' in it (e.g. OpenSSH, OpenBSD, etc) freely allows forking. In fact, OpenBSD's origins are from a forked version of NetBSD. This is how the open source movement grows and thrives.
Google benefitted from many years of work by the open source community through basing Android on Linux (which, in turn, benefitted from its predecessor, MINIX). Yet they seem to use every tool at their disposal to prevent others from having the same freedoms they did whenever they are threatened with competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
No, they wanted to use their OWN ecosystem and not Google's. All they wanted was a solid handset manufacturer with a half decent brand.
Note that I said 'benefit from the ecosystem' (not 'use the ecosystem'). As KDarling pointed out, their app store also included apps from the Android app store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
And that's exactly what Acer did for Alibaba: forked Android and made a custom handset for them.
You mean that Alibaba forked it. Acer didn't.
As an OHA member, Acer is not allowed to make a device with forked Android. They agreed to that when they joined.
Smaller manufacturer Haier should've likewise been reminded of their obligations when they broke their promise. By letting them have a pass, Google looked bad later on.
Re: "open". I think that Google should've used a different phrase to differentiate their project rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
You mean that Alibaba forked it. Acer didn't.
Right. But my original point still holds about Acer not being allowed to manufacture a device with a forked version of Android if they are a member of the OHA (regardless of who forks it).
Quote:
As an OHA member, Acer is not allowed to make a device with forked Android. They agreed to that when they joined.
Smaller manufacturer Haier should've likewise been reminded of their obligations when they broke their promise. By letting them have a pass, Google looked bad later on.
Re: "open". I think that Google should've used a different phrase to differentiate their project rules.
And this is where I have a problem with Google. So many people are sold on the idea that Google is the 'liberator of the internet' and promoting 'open source' and 'freedom'. As someone who has worked a number of years on open source projects (including the Linux kernel itself), it boils my blood when I have to argue with these people about what is truly behind those things. And how Google, at the end of the day, is still a company out to make profit (just the same as Apple).
Thus, when push comes to shove regarding freedom vs things which threaten their bottom line, they'll pick the bottom line. Which is fine, that's how business works, we all know and accept that. But at least be upfront about it instead of selling people on the image that you're somehow better than Apple because you're more 'open'.