Report: Acer Nukes Smartphone Launch Due to Google Threat

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]metallifux[/nom]Android is open source so i'm thinking this is BS[/citation]

I'm pretty sure Google has teams that go and work with other companies to build android for different devices though. It sounds like they're threatening to cut off support to Acer in this way, not deny them access to Android itself.
 
Pretty mean. The story implies back-door pressure from Google, but I wonder if there is wording in the actual business agreements between Acer and Google that essentially prevents them from making another phone while still collaborating with and making Android devices.

But let's face it--Acer's hardware sucks. Intervention of Google aside, it probably would have sucked regardless.

 
Alibaba is saying Google told Acer not to do it. Acer has not officially said it and neither has Google, so for all we know there is more behind this.
 
Seems fishy.... Android is open source, Google cannot prevent anyone from releasing an Android phone... and besides, Samsung, LG and HTC make Android and WP7/WP8 phones without problems.

Look at the low-end junk coming out NEW from China with Android 2.x (some even with 1.6!)
 
Reading the comments, it's funny how some people are so quick to dismiss this simply because it was Google that was behind it. I'm sure we'll have a flood of flames if the parties were somewhat different...
 
[citation][nom]metallifux[/nom]Android is open source so i'm thinking this is BS[/citation]
Android may be open source, but being open source doesn't mean you can change its name and sell it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyun_OS

"the OS itself is a binary-compatible Android clone. An App Store was launched with the Aliyun OS that contains downloadable Android APK files"

In a related story, Toms writes never disclose if they own stock in any of the company's they badmouth or praise, or if they were compensated for writing articles. I'm betting disclosure related to that would make articles like this seem purposefully biased instead of blatantly biased..
 
[citation][nom]deadlockedworld[/nom]I'm pretty sure Intel lost some big lawsuits for exactly this.[/citation]

I'm fairly sure AMD lost some big lawsuits for initially copying Intel's designs (1980s-1990s).
 
[citation][nom]teh_chem[/nom]Pretty mean. The story implies back-door pressure from Google, but I wonder if there is wording in the actual business agreements between Acer and Google that essentially prevents them from making another phone while still collaborating with and making Android devices.But let's face it--Acer's hardware sucks. Intervention of Google aside, it probably would have sucked regardless.[/citation]
If there's anything in Acer's contract with Google that prevents them from releasing phones with competing OS's....the contract is legally void anyway as it violates Fair Competition laws.

[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]Android may be open source, but being open source doesn't mean you can change its name and sell it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyun_OS"the OS itself is a binary-compatible Android clone. An App Store was launched with the Aliyun OS that contains downloadable Android APK files"In a related story, Toms writes never disclose if they own stock in any of the company's they badmouth or praise, or if they were compensated for writing articles. I'm betting disclosure related to that would make articles like this seem purposefully biased instead of blatantly biased..[/citation]
Being "binary compatible" means it can run apps written for Android. Aliyun is not Dalvik based, whereas Android itself is. So, this isn't a case of Alibaba simply changing the OS name and reselling it. They're using a different kernel and source. OF course, that's assuming that the Wiki article is accurate.
 
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]If ......Being "binary compatible" means it can run apps written for Android. Aliyun is not Dalvik based, whereas Android itself is. So, this isn't a case of Alibaba simply changing the OS name and reselling it. They're using a different kernel and source. OF course, that's assuming that the Wiki article is accurate.[/citation]

And they are packaging their OS with android's App store and other android APK's, which is against Google's TOS. This is why Cyanogen had to remove it from their builds, and the only reason Amazon isn't in hot water for the fire.
 
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]I'm fairly sure AMD lost some big lawsuits for initially copying Intel's designs (1980s-1990s).[/citation]
AMD and Intel were on rather friendly terms back then. They both brought innovations to the x86 architecture and part of the reason they mutually agreed to cross liscense and keep the CPU models named strictly in numbers. Of course that all changed when Pentium hit the scene.

As for this Aliyun OS I think Google's fustration with it is reasonable. Even if it isn't a total clone of Andriod, ummm.... close enough. I mean, running android APK files? Still an obvious effort to piggyback on the success of Andriod. If google had any conversation with Acer I'm sure they pointed that out and told them that they can expect an end of technical support of the real Android OS if they go down this path. That's as it should be. Any assistance from Google toward Acer could potentially be spun around to make a better Aliyun phone running Google apps.
 
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]I'm fairly sure AMD lost some big lawsuits for initially copying Intel's designs (1980s-1990s).[/citation]

Actually, IBM had a company policy where they didn't accept processors for a device from only one company, so if not for AMD, Intel wouldn't have sold their older CPUs to IBM. AMD didn't copy Intel's designs, they were shared designs and AMD didn't get sued for using what Intel and IBM gave them to use and vice versa. Lawsuit issues didn't happen until the early to mid 2000s when Intel literally paid OEMs to ignore AMD, among other anti-competitive tactics, but things were different at that time because AMD was no longer really related to IBM in the 2000s IIRC.
 
Why not just launch the smartphones under Alibaba CC name. Acer will just produce the phones, sell them to ACC, and ACC will install their own OS and market the phones? Just like Foxconn manufacturing iPhones for Apple.
 
[citation][nom]cookoy[/nom]Why not just launch the smartphones under Alibaba CC name. Acer will just produce the phones, sell them to ACC, and ACC will install their own OS and market the phones? Just like Foxconn manufacturing iPhones for Apple.[/citation]

That would make sense, so there's no good reason for it to be done (it also wouldn't change the moral impact of using an OS that basically stole code directly from Android).
 
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]If there's anything in Acer's contract with Google that prevents them from releasing phones with competing OS's....the contract is legally void anyway as it violates Fair Competition laws.Being "binary compatible" means it can run apps written for Android. Aliyun is not Dalvik based, whereas Android itself is. So, this isn't a case of Alibaba simply changing the OS name and reselling it. They're using a different kernel and source. OF course, that's assuming that the Wiki article is accurate.[/citation]
Non-compete clauses are pretty common in most business agreements. It's not illegal to have a non-compete clause in a contract. What isn't generally legal is pricing (or "special offers") depending on interactions or lack of interactions with perceived competitors (that's where you get into trouble with anti-competition law). I don't know how things work in Taiwan, but in the US, you can inject a non-compete clause in most agreements and it's perfectly legal. Think about it from a business' perspective--why would I want to directly subsidize the strength of my competitor?
 
[citation][nom]marcolorenzo[/nom]Reading the comments, it's funny how some people are so quick to dismiss this simply because it was Google that was behind it. I'm sure we'll have a flood of flames if the parties were somewhat different...[/citation]Bingo. If it was Microsoft, Apple, Sony, etcetera, these same apologists would be grabbing pitchforks and torches.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]That would make sense, so there's no good reason for it to be done (it also wouldn't change the moral impact of using an OS that basically stole code directly from Android).[/citation]If it's open source, why couldn't they build an OS on it? Not saying that they did, but even if they did so what? Just like Android is built on Linux, or Amazon has their own fork of Android.

The biggest issue is the app store and apps. Google doesn't want anyone messing with their market or revenue.
 
[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]If it's open source, why couldn't they build an OS on it? Not saying that they did, but even if they did so what? Just like Android is built on Linux, or Amazon has their own fork of Android.

The biggest issue is the app store and apps. Google doesn't want anyone messing with their market or revenue.[/citation]

The OS is being shipped with the Android Store and some Android APKs (probably not all open-source like the base OS is) and even if they're open-source, it can still be illegal to use them in such a way. For example, Red Hat, like all other versions of Linux, is open source, yet it is also proprietary and it's illegal to use it commercially without proper licensing. Being open source and being legal to use the entirety of it as you want to are not necessarily one and the same. For example, although there's probably nothing wrong with making custom Android ROMs, but using Android code to make you're own OS that you commercially use to compete against Android probably isn't legal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom