Google forced Acer to drop new mobile OS

[Jonas]

I didn't actually think that Google would go this far to secure their investments. I wonder how they'll act on free/open projects like KDE Active One.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-575...new-mobile-os/

b.r

jonas

[vw72]

What happened to "Do no evil?"

[Frank616]

Before jumping to a conclusion, one might want to have a look at the possible reasons for Google's action. Here is a different report that looks at it from a different angle, and adds some information.

Frank.

[GreyGeek]

Acer's low end products are manufactured in China and their high stuff is made in Taiwan. I wonder what role the Chinese government is playing in this, if any?

[vw72]

Before jumping to a conclusion, one might want to have a look at the possible reasons for Google's action. Here is a different report that looks at it from a different angle, and adds some information.

Frank.

It doesn't matter the reason, Google used it's power to stop Acer from releasing a product. If there were a multitude of tablet operating systems it would be one thing, but Android is the only viable one (since iOS isn't cross licensed). That is no different that Microsoft telling Dell to pull linux if it still wants to get Windows.

[HalationEffect]

It doesn't matter the reason, Google used it's power to stop Acer from releasing a product. If there were a multitude of tablet operating systems it would be one thing, but Android is the only viable one (since iOS isn't cross licensed). That is no different that Microsoft telling Dell to pull linux if it still wants to get Windows.

That's a very biased view of what actually happened...

Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, and all members of the OHA agreed not to ship products using incompatible forks of Android (such as the Aliyun OS that Acer wanted to use). Google simply reminded them of their obligations as an OHA member. Acer also makes phones that use the Windows Phone OS, and Google has no problems with that.

Nobody forced Acer to join the OHA, but if, having joined, they break the agreements they made when they joined, it's somehow wrong to tell them "rethink that plan, or leave the OHA"?

[claydoh]

This is not a back and white issue, imo. Much like the Linux kernel, the code is free, while the name (brand) and services are not.

From their recent histories, Google and the Chinese Government (ie Alibaba, and therefore Aliyun) have had a rocky relationship at best. A portion of this move has to be due to this friction between them.

This in no way impacts Plasma Active as it isn't using the Android name or Google's services, or any code outside whatever Google contributes back to the kernel.

Agree or not with having a consortium like this, it has worked to keep Android itself from becoming like the distro mania we have here in Linux land. All the devices and differing OS versions they have (or will never get) is bad enough.

[Frank616]

claydoh:

From their recent histories, Google and the Chinese Government (ie Alibaba, and therefore Aliyun) have had a rocky relationship at best. A portion of this move has to be due to this friction between them.

Yeah, I don't doubt that.

Frank.

[vw72]

That's a very biased view of what actually happened...

Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, and all members of the OHA agreed not to ship products using incompatible forks of Android (such as the Aliyun OS that Acer wanted to use). Google simply reminded them of their obligations as an OHA member. Acer also makes phones that use the Windows Phone OS, and Google has no problems with that.

Nobody forced Acer to join the OHA, but if, having joined, they break the agreements they made when they joined, it's somehow wrong to tell them "rethink that plan, or leave the OHA"?

But they weren't told "rethink that plan or leave the OHA." They were told rethink the plan or you aren't an authorized android platform (which means no support from Google). The article tries to say it is no different than Amazon and the Kindle. But that is not the case. Amazon doesn't market the kindle and android devices, so Google can't threaten them.

Acer on the otherhand, is being forced to choose between selling a forked version of android in a limited market (China only) versus being able to provide android on devices to the rest of the world. The article might be correct if Acer was trying to market the custom Chinese device and OS worldwide, but that is not the case. Since China won't let Google in, it is hard to see how this violates any non-compete agreements.

Basically, this is a pissing contest between Google and China and Google is taking it out on Acer and supposedly anyone else who wants to provide a device for the Chinese. If Google were sincere in all of this, they would have threatened Acer before the devices were made and the R&D was done. Now, Acer takes a major hit financially because of the sunk costs.

This is very much a case of Google using Acer to send a message to all android tablet manufacturers about who is boss.

[Frank616]

vw72:

But they weren't told "rethink that plan or leave the OHA." They were told rethink the plan or you aren't an authorized android platform (which means no support from Google).

Isn't the result the same?

Frank.

[HalationEffect]

If Google were sincere in all of this, they would have threatened Acer before the devices were made and the R&D was done. Now, Acer takes a major hit financially because of the sunk costs.

Did Google know what Acer was planning to do before the R&D was done, and the devices were made? Because if they didn't, how on earth were they supposed to have warned Acer at that early stage? If you have information that Google knew of Acer's plans at a sufficiently early date to have warned them before they spent the money, then please share the link(s).

Acer joined the OHA, and committed to an agreement that no OHA member would fragment the ecosystem. Then, knowing that they would be breaking that agreement, they went ahead and planned to release a device that runs Aliyun. Acer wanted to have their cake (benefits of OHA membership & partnership with Google), and eat it too (not live up to the obligations they agreed to). They took what they had to have known in advance to be a big gamble, and it didn't pay off.

I'm just not seeing Acer as the innocent victim of "big bad Google" here... in fact, I have no sympathy for Acer at all.

(Edit) I'm no fanboy of Google either, in fact I'm as wary and mistrustful of them as I am of all large corporations. It's just that in this case, judging by the information that I've read, they don't appear to be in the wrong here.

[vw72]

As for Acer knowing about the phone, well, it is Android certified and was listed on Google's development site (since pulled).

As for the rest, nowhere on the OHA website does it say that you must not make an incompatable fork of Android (as a matter of fact, such a thing would directly contradict the web site). It does say that the aliance members will make devices that are open. Android is open, as is the chinese OS that was going to run on the phone. Sprint/Nextel is also in the alliance and they even have phones that do not run an open OS and yet Google hasn't threaten to pull support from Android from them.

Acer produced a phone for a Chinese Company to their specs to run their OS and Google threatened them. Ironically Android also runs on the phone, so Acer could have also marketed the phone with Android to western countries.

This is not about Acer violating some agreement. They didn't even create the OS that runs on the phone. This is about Google being upset with China over not being involved in the largest untapped smartphone market because of their government and since they can't take it out on China, they are going after Acer and supposedly any handset maker that wants to make a device that will use the Chinese OS.

Obviously, Acer needs Google more than they need the contract with China. I am sure they will repurpose the phones as Android devices and try to sell them in the West, but that is besides the point. Google used their market power, like all large corporations do, to badger a vendor to limit competition. The difference is that other corporations don't have the slogan "Do no evil."

[HalationEffect]

nowhere on the OHA website does it say that you must not make an incompatable fork of Android (as a matter of fact, such a thing would directly contradict the web site)

Pretty much every news site I've seen that has reported on the Acer / Google / Aliyun story has mentioned the OHA requirement not to ship devices running incompatible forks of Android. It doesn't seem likely that all those sites just made that up. Even the Wikipedia page on the Open Handset Alliance mentions it.

Sprint/Nextel is also in the alliance and they even have phones that do not run an open OS and yet Google hasn't threaten to pull support from Android from them.

As I said in an earlier post, the agreement explicitly only covers incompatible forks of Android. It says nothing at all about other OSes, such as Windows Phone, for example. The purpose of the agreement is to prevent Android fragmentation, which (obviously) cannot be caused by OSes that have nothing whatsoever to do with Android.

This is not about Acer violating some agreement. They didn't even create the OS that runs on the phone.

Who made the OS is completely irrelevant. The agreement is that they won't ship phones with incompatible Android forks. Presumably they could act as an OEM and manufacture handsets for a 3rd party company who isn't an OHA member, who could then load Aliyun or whatever OS they please on it... that would probably avoid being in breach of the OHA agreement, but would likely be less profitable for Acer.

As for Acer knowing about the phone, well, it is Android certified and was listed on Google's development site (since pulled).

I'm assuming you meant "As for Google knowing". The fact that the hardware is Android certified and was listed on Google's dev site doesn't mean that Google had any idea that Acer planned to ship it with Aliyun.

[SteveRiley]

Does anyone know where to find the OHA membership agreements? I didn't see any such thing here: http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/

Until we can see the actual text, it feels like we're pretty much observers of a "he said, she said" battle, largely being waged in the press.