
Thread beginning with comment 535457
To view parent comment, click here.
RE[10]: Interesting
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Interesting"
Member since:

No, the point is: Google can't claim the ability to run some but not all Android apps on another OS is a valid reason to prevent access to Android while claiming that OHA members can still use rival OSes because it can already be achieved in EVERY major OS. (Maybe Aliyun is using primarily code from Android, maybe it is not. I certainly am not taking Google's word for it.)

In either case, this does not address the matter of Haier and Lenovo actually shipping Aliyun, oPhone, and LePhone phones.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: Interesting
by cdude on Mon 17th Sep 2012 13:20 in reply to "RE[10]: Interesting"
cdude Member since:

Good then that google never claimed that.

Lets stick to the facts. 1) Google claimed Aliyun is an Android fork. 2) Based on that OHA members need to confirm to the OHA terms.

From our discussion I think we are fine with 2). What you question is 1)? It would take Alibaba how ling to prove google wrong on 1) and hence invalidate the.logical consequences of 2)? 5 Minutes? Remember that only them can cause nobody else has access to Aliyun.

If they do that they could make a case, a strong point that would serious damage google, weaken its point 2) up to a level it would bring serious harm to the Android ecosystem if google.continues to demand that. Why would google risk that for a 0.001% market share clone? They need to be rather sure on that else they would not.

But Alibaba keeps silent beside its statement its not. Come on, prove and you win! Don't prove and we know google is absolute right on this.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[12]: Interesting
by jared_wilkes on Mon 17th Sep 2012 13:30 in reply to "RE[11]: Interesting"
jared_wilkes Member since:

No, I have a hard time following any logic in this post, but I definitely disagree on both points.

Firstly, Google absolutely said that a reason for stopping the Aliyun phone release was that Aliyun says it will run Android apps but it will not run all apps fully.

Secondly, yes, I think OHA membership must comply with the terms of membership; however, I do not think it's clear whatsoever that those terms are being enforced and/or enforced consistently. Moreover, I find nothing clear about Rubin's/Google's statement as to what they claim is a violation of membership: is it one or more of the several reasons they cite? All of them? Why are others allowed to violate one or more of the same rules? All of it is unclear particularly in the simple light of Haier, an OHA member, being permitted to ship Aliyun phones.

Thirdly, as to your first point, that Alibaba/Acer should be able to prove the validity of their position, I don't see how that is so. We have lawsuits that last for years that attempt to prove whether or not code was independently developed or derived from source material... Moreover, it seems very clear that Google will change things to suit them. They already did this with SkyHook -- claiming it was okay with the compatibility requirements and approving it for some manufacturers until they realized that it would actually hurt them so they changed the rules retroactively.

Fourthly, I think this inconsistency is far more damaging to the OHA than if Alibaba could prove it was an independent OS with some compatibility... After all, this inconsistency now draws questions to Google's position on Lenovo's and Haier's participation in OHA, not just Alibaba/Acer's plans for Aliyun. Currently, the actual position of the OHA seems to be: anything goes until Google decides it is a threat.

Edited 2012-09-17 13:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2