Oh Google

Google’s Andy Rubin talking to Aliyun OS’s John Spelich:

So there’s really no disputing that Aliyun is based on the Android platform and takes advantage of all the hard work that’s gone into that platform by the OHA.

You mean like how you stole iOS and built Android? Never good when that happens Andy.

[Via Electronista]



  • http://twitter.com/torkelh Torkel

    So it was okay for Google to copy Java APIs and libraries from Oracle without a license, but Acer gets kicked out of the “Open” Handset “Alliance” if they copy Android?

  • http://twitter.com/CSZhang CZ

    Also you should point out the hypocrisy of Google maintaining it is a open platform.

  • mr_lizard13

    But I thought Android was Open?

  • tylernol

    well, I am no fan of Android, but it did not literally steal iOS’s code. It stole the look and feel of iOS. You could argue it stole the JVM code. The upsetting thing for Google is they got their “goodies” taken out of this Android fork as well as Amazon’s.

  • Zeatrix

    I’m not saying Google didn’t copy Apple, but they did nothing close to what Aliyun did to Google. Also their use of Java isn’t illegal, unless you ask Oracle. Also when they designed Android Sun still owned Java and they sure didn’t mind, quite the opposite.

    • nizy

      That’s just not true. The idiot in charge of Sun at the time maybe didn’t care, but just about everyone else including Java “father”, James Gosling did.

      Besides which Android is supposedly open source, Java is not and Google literally copied code from Java, Aliyun uses the open source parts of Andriod. They we’re found by the jury to have copied large parts of Sun’s/Oracle’s IP. The only reason they won the trial is because the judge ruled that the code was not copyrightable.

      • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

        Seriously…did you look at the code they “copied”? I mean come on. Those lines aren’t that big of a deal.

        • nizy

          I never said it were that big of a deal. I was just stating the fact that they were copied and how different that is to using the open source code that Google supplies.

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            It isn’t about them using Android. It is about using Android then trying to participate in the OHA as well.

            Go Amazon’s way (not in the OHA, have free reign) or be in the OHA. Pick one and move on but folks playing the ‘open’ argument or ‘Android is stolen anyway’ is ludicrous.

  • Lukas

    Yeah, that’s actually honestly not the same thing, Jim.

    And please stop with the API BS. Google was 100% in the right. Had Oracle won this, we’d all be screwed, because copying APIs is such a common thing in comp sci.

    Also, it’s funny how everybody complains about Android fragmentation, and when Google does something against it, everybody complains that Google is evil. A bit ridiculous, no? Pick a side. Either Google is doing bad because Android is fragmented, or they’re evil for trying to stop Android fragmentation, but don’t try to argue both sides.

    Finally: people using an iPhone complaining that Android “isn’t open”? Please don’t do that. I’m using an iPhone, but at least I’m not pretending that allowing sideloading of apps and publishing the source code to your OS is somehow not open enough while getting calls on a completely closed system that only allows you to install apps Apple has personally deemed okay for your consumption.

    • kibbles

      jailbreaking is completely legal and within your right for an iOS device. thus, sideloading.

    • Scruff

      Big difference is that Apple has never touted themselves as an open platform. Google (and Andy Rubin) use ‘open’ as a main selling point against Apple, and now when it doesn’t suit their direction they use the ban hammer.

    • http://twitter.com/torkelh Torkel

      Since you bring up the ever hilarious subject of fragmentation…

      Oracle asking Google to stop copying their code because it causes fragmentation of Java = bad!

      Google asking Acer to stop copying their code because it causes fragmentation of Android = good!

  • http://twitter.com/Moeskido Moeskido

    Hypocrisy is winning.

  • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

    Huggge difference here Jim. I know you feel Android is “iOS stolen” but Android is not using one bit of Objective-C.

    Ruben is stating Aliyun is using Android code directly, not just competing with a similar looking product.

    Major difference.

  • rj

    Bad analogy. Aliyun is a literal copy of Android’s implementation (or at least that’s Google’s claim). Android copies some of iOS’s ideas. Big difference.

    As I understand it, Google is simply reminding Asus of the agreement all OHA members make to not sell incompatible Android forks like Aliyun.

    • kibbles

      Alyun’s copy of Android’s implementation is not akin to Google’s copy of Java’s API implementations?

      • rj

        Not really, but that’s a separate issue. Neither my post nor the original one made any reference to Java.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sebastian-Paul/1186812355 Sebastian Paul

    In addition to lots of the things Rubin/Google is complaining about being very close to the Java case, another part os this story are the huge amounts of pirated apps in the Aliyun store.

    But – if that was another reason why Google is against their OHA members using also Aliyun – Google should have shut down Android in 2010.

    I have never seen a “store” with comparable amounts of illegal/pirated stuff.

    Wallpaper bundles using unlicensed mascots like Super Mario, apps which advertised that they featured one-click downloads of pirated retro game ROMs like Super Mario World or Sonic the Hedgehog. And i heard of quite a lot Android apps, that have been re-uploaded to the store by people who didn’t represent the creators of the app.

    And what about the early days of YouTube? Lots of copyrighted content, all without the consent of the creators. With Google Books mostly the same.

    Google never had a problem with pirated (user created) content in any of their services, at least not in the beginning of each service, profiting from said content, because it increased the number of users.