[Moopusmaximus]

Maybe I am missing something here.. but android is not an OS but a runtime.. so turning to android can also mean using QNX with the latest android runtime and google services all nicely in a sandbox.. and then calling this secure android for marketing purposes.. wouldn't that make more sense than ditching BBOS10 altogether?... off course Google must agree to that.. and since they couldn't get all your data when running in a sandbox they would probably say no.. it is all about control and money I suppose..

You're wrong on a lot of points. First off, Android is an OS. Second BB can not package Play Services because they are not part of the OHA (and they never will be).

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

[simu31]

I was under the impression that to have Google Services, a manufacturer simply had to add the "Powered by Android" quote to the boot screen.
I'm sure there's more to it than that, but I'm not sure why having the Android Runtime would disallow BlackBerry from having Google Services.

Wouldn't adding (for example) "BlackBerry 10 Android Runtime powered by Android" to the boot screen be a way to comply with the requirements?

I probably should read the Android Manufacturer agreement.

Si.

[anon(8640833)]

I also reed that Google is moving more functionality to the Play Store app.
That app is closed source. So BB has no control over it.
Google is doing this because of the poor option to upgrade items in android. Because the manufacturer has to roll-out an update.

[DaFoxGrey]

This post breaks down the info on Google's OHA requirements and why, currently, Google Services wont work on BB10:
http://forums.crackberry.com/blackbe...-store-953753/

[pttptppt]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Posted via CB10

You tried to say that BlackBerry will get rid of runtime in bb10 so that they have play services on their android phone. And I proved you wrong. That's what my point was

Posted via CB10

[jhimmel]

You tried to say that BlackBerry will get rid of runtime in bb10 so that they have play services on their android phone. And I proved you wrong. That's what my point was

Posted via CB10

Haha... the only thing you proved is your lack of understanding of Lawguyman's point.
Does HTC have an Android runtime on its Windows phone offerings? No? Okay...

Posted via CB10

[Witmen]

You tried to say that BlackBerry will get rid of runtime in bb10 so that they have play services on their android phone. And I proved you wrong. That's what my point was

Posted via CB10

You don't seem to understand what you're discussing. HTC, Samsung and any other Android OEM out there can make Windows Phone devices while still offering Google's goodies on their Android devices because Windows Phone doesn't piggyback off of Android like BB10 does.

BB10 uses a Android runtime, which is basically a fork of Android. Windows Phone doesn't. BlackBerry chose to pathetically try to use Android's application library to sell their devices. Microsoft didn't and instead they have been trying to build up their own selection of native apps. BlackBerry 10 uses Android. Windows Phone doesn't.

Do you see the huge difference?

[lawguyman]

You tried to say that BlackBerry will get rid of runtime in bb10 so that they have play services on their android phone. And I proved you wrong. That's what my point was

Posted via CB10

If HTC put an Android runtime on its Windows phones, it would have a problem with Google. Because HTC's Windows phones don't have an Android runtime, they have no issue with Google.

Come on Patrick, I know you understand the difference.

Posted via CB10

[oystersourced]

Neither is Tizen.

If you want Google Services, you need to play by Google's rules.

Even Samsung has to.

Posted via CB10

I didn't realise you were on about BlackBerry putting Google Services on to the Android Runtime of BlackBerry 10. I never saw your original post you speak of in this thread, I believed we were talking about BlackBerry providing the BlackBerry 10 OS as is and a separate Android device that would obviously have Google Services. This is the most likely scenario.

Posted via CB10

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

BlackBerry could remove the Android Runtime and start from scratch and make a Linux Player that isn't based on Android to begin with... or maybe Samsung could even loan them a Tizen Player.

But as the Android Player failed on BB10, I really don't see any reason to go that route anymore. What we have right now is GREAT, but it isn't official and it might disappear tomorrow if Google patches Cobalt's hack into their Store. They need an official and reliable solution!

There all sorts of different crazy scenarios that "could" take place. But what fits best with their time frame, their resources and their short/long term goals? Maybe Chen is planning a change, and maybe Chen is just exploring his options in case he wants to make a change.

[Uzi]

This post breaks down the info on Google's OHA requirements and why, currently, Google Services wont work on BB10:
http://forums.crackberry.com/blackbe...-store-953753/

Please read this to understand

Z30STA100-2/10.3.2.2252 | CB Mod

[oystersourced]

Please read this to understand

Z30STA100-2/10.3.2.2252 | CB Mod

That post is based on a fact that is wrong.

If the Android Runtime was a fork that infringed on the OHA terms then the deal with Foxconn (an OHA member) would never have happened.

Posted via CB10

[lawguyman]

That post is based on a fact that is wrong.

If the Android Runtime was a fork that infringed on the OHA terms then the deal with Foxconn (an OHA member) would never have happened.

Posted via CB10

Foxconn is not on the list.

http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html

Posted via CB10

[KemKev]

This post breaks down the info on Google's OHA requirements and why, currently, Google Services wont work on BB10:
http://forums.crackberry.com/blackbe...-store-953753/

Excellent! It should be mandatory reading for those wanting to discuss the issue.

[lawguyman]

There is actually a lot of misinformation about what is and is not prohibited by Google. I did some research. The OHA agreements are confidential, but one was disclosed in the Oracle|Google lawsuit, Google's agreement with Samsung.

The agreement is called a Mobile Application Distribution Agreement. The main purpose is for Google to license its services to the OEM. The restrictions are what is important here.

The main restriction is that the "Device" must be an "Android Compatible Device." To be a "Device," the devices has to run "only the Android operating system." To be Compatible, the device has to comply with the Android Compatibility Definition. That is a document that you can find online.

A BB10 device wouldn't be a Device under this agreement because it runs BB10, which is something other than Android. It also would likely not be an Android Compatible Device. We all know certain Apps don't work and not all APIs are enabled. That means that a BB10 device would not be permitted to run Google's apps.

What about forking? There is a restriction that says that the OEM is prohibited from taking "any actions that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android." If BlackBerry on the one hand agrees to sell only compatible Android "Devices" and on the other hand also sells incompatible BB10 devices, it will most likely be considered to be causing "fragmentation of Android."

This agreement is from 2011 and was valid for two years. The terms have probably changed over time.

But, the gist of this is that BlackBerry could not both sell Android Phones and BB10 phones with the Android runtime.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

That post is based on a fact that is wrong.

If the Android Runtime was a fork that infringed on the OHA terms then the deal with Foxconn (an OHA member) would never have happened.

Posted via CB10

You can fork Android all you want - it's open source. That is not against OHA rules. You just can't provide Google Play Services.

Lawguyman is correct. Once you do decide to go full Android with Google Play Services, you can no longer sell a forked version on another device.

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2252

[oystersourced]

Foxconn is not on the list.

http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html

Posted via CB10

Check again under handset manufacturers. Foxconn. Foxconn is a member of the OHA.

Posted via CB10

[oystersourced]

You can fork Android all you want - it's open source. That is not against OHA rules. You just can't provide Google Play Services.

Lawguyman is correct. Once you do decide to go full Android with Google Play Services, you can no longer sell a forked version on another device.

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2252

The BlackBerry 10 Android Runtime doesn't contravene the OHA terms, this is why Foxconn are able to produce both Android Phones with Google Services and BlackBerry 10 phones with the Android Runtime.

Posted via CB10

[oystersourced]

There is actually a lot of misinformation about what is and is not prohibited by Google. I did some research. The OHA agreements are confidential, but one was disclosed in the Oracle|Google lawsuit, Google's agreement with Samsung.

The agreement is called a Mobile Application Distribution Agreement. The main purpose is for Google to license its services to the OEM. The restrictions are what is important here.

The main restriction is that the "Device" must be an "Android Compatible Device." To be a "Device," the devices has to run "only the Android operating system." To be Compatible, the device has to comply with the Android Compatibility Definition. That is a document that you can find online.

A BB10 device wouldn't be a Device under this agreement because it runs BB10, which is something other than Android. It also would likely not be an Android Compatible Device. We all know certain Apps don't work and not all APIs are enabled. That means that a BB10 device would not be permitted to run Google's apps.

What about forking? There is a restriction that says that the OEM is prohibited from taking "any actions that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android." If BlackBerry on the one hand agrees to sell only compatible Android "Devices" and on the other hand also sells incompatible BB10 devices, it will most likely be considered to be causing "fragmentation of Android."

This agreement is from 2011 and was valid for two years. The terms have probably changed over time.

But, the gist of this is that BlackBerry could not both sell Android Phones and BB10 phones with the Android runtime.

Posted via CB10

The BlackBerry 10 Android Runtime does not constitute a fragmentation of Android, it is not seeking to implement anything that is not already existent in vanilla Android (it's strictly an emulator). It's very much debatable whether or not the BlackBerry 10 Android Runtime is even a fork in the general sense of software development. For all we know (as non members of the development team) the Android source code could be completely untouched with a BlackBerry layer dealing with the translation of BlackBerry 10 to Android arguments and function calls.

As I said before Google does not have an issue with Foxconn building vanilla Android phones as well as BlackBerry 10 phones. Amazon had to find a company that wasn't a member of the OHA to build their Fire tablets (which funnily enough started life as the Playbook).

Posted via CB10

[lawguyman]

The BlackBerry 10 Android Runtime does not constitute a fragmentation of Android, it is not seeking to implement anything that is not already existent in vanilla Android (it's strictly an emulator). It's very much debatable whether or not the BlackBerry 10 Android Runtime is even a fork in the general sense of software development. For all we know (as non members of the development team) the Android source code could be completely untouched with a BlackBerry layer dealing with the translation of BlackBerry 10 to Android arguments and function calls.

As I said before Google does not have an issue with Foxconn building vanilla Android phones as well as BlackBerry 10 phones. Amazon had to find a company that wasn't a member of the OHA to build their Fire tablets (which funnily enough started life as the Playbook).

Posted via CB10

A few things here.

This is a matter of contract. Sometimes people have contractual rights that they assert. Sometimes they have contractual rights that they don't assert. This is important because under a contract, sometimes you might take issue with something and sometimes you might let it slide.

This case up before. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/...fragmentation/

Google claimed that Acer's building a device that ran "incompatible" Android was fragmentation. Acer claimed the device wasn't Android at all. Ultimately, Acer backed down. Who would have won had Acer not caved? Google seems to have the stronger argument and was in a position to shut down Acer's Android manufacturing business. This case is indistinguishable from what BB10 is. The Android runtime contains Android code but it is not fully compatible with official Android. Google could easily claim fragmentation if that is what it wants to do.

We can only speculate about what has or has not gone on between Google and Foxconn and between Foxconn and BlackBerry. We know that Samsung makes Tizen and that Tizen can run Android through a service that can be downloaded by the user after sale. Google let that arrangement slide even though it could have argued that it promotes fragmentation. It does! Again, this is a contract. It can change if the parties agree.

You're right that Foxconn is somehow both building Bb10 and seemingly an OHA member. I suspect that Foxconn's agreement with Google permits Foxconn to do this kind of work. Yes. Acer's agreement didn't. It doesn't have to be fair. Everyone's deal may not be the same. Foxconn is huge so we may really be talking about unrelated Foxconn companies too.

But, it is fantasy knowing what is in these agreements and also knowing positions that Google has taken in the past, to dismiss this as not a problem.

Google may see value in bringing BlackBerry on board so it may cut BlackBerry a break. But if it does, wouldn't Acer or others scream and shout about it? I don't think BlackBerry is getting any breaks here.


Posted via CB10

[oystersourced]

A few things here.

This is a matter of contract. Sometimes people have contractual rights that they assert. Sometimes they have contractual rights that they don't assert. This is important because under a contract, sometimes you might take issue with something and sometimes you might let it slide.

This case up before. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/...fragmentation/

Google claimed that Acer's building a device that ran "incompatible" Android was fragmentation. Acer claimed the device wasn't Android at all. Ultimately, Acer backed down. Who would have won had Acer not caved? Google seems to have the stronger argument and was in a position to shut down Acer's Android manufacturing business. This case is indistinguishable from what BB10 is. The Android runtime contains Android code but it is not fully compatible with official Android. Google could easily claim fragmentation if that is what it wants to do.

We can only speculate about what has or has not gone on between Google and Foxconn and between Foxconn and BlackBerry. We know that Samsung makes Tizen and that Tizen can run Android through a service that can be downloaded by the user after sale. Google let that arrangement slide even though it could have argued that it promotes fragmentation. It does! Again, this is a contract. It can change if the parties agree.

You're right that Foxconn is somehow both building Bb10 and seemingly an OHA member. I suspect that Foxconn's agreement with Google permits Foxconn to do this kind of work. Yes. Acer's agreement didn't. It doesn't have to be fair. Everyone's deal may not be the same. Foxconn is huge so we may really be talking about unrelated Foxconn companies too.

But, it is fantasy knowing what is in these agreements and also knowing positions that Google has taken in the past, to dismiss this as not a problem.

Google may see value in bringing BlackBerry on board so it may cut BlackBerry a break. But if it does, wouldn't Acer or others scream and shout about it? I don't think BlackBerry is getting any breaks here.


Posted via CB10

You're looking at this from a point of view that we do not know what is in contractual agreements. Equally we do not know what is in the different implementations. Aliyun OS was speculated to be based on Android or the Dalvik runtime, this contravenes the OHA terms. BlackBerry however did not base BlackBerry 10 on Android OS and instead of incorporating the Dalvik runtime (in a way that would lead to incompatibility) are believed to have used virtualization to translate BlackBerry 10 to Android commands and vice versa. This method does not contravene OHA terms, this does not constitute fragmentation of the Android OS, this is the massive difference between those cases.

The fact is that Foxconn is able to build both types of device, if this contravened OHA terms a lack of action by Google would undermine the OHA. One unrelated but funny quirk is that the speculated BlackBerry Android 'Prague' device will also be manufactured by Foxconn (assumption made based on it being a low end device targeted at emerging markets) at a time when further BlackBerry 10 OS phones are expected.

Posted via CB10

[oystersourced]

I didn't know how the Samsung and Tizen solution compared to BlackBerry and BlackBerry 10 so I just looked into it, the download contains the Android application runtime, it does not use virtualization. Tizen is not an Android OS fork and if the application runtime is constrained to what vanilla Android is then it will never fragment the Android ecosystem. Perhaps this is why in this circumstance it's acceptable to Google (it does differ considerably to the Acer Aliyun OS case).

Posted via CB10

[undone]

No

NOx2

was going originally with a Double No, but leads to double negatives and questions if that is supposed to be a yes instead...so maybe a triple No?

[lawguyman]

I didn't know how the Samsung and Tizen solution compared to BlackBerry and BlackBerry 10 so I just looked into it, the download contains the Android application runtime, it does not use virtualization. Tizen is not an Android OS fork and if the application runtime is constrained to what vanilla Android is then it will never fragment the Android ecosystem. Perhaps this is why in this circumstance it's acceptable to Google (it does differ considerably to the Acer Aliyun OS case).

Posted via CB10

And you know that this is how Google views fragmentation?

Posted via CB10

[Alejandro Nova]

5.1, according to the Italian dev screenshot that sparked it all.