[tickerguy]

This is my article; an excerpt is posted here and if you'd like to read the entire thing click the link!

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3382140

There have been a lot of rumors regarding BlackBerry producing Android handsets, with alleged "renders" being passed around and even a rumor of one person who supposedly has seen a prototype device and was allowed to briefly play with it (discussed on Reddit.)

There are some things standing in the way of this, however. First is Google's so-called "OHA" (Open Handset Alliance) document, a thing that had terms allegedly protected by "trade secret" until the cover was blown on it a couple of years back. As with most such documents it is exactly the opposite of what it proclaims; the gist of it is that if you want Google's "Play Store" and (more-importantly) services components) on your handset you may not produce any device that has a "forked" Android copy on it.

That's the sort of clause that if we gave a damn about the rule of law, and if market power exists (and it does in the case of Android) we would see immediate criminal prosecution under the Sherman Act (15 USC) as such is a very-clear attempt to restrain trade.

After all the entire point of AOSP (that is, "android forks") is that the code is free for anyone to use. The legendary function of American businesses in speaking out both sides of their mouth, never mind restraining trade, continues.

That alleged clause in the OHA "agreement" would appear to preclude BlackBerry from producing an Android device since they have and sell devices with "forked" Android runtime on them.

But -- there's a quite-clear way around this for BlackBerry.

Consider BlackBerry deploying a QNX-based hypervisor, something we know they already have, that runs on the phone firmware. As part of this process (and in fact the only part they'd have to code) you virtualize the hardware interface to the cellular and WiFi systems, presenting what appear to be common commodity interfaces to the guest operating systems. That hypervisor then guests then both naked BB10, minus the Android runtime, and stock Google Android, complete with PLAY.

This complies quite-cleanly with both the letter and spirit of the OHA; there is nothing preventing Samsung, for example, from selling other, non-Android phones -- and they do. Nobody says that said devices can't be in one physical case!

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Not much different than all the conversations we have already been having....

But as I understand it... Android has to be the OS that boots the device, so no virtual installations are allowed.

As I understand it.... Android has to be the ONLY OS on the devices, so no virtual installations and no dual booting. (Google shut down all those dual booting Android/Windows devices that were coming last year - only ones around are non-OHA devices).

So I don't think "your way" is really all that clear.....

[tickerguy]

Not true at all. A hypervisor is not an "operating system".

If you have an actual document that constrains any other application environment being on the device, let's see it.

[keithhackneysmullet]

It's a silly argument the rules are what Google says they are and can change at any moment. Why do you think Google is going to let BlackBerry film flam their way into the Google play store with a crafty work around ?

Posted via CB10

[tickerguy]

It's not a flim-flam.

Contracts are just that -- contracts. Discriminatory action of the sort you propose by a firm with market power is a criminal violation of federal law in the United States (15 USC).

Now that's not to say it might not be tried -- but anyone running that as their base case is defying both logic and reason, never mind history. Whatever the OHA requirements are (I've yet to see a full copy that has been confirmed as correct and true; just people posting what they say is in them) Google is in a market position that requires them to deal in a non-discriminatory fashion.

If the rule is "no devices with forked Android for sale during the term of the agreement" (note that prohibiting past sales would be a per-se violation of anti-trust law) then it is -- but then it applies to everyone.

A hypervisor is hardly novel and in fact that sort of thing at a microcode level is how all modern processors work, never mind that separately-executing code is also how a huge percentage of the components in a modern cellphone (radio code, for example) work. Such a clause would require BlackBerry to remove the Android runtime from the BB10 side but they wouldn't want it there anyway in this case since the full Android side would be there.

As for restricting other OSs from being sold that's clearly not in the agreement because Samsung and other vendors do make non-Android handsets -- not only in the past, but today. In fact Samsung makes them now, including "smartphones" (Tizen) not just in the past.

Google can probably get away with (legally) prohibiting "forked" Android versions on devices made by OHA members, even with market power. Their argument is going to be that dilution of the brand will take place because of app incompatibility. But their objection has to rest on such an argument for it to withstand legal scrutiny particularly when they have market power, as they do.

That's the law in the United States and Google has to play by those rules whether they like it or not.

A hypervisor implementation would not impugn any sort of compatibility issue, as the Android version would be theirs -- in full. That a completely-incompatible OS is also available at the same time with different services leads to no cross-compatibility problem at all.

Again, if you have an OHA document that you believe is dispositive, then let's see it. Absent one you have to analyze based on what the state of the law is and what is likely to be permissible or not given it, along with what IS publicly known (e.g. the Acer situation a couple of years ago.)

[Ment]

Tickerguy thinks Google doesn't make the rules and interprets the rules of OHA. Anything Google thinks will harm its part of the Android platform and the ability to run another OS in the same device does that, will be verboten.

If Blackberry thinks denying access to proprietary services is unlawful (BIS is a good example) then it should sue. Other then that its all settled by Google.

[tickerguy]

Again, Google must play by the laws in the nation where it is headquartered and does the majority of its business (that's the United States.) 15 USC is not just a civil statute, it's a criminal one as well. Go read it.

As for "harm", Google has no reason to believe it will "harm" anything; BlackBerry will sell some additional number of handsets all of which will have Google Play on them and all of which will bring Google both data and Play customers and thus revenue. Google also gets to claim the first truly-secure handset implementation under Android for those customers who care about such things. What "harm" comes from that? There will be no dilution or confusion of the brand and no incompatibility either, which are two (quite-valid) arguments that Google uses to bar forked Android versions on OHA member devices.

This is not a fork, it's a full implementation. It simply runs under QNX; I note that OHA speaks to Android and whether the underlying kernel happens to be Linux or QNX is immaterial. QNX, being Posix-compatible, has no particular problem being the underlying operating system.

[missing_K-W]

In support of the OP

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07...nd_eat_it_too/

Posted via CB10

[Ment]

Again, Google must play by the laws in the nation where it is headquartered and does the majority of its business (that's the United States.) 15 USC is not just a civil statute, it's a criminal one as well. Go read it.

As for "harm", Google has no reason to believe it will "harm" anything; BlackBerry will sell some additional number of handsets all of which will have Google Play on them and all of which will bring Google both data and Play customers and thus revenue. Google also gets to claim the first truly-secure handset implementation under Android for those customers who care about such things. What "harm" comes from that? There will be no dilution or confusion of the brand and no incompatibility either, which are two (quite-valid) arguments that Google uses to bar forked Android versions on OHA member devices.

This is not a fork, it's a full implementation. It simply runs under QNX; I note that OHA speaks to Android and whether the underlying kernel happens to be Linux or QNX is immaterial. QNX, being Posix-compatible, has no particular problem being the underlying operating system.

You're blind so I doubt you'll see it. ITS NOT A TECHNICAL ISSUE!! If Google doesn't think it helps them it can interpret, change, modify OHA rules as it sees fit just like it did when the first dual-boot attempt was made for Windows/Android.

Its not a legal issue either as BB hasn't tried to sue.

[tickerguy]

You're blind so I doubt you'll see it. ITS NOT A TECHNICAL ISSUE!! If Google doesn't think it helps them it can interpret, change, modify OHA rules as it sees fit just like it did when the first dual-boot attempt was made for Windows/Android.

I'm blind because I live in a nation with a set of laws and I actually read them?

Sounds like projection to me, much like those who thought Greece could continually spend more than it taxed and get away with it (or here in the US, for that matter.)

[Ment]

I'm blind because I live in a nation with a set of laws and I actually read them?

Sounds like projection to me, much like those who thought Greece could continually spend more than it taxed and get away with it (or here in the US, for that matter.)

The application of laws are settled in court. Until one does on OHA its blather in terms of discussing how Blackberry can get GPS.

[Mo Cat]

Here we go again...sigh

CB10 - Passport

[tickerguy]

The application of laws are settled in court. Until one does on OHA its blather in terms of discussing how Blackberry can get GPS.

And yet you present no evidence that (1) Google would object to this implementation, (2) that it is in violation of the existing OHA (by presenting said OHA document and proving up your argument) or (3) that Google would CHANGE the OHA documents in response to it, nor do you bother to read 15 USC and explain how such an arbitrary constraint would not violate its proscription on restraint of trade where market power exists.

In other words, you just assert, despite the evidence that (1) such an implementation would be of incremental BENEFIT to Google as it would sell more handsets (no matter how incrementally), (2) the dual-boot argument is invalid since Android would always be running on such a handset and thus would bring exactly the same full-time data stream to Google that any other Android handset does and (3) it would bring Google the ability to claim that an actual secured implementation of Android is now available on the market for anyone who cares to purchase it.

[Bbnivende]

You're blind so I doubt you'll see it. ITS NOT A TECHNICAL ISSUE!! If Google doesn't think it helps them it can interpret, change, modify OHA rules as it sees fit just like it did when the first dual-boot attempt was made for Windows/Android.

Its not a legal issue either as BB hasn't tried to sue.

Yes this is true but hopefully BlackBerry has been talking with Google about what they can and cannot do with the hypervisor. At least one would hope so.

Posted via CB10

[prateek.samtani]

Now all this sounds interesting and really positive.

I hope it is indeed this way and we get best of both the world.

Posted via CB10

[tickerguy]

PS: If you're going to comment and debate you ought to first read the actual sourced article in full lest it be obvious that you're arguing from ignorance rather than at least cursorily considering the material put forward for debate.

None of you have; my system tracks referral linkbacks in real-time and the count of linkbacks from Crackberry is, as of this posting, zero.

[Ment]

And yet you present no evidence that (1) Google would object to this implementation, (2) that it is in violation of the existing OHA (by presenting said OHA document and proving up your argument) or (3) that Google would CHANGE the OHA documents in response to it, nor do you bother to read 15 USC and explain how such an arbitrary constraint would not violate its proscription on restraint of trade where market power exists.

In other words, you just assert, despite the evidence that (1) such an implementation would be of incremental BENEFIT to Google as it would sell more handsets (no matter how incrementally), (2) the dual-boot argument is invalid since Android would always be running on such a handset and thus would bring exactly the same full-time data stream to Google that any other Android handset does and (3) it would bring Google the ability to claim that an actual secured implementation of Android is now available on the market for anyone who cares to purchase it.

No need to produce proprietary documents just as no need to produce it when Google denied Aliyun or dual-boot and forced Samsung to change its magazine UI. They are the judge, jury and executioner in terms of OHA, history shows this.

As to why a Hypervisor solution wouldn't benefit Google? Having another OS on the device that can do things better than Android in this case it would be the Blackberry Experience would be a negative. Google would nix it on that alone.

[Bbnivende]

PS: If you're going to comment and debate you ought to first read the actual sourced article in full lest it be obvious that you're arguing from ignorance rather than at least cursorily considering the material put forward for debate.

None of you have; my system tracks referral linkbacks in real-time and the count of linkbacks from Crackberry is, as of this posting, zero.

Perhaps because your summary was really good?

Would you buy a phone on the basis of a legal right to enter and download apps from the Google Play store Vs knowing you are buying an approved permitted device?

Posted via CB10

[tickerguy]

Perhaps because your summary was really good?

Would you buy a phone on the basis of a legal right to enter and download apps from the Google Play store Vs knowing you are buying an approved permitted device?

Posted via CB10

If it has play loaded on it from the factory then it is an approved and permitted device.

[randall2580]

As I understand it, being in compliance with OHA just opens the door to access to GAAPS.

GAAPS are a separate issue unto themselves and just because you are compliant with OHA does not guarantee you access to GAAPS you still have to negotiate with Google the rights to GAAPS.

GAAPS are software and Google is the owner of this software and can grant a license to who ever they deem worthy.

What we do know for a fact is that Google has stopped in its tracks, implementations with dual booting Windows and Android devices. Samsung produces Tizen phones, which have the ability to run Android apps, Samsung does not ship the phones with that ability - why because it would sell more phones that way? Or are they worried about keeping their real cash cow - Android with GAAPS?

Google has been very consistent with how they grant access to GAAPS, and its clear that they realize that allowing any one exception could open the door to things they cannot control. So they allow none of it. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but in this case, it's a pretty good indication.

[Bbnivende]

It could be that Google might allow the hypervisor BB10 runtime version to access Google Play for Work under the BES GOOGLE partnership and the non BES BlackBerry hypervisor Android would run Google Play apps on the consumer side.

Posted via CB10

[serbanescu]

In what way does Google violate the law? Why isn't it free to license the use of its own services on its own terms? Google doesn't prevent device manufacturers from producing devices that use operating systems from the competition.

[Ment]

In what way does Google violate the law? Why isn't it free to licence the use of its own services on its own terms? Google doesn't prevent device manufacturers from producing devices that use operating systems from the competition.

Under the same law that makes BIS a violation back in day when everyone wanted in on Blackberry services. Even if we agree that Google is violating the law, its like the Typo keyboard if someone like BB has a problem with it they need to go to court to resolve it as 'we live in a nation of laws' .

[serbanescu]

Under the same law that makes BIS a violation back in day when everyone wanted in on Blackberry services. Even if we agree that Google is violating the law, its like the Typo keyboard if someone like BB has a problem with it they need to go to court to resolve it as 'we live in a nation of laws' .

I was not aware that BIS was found violating the law. Do you have a link?

[Ment]

I was not aware that BIS was found violating the law. Do you have a link?

Sorry for being obtuse. Was using it as a rhetorical point. BIS wasn't/isn't in violation and neither is Google but under OP view of anti-trust they could be.