<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
    <channel>
        <title>That Darn Google...</title>
        <description>With the release of Chrome OS (whatever the hell that is) I thought it might be time Google got it's own thread.

Don't be evil? &lt; /Snark...&gt;</description>
        <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,31479#msg-31479</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:27:43 -0400</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Phorum 5.2.16</generator>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,40530#msg-40530</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,40530#msg-40530</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5972574/eric-schmidt-visiting-north-korea-for-some-reason">I can't imagine sitting down to talk with such an evil bastard.</a>  I hope Kim Jung-Un knows what he's getting into!]]></description>
            <dc:creator>John Willoughby</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:03:00 -0500</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,40039#msg-40039</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,40039#msg-40039</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ Eye opening...<br />
<br />
<a href="http://dontbubble.us/"  rel="nofollow">http://dontbubble.us/</a>]]></description>
            <dc:creator>Tony Leggett</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 05:33:57 -0500</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39312#msg-39312</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39312#msg-39312</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-how-open-is-it-21664"  rel="nofollow">http://marketingland.com/what-is-the-one-true-android-and-how-open-is-it-21664</a>]]></description>
            <dc:creator>John Willoughby</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:20:09 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39311#msg-39311</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39311#msg-39311</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ Hmm.  Yes, that would be a closer match to this situation but it would have to be tied to a secondary product line... Microsoft would have to allow Dell to ship the PCs with Linux/WINE but with a penalty like no longer allowing them to bundle Office with their Windows systems.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>Cloudscout</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:56:33 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39310#msg-39310</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39310#msg-39310</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ OK, I yield.  I do see similarities, but I clearly am not making myself clear.  If Microsoft could compel Dell contractually to not ship any machine with Linux and WINE, would that be analagous?  Certainly, any contract Dell signs is enforceable.  Just doesn't seem very open.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>John Willoughby</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 02:07:55 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39308#msg-39308</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39308#msg-39308</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ I still don't see it.  Google isn't preventing anyone from using whatever pieces of the Android OS they want to use in any way they want to use it.  Acer is free to do whatever they want with Aliyun.  No threats of lawsuits or anything.  That's the beauty of open source software.  There's no licensing for them to sidestep.<br />
<br />
The only way this could be compared to the Sun/Oracle situation would be if Oracle was letting all Java licensees distribute Oracle 11g for free and Google cried foul because they couldn't get 11g for free anymore once they started using Dalvik.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>Cloudscout</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 22:41:43 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39307#msg-39307</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39307#msg-39307</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ I understand Acer's legal position, I think.<br />
<br />
With Android development, Google took the Java API's and Java language, and swapped in a different compiler that produced different byte code.  The end result runs on Android just as the same code compiled for Java would run in the JVM.  To me, that looks like Google swiping everything that they want from Java, and tweaking it so that they can sidestep the licensing that Sun/Oracle requires.  From the testimony, it looked that way to some of Google's engineers, too.  Whatever the legality of that dispute turns out to be, it seems to me that Google is to some extent playing both sides of the field.  "Everything that touches Android is Android" vs. "Sure we took a lot of Java, but we didn't take this part so it's not Java."<br />
<br />
I know it is nowhere near an exact analogy, but that's the way that it strikes me.  Apologies for belaboring the issue.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>John Willoughby</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 22:06:03 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39304#msg-39304</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39304#msg-39304</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ I guess I don't understand the comparison to the Dalvik/Java argument.  Dalvik is just the interpreter.  All kinds of interpreters could be plugged into the frameworks, in fact, one group actually translated the entire thing to C# and managed to make a working Android environment based on a Mono interpreter.  In theory, you could use an Objective-C foundation if you really wanted to.<br />
<br />
Remember, Amazon pretty much the entire Android OS running on the Kindle Fire tablets.  This is perfectly fine.  It's an open-source codebase and Amazon isn't a member of the OHA.  RIM has their own OS with Android frameworks bolted on in order to make it compatible with Android apps.  Again, perfectly legitimate because RIM didn't join the OHA and agree to driving a single, unified Android platform.<br />
<br />
Acer could certainly release products running Aliyun.  They could even continue selling products running full Android as well.  The only thing they would lose is the ability to distribute Gmail, Google Maps and the Google appstore on those devices.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>Cloudscout</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:33:56 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39302#msg-39302</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39302#msg-39302</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ Maybe Google just needs to go "thermonuclear" on them...]]></description>
            <dc:creator>Tony Leggett</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:39:25 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39301#msg-39301</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39301#msg-39301</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ It's an OS that USES Android frameworks.  My understanding was that at its core it is based on another Linux distribution.  Still seems a lot like the Dalvik/Java argument to me.  And it seems like Google is making sure that "open" Android is a lot more like the closed iOS than they want people to know.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>John Willoughby</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:37:02 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39300#msg-39300</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39300#msg-39300</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ That's a matter of semantics.  I jokingly referred to this as a chopstick rather than a fork.<br />
<br />
It's an OS that is designed to run Android apps and uses code from the Android project in order to make that happen.  Whether you call it a fork, a spoon or a... spork, isn't exactly relevant.  It's an OS built on Android frameworks that doesn't meet the compatibility requirements of the OHA.<br />
<br />
Note, other manufacturers are selling phones based on non-Android OSes without any trouble.  HTC and Samsung both make Windows Phones.  Samsung even has their own Smartphone OS called Bada and Google is fine with it.<br />
<br />
Aliyun is an attempt at making an OS that is partially-compatible with Android which inherently fragments the Android platform.  If that's the direction Acer wants to go, they have to give up their OHA benefits.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>Cloudscout</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:48:04 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39296#msg-39296</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39296#msg-39296</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ But what makes an Android fork?  Is any Linux that uses any open-sourced code from Android an Android fork?  Would a Ubuntu distribution that included some Android headers become an Android fork?]]></description>
            <dc:creator>John Willoughby</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:55:08 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39295#msg-39295</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39295#msg-39295</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ They don't seem to have a problem with the fact that the OS is an Android fork.<br />
<br />
They are saying that Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance and, as such, isn't supposed to dabble in Android forks that don't meet the OHA's documented standards.<br />
<br />
Blackberry, Kindle Fire and Aliyun all have support for Android applications.  Amazon and RIM aren't members of the OHA so they're free to do whatever they want with their Android forks.  Acer is free to release devices running Aliyun or any other OS whether it's based on Android or not.  The catch is that releasing an Android-based device that doesn't conform to the OHA standards means that they don't get to bundle Google's apps on their devices anymore.  That includes Gmail, Google Maps and Google's appstore itself.<br />
<br />
Whether that is right or wrong is up for debate on its own but it seems like an important distinction.  Google can't prevent Acer from releasing whatever they want to release based on the open-source Android codebase but if Acer wants the benefits they get from their OHA membership, they have to play by the rules or go it alone like Amazon and RIM.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>Cloudscout</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:35:30 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39292#msg-39292</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39292#msg-39292</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ The app store may be as corrupt as hell, but if the ability to run Android apps makes an OS Android, then the Blackberry Player OS is Android too.  How "open" is software if including any of it on a Linux base turns you into a proscribed "android branch?"  It seems all the more hypocritical given Google's position of Dalvik vs. Java.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>John Willoughby</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:47:58 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39291#msg-39291</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39291#msg-39291</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ Check out this Ars article for a more-informed report:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/pirated-android-apps-featured-prominently-on-aliyun-app-store/"  rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/pirated-android-apps-featured-prominently-on-aliyun-app-store/</a>]]></description>
            <dc:creator>Cloudscout</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:50:18 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39289#msg-39289</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39289#msg-39289</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://allthingsd.com/20120916/google-and-alibaba-continue-warring-over-acer-phone/">In Google's eyes, apparently, ability to run any Android apps == Android.</a>]]></description>
            <dc:creator>John Willoughby</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:55:11 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39239#msg-39239</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39239#msg-39239</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57512418-94/alibaba-google-forced-acer-to-drop-our-new-mobile-os/">Doing evil.</a>]]></description>
            <dc:creator>John Willoughby</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:17:35 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39224#msg-39224</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,39224#msg-39224</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-sex-party-please-were-google-20120913-25tn8.html"  rel="nofollow">http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-sex-party-please-were-google-20120913-25tn8.html</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="bbcode"><div><small>Quote<br/></small><strong></strong><br/>The Australian Sex Party this morning lodged formal complaints against Google with the US Department of Justice and the Australian competition watchdog, accusing the search giant of corrupt practices and unlawfully interfering with the conduct of a recent Victorian byelection.<br />
<br />
The Sex Party says Google refused to run its advertisements in the lead-up to the July 12 byelection for the state seat of Melbourne. Its ads were also refused during the last federal election.<br />
<br />
Emails seen by Fairfax show Facebook also rejected Sex Party ads during the recent City of Sydney Council elections. Facebook accused the party of promoting “adult products or services”.<br />
<br />
In a letter to the fraud section of the US Department of Justice seen by Fairfax, Australian Sex Party president Fiona Patten accuses Google of “unlawful interference in the conduct of a state election in Victoria” and having "corrupt intent".</div></blockquote>]]></description>
            <dc:creator>Tony Leggett</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2012 01:25:37 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38548#msg-38548</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38548#msg-38548</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ Wow, closing the one browser tab that had a Google Doc (spreadsheet) in it reduced the browser's overall CPU load from 90something% to 50something%.<br />
<br />
ddt]]></description>
            <dc:creator>ddt</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:13:46 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38469#msg-38469</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38469#msg-38469</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ Agreed, Dr. Phred. Plus it recovers better when <i>The Washington Post's</i> site crashes WebKit.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>Dave Loudin</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:57:13 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38402#msg-38402</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38402#msg-38402</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ I'm liking google chrome on my iPad. It syncs nicely with my desktop and remembers my passwords. <br />
Makes a great mobile Spork reader.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>Dr Phred</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:34:09 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38343#msg-38343</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38343#msg-38343</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ I don't like to sign into google by default, but I do just so I can disable instant search.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>Mokers</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:21:06 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38336#msg-38336</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38336#msg-38336</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ i have never been able to DISable it. I think right at first, for like one week maybe. But it's always enabled for me.<br />
I ignore it.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>El Jeffe</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:30:44 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38330#msg-38330</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38330#msg-38330</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ I really, really hate Instant Search.  I also hate the fact that it seems to get re-enabled from time-to-time.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>Cloudscout</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:18:20 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38329#msg-38329</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38329#msg-38329</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ I am going to bat for google a bit. When you do a search for Pizza, google has to try and determine what your one word search is implying. their algorithm states that a person doing a search for "pizza" is really looking for places to shop for Pizza, and google will deliver. If you add context to the search "how to make a pizza" or "pizza crust" or "pizza porn", you get a lot more context in your results and, at least in my case, very few sponsored links and other clutter.<br />
<br />
That being said, the instant search results is very distracting.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>Mokers</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:46:26 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38327#msg-38327</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38327#msg-38327</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ I dunno.  I wouldn't think Google would downplay cancer of any kind after seeing how the press treated Apple about Jobs' illness, and Google isn't associated with Page as strongly as Apple was with Jobs, but who knows?]]></description>
            <dc:creator>John Willoughby</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:08:25 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38322#msg-38322</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38322#msg-38322</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ Just saw this news. Throat cancer you think?<br />
I know when I lost my voice it was due to what I called pharyngitis. Doc said I called it correctly. But the problem/source was hyperthyroidism. I considered it due to my diet.<br />
I'm sure he has the funds to get the best treatment available. Hope he does, and does not delay or swing a dead chicken instead.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>El Jeffe</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:09:00 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38317#msg-38317</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38317#msg-38317</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ Well, they're done with Steve's health.  <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/25/tech/web/google-larry-page-voice/index.html?hpt=hp_t2">Now they'll obsess about Larry Page's health.</a>]]></description>
            <dc:creator>John Willoughby</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:32:35 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38039#msg-38039</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38039#msg-38039</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ Altavista Strikes Back!]]></description>
            <dc:creator>John Willoughby</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:13:38 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <guid>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38034#msg-38034</guid>
            <title>Re: That Darn Google...</title>
            <link>http://www.macedition.com/forums/read.php?4,31479,38034#msg-38034</link>
            <description><![CDATA[ I would not shed a tear if google died.]]></description>
            <dc:creator>El Jeffe</dc:creator>
            <category>Spork Central</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2012 05:39:41 -0400</pubDate>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
