Android-x86 Development

Has Google been spreading FUD to discourage computer makers from using an Android OS retooled to run on legacy computers?

The maintainer of the Android-x86 Project has suggested that the Justice Department should investigate whether Google has been interfering with adoption of the open source code his community is developing.

The behind-the-scenes open source software development world is hardly free of rivalry and power plays. The release of the latest version of an open source Android OS to run as an alternative Linux distro may stall without the support of Android creator, Google.

There is a waiting market for the KitKat version of Android-X86 for desktops and laptops. That market is ripe, especially for its use as a thin client or in a dual OS setup, according to Chih-Wei Huang, project maintainer for the Android-x86 Project. Yet expected product releases have not appeared.

"For example, Asus announced the dual OS laptop TD300LA in the CES and got very positive feedback. However, Google asked to stop the product so Asus are unable to ship it, sadly," Huang told LinuxInsider.


 
Open Source Fair Play?

Google might not be willing to cooperate with a companion Android project for monetary reasons. However, Android code development can be pursued independently by the Android-x86 community or other vendors, suggested Huang.

"In my opinion, Google is becoming evil to use its monopolization in Android marketing. The U.S. Department of Justice should examine if Google violates the Antitrust law," he suggested.

The open source nature of the Android-x86 Project should not preclude or require official sanction by Google, said Ron Munitz, CTO of Nubo Software.

Nubo is developing an Android version that runs on servers. Munitz has volunteered as a programmer on parts of the Android-x86 Project.

No Gray Area

"It is not critical to have Google support on this project, as the Android-x86 Project is some sort of independent vendor. It obviously depends on the open sourcing of the Android code, which happens only after a Google device is announced, but otherwise it is independent," Munitz told LinuxInsider.

The only thing that increasingly is becoming problematic for other vendors is that the general purpose Android-x86 operating system is not part of the Google partnership program, he explained. In other words, if a device running the Android OS is not certified for acceptance, it is not eligible to use Google Apps.

Previously, this would not be such a huge issue, noted Munitz, but Google now integrates more services into its ecosystem and the standard Android Open Source Project code base.

Also, critical services such as Google Cloud Messaging require Google Services now. So some applications may not work with a particular product.

Still, "that is no different than any other non Google-partnered vendor," said Munitz.

Android Distro

A team of independent developers last month released the latest code for public testing of Android-x86 version 4.4-RC1 (KitKat-x86). The Android-x86 Project is porting the Android code to run on legacy computers.

The Android-x86 distro can be installed to hard drive on a desktop or laptop computer or run in live session from a CD or USB drive. The process is nearly identical to that of any other Linux distribution.

Google developed Android as an open source operating system for mobile phones and tablets. Over the last 18 months or so, several computer makers have used Google's Android OS to run on special hardware as an all-in-one desktop tablet built into a large touchscreen.

The Android-x86 project would make the Android OS more viable as an alternative operating system to run on computers powered by Intel and AMD x86 processors, including netbooks and laptops.

Deal Breaker

Asus executives did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Huang's assessment of the alleged thwarted hardware release. Google officials several times declined requests for interviews to discuss the Android-x86 Project.

Media accounts prior to CES 2014 in January reported plans for Asus to debut a new laptop/tablet hybrid featuring a 4th Generation Intel Haswell processor paired with a 1366 x 768 pixel display. Some product descriptions noted the product would be capable of dual-booting Windows 8.1 and Android.

Other reports suggested the Asus TD300LA was slated to launch during CES 2014 as a two-in-one device. The new feature would combine both the laptop and the tablet into a single processor.

Vapor Hardware

Asus did announce at CES 2014 the Transformer Book Duet TD300. The company described this device as a quad-mode, dual OS laptop and tablet running Windows and Android on an Intel 4th Gen Core processor.

The Asus website does show a press announcement for the Transformer Book Duet TD300, but the its search tool shows no results for the TD300LA. Even more interesting is that all media mention of either product ends with the close of CES 2014. There's no purchase information or product availability evident.

Lacking Partner Support

One of the biggest or most challenging hurdles Huang and his fellow coders faced in porting the Android code to work on x86 PCs and non-smartphone and tablet devices was a lack of vendor support. That lack of support included recognition from Google. In particular, there was no Board Support Package help for system development.

"Unlike Android phone/tablet makers, which can get BSP support from vendors, we need to develop everything ourselves, including the drivers and HALs (Hardware Abstraction Layer)," said Huang.

Vendors usually refuse to provide any help. An example is the Intel PowerVR GPU, he added.

"We are unable to provide hardware OpenGL acceleration on it because it requires proprietary libraries and firmware. I have asked Intel to provide the libraries to the public several times, but Intel just ignored me," he said.

Pockets of Interest

Despite the lack of cooperation or recognition from Google and its Android partner vendors, interest in the Android-x86 exists among some smaller vendors, according to Huang -- but they are not mainstream or even domestic.

Nevertheless, "they sent hardware to me for evaluating and development," Huang said.

For example, Tegatech (Tegav2 tablet), WeTab (Wetab tablet) and some small Taiwan vendors expressed considerable interest. Huang is not sure if they really have shipped Android-x86-based products, though. He thinks big vendors will be more included to work with Intel directly

Read more...

How Facebook Got Snookered in WhatsApp Deal

 Facebook got caught up in a typical bidding war game: A company justifies paying an incredible price because it feels there must be value there if the competition is bidding so aggressively. Once the other company in the supposed bidding war is disclosed, it typically points out that it either had not been bidding at all or stopped bidding long before the price reached nosebleed territory.

It's not often I see news that surprises me, but Facebook paying nearly US$20 billion for an instant messaging app had me scratching my head. People have been paying too much for properties for some time, but this is crazy money for a class of product that stopped being trendy nearly a decade ago.

I've come up with three reasons, none of which are mutually exclusive, as to how Facebook was tricked into massively -- boy, that word is just not adequate to describe this -- overpaying for this property. This should be a wakeup call for Yahoo, Microsoft and Aol, and it will be interesting to see how Google responds.

I'll close with my product of the week: a cool touchscreen monitor from Dell for us Windows 8 users.

  

Consider the Metrics

Facebook is a social network and it came to market long after instant messaging products had mostly gone the way of the dinosaur. They failed largely because their owners couldn't agree to let them communicate with each other. Imagine having email systems that only worked inside their own ecosystem -- which is kind of what we had before the Internet, with things like IBM Profs. The folks at Facebook forgot that IM was largely obsolete and measured it on engagement.

Engagement requires that people respond to each other. It's optional in a social network, but with a communications system like phone, email or IM, engagement is the whole point. Folks specifically use the system to communicate -- that is what it is for. So we don't measure it on engagement, because that would be silly -- like measuring a window on resolution because we grew up with TVs and no windows. A window would trump Ultra HD, but the measurement would be silly.

So not remembering IM -- living under the belief that engagement was incredibly important -- Facebook saw WhatsApp not as an IM platform, but as an incredibly successful social network with near unlimited value.

You know, if Facebook really wants engagement, it might want to think of buying FreedomPop. It goes far farther than WhatsApp and it could accommodate the entire Facebook mobile experience.

Freedom Phone uses VoIP cellphones and charges a fraction of what a typical cellphone carrier charges. Users could also have put WhatsApp on the phones, and Facebook probably could have bought it for closer to Instagram's price. Just saying...

The Carriers' Role

Unlike a property like Instagram or YouTube -- where the value is in the product and the service is delivered over the Internet -- WhatsApp has as a core value the ability to go around SMS. It is kind of like VoIP (like Skype) but just for messaging. It is incredibly popular in Europe because there are high charges for cross-border SMS.

It saves you money by going around the expensive carrier services built into phone plans. However, these charges are in the process of being eliminated for messages that originate and terminate in Europe, as part of a process to eliminate roaming charges in the EU.

In addition, the service likely was successful because it operated under the radar. The carriers didn't know how much money they were losing to WhatsApp and so didn't move to block it or make it more expensive to use (which is what they did with VoIP when they stopped offering unlimited data plans).

Thus the value of the offering is in the hands of carriers that either will eliminate that value through targeted action or have much of it removed by government action, at least in Europe.

Bidding Games

We've now seen inflated acquisition prices a number of times: Microsoft with Skype, and HP with Autonomy come to mind as the two largest before WhatsApp. A company is led to believe it is bidding against someone else and ends up bidding against itself. In HP's case it was Oracle, and in Microsoft's case, it was Google

A company justifies paying an incredible price because it feels there must be value there if the competition is bidding so aggressively, and it doesn't want to lose. Once the other company in the supposed bidding war is disclosed, it typically points out that it either had not been bidding at all or stopped bidding long before the price reached nosebleed territory.

This is a common game played well by those that make a living out of selling companies, because the bidding process isn't transparent and prospective buyers easily can be fooled into thinking something is happening that isn't. Based on coverage, I think Google is likely the company Facebook thought it was bidding against, but I'll bet Google exited the bidding process well below $5B because even Google isn't that crazy.

Wake-Up Call

I imagine this is a huge wake-up call for Microsoft, Aol, and Yahoo, which have large languishing IM platforms. If they were to cooperate with each other and market these offerings, they could be worth far more than they are, based on what Facebook paid for WhatsApp.

If one were to acquire the other two and position the combined customer base against the same opportunity, it likely could sell the result to Google or Microsoft for a fraction of what Facebook paid for WhatsApp -- and it actually might have something more valuable.

The older platforms play to an older demographic that isn't as flighty as the one WhatsApp targets. There is gold in this opportunity, and if it turns out that Google was massively outbid in a WhatsApp war, I expect it will attempt to correct its miss with an in-your-face acquisition that will make Zuckerberg look stupid.

In any case, I expect the drama here to continue for a bit longer.

Wrapping Up: Bringing Back Memories

Watching Facebook make this mistake reminds me of a motorcycle purchase I made over a decade ago. I ended up paying about a grand too much, because I was led to believe the bike was newer than it actually was. My wife has never let me forget that.

Facebook is my buddy this week, for as stupid as that motorcycle decision was, its near $20 billion purchase of a communications product makes my goof look practically brilliant. Thanks Facebook, for setting a new bar for foolish.

Read more...