安卓授权协议曝光　谷歌是否太苛刻？

Google在与业界伙伴签署有关于 Android 平台的授权协议时，是抱持着公平的态度吗？笔者想听听来自智能手机业者与平板业者们的看法。 根据一份外流的Google与 HTC 在2011年签署之协议，引发了Google掌控手机业者程度的疑虑；该“Google移动应用程序散布协议(Google Mobile Application Distribution Agreement)”，禁止制造商变更 Android 以及强制规定关键Google应用程序在手机上的呈现方式。 该协议内容并非在先前甲骨文(Oracle)与Google的专利侵权诉讼中曾经被公开的部分，具体来说，在文件的第3.4项中提到： “除非额外取得Google的书面同意：1. 公司应在每台设备预载经批准适用于特定区域或国家的所有Google应用程序；2. Google的手机顶端搜索引擎(Phone-top Search)，以及Android市集客户端应用程序图标，必须立即放置在与默认手机屏幕首页相邻的控制面板(panel)上。” “3. 所有的Google应用程序应被放置在手机顶端之下不超过一个阶层的位置。”以及“4. Google手机顶端搜索引擎必须被设定为设备上之所有网络搜寻接取点所预设的搜索引擎。尽管有上述规定，可选的Google应用程序没有安装需求。” 此外该文件的第2.2项则禁止对Android的变更： “公司不得或不允许任何一家第三方伙伴采取任何可能造成或导致Android分裂的行动，包括但不仅限于透过散布之来自Android或Android兼容设备的软件开发工具(SDK)；以及公司不得协助或鼓励任何第三方伙伴散布来自Android兼容设备的软件开发工具(SDK)。” 在文件的第4.2项，Google还要求厂商提供“具备预载版本预载Google应用程序之设备分布总数量月报(依据Google应用程序种类、每个区域市场销售的当地机种)。” 另外Google还要求“每台设备必须在设备最后嵌入日期(Final Embed Date of the Device)的至少三十天以前成为Android兼容设备；最后装载于设备上的软件，必须要在上市以前通过兼容性测试套件(Compatibility Test Suite)。” 对笔者来说，以上规定感觉都太过严苛，让人想起英特尔(Intel)与微软(Microsoft)的“Wintel”联盟独大时期；在那个时候，微软尝试逼迫所有厂商要让Internet Explorer成为PC产品的唯一且默认网络浏览器，而微软与英特尔也提供给那些在产品中使用较少、甚至不使用其他竞争操作系统的厂商们营销资金。 Wintel 两巨头的做法受到反垄断调查，欧盟则正在调查Google对Android的授权策略；Android已经成为目前的主流移动设备操作系统，被视为是苹果 (Apple) iOS操作系统之外另一个开放源码替代方案。但以上的协议文件却让人质疑，Google到底是如何经营此软件平台？ 笔者已经联络Google要求解释，但我们也想听听来自智能手机/平板制造商的看法；Google是否在Android授权上采取公平态度？ 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载 编译：Judith Cheng 参考英文原文：Android Contract Raises Questions，by Rick Merritt

相关阅读：
• 让你惊艳的非智能手机Android设备
• Linux基金会创建AllSeen联盟，推动物联网发展
• 苹果发布车载iOS系统CarPlay，大牌车企纷纷捧场3WVesmc

{pagination} Android Contract Raises Questions Rick Merritt, SiliconValley Bureau Chief SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Is Google playing fair in its Android agreements? That's what I'd like to hear from the community of smartphone and tablet makers. A leaked copy of a 2011 Android agreement between Google and HTC raises questions about the amount of control Google exercises over OEM handsets. The Google Mobile Application Distribution Agreement forbids OEMs from making changes to Android and enforces exactly where key Google applications appear on a handset. The document appears to be part of the discovery not previously made public from the Oracle vs. Google patent infringement suit. It was leaked by Ben Edelman, an associate professor at the Harvard Business School. Specifically, section 3.4 of the document states: Unless otherwise approved by Google in writing: 1) Company will preload all Google Applications approved in the applicable Territory or Territories on each Device; (2) Google Phone-top Search and the Android Market Client Icon must be placed at least on the panel immediately adjacent to the Default Home Screen; (3) all other Google Applications will be placed no more than one level below the Phone Top; and (4) Google Phone-top Search must be set as the default search provider for all Web search access points on the Device. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there are no placement requirements for Optional Google Applications. Section 2.2 forbids making changes to Android: The Company shall not or allow any third party to take any actions that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android including but not limited to the distribution by Company of a software development kit (SDK) derived from Android or derived from Android compatible devices and company shall not assist or encourage any third party to distribute a software development kit (SDK) derived from Android Compatible Devices. In section 4.2 Google requires OEMs provide "a written report of the total number of devices distributed with a preloaded version of a Google Application during such calendar month (by Google Application, Territory sand Device model within each Territory.)" In addition, Google requires "each Device must become an Android Compatible Device at least 30 days prior to the Final Embed Date of the Device. The final software build on Devices must pass the Compatibility Test Suite prior to Launch." These requirements seem overly restrictive to me. They remind me of the contracts Intel and Microsoft used in the heyday of the Wintel monopoly. Back then, Microsoft tried to force OEMs to make its Internet Explorer the default and only browser on PC desktops. Microsoft and Intel also created marketing funds that essentially paid OEMs if they used fewer or no competing operating systems or processors in their products. The Wintel giants came under antitrust scrutiny for their practices. The European Union is investigating Google's practices with Android now. Android has become by far the dominant operating system in mobile devices. It is described as an open-source alternative to Apple's iOS. But this document suggests there are some real questions to be answered about how Google is managing its software stack. I've reached out to Google for its response. I'd also like to hear from smartphone and tablet makers, too.