[Tizen General] Chrome OS

Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) tizen at rasterman.com
Tue Jun 16 03:13:24 GMT 2015


On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 11:18:13 -0700 jezra <jezra at jezra.net> said:

> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:53:24 -0700
> Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday 13 June 2015 20:42:11 jezra wrote:
> > > On a side note, it is rather disheartening to see how many
> > > chromebooks (running Google's ChromeOS) are manufactured by
> > > Samsung, and yet none of those devices can have Tizen installed on
> > > them. Similarly, there are plenty of Samsung phones running
> > > Google's Android but none of those phones can have Tizen installed
> > > on them. It would be really nice, in my opinion, if Samsung sold a
> > > device that people could install Tizen on.
> > 
> > You mean, besides Samsung selling a device that already has Tizen on?
> > 
> 
> Yes, I do.
> Samsung is selling a single Tizen phone device in a very specific and
> limited market area, and since I don't live in that area, it is
> extremely difficult for me to purchase the only Tizen phone. More than
> likely, there are other people who would also like a device running
> Tizen, but the devices don't exist. 
> 
> It would be nice if one or two of the many Samsung devices running
> Android were capable of running Samsung's OS. To make a comparison, it
> is possible to purchase an Android phone(Nexus 4) and install Ubuntu
> Touch on it. 

There is a massive difference. Canonical do the port. Not LG (who make the
nexus 4). In order to distribute Android, companies like LG, Samsung etc. sign
contracts with Google (these are secret), and pay Google a license fee per unit
sold. There is the well known "anti-fragmentation agreement" that these
companies sign (this is based off public records from court cases). Canonical
does not sing this nor do they care. It is not their relationship with Google.
It's not their product, nor do they maintain the warranty. They are an
independent 3rd party that neither Google nor LG can control when it comes to
"hacking the Nexus 4 to run Ubuntu" other than if they literally violate
copyright or patents.

This totally changes if it is the manufacturer who signs agreements with Google
hacks their own devices, then distributes that software. First they run the
risk of possibly violating something in a contractual agreement with Google (do
not take this to mean that such a restriction actually exists, or what Google
might do about it. I have never seen these contracts myself, nor do I know of
their exact content other than Google can reserve the right to deny all future
licensing of Android, and the agreements agreements to have companies not
fragment the Android ecosystem, ... beyond the public documents as mentioned
further above).

Secondly when someone flashes their device then "bricks it", it is the
manufacturer that is paying to honor the warranty because a user is going to
run to them for help when they shoot themselves in the foot. Trust me this is a
major fear. There are enough customers who drop their phones in water THEN
expect a warranty repair. This is why companies place special substances
inside devices that change color on contact with water - to detect this due
to the frequency of such claims. Saying "someone won't do this because they
know better" isn't convincing given the above. You'd need a pretty foolproof
system to trivially detect a reflash failure explicitly a result of a user
flashing an unsupported OS like Tizen, then maybe it can be done. given no
other blockages. This is NOT the case for Canonical and Ubuntu on a Nexus
4.

Thirdly there is the issue of product brand dilution. A Nexus 4 is sold as an
Android device. A lot of marketing goes into that. Not as some universal hacking
board to run anything you like. Once you officially start supporting the
flashing of different OS's on such devices, you dilute the product brand by
making it more of a "just run anything you like". This is not the case for
Canonical hacking a Nexus 4 because they are a 3rd party you can't control.
It's a very different message.

What I am trying to say here is, that the issue is not so simple and black &
white as you think. It is in fact far harder for a company to modify it's own
devices like this than it is for a 3rd party due to many factors, some of which
are above. I am sure there are more.

-- 
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <tizen at rasterman.com>


More information about the General mailing list