2008/4/8 cr0vax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Don't you udnerstand the difference between an alliance (even product- > focused like Dan saied) and a foundation ?
Evidently the difference is that an "alliance" has no fixed location, only has a single member out of three dozen who's in a position to speak for it, and doesn't reply to emails from prospective members. If there *is *an alliance, then the members should be able to speak for it, yes...? That gets us back to Sanjay Jha's statement that Android is intended by Google to *create *fragmentation, which Dan tells us doesn't represent Google's view (even though it was said by a member of this "alliance", who you'd think should be in a position know...) That's the problem I'm having: people seem to want to have things be both ways. On the one hand, people insist to me that there actually *is *an OHA out there somewhere (in spite of a lack of evidence to support that); on the other, Dan seems to be saying that nobody, whether in the OHA or not, is in a position to say anything about Android other than Google. You just can't have it both ways at the same time, that's all. Either there's an OHA for which its members (like Qualcomm) are in a position to speak, or there isn't. It seems that there's not even anyone *checking the mail *over at OHA... -- 鏡石 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
