>Google doesn't provide a proper Java implementation, it is ok they are on their right to fork the language.
Again, they don't call it Java so they can do whatever they want with it.
>Android is not even compatible with Java compact profile 1, the smallest of them.
Good thing they didn't call their implementation Java.
>Yeah apparently we are not allowed to side with Oracle.
It's kind of hard to side with a company with a reputation like Oracle and even harder for one that thinks it can sue for 9 Billion dollars for the partial use of a API's SSO.
>They also did not have a license to use Java on embedded devices did they?
It is so funny how people side up with Google for doing the same thing as Microsoft.
But hey lets just shout to the wind the "do no evil" crap.
I use Android Studio with Gradle and Java to write Android applications, how come it isn't Java!?!
Every other company in this planet is fine to play by the rules of the Java world, just Google not.
Instead they fill the Android documentation with the Java word everywhere, rely on Java compilers and libraries, but just because they don't put a coffee cup it isn't Java.
On top of that they cherry pick features from Java, slowly making it impossible to write portable libraries without having multiple code paths.
Which is going to become increasingly harder with Java 9 and 10 features.
Just because they play word games by putting Android on the box, it doesn't make it less Java.
>It is so funny how people side up with Google for doing the same thing as Microsoft.
I like how you conveniently leave out the facts to try make your argument relevant. Microsoft used the Java trademarks and modified the way Java worked. Sun was justified in suing them for this.
>I use Android Studio with Gradle and Java to write Android applications, how come it isn't Java!?!
You use the Android SDK to write Android applications.
>Every other company in this planet is fine to play by the rules of the Java world, just Google not.
Why does Android/Google need to play by the rules of the Java world when they don't call their implementation Java? Android doesn't use any of the code/IP in the JVM and it doesn't use any of the concrete code implementations from the JDK (pre 7.0). The only argument you have is the SSO of a subset of API's and we all know how that went down.
>Instead they fill the Android documentation with the Java word everywhere, rely on Java compilers and libraries, but just because they don't put a coffee cup it isn't Java.
So you now have a problem with Google using a compiler, of an open source project, to generate JVM bytecode that is then translated to DEX bytecode so that it can run on a device that processes DEX bytecode into native ARM machine language?
>On top of that they cherry pick features from Java, slowly making it impossible to write portable libraries without having multiple code paths.
What's wrong with cherry picking features? Forked projects do it all the time. Do you have an issue with forking open source projects. As long as Google doesn't call their implementation Java they can cherry pick whatever they like. If Oracle has a problem with this then they should update their OpenJDK license.
>Which is going to become increasingly harder with Java 9 and 10 features.
Not really. I'm sure they'll "cherry pick" the good stuff like Value Types and discard what they don't deem necessary for their implementation.
>I am fully serious and look forward Oracle winning the next round.
I really don't see the appeals court overturning a jury verdict. Keep dreaming, though.
>Android is a fork of the Java eco-system that prevent 100% of Java 8, 9 and upcoming 10 features to be used on the platform.
I find it funny that you think that a fork must adhere to the rules of the open source project they branched away from.
>Anything else that Google states is a plain game of words to avoid paying Oracle for what they did to Sun.
It would seem the only company getting paid is Google. First from Oracle's incompetent legal team for disclosing confidential information and secondly by Oracle for court fees and possible legal fees.
Again, they don't call it Java so they can do whatever they want with it.
>Android is not even compatible with Java compact profile 1, the smallest of them.
Good thing they didn't call their implementation Java.
>Yeah apparently we are not allowed to side with Oracle.
It's kind of hard to side with a company with a reputation like Oracle and even harder for one that thinks it can sue for 9 Billion dollars for the partial use of a API's SSO.
>They also did not have a license to use Java on embedded devices did they?
They didn't call it Java so they didn't need one.