Cyanogen Inc said no to a Google buyout

Cyanogen Inc said no to a Google buyout
The Android ecosystem is a somewhat strange place. There is what most people think of as Android, which is really Google Android, then there is the open source Android base which has been used to build Amazon's FireOS, Nokia X, and myriad custom ROMs. The most famous custom ROM (in this part of the world) is CyanogenMod. Recently, Cyanogen became a real company and put out hardware with partner Oppo.

Now, there is a report from The Information that Google tried to purchase Cyanogen Inc., and was told no. It is unclear exactly what Google's motivation was for the offer. It is possible that Google wanted to squash a potential competitor. It is possible that Google wanted to bolster its Android development team with the crew from Cyanogen. Or, maybe Google was planning to keep Cyanogen in its stable the way it has with Motorola - a separately run division. 

Whatever Google's plans were, Cyanogen Inc. didn't like the proposal and rejected the offer. Instead, Cyanogen is looking into a a Series C round of funding with the hope of gathering investments at a valuation of $1 billion. It is also unclear how much Google offered in the acquisition talks, meaning it could be possible that Cyanogen thought it was worth more than Google was willing to pay. With luck, we'll find out more, but that is a bit of a long shot. 



1. fzacek

Posts: 2486; Member since: Jan 26, 2014

I'm sure Google has enough money to pay however much they want...

2. AnTuTu

Posts: 1612; Member since: Oct 14, 2012

Google -> An undisputed king :)

17. techspace

Posts: 1037; Member since: Sep 03, 2012

Google should not buy cyanogenmod because that's not good for the customers. A single company based in the US should not control everything...different companies from different countries should be involved in open source projects like android...if more companies from different countries are involved, then there will be more competition and even the governments will find it difficult to get full backdoor access to the devices(NSA already has full backdoor access to android and other operating systems, they will not steal anything from us but the problem is that if there are backdoors for NSA, they can also be used by the hackers).

30. wrm2013

Posts: 234; Member since: Mar 28, 2013

you ever seen terminator? Google is skynet, has been for a while. one day the government will take it over. the u.s. government is entirely too big now and can and is doing whatever it wants while the people sit back and watch.

34. techspace

Posts: 1037; Member since: Sep 03, 2012

That's why I want companies in other countries to grow and make it more difficult for the government of any country to control everything,we need more software and hardware companies.

4. Liveitup

Posts: 1798; Member since: Jan 07, 2014

One of the more obvious reasons why Google wanted to purchase it was left out of this article. Its becoming quotes with the recent restrictions placed on OEMs and Android one platforms that Google is becoming closed, this is a threat to that plan.

5. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

Android is not becoming closed. Google's trying to mitigate the issues that are caused by letting OEMs run amuck with the OS.

6. Luuthian

Posts: 332; Member since: Sep 09, 2011

To be fair then, Google should have started moving it's muscle in different ways a long time ago then. They're their own worst enemy for allowing Samsung to rule the Android world. If Google wants to control the eco system then they'll have a very hard time doing so with the platform remaining so open. Their current route can only work so far before OEM's decide to push back, as forcing Google's apps and services onto third party devices destroys most of the potential for a customer to choose any service over Google's.

20. engineer-1701d unregistered

I don't think I know how the real world works if Google said no more and the oems tried to push back Google would just make nexus because they know most of the world wants the os. No phone manufacture other then Samsung has a is to fall back on they would all drop in days people don't understand Google controls everything like Windows does. They close YouTube to all but nexus and say goodbye to iPhone as well without YouTube apple falls next

9. Liveitup

Posts: 1798; Member since: Jan 07, 2014

Mitigating the issues that are caused by letting OEMs run amuck with the OS is an advantage of a closed OS.

11. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

Yeah, except Google's going to do it without closing off Android. And in the meantime, Metro will continue to fail to entice customers and Windows Phone marketshare will continue to drop.

13. Liveitup

Posts: 1798; Member since: Jan 07, 2014

Google cannot have it both ways, they can't do it without closing off Android, its like oil and water it wont mix. Funny you mention WP when Android one is taking WP approach you can also say Android wear is that way also, it will only continue as Google pursues what MS is heralding, one experience.

16. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

Yeah except they're doing that while still allowing manufacturers to customize, so long as the core principles are left alone. Samsung and HTC screw with Android's UI to their own detriment, but Google's not made any overtures to stop them from doing so. Motorola has done things perfectly by leaving the UI alone but adding functionality that simply didn't exist on Android and adds to the user experience.

21. Liveitup

Posts: 1798; Member since: Jan 07, 2014

Google continuously placing restrictions on OEM signals its only a matter of time before Skins are a thing of the past, watch and see as time goes by its all being done in steps. Just this week they placed more restrictions for OEMs. Google and Samsung has recently been butting heads as Google tries to control what Sammy does for eg.wearables, magazine UX etc. If Motorola running stock is just about if not less flexible than WP 8.1 counter part. With Material Design, stock Android becomes much more than a bare foundation for OEMs to built atop. It's a visual style which ironically is Microsoft Modern UI inspired is intended to present Android as a Google product with a matching personality, same as Chrome OS and Google web services. As Google prepares this new design language, it's also exerting more control over Android devices, ensuring consumers actually get to see it. What was once and asset is quickly becoming a liability as Google looks to display its visual identity across devices, We could go back and forth but time will decide. Ill remind if

32. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

"It's a visual style which ironically is Microsoft Modern UI inspired" I'm sorry, but do you masturbate to your own posts? Clearly you do, since you can't stop mentioning your conspiracy theory that somehow Microsoft has changed the world of mobile UIs and everyone else has rushed to copy them.

36. Liveitup

Posts: 1798; Member since: Jan 07, 2014

Its largely known that iOS and Android moved from Skeuomorphism to Flat UI focused on being clean, minimalistic, content over chrome, less is more which is something that Microsoft was at the forefront of. Your denial of something that crystal clear speaks volumes. What iOS and Android are now embracing has been done since 2010.

41. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

I dont know about iOS....but Android was going in that direction....with the hiring of the former WebOS guru.... Which happens to have the same initials as Material Design....coincidence? I think not. So you are has been done since 2010. Google got on board the Flat train with his hiring, which was in May 2010. Web OS 2.0 was being worked on in 2010. While it is true Honeycomb was released in 2011(it was the first Android version to have his influence)....Duarte's influence and overall footprint was still in WebOS 2.0. Like with the iPhone.....if MS didnt do Flat UI with was going to be done anyway.

44. Liveitup

Posts: 1798; Member since: Jan 07, 2014

If you want to go that far back Microsoft has roots in Flat UI since as far back Encarta 95 and MSN 2.0. The language evolved in Windows Media Center/ Zune and was introduced as "Metro" during the unveiling of Windows Phone 7. When WP was realized it was considered unique, a departure from what Android and iOS was doing. recall when many hated on Flat UI then suddenly when others do it they embrace it, real hypocrisy. No other OS approached Flat UI before MS did it. Here's the history of Flat UI.

39. McLTE

Posts: 922; Member since: Oct 18, 2011

Sniggly, You make it sound as though the stock Google UI is the absolute best. The truth of the matter is some of the manufacture UIs do some very nice things. I used to be all about stock google UI - hated anything other than that. I got the Note 2 and played with that for a bit. Rooted it and put stock Google on it. Turns out I didn't like stock. I actually really like some of the features that TW has incorporated. I do not like the TW launcher (use Nova), but I am perfectly happy with TW. I'd like to see google force manufacturers to have their UI available in the app store, and give us a choice to run stock or the modified UI - or even break up the UI in pieces to allow us to choose what we like.

22. engineer-1701d unregistered

Oil and water don't mix but oil needs water to float on

24. Liveitup

Posts: 1798; Member since: Jan 07, 2014

The point i was making is that Google cant have the advantages of both Closed and Open sourced platforms simultaneously. You cant have timely updates, top notched security, stability amongst other features while letting OEMs run wild doing their thing. you cant have total control and no control at the same time.

28. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Still not getting it are you? It even says it plainly in the article. Everyone thinks that the Android most people are familiar with is open source, but it's not. Google's Android has proprietary apps and services like the Playstore and Gmail which means it is most definitely not open source. AOSP, which 99% of people aren't familiar with, is the only open source version of Android. For example, companies like Amazon and Nokia took AOSP and engineered a forked version of Android. They could not do so with Google's Android because doing what they did with their respective versions of Android would lose them access to Google's apps and services, most notably the Playstore. The point you're trying to make is flawed. You're saying Google can't have it both ways, but when there are two versions (Google's Android and AOSP), they most certainly can. Google's Android is closed and has restrictions. OEMS have some leeway in what they can do (skins, OEM apps, etc.) but once they go beyond a certain point, they lose access to Google's services. Think of Google's Android just like Windows Phone or iOS. The only difference is it's based on open source software, even though it is NOT open source. AOSP on the other hand, is completely different. Anyone can do whatever they want with it, but the thing everyone keeps missing here is, Google's services like their apps and the Playstore aren't part of AOSP. But for companies like Amazon and Nokia, that isn't a problem, because they have their own suite of apps and services to offer instead of the Playstore. If AOSP was open source, Amazon and Nokia wouldn't have access to it and be able to change it however they see fit. So PLEEAASE let this sink in. AOSP: basic Android, open source, no Google apps, no Playstore, but also no restrictions. Google's Android: forked version of AOSP like Amazon's and Nokia's versions of Android, closed source due to proprietary Google apps and services, restrictions in place in exchange for access to Google's apps and services, including the Playstore. Do you finally get it now? Or am I talking to a brick wall and your response will be "But Android is supposed to be open source. They can't have it both ways."

33. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

Better yet...ask him what does he think would happen if we see Fire OS (Kindle) or whatever Nokia is using....on another mobile device not by Amazon and Nokia......without their permission.... They took AOSP, forked it to their own proprietary OS: Once you take AOSP...and modify it to be your own one can just come and use it without your permission.

38. Liveitup

Posts: 1798; Member since: Jan 07, 2014

Actually I do get it, I've known everything that you stated I myself even mentioned that a few days Ago about Android not being completely open. I know that so their is no need to let it sink in if anything you should tell those Android fans who think Google is all open that. I know Asop is also taking up more and more of Androids market about 1 in every 5. You telling me about Asop is old news, talk to those who think all Android is all open. I'm talking about Googles Android many think having skins etc think that means its Open etc.

43. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Yes, but by your posts that's not what you're saying. Saying that Google can't have it both ways, being open source and have full control. That's not saying the userbase don't understand about this, you're talking about Google itself. You're the one who said the other day that "Android is supposed to be open source". Which one? AOSP? Yup. Google Android? Nope. Amazon Fire OS? Nope. Nokia's Android? Nope. And no, having skins doesn't make Google's Android open, it just means they allow customization to a point. You spoke earlier of Google having to close off the OS, it already is. Just because they allow some customization doesn't mean it's open source. HTC WinMo phones had the TouchFlo skin (a prequel to Sense) on them. Does that mean WinMo was open source?

45. Liveitup

Posts: 1798; Member since: Jan 07, 2014

What I was showing in my post is that Googles Android what these guys think is open isn't thats what I was doing, you can disagree about how I went about doing it, thats fair but showing them Googles Android isn't open like they think it is.

46. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Then say you guys have it wrong if you're talking to the user base. You keep saying things like Google's can't have it both ways. That's directed at Google not the user base. You've read my posts, is there anyway of mistaking what I said? No. I may be long winded, but at least people most of the time don't misunderstand what I'm saying.

26. tech2

Posts: 3487; Member since: Oct 26, 2012

Exactly. These are the same people who complain when Android doesn't receive timely updates. When Google is actually doing something about it then tend to unnecessarily find faults with that too. That engadget link by Liveitup proves absolutely nothing how Google is closing off its doors to open source other then just speculative accusation.

12. fzacek

Posts: 2486; Member since: Jan 26, 2014

Death to TouchWiz!!!...

14. Sniggly

Posts: 7305; Member since: Dec 05, 2009

Fu ckin' A, man.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.