I thought one of the draws of Android was that no specific licensing was necessary to implement on a device? Can someone elaborate on why exactly Acer would need a contract to use Android?
We've no way of knowing if this is still true, but at the time of the Skyhook case shipping Google apps was part of the contracts between OEMs and carriers; it doesn't really matter if there's suitable alternatives if you're legally obligated to provide Google's apps (which in turn allows Google a great deal of control over what else you can ship).
You and I may use find these to be suitable replacements, but Acer clearly did not. And should not, as they are trying to sell phones to the general public.
Acer has enough capital to make these toys in comparison.
OSM was a satisfactory equivalent to AAPL -- to the point of deliberately not acknowledging it (ie. worth stealing). As for f-droid, with all the iFart App clones culled is a definite win for mental health epidemiology.
OSM was not sufficient for Apple. Their maps are based on a number of providers, including OSM but most especially TomTom. You're thinking of the iphoto maps that got everyone speculating in the first place.
Most companies in this space have the capital to replace these apps, but not the will or the ability. You only have to look at the Android UIs they produce to see that you're really going to have to commit if you want to function as primary app provider for your phones. Most companies aren't willing to do this, or take forever and fail (poor meego...)
