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?
EDIT: also posted upthread; a breakdown of the Google Apps licenses as seen from the Skyhook case http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la...
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.
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...)