I feel like a lot of the comments here are missing the point in discussing alternative app stores and the importance of side loading. The lawsuit was not filed

I feel like a lot of the comments here are missing the point in discussing alternative app stores and the importance of side loading. The lawsuit was not filed by Motorola, arguing that they have a right to Google's app store. The allegations come from Skyhook, claiming that Google broke the law by coercing Motorola and Samsung into breaking contracts they had signed. I'm all for Google being more discriminating in licensing their apps and app store. It would be great if they prevented crap like un-installable apps or disabling tethering as prerequisites for compliance. But here, they allegedly prevented Motorola from using a different location service, a service that in Motorola's mind was better than the one Google provided, on their phones. Motorola could have taken a stand and forgone Google approval, but that wouldn't have really helped anything. Whatever boon Skyhook presented to Motorola wasn't worth the hassle of rolling their own app store, their own mail and calendar apps, and forgoing whatever other Google assistance comes with a "compliant" handset. So, Skyhook got left by the wayside, and Motorola's new phones are a little bit worse because Google said so. It's true that if Google's terms become very onerous, all of these handset makers and carriers do have the ability to fork and go their own way which is important and "open". But throwing their weight around like this to prioritize their own services over competitors, especially when they stand idly by as Verizon makes the Android experience worse for their customers, smacks of hypocrisy in the face of their VP's quoted comments. This is interesting news, worthy of good discussion. I'm disappointed that Gruber's take is the only one that made the front page, it appears people's opinion of him muddy the conversation.