Why wouldn't they? All they care about is control, and they can't except everyone to buy an Android device, right? Yet everyone (ok, almost everyone) uses Google Search. They know Android won't reach everyone until a future very far away, and they also know that their services can reach everyone, so it's a no-brainer that all Google services will be availible for all platforms, just like you can have Google Search by defaut on Firefox.

If I'd recommend anyone using their services is another thing, though.

Which are these 'many' countries (and companies) you speak of?

All countries besides North America?

Honestly, I haven't seen any country where any phone isn't free on contract.

Interesting posts so far.

For me, why Maemo instead of Android?

Hardware-wise: I already own two ARM11-type/class devices, both from Nokia, the E71 and the N800. So if I am going to buy a new one, it has to be equipped with newer hardware. That rules out almost all Android devices (except the Droid, which I can't get anyway due to Verizon).

Software-wise: something that worries me of the mobile market, is its lack of freedom compared to the PC/Desktop market.

I can go to a hardware store, buy the components I want and assemble my own computer (in fact I have assembled all computers my family and friends have). Then, I can go and install any OS I want. Be it Windows, Linux or even OS X if I feel like hacking it. If I go with Linux, I can do anything with my computer. Even with Windows, I am still free to decide what applications I want running on it. And, as time passes, I can install a newer OS without much trouble.

That doesn't happen in the mobile market. You can't build your own mobile device, because of how the components are embedded. And very often, the hardware of your device only supports the software of the manufacturer of such device (due to drivers, hardware design, form factor, limited resources of the device itself, etc).

So when you buy a mobile device, you are at the complete mercy of the manufacturer. If, let's say, Nokia decides it will not update my E71, ever, I can't install Android on it to have new features. If Apple decides they don't like an app I have installed, they can, and will wipe it from my device. If Motorola decides it will not upgrade the Droid to Android 3.0 when it comes out, then, though luck. In closed environments, hacked ROMs rarely work well (look for info on running Android 2.0 or Touch Sense in the G1).

The closest thing to the freedom I have in the desktop market is Maemo. That is why, despite being tempted by other options (HTC Touch Sense UI, I am talking to you),I am sticking to it. If I don't like something, at least the system is open enough to try and modify it. And Nokia is open enough to let people build a whole new OS (Mer) based on what was done for Maemo.

As a customer, your strongest advantage is your capacity of walking away from the manufacturer if he screws you, and they will, because the reason for the manufacturer to be is to make money out of you selling things. So one has to be very careful with lock-in and walled gardens. Too often, what is inside is not worth it.

Isn't the DRM also for commercial applications and not just for music? If it was only for music the DRM mode would be a lot easier to avoid but I expect there to be some commercial applications I might want to use. I voiced some concerns in the DRM thread and I hope even the "closed mode" won't be too tightly locked down.

I just used music as an example, but yeah, it is highly probable that commercial developers will want some kind of lock to avoid piracy of their apps. As paradoxical it sounds for an open source system... I guess it is too early in this stage of mobile development to offer a free app, but charge for the support or customization of it (the old open-source revenue model if my memory serves me well).

I'm going laugh at the developers if their apps get pirated and distributed everywhere anyway. I really hate DRM, it isn't going stop anyone in the long run. Especially if someone is dedicated at it.

This is incorrect. You still HAVE to use Java. What is new is that you can develop LIBRARIES and FUNCTIONS as native code. Calling this full native language development is quite a stretch. The NDK states it very clearly:

Please note that the NDK does not enable you to develop native-only applications. Android's primary runtime remains the Dalvik virtual machine.

While DRM is in my opinion the biggest failure of the media-tech industry (how come so much is invested on something that no one wants and doesn't even work?), I really can't blame a developer wanting to make some money on the app he or she worked so hard to produce.And the same goes for artists, which get screwed by the piracy AND by the music industry.

I guess it is a bit unfair to put all the blame on the developer. Part of the reason why I don't like DRM is that it's just the fallback for when you can't think of a way to make the model work. Now it is different for developers rather than music artists though. But still there are creative ways to get people to purchase the product, whether it be adding an online component if your making a game, or maybe an online service (see ReadItLater or Evernote). Granted not every developer can do these things but I feel that DRM should be the very last fallback option a person uses.