You are because you misread the section of the article you quoted:

> By obligating handset makers to load the free apps along with the Android operating system

The NYC article said google was compelling handset makers to bundle free apps ALONG WITH the Android OS, they didn't say that Android OS's license required said bundling.

Google obligated handset makers via the MADA linked above. If you want the Play Store, Play Services, and all of Android's APIs to work, you have to agree to MADA which means bundling Google's apps with the Android OS.

"Google obligated handset makers via the MADA linked above."

Handset makers obligated _themselves_ by (voluntarily) signing up to the MADA.

When you get into antitrust scales of size nothing is voluntary, that's the whole crux of this issue. If you wanted your handset to sell you had to play nice with Google and do what Google told you.

Handset makers didn't really have much of a choice, they weren't big enough to compete directly with Google.

Samsung is a huge multinational conglomerate with hundreds of billions of revenue and tens of billion in yearly profits. They also sell over 20% of all smartphones switching position back and forth with Apple for leading market share.

I find it hard to believe that they were too small in comparison with Google to compete with their own mobile OS and app market.

> I find it hard to believe that they were too small in comparison with Google to compete with their own mobile OS and app market.

They already tried, more than once, and all their attempts failed.

They are too inept, they already make crappier versions of the basic Android apps and put them on their devices.

The sentence I quoted from the article, and what you've written above, both suggest that the issue is/was bundling of (i) Android and (ii) some set of Google services/apps.

I thought the case was about bundling (i) some set of Google services/apps and (ii) some other set of Google services/apps.

Any manufacturer who sold Android with Play Service could not sell Android without Play Service.

Amazon could not get Foxconn to manufacture their Android phone for example because Foxconn would lose their license to MADA.

> But "the Play Store and associated Google services" aren't part of Android. So you can ship Android devices without them.

You can either ship every Android device with the Play store, or none. As a manufacturer, you don't get to pick and choose, thanks to the newspeak-ish Open Hardware Alliance (OHA).