> Isnt that what business deals are supposed to be?

To clarify what exactly that agreement does: it prohibits companies from developing competitors. It is nakedly anti-competitive, and no, business deals are not supposed to be that - there's a large body of law, sadly rarely enforced, saying so. Not every business practice is legal just because the directly involved parties agreed.

nice strawman, first google honeypotted the smartphone-os sector with their AOSP (android opensource project). now when they killed every other option except apple & effectively became a monopoly for all smartphone vendors, they are using their monopoly power to prohibit companies from using aosp piecemeal. they are explicitly telling vendors if you make any device with google services then you cannot make an ungoogled device at-all. this is exact opposite of the open source spirit and highlights that they were never interested in opensource, they were doing pretty much what MS did in 90s, release a bundled shitty version of a popular app with OS so you can kill them and maintain dominant monopoly. they just weaponized oss with AOSP to kill off any contenders.

take a moment to think why amazon has no google services on their table and/or an amazon branded basic android smartphone, it would be super easy for them to do it (leave aside firephone .. for reasons).

How is this not monopoly abuse? if Lina Khan had any balls this is what she would have gone after.

edit: chatgpt explanation: https://chatgpt.com/share/686350ce-47dc-8008-8c30-14c6298d75...