yes it's kinda the same like that.
@Sniperfox47I haven't been following the case myself really, but I believe it came down to the fact that manufacturers are freely able to use android, even without all the google apps(chrome, g+, the play store etc) However that is for the standard version of android, if I'm not mistaken it was mostly about the part where devs get forced to include all these applications if they want to make changes to stock android, like putting their own skin on it or their own app store.
On one hand it makes it easier since you don't need to make another account since the google play store is there, but on the other hand it keeps other players out of the market.
If apple (for example) would start to license IOS or mac OS, then they would be running into the same issue, although by keeping everything to their own they are able to get away with it, since they can't dictate other manufacturers on what they can and can't do(since there aren't any)
So just like Microsoft with the webbrowser issue, google has to give people the choice of what they want to use if there are more contenders, instead of forcing both options to be there. Just like IE got enforced although there where other options available.
Ofcourse it's a logical choice for a manufacturer/developer to try to enforce their own service, although(by eu law/logic) they should allow others too in the field and let the consumer have it's own choice, especially if they basically all do the same stuff, work the same and the product/platform has a major marketshare.