Microsoft caught flack not merely for including IE, but also for requiring OEMs like Dell to set IE as the default browser. Google deserves the same flack for e.g. their requirement that OEMs set Google Search as the default search engine.
AOSP does not include all these apps. Google says if you want to install play store on your device, you must also install all these apps. I think it's exactly the same as Microsoft's behavior with IE.
The key difference is the OEM license agreements. Google includes dubious requirements in their licensing terms, such as the anti-fragmentation clause. But Apple does not license their software to OEMs, and so cannot run afoul of antitrust IP licensing issues.
They have a duopoly [1]. The linked article explains what a duopoly is, and cites relevant examples. I can tell you of another very relevant US-centric example but its not in business: Republican and democrat.
The impact a duopoly has on a market is vastly different from a monopoly. One problem could be price fixing; but that could happen with more than 2 companies as well. Then we speak of a cartel.
The problem with a monopoly isn't per se that it exists; it becomes anti competitive business practices when the monopoly is abused to exercise control over other markets. I'd like to compare it with a benign tumor which ends up spreading.