[scarface74]

The referenced citations from your Wikipedia article actually supports my claim.

(Citation #5 as of this writing) https://www.cnet.com/news/alibaba-google-just-plain-wrong-ab...

Google took some heat earlier this week for seemingly using its clout to squash a burgeoning mobile OS.

(Citation #6 as of this writing) https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...

While it might not be an official requirement, being granted a Google apps license will go a whole lot easier if you join the Open Handset Alliance. The OHA is a group of companies committed to Android—Google's Android—and members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved devices. That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork.

Besides, even in 2008, what other OS were OEMs going to license to compete with the iPhone? Windows Mobile?

[lern_too_spel]

Your citations are about a policy that predates a single Android device being available to the public, so they do not support your claim.

> Besides, even in 2008, what other OS were OEMs going to license to compete with the iPhone? Windows Mobile?

Yes, Windows Mobile was the dominant licensed smartphone operating system at the time. What's that got to do with anything?