Apple is not licencing iOS to OEMs. They are also very far away from a monopoly.
In other words they're also tying iOS to their hardware and vice versa. This is supposed to make it less of an antitrust issue?
> They are also very far away from a monopoly.
They sure look like a monopoly to an iOS app developer or iOS app customer who wants app store competition to drive down app store margins.
Android is 85% of the smartphone market. iOS is 13% of the smartphone market. Android is a monopoly, iOS is not.
Apple is acting independently. They've built differentiating features (like custom software) which you can only get by buying Apple's products. Apple hopes that customers will use their products because they're better than the competition. That is exactly what antitrust law is meant to encourage.
Google is not acting independently. They've built differentiating features, but licensed them under terms that prevent competition. Google hopes that customers will use their products because OEMs are contractually forbidden from selling competing products. That is what antitrust law is designed to prevent.
Then how do I have a stack of history books that say the government broke up the 20th century AT&T monopoly under the antitrust laws? And Standard Oil and U.S. Steel before that?
You seem to be implying that if Google did exactly what they're doing now except that they made their own hardware and refused to license Android to third parties then there would be less of an antitrust problem, even though then there would unambiguously be less competition than there is now.
The same if Android licensers were more free to provide their own solutions (see what Amazon did with the Fire brand) instead of forced to bundle Googles services on every device.