More importantly was that Google were doing various forced things (like requiring installing all Google things on all devices, heavily limiting possible competition). Ending that is important, even if it shifts costs around.
Edit - a simple way of viewing this is if this makes more money for Google, why weren't they doing it anyway? If not, can it really be costing consumers more?
I wouldn't assume this. In simple terms, surely they realized punitive measures on a something consumers choose will harm the chooser. They might have some idealistic long-term consumer benefit goal in mind (e.g. magically growing competitors, magic corporate altruism, etc), but it is divorced from reality.