I don't disagree with your arguments, but this story doesn't seem to be about forcing an os nor even store to open up. It's more about the 30% revenue sharing and how these stores can't force studios to submit to it if they are interested in using alternative vendors. That's why Google is involved even if you can technically install a dozen other stores (or sideload everything).
This won't really benefit anyone but the largest studios, even if they open it up to game consoles. But it could be a first step. But a step with a lot less support.
Nobody really cares what one company allows in their store if there is a competitive market for alternate stores with low barriers to entry.
Allowing competing stores is a major component of opening up the OS. The competing stores would be able to install and run code on the device, with the permission of the owner rather than the OEM. And suffocating alternatives to paying them the vig is a major reason they close the device to begin with, so without that they'd be less likely to stand in your way anymore.
>if there is a competitive market for alternate stores with low barriers to entry.
But that's what the story is about, even with Google:
>And although Google permits third-party app distribution platforms, it still generally requires apps to use its billing system.
>These effective monopolies on in-app payments can lead to users paying more for the same content or services on mobile devices than on personal computers.
Alternate app stores and Android essentially being an "open OS" (with forced Google installation on many devices) outside the store wasn't enough to protect Google from being involved. And the focus of the rationale is focused on the app purchase and their control over suspected price hikes.
This won't really benefit anyone but the largest studios, even if they open it up to game consoles. But it could be a first step. But a step with a lot less support.