They already did years ago. The PlayStore license prohibits manufacturers from providing Android based systems that do not come with Googles "services" preinstalled. Unsurprisingly this has been found illegal in many countries.
From what I can find, that's not accurate. The issue was that Google required manufacturers to include various Google friendly default choices in exchange for getting access to Play Services and other Google apps.
It was not about banning AOSP-based Google-less systems (like Amazon Fire, which hugely disproves your claim).
The EU antitrust findings definitely included Google banning device makers from manufacturing devices running a fork of Android.
>In particular, the EC has decided that Google:
has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google’s app store (the Play Store);
made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and
has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called “Android forks”).
> like Amazon Fire, which hugely disproves your claim
The FireOS wiki page calls out how members of the Open Handset alliance (which includes almost all relevant manufacturers) are explicitly prohibited from using Android forks like it[1]. It exists in spite of Googles efforts to insert anti competitive language into any bit of legalese it gets its hands on. All its existence proofs is that Google sucks at being a knock of 90s Microsoft.
They already did years ago. The PlayStore license prohibits manufacturers from providing Android based systems that do not come with Googles "services" preinstalled. Unsurprisingly this has been found illegal in many countries.