I get the impression that you didn't read the actual article. There are three complaints all basically about the contractual conditions Google imposes, two about imposing Google search and the most interesting one about Google forcing manufacturers to choose between selling only Google's version with Play Store & Google apps or never Google's version. This forced in particular the big ones to commit fully to Google's version and companies like Samsung that might have been interested in providing a phone with Cyanogen, Lineage, etc etc simply couldn't do it.
It's a plain and simple competition case where Google was exploiting its market position "buy only from us or never from us". Your scenario doesn't make any sense whatsoever. In fact Samsung can produce Tizen phones already and still does as it's not a competing Android.
Why would Google continue to license Android to Samsung when it can no longer make any revenue from Samsung phones? At that point it would only make sense for them to throw all their efforts into Pixel and catch up as best they can.
They would negotiate different licensing terms that require the licensee to risk their own capital on a bet that the consumer wants android devices with all of the associated Google services. That would be different from their current position of essentially paying for Google services with an in-kind payment of non-competition.
If there are lots of people to buy from, that's a fair offer. If there's only one person to buy from (Google, in this case), that's not a fair offer, it's abusing your monopoly.
It's a plain and simple competition case where Google was exploiting its market position "buy only from us or never from us". Your scenario doesn't make any sense whatsoever. In fact Samsung can produce Tizen phones already and still does as it's not a competing Android.