He's basically asking if there's any reasonable theory fitting the fact that Google withheld Widevine and the hypothesis that Google is a good guy.

The jump to the null hypothesis that you've stated is made too soon without doing this first.

Maybe I've translated it wrong but to me it read like it was based on the assumption that Google is being perceived or actively trying to be the good guy.

I don't think this is how they do anything anymore. They are not "the good ones" and they will probably do anything that fits into their business model or ideas without any hesitations.