I really don't see how this is the case; do you consider Microsoft's Project Islandwood[1] to be a move to undermine iOS? Both seem like an attempt to offer developers more choice and a reason to work on the platform. If this is to undermine anything, I think it would be the various 'hybrid'-webapp solutions as writing a Swift app seems like a better way to "write once, run anywhere" than a JavaScript hybrid solution.

> And it's not like Google have commit rights or control over Swift. It's sad how they haven't really learned from the Oracle case.

I don't see how not having commit rights is an issue. The licensing terms of Java are/were very different from Swift. Getting behind an Apache-licensed open-source language does not necessarily mean Google is not free to control their own version of the language (why would they?). I don't see the copyrightable API issue coming up with Apple and Swift because of how the open source Foundation has been encouraged (and I really think Apple wouldn't mind / will encourage open-source ports of other Frameworks).

[1]: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/bridges/ios

...cant we have Go instead Google?

What's your theory behind that?

The only one I can think of is that if they make it easy to write an app for both, and Apple does not accept the app or an update, you haven't suffered a complete loss.