Everything listed may or may not be true. But I think it elides over the biggest reason it failed: failure is easier than success. Microsoft didn't make those mistakes (it made different mistakes, to be sure) and spent a shitton of money and didn't have the sort of success Ubuntu Phone would have needed to be sustainable. So it's really hard for me to believe that these reasons are the biggest things standing between Ubuntu Phone and success. I think it's far more likely that the market doesn't need a third phone OS in and of itself, and none of these competitors offered a "killer app" that you couldn't have on iOS or Android that consumers actually wanted.
Another factor the article only partially addresses are "moat apps", which are really platform services. Mapping is perhaps the leader among these, and arguably the killer app during the advent of mobile. Did Ubuntu Phone have any mapping solution at all?
Even if it did, the article cites "Mobile data was unreliable, [...] The location service was very unreliable." bodes extremely poorly for the device being usable for mapping services at all.
