It’s a factor, but the bulk of those devices can be generalized into a handful of categories. Google could also throw around its weight a bit more to get manufacturers to form a consensus on things like how various components are addressed so it doesn’t need to spin its wheels as much on papering over those differences.
Better support for variable form factors wouldn’t force anyone to do anything. It would incentivise them to use that support.
Danox is just saying (IMHO) that Google can’t be bothered because they don’t need Android to be good, they just need it to be good enough to continue existing.
It might, but if you look at other AOSP features in that vein (split-screen multitasking, popout volume sliders, standard dialer app) they're all largely ignored by downstream OEM Android ROMs. I wish that wasn't the case, but it's also clear why this happens.
Google has led many horses to this spring, only to watch Samsung ship some godawful monstrosity and refuse to drink. It's part of Android's identity, not Google's.
"Throw unlimited resources at a development target" has been an established F/OSS embrace/extend tactic for at least 20 years.
Red Hat, systemd, Chrome, Webkit, Android, and a few others come to mind. Others might include Kubernetes, OpenJDK, Clang, React, Docker, Git/Github.
Forks are possible but sustained forks are expensive, and <https://xkcd.com/927/> is always relevant.
It's helpful to note that the guy who literally wrote the textbook on lock-in went on to have a career as Google's chief economist: Hal Varian, Information Rules.
Google lacks the authority to unify folding phone software any better than they can unify homescreen launchers or dialer applications. It's a lost cause. They can spend billions on building the best one ever, and then Motorola or LG will ship a worse proprietary version and never update it. This pattern does not arise from a lack of charity on Google's part.
