That's not the problem whatsoever. Android is ultimately a FOSS project, so Google can't force anyone to do anything.
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.
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.
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.