To be clear, Google did the right thing here. Xiaomi proposed an evil user-hostile patch, which Google refused to merge.
The Android ecosystem is full of fragmentation, the same one that Google fanboys argue that Android was designed to fix in regards to J2ME.
Another two common example among Android devleper complaints, is OEM support for cameras, and background services being killed in name of battery resources.
Whatever Google decides is of little value for an ecosystem where the majority of consumers aren't getting Pixel phones.
Even if the consumers had privacy and control by default (which is a good thing, don't get me wrong), they still have to choose to take steps to maintain that privacy and control, because user respecting software is necessary but not sufficient for freedom.
I think the android userbase will come around when they realize that plain AOSP and vanilla android are just way better than all the bloated shit these manufacturers are doing with android.
Android userbase, the one that actually matters to app developers, just goes to the shopping mall and gets whatever cheap Android devices are on sale with pre-paid cards.
Again, Pixel phones are more symbolic than anything, outside US very few countries have them on sale on those shopping malls.
I know that there's probably some specific argument that really exists that you're actually referring to, but nobody I know uses Android because of this. Nobody I know was comparing Android to J2ME either. More casual users tend to use it because they dislike iPhone and possibly feel limited by it. More advanced users tend to use it because it's generally more customizable, open source and at least in the past, was much easier to mod and patch.
It is true that unlike Windows devices, every Android phone is a snowflake. That's a real problem. But for many people, they don't really care about that problem, only the derivative consequences, like not being able to upgrade their phone to the latest version, or security issues that result from shoddy OEMs. And frankly, users are right to not care: it is not a given that these derivative problems can't be solved in a different way that is satisfactory.
(And yes, of course, many users today buy Android devices because they're cheap. But they still had to cross a threshold in the market before they could become the mass market success that they are today, and that happened with mostly enthusiasts.)
As for the users, if we go down that path, they don't even care about Linux kernel, AOSP, Project Treble, or whatever.
That happened because of Google, the continuous adoption failure of FOSS phones since OpenMoko proves that enthusiasts aren't enough to sustain a business at scale.
Ultimately, I don’t buy the argument that developers opinions about J2ME vs Android had anything to do with it. The T-Mobile G1 is why Android broke through the market. I believe that is in part due to Google’s backing, which instantly made it newsworthy at least in enthusiast circles.
The closest thing we have now is the Pinephone, but it largely doesn’t work (though I still find it in much better shape than many of its FOSS phone peers, probably bested by Librem 5 but I don’t own one to know for sure.) To be sure, it doesn't look close to breaking through to the mainstream any time soon, but it’s also not really ready. It has no app ecosystem and no carriers shipping it, and core functionality is still mostly barely working.
Answer about OEM changes regarding killing background jobs, at this year's Google IO Android Fireside, paraphrasing, "Android is a rich environment that depends on its OEMs, and the inovations that they bring into the picture, so it is always a balance that we need to strive for".
Video is available in case you want to cross check the exact words.
I do not doubt you, but that is not a fact-based statement. Can we do better?
What are facts, in this day and age, anyway? I guess 'objective reality' doesn't quite have the same ring to it.