Simple explanations for complex issues (e.g. getting many vendors and layers of the vertical cooperating) are seldom of much use. Bringing up Microsoft -- they tried the whole fixed hardware thing with Windows Mobile cum Phone and failed catastrophically, always two steps behind -- is not convincing.
Android solved a very different problem than iOS. It has compromises and benefits (that iOS has enjoyed by proxy) in doing so. The OS that we know today is the combined knowledge of many OEM customizations. The hardware of a vicious battle between many vendors. The screens and designs the result of an endless tug of war. And again, Apple has enjoyed the fruits of these.
But saying "If only they..." is seldom from a place of reason.
Apparently no one at Google ever read PC hardware specifications from Microsoft like "PC 97 Hardware Design Guide" or "Hardware Design Guide for Microsoft Windows 95", among a few other hardware guides from them.
Of course the Windows Phone attempted at it failed, because by the time Microsoft tried to apply the same rules as they did on the PC hardware, OEMs already had the Android wild west to play with.
I don't think you can judge Microsoft's approach on update management based on the failure of the platform. The platform failed because there's a monopolist in the space with an 85% market share and huge network effects regarding app development.
Microsoft hit update handling for Windows Mobile spot on. A 2014 Windows Phone today[1] is a safer bet if you value security than any Android on the market right now. May not run the apps you want, but it is going to have the latest security updates.
[1]My Lumia 929 currently is running Windows 14393.1593, released August 8th, 2017. I can safely expect to receive the next update on September 12th.
The platform failed because there's a monopolist in the space with an 85% market share and huge network effects regarding app development.
When Windows Phone 7 was released (this is ignoring that Windows CE was around for about a decade before, giving Microsoft a massive headstart), Android had about 18% of the market. Microsoft leveraged their enormous base of desktop developers, pulling them through various failed initiatives, to get them developing for Windows Phone. Android started effectively from nothing.
In the context of actual history your post is simply surreal.
In the context of the discussion, your post doesn't make any sense. We're talking about how Windows Mobile fixed updates... which happened multiple years after Windows Phone 7. Windows 10 Mobile is the first version that doesn't handle updates through OEMs the way Google does it. (Even the stricter hardware requirements didn't really set in until Windows Phone 8.)
Android solved a very different problem than iOS. It has compromises and benefits (that iOS has enjoyed by proxy) in doing so. The OS that we know today is the combined knowledge of many OEM customizations. The hardware of a vicious battle between many vendors. The screens and designs the result of an endless tug of war. And again, Apple has enjoyed the fruits of these.
But saying "If only they..." is seldom from a place of reason.