It does. You keep trying to twist what i'm saying into some kind of complementary statement. It isn't. All evidence I have and know about tells me Google did not invest in Android to protect its ability to gather user information. Full stop.
It sounds like you don't believe this. That's fine. It does not change what I am saying :)
2. I'm not sure what part of "Android was meant to solve the shitty user experience on mobile" part you missed. Does it not occur to you that one of the main strategic goals was instead to prevent a shitty mobile experience from eating away at ad revenue from mobile apps? What does this have to do with tracking user behavior.
I have also already explained, multiple times now, the goal behind android. You have repeatedly cut off parts of sentences (for example, where i talk about others eating ad revenue from mobile apps, rather than "ads in general") to try to make a point.
I've also stated multiple times your actual theory is false. It was explicitly a non-goal to care about tracking user-behavior. I don't know how much more clearly I could say it than that.
I'm honestly a bit tired of arguing. As I said, you are welcome to believe whatever theory you like. It does not, however, change either history, or the facts.
I don't believe the idea that this was an entirely altruistic goal.
I don't think what you are saying contradicts the overall idea that the underlying reason for Google to invest in Android was to protect it's access to data about users against other corporations.
I.e. Many people at Google were motivated to create a good platform. But the reason for creating a platform at all was fundamentally to make sure that it was Google's good platform. The fact that Google requires access data about customer behavior for it's business model can't just be washed away by pointing at the motivations of the people tasked with making Android successful - a lower level goal.