>>The funny thing is that Linux was probably the originator of this movement; fighting against MS monopoly gave Google another quasi-monopoly.

Going way back, the mainframe tradition was to include OS and most software for free with the hardware, a tradition that persisted into the TRS-80, Commodore 64, Amstrad and Amiga days when you got the OS and language on ROM. On the PC, IBM Basic and PC-DOS was supplied with early models while CP/M tried to charge a fee earning few takers. IMHO it was Windows that accustomed businesses and users to buy an OS for a much better user experience. Those were exciting days when the GUI really was hot (remember the first FPW?) and even simple things like Trutype fonts were a good reason by themselves to pay extra for a new Windows version. When the Amiga failed to provide scaling smooth-edge fonts, it sacrificed the Fat Agnes chip and most of its other advantages, to the PC. Absolutely MS was delivering good reasons to buy their stuff with fans even queuing overnight to claim an early copy of Windows 95. Now? Not so much, though they still own the desktop.

>>BTW, as the smartphone market being now almost saturated (from what I see in public transportation), unless this Chinese OS pays his clients, I doubt it can gain a place, except maybe in countries with a lower rate of equipment. That'll cost huge spending on marketing and advertisement, they better have a solid business model behind…

Depends how often people update their phones. I see lots of Apple fanbois (including most of my own family) while many who buy Android do it for the gorgeous hardware (S7 Edge) or rock bottom price. IOW it's not so much an OS choice. Right now you can buy very nice phones in China for a fraction of the cost of something similar in the West.