I don’t think Google added much closed source to Android until after Amazon—probably Google’s 2nd biggest competitor—forked Android for their own tablets. In that case, it kinda’ worked and the threat diminished, but never-the-less I think I agree with you—it wouldn’t work this time—and I don’t think Google will do it.
It does suggest though that they would have been better off making Chrome closed source from the beginning (WebKit is BSD), and while I hate to say such a thing, I think the whole market would be better off. Then, instead of all these copies of Chrome being the primary alternatives to Chrome, Firefox would be doing much better. Mozilla would then be in a dramatically better financial position and could continue to make great contributions to open source in spite of Apple blocking them on iOS. Maybe their increased user base and significance would even force Apple to relent!
If you look at the ‘ETA’ paragraph at the end I would say she is effectively retracting that post.
Also, that Amazon link is long and confusing so readers won’t know if it may be an affiliate link. Better to use a bare version such as
https://www.amazon.com/Life-Extension-Enhanced-Lozenges-Count/dp/B01BKURF1A/
or even just
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BKURF1A/
Note that I’m not saying the link was an affiliate link (I don’t know) and I’m certainly not suggesting that anyone here intentionally used one—often they get picked up and reused without the author even realizing it. I’m also not suggesting that they are always wrong: they have a place when disclosed—but they are becoming so common that readers and writers should be wary of them.