Linus Edwards posits an answer to the question:
But what does Android stand for? They don’t seem to have any coherent philosophy or aesthetic. Maybe you could argue that Android stands for “openness.” However, open is by its very nature is fractured and decentralized, which doesn’t help grow a deep and loyal following that revolves around a single ideal. It’s also hard for Android to fully promote openness when so many different companies make Android products, many which are locked down with proprietary software. To me, the only thing Android stands for is a Wild West free-for-all, in which anything you can slap onto silicon goes.
That is the very reason Android has no Gruber-like figure - they have no central philosophy that would allow such a figure to emerge. What would the Android Gruber write about? There are of course Android writers out there, but they mostly cover the latest greatest phone or compare feature sets. They never really put things into context with the overall philosophy of the platform like Gruber does with Apple, because there is no overall philosophy.
Edwards's piece is a good answer to a question I’ve long had myself.