The focus on a given kernel is really irrelevant these days since the product that the user interacts with is a specific distribution not the OS kernel. One doesn't interact directly with NT kernel, they interact with the Windows distribution which happens to include the NT kernel. They don't interact with the Linux kernel, they interact with Ubuntu which happens to include the Linux kernel. No one cares that the car GPS happens to have a Linux kernel behind it; they interact with the Garmin user interface. The kernel is really minimally relevant in most discussions.

The one thing Jack did specify was "full blown" which Android is not. At best, Android is a specialty distribution. In reality, it's a minmum software stack to provide a java runtime environment with access to the hardware. Without getting all hacky, users interact with the Android apps; java applets contained inside Dalvik.

The comparison of Android to a full general purpose distribution is like saying an Iphone is equal to a macbook pro because they both happen to use the osX kernel. They are very different. Iphone gives you a very superficial runtime environment and basic UI where osX on a macbook gives you a full general purpose OS (with root access and environment behind the pretty GUI endorsed by the vendor).

Servers are not relevant to the discussion. They are not a consumer device outside of those few nerds who have the budget to run a rack at home (and electricity includsive in the rental). Even with a significantly higher market share on servers. Consumers are not becoming more aware of OS choices for consumer systems. Game developers are not suddenly producing Linux OS native WOW, Dragon's Age or Madden versions. Adobe isn't releasing "CS5 for Linux" (I was on the site today; it wasn't listed). consumer and component hardware manufacturers are not suddenly releasing drivers for Linux based systems outside of server specific hardware. It's like saying that the increased horsepower in farm tractors is going to revolutionize consumer cars.