Actually, yes it was. Not that exact prototype device, but Android to this day still works on those phones, because, again, Android is a hardware agnostic OS.
Android never was "A blackberry type phone and then switched to an iPhone type phone", Android never was a phone to begin with. It always was an OS, an OS you could install on different hardware designs and types, as long as drivers were made for the kernel.
I can't believe we still have to debunk this crap, all these years later and that people still believe the whole "Eric Schmidt stole from Apple, Steve said so!" when Steve said nothing of the kind and Eric never sat on meetings where Google and Apple had conflicts of interest, like iOS, iPad/iPhone and iAd meetings were.
You're mixing a lot of things.
1) Let's stipulate that neither Android OS or iOS are "phones", they are operating systems that each have a phone app. Putting "Phone" in the iPhone name was just marketing - it might as well have been called the iPad.
2) After the release of the iPhone/iPod touch and iOS, two things started to happen to Android OS and Android devices.
a) Android devices went from the BlackBerry form factor to the iPhone/iPod touch form factor. Google's club of Android device manufacturer's did this - with Samsung being the biggest. We can call this "Asian manufacturers converge towards the iPhone/iPod touch form factor" and some (Samsung) go as far as making devices that look like clones. Since Google is a software company, they rebrand the asian devices and so their devices tend to have physically converged towards Apple.
b) Android OS began to copy iOS in several respects (Google did this). In fact, while earlier Android versions clearly had more BlackBerry OS influences, post-iOS Android OS versions clearly start converging towards iOS design and UI-wise.
3) Let's stipulate that Google never made Android OS a pure copy like Samsung did on the manufacturing side. More like Google took cues, and yes some things look more like direct copies than others, but Google seems to have taken the "copy the form and function, theme it differently" tact. Some things are much different, but they've absorbed a lot of Apple spearheaded improvements and ideas.
4) When you bring up Java JIT, processors, hardware agnosticism, this is all just misdirection. Nobody is claiming Google copied Obj-C, Xcode compilers, and the concept of making an OS (they bought Android). People are talking about the OS functionality and form on one hand (Google did some copying) and device convergence and outright cloning in some cases (Asian manufacturers, and the prize for outright cloning design goes to Samsung).
So when you want to "debunk" stuff, you should be clarifying things by teasing apart claims and who did what, rather than mixing things up even more.
