Yeah, Android One is a bit of a joke really. I got a Nokia 7 Plus on the promise that it would have fast updates, be bug free, and not contain any OEM modifications. None of those have really been true. Admittedly, updates are still a bit faster than the likes of Samsung and other big OEMs, but the process has shown that it's not as simple as Google rolling out the updates.
OEMs still make changes to it, and it still seems dependent on carriers pushing through the changes - despite buying a SIM free phone, I waited 2 months longer for updates, which seemed to be the case with everyone on the same network in the UK.
It's far from bug free, with a few updates in the last few months introducing new bugs. Again, it shows that this isn't an update coming directly from Google, it is at least in some part developed and tweaked by OEMs. In this particular case, the process showed that HMD/Nokia is severely lacking in development and QA expertise, as there have been ongoing issues for months with no fix.
They also introduced their own battery optimisation software a few months ago, which massively changed how the phone handled multitasking and background applications (effectively, it killed them all). And then this news that they're sending unencrypted identifiable information to a third party? These things shouldn't be possible if Android One did what it claimed.
I avoid OEMs like Samsung because of all the bloat and junk that they add on top of Android, but Android One is clearly not a solution to that. I would still prefer it in theory in the alternatives, but I'll do more research next time - if a company doesn't have a proven track record, then Android One isn't going to solve that.
One minor point - Nokia the company isn't involved in the Nokia Android phones. HMD is just a small company that licenses the brand. Admittedly, a small company that was founded by ex-Nokia folk and based across the road from Nokia's HQ, but it's evidently not a company with Nokia's resources or much of their expertise.