Aside from the differences on paper, the actual implementations can be broken, buggy or inefficient. e.g. Some older desktop drivers might not offer an ES 2.x profile, or it could be hopelessly crap.
There is no GLU / GLUT either for ES 2.x and every platform implements its own equivalent but proprietary set of APIs. So you may discover a lot of work is required to fix that. Then you may discover that one platform or language's bindings are different from another in subtle but annoying ways, e.g. there are several OpenGL ES 2.x bindings for Java and one might return a handle in an int array while another expects you to supply a 1-element sized IntBuffer. Annoyances which add up.
In summary, yes you can port code, and OpenGL is definitely one family of APIs that offers support across a wide selection of devices. But it's not guaranteed to be simple and probably won't be. The best bet is use a good third party library (e.g. libgdx) and let the library hide as much of the work as possible.
I wonder how many people would have had second thoughts about investing if they'd seen the corpulent greaseball they were entrusting their money to.
It serves everyone right for blindly walking into this situation. Digital content could be regarded as property but it isn't. I suspect the argument made by content owners is that anyone make a copy of a file whereas it takes too much effort to copy a physical item and the copy is imperfect.
But that's not really a good argument. We've already seen from the likes of digital libraries, Ultraviolet etc. that DRM protecting content is viable. The problem is that the DRM is focussed on protecting the content owners, not the individual. So when I buy a video and watch through Ultraviolet, the services offers no way for me to sell my content, or loan it, or even back it up.
What is necessary is content neutral DRM that imbues digital content with characteristics similar to physical content. e.g. when I buy an e-book it should be MY book. How could it do that? Well the book could be encrypted against a key held in a token. The token is given to me and I install it onto my registered devices. I can read the book on any of those devices. If I wish to sell the book, then I transfer the token to someone else and my devices lose the ability to read the book. Now within reason it is essentially property - there is only one readable copy of the book at any given time. I can also sell, loan, donate or bequeath the book by using the service to give the token to someone else. The system could facilitate permanent or temporary transfer of tokens. It could even incorporate a form of "wear and tear" by slowing down the time taken to transfer tokens based on how much they were transferred previously, e.g. a book which has been loaned 100 times might much longer to complete transfer of ownership which would incentivize services to buy new copies.
Aside from allowing people to actually own books or other content, it has other benefits. Many countries treat a license as software and slap a tax on it that other forms of content escape. If I wasn't buying a license but the actual book then I would benefit from the lower rates of tax that apply and the store that sells those books does so for less money. I can move my content to other, better devices, or back it up or do anything else I like with it subject to normal copyright laws.
The problem of course is the likes of Apple, Google, Amazon etc. don't want people to own content and they certainly don't want people to be able to move it around. Therefore it needs someone strong like the EU to define what digital property actually is, the formats it should be in, the framework it must implement and then compel or incentivize platforms to support it.
And seriously what the fuck up with the UK and this stupid policy? They could learn a thing or two from the French on this - education should be secular. There should be no religious dress, no segregation by sexes, no exemptions from subjects on religious grounds, no indoctrination into religion and no pandering to the sensibilities of religion in any way shape or form. In the long term this will mean far less religious whackaloons which can only be a good thing.
Other game mechanics are also pretty whiffy - the expository voxophones lying conveniently around are such a lazy gaming trope (other games might use email terminals, voice mails, dictaphones etc.) that they should have been put down years ago.
That isn't to say there are some very obvious things that Android lacks which would help protect people from their own stupidity. Fine grained security permissions that can applied regardless of what the app says it needs upfront. All untrusted apps should have the most stringent set of permissions applied to them. If someone wants to go in and disable the permissions then they can do so, but defaulting to safe would prevent a lot of harm even before it could happen.