Would we have Android today were it not for GPLv2 and Linux licensed under it?
But indeed, GPL does limit the ways you can distribute software licensed under it. In particular, licensing something like a library, or another early-bound component under GPL forces the users to license their work under GPL, too. This is why LGPL exists.
Absolutely! Not saying that Apple model is right or wrong, but they certainly chose BSD consciously (whether or not it was because of the encumbrance of GPL, or any technical reasons).
It's simply wrong to say that nobody pays attention to this. It's a choice you make, and whether you view the consequences as "repercussions" or "features" depends entirely on your view and the actual outcomes of those choices.
Fwiw I understand that Darwin is also available as BSD, so it seems you can get some good actors that are willing to pay it forward without necessarily needing to add a license that goads them into it.
Apple/NeXT had serious experience with the GPL license when shipping their GCC-based Objective-C compiler.
Their subsequent choice to use BSD-licensed components, and to support/create BSD-licensed components where only GPLed components existed, must be seen in the light of this experience.
But indeed, GPL does limit the ways you can distribute software licensed under it. In particular, licensing something like a library, or another early-bound component under GPL forces the users to license their work under GPL, too. This is why LGPL exists.