Re: @Taylor 1
Yes, all very true, though it perhaps does not match my Top x List. However, the "new boss," same as the "old boss," has many of the same issues:
1) Lacks many security mechanisms, especially and most egregiously a meaningful way for users to grant permissions to applications based on informed consent rather than the all or nothing approach that is currently the norm.
2) Hold security as an afterthought - in as much as the app store is a part of the Android experience, even if not part of the OS, it is unusual for there to be any thought of security at all, after or fore.
3) Open source is no guarantee of security or flawless code, nor that it can be repaired if there are errors or vulnerabilities. It is a valid approach, but it is not the only valid approach. As far as overwhelming influence and monopolies are concerned, try breaking the internet by googling Google. For more Android flaws, try googling "android security issues"
Here's a question that is more to the point: When MS puts out a security patch, individual users and organizations have control of when it is applied. They can test it out before deploying it on a wide scale, wait to see how other people fare, or jump right in and trust MS with an automatic patching regimen. What choice to Android users have?