I see my stirring got a reaction :-)
OK, so someone coded an application which runs on 1.6 to 3.2 - but you don't say what hoops or compromises you had to make to do so - how tricky was it? If you had to do much work, or make a load of compromises (say, by avoiding the latest APIs) then I call that a fragmented platform.
As for insecure - Android is making the headlines for the amount of malware being retracted, while listed live, on the android market. That's insecure in my book.
To each their own. I genuinely want Android to thrive but I just can't see this going any other way but the usual tech-sphere chaos, with a good dose of manufacturer forking and idiotic competition thrown in for good measure. If you want the devices to only last as long as old feature phones did, then fair enough (see update schedules for several devices, eg motorola's - where some parts of the world get updates and some don't).
I hate to see good hardware left with incomplete software (I know you can root most stuff and Cyanogen it, but that's not the point).
On topic though - Google can arm its cohorts with patents all it wants. It won't be enough to ensure that the devices themselves remain secure, and ensure that they sell, if the built-in weaknesses of the android business ecosystem (google + manufacturers) are not addressed. That was my point.
Wonder if I can get more than 37 thumbs down? I'll keep that one as a totem.