The updating problem is a design flaw they knew they would have to deal with and that they did nothing about until version 4, when they started trying to separate core functionality out into apps. That's not acceptable.
Code signing can be implemented while still allowing for casual development. See my comment above about the hardware switch on ChromeOS devices.
My third point is regarding how the architecture of the platform complicates the ability to analyze apps that run on it for malicious behavior. The NDK, the access to the Linux kernel, and a strategy based around dynamic analysis were all design choices that impacted that.
I understand that Android wants to be more open than iOS but you're making the same mistakes the Android team did. Namely that there's no way to deploy the same or similar security improvements without sacrificing something else. It's just not true.
Code signing can be implemented while still allowing for casual development. See my comment above about the hardware switch on ChromeOS devices.
My third point is regarding how the architecture of the platform complicates the ability to analyze apps that run on it for malicious behavior. The NDK, the access to the Linux kernel, and a strategy based around dynamic analysis were all design choices that impacted that.
I understand that Android wants to be more open than iOS but you're making the same mistakes the Android team did. Namely that there's no way to deploy the same or similar security improvements without sacrificing something else. It's just not true.