Calling build-in ads adware is wordplay. It's a feature of the system - and many of us here would probably agree that to some extent it is an unethical feature, but that's a separate issue. And you could even probably argue that it's wordplay in the correct direction (i.e. that malware should include the built-in platform-integrated ads), but that's also besides the point, because the article in question clearly operates under a different meaning of 'malware' in its context.

Anyway, that said, it's besides the point. There's still malware, even besides the forced ads, that can happen, just as on any system. What I found most annoying is that Android (and its userbase) continues to act as if the app-permissions system is somehow a layer of security. Sure, in a way it is, in a way that having the option between not mountain climbing and mountain climbing in extreme conditions with no extra gear can be considered a layer of safety. Like half the apps that have ever seemed remotely useful on Android request like half of the permissions available in my experience. At least Blackberry, to their credit, had the good sense for a long time now to make every app permission for every app independently toggled on/off by the user. As is, on Android, it's an all or nothing approach to permissions, which means most people are going to accept everything and anything because that's what you have to acquiesce to get anything...

I bring this up largely because it's quite likely that the 'statistics' or whatever quoted by the cited Google person is, to be frank, quite possibly dismissing all cases of software that misuses the permissions it is granted as not being malware, the same way it doesn't occur to them to define the force ads as malware. So for all we know, hundreds of apps that yank your contact info and send it off to a home server somewhere, for example, don't count as malware because they mention they need the access-contacts and network permissions. *Shrug*