No! It's not about "compared to the alternatives", it should be, "compared to what it could be, without hideous restrictions to the end user". And in this regard, I think it probably does count as abysmal.
It was intended, and certainly branded to device manufacturers as an OS they can use and 'get all the apps'.
The hard/firmware side is part of the OS. By allowing Android to be run on any device w/o decent security, the OS inherits that.
A better solution (to my mind) would have been to restrict manufacturers from using the Android brand unless they guarenteed a certain level of support and security updates, etc.
Also, having a central (google level) set of base packages which get constant updates and are pulled into all phones, regardless of brand.
But it's too late now.