From the article "Google fans fail to contemplate why Android is free" by Daniel Eran Dilger with whose skeptical view of "iMarket" matters I often find myself in agreement [a disclaimer: I don't own either Symbian, Android, or an iPhone; thus my interest in mobile phones is purely academic.]

"[...] a major aspect of the cost of Android as your free lunch [is that] Google is an adware vendor. You may decide that this is an acceptable tradeoff, but you can only do that if you actually stop and weigh the costs yourself. It’s completely delusional to blindly buy into Android as the free lunch with no strings.
http://www.pianetacellulare.it/UserFiles/image/Applicazioni/shellapps_netbiscuits.jpg

[...] Android’s Kiss of Death

[...] successful new products are often roundly criticized even as they excel. Take the iPhone: critics went full hog in exaggerating every flaw and limitation while Apple plugged away at addressing the issues. Conversely, its very unique features and capabilities were often discounted. This baptism by fire that resulted in the platform becoming unassailably powerful. Android is getting the opposite treatment: nothing but flattery and excuses. This is not exactly resulting in a strong platform. [...]"
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/26/google-fans-fail-to-contemplate-why-android-is-free/

I'm not very familiar with Android, but it's certainly not adware. The open source project doesn't include applications for Google's services and hardware manufacturers can modify the source code if they find something inappropriate. Android's APIs make it easy to integrate applications with YouTube, Google Maps etc., but that doesn't mean other mobile platforms don't integrate with Google's services. Many iPhone apps are ad-supported and the ads aren't provided by Google.

Android is not perfect, but it's a great alternative to the outdated Windows Mobile. Google will benefit from its success indirectly: more people will use the Internet on their mobile phones and it's likely that some of them will also use Google's services. Just like in Google Chrome's case.

You are debating a straw man, Ionut... D. E. Dilger merely said "Google is an adware vendor" – which, no matter how one feels about it, is merely Stating The Obvious.

From the article:

"And yet, when this Symbian executive pointed out that Google’s Android is not just another adware experiment..."

Is Firefox adware for making money off of adsense?