Slashdot Log In
Why the Kill Switch Makes Sense For Android
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Oct 18, 2008 08:56 PM
from the open-in-its-bones dept.
from the open-in-its-bones dept.
Technologizer writes "It came out this week that Google's Android phone OS, like the iPhone, has a kill switch that lets Android Market applications be disabled remotely. But it's a mistake to lump Google's implementation and Apple's together — the Google version is a smart, pro-consumer move that avoids all the things that make Apple's version a bad idea."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Apple Can Remotely Disable iPhone Apps 550 comments
mikesd81 writes "Engadget reports Apple has readied a blacklisting system which allows the company to remotely disable applications on your device. It seems the new 2.x firmware contains a URL which points to a page containing a list of 'unauthorized' apps — a move which suggests that the device makes occasional contact with Apple's servers to see if anything is amiss on your phone. Jonathan Zdziarski, the man who discovered this, explains, 'This suggests that the iPhone calls home once in a while to find out what applications it should turn off. At the moment, no apps have been blacklisted, but by all appearances, this has been added to disable applications that the user has already downloaded and paid for, if Apple so chooses to shut them down. I discovered this doing a forensic examination of an iPhone 3G. It appears to be tucked away in a configuration file deep inside CoreLocation.'" Update: 08/11 13:07 GMT by T : Reader gadgetopia writes with a small story at IT Wire, citing an interview in the Wall Street Journal, in which this remote kill-switch is "confirmed by Steve Jobs himself."
[+]
Android Also Comes With a Kill-Switch 300 comments
Aviran writes "The search giant is retaining the right to delete applications from Android handsets on a whim.
Unlike Apple, the company has made no attempt to hide its intentions, and includes the details in the Android Market terms and conditions, as spotted by Computer World: 'Google may discover a product that violates the developer distribution agreement... in such an instance, Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your device at its sole discretion.'"
Submission: Why the kill switch makes sense for Android by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Precautionary measures (Score:4, Interesting)
For the new era of Malware that will soon find their way onto these phones.
oblig (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know, that was Lieutenant Data's major Achilles Heel.
One word lesson... (Score:4, Funny)
ED-209
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Even worse, what if the Android phones grew stick-figure arms and legs? We'd be pointing at them, mockingly saying: "Look at those stick figure android phones, with their funny-looking heads, trying to overthrow their mas--eeeeeiiiiyeeeeaaaaw"
Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does one have to be good and the other bad?
Perhaps the kill switches are there for the same reason.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does one have to be good and the other bad?
Well, the kill switches could be the same. However, the Mob has already concluded that Apple's is bad. Now the Mob is trying to work out whether it can conclude that Google's is good without committing hypocrisy.
It's hard out there for a Mob.
Parent
Re: Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: Why? (Score:5, Informative)
And, Android's kill switch is only for the programs that come through Google's own app store.
[Citation Needed]
FTFA: Furthermore, keep in mind that this kill switch will only affect apps distributed through the Market [awurl.com], not those installed from the Web.
Which cites : http://www.appscout.com/2008/10/android_contactssync_syncs_con.php [appscout.com]
(As far as I can tell, Google's power to revoke apps off your phone [appscout.com] only applies to stuff in the App Market. The much-vaunted "kill switch" comes from the Android Market terms of service, so if the developer is outside the Android Market, it probably doesn't apply.)
Which links to nothing relevant and provides no support for his statement.
Until we hear from Google, this is all just conjecture from blogs.
And based on TFA's tone, this post [slashdot.org] comes to mind
Parent
Re: Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wouldn't any good malware disable the kill switch? It shouldn't be that hard. It's open source, after all.
I agree with many of the others who say that a kill switch is a kill switch is a kill switch.
My nuclear bomb is good and wholesome and protects the fine people of my nation.
Your nuclear bomb is an irresponsible menace to the world and will be held as a threat over the freedom of billions!
Ah weekends.
Parent
Re: Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Does not void warranty (Score:5, Insightful)
Jailbreaking is voids the warranty.
No it doesn't, you simply restore the phone before bringing it in for service.
Voiding the warranty, and then lying and covering your tracks to claim you didn't, qualifies as fraud. Or were you unaware?
Parent
Re:Does not void warranty (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, amusing to see this position on /. -- and to see it upmodded! Installing software on a device you actually own and then restoring it before calling support is fraud?
Second, Apple's own geniuses tell customers who bring in jailbroken iPhones to restore them before bringing them in. It's not fraud, it's simply a troubleshooting step, along the lines of reinstalling Windows if something doesn't work.
Parent
Fearmonger (Score:4, Insightful)
Jailbreaking DOES void the warranty
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
Apple will not service a Jailbroken phone - but that doesn't mean they will not service a phone that has been restored to the original OS, an operation that takes about five minutes. Once restored Apple cannot tell if it was ever Jailbroken or not.
and if somehow the install ends up messed up, you are screwed with an unbootable iBrick that has no warranty.
And making people afraid of a harmless process that CANNOT BRICK an iPhone even if it fails is despicable.
You seem to confuse unlocking with Jailbreaking (though actually even unlocking now is safe so really you don't even have that excuse). But we are talking about applications here, so only Jailbreaking applies.
Please run along and spread your FUD elsewhere to people who do not know any better - you might try Digg. This is Slashdot where people generally know better.
Parent
Re:Fearmonger (Score:4, Informative)
Dunno about you, but when I require service from a manufacturer my gadgets usually are beyond any state that would allow to repair them myself. It's highly likely that it's impossible to un-jailbreak an iPhone in this state, thus, no warranty for me. :(
Can you easily unjailbreak an iPhone with e.g. a broken touch screen? Without any touch functionality? Or without display?
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does one have to be good and the other bad?
The argument the article makes is that both kill switches only affect items installed via the respective online application stores (Google's Android Market & Apple's App store).
The big difference however is that on an iPhone, you can only* install applications via the appstore, whereas you will be able to install Android apps from a multitude of sources, including the market.
I don't believe the kill switch 'makes sense' for either platform, but Google's implementation can't be the big stick that Apple's implementation could be.
* Yes, I'm aware of jail-breaking, but that's not a realistic option for most consumers.
Parent
It's a trade off. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully this is used well to cull dodgy troublesome and harmful applications from the ecosystem because the trade off is a potential for abuse of power, but google isn't evil... right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah. So you think Microsoft should include it in Windows update?
So what exactly do you think this [microsoft.com] is?
My android is too smart (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait, you're talking about a phone, never mind.
Re:My android is too smart (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Oh come _on_ (Score:5, Insightful)
I get that Google's the new geek darling, I really do -- but this is ridiculous.
A kill switch is a kill switch. Period. If you can remotely disable an app on the user's phone, it's a kill switch. Now you may trust one company more than another, but trying to spin it like it's something else is just silly.
(For the record, I don't trust either company's killswitch. I don't own an Android phone, and I've disabled the killswitch on the one device I use that runs iPhone OS 2.1.)
Re: Oh come _on_ (Score:5, Insightful)
It may sound remote, but you may want to try RTFA:ing. I know it's not going to happen, though, so I'll summarize why it's OK for Google. :)
The thing is that Android allows for installing programs from -- hear and be astonished! -- other sources than Google itself, unlike Apple. Without any extra or undue inconvenience.
And, Android's kill switch is only for the programs that come through Google's own app store. So, you can probably pretty much bet that it's only going to be used to regulate malware, or Google's app store won't last long. Or if Google does misuse it, you'll just have to download the program in question directly from its developer.
Parent
Mod parent up! (Score:5, Informative)
And, Android's kill switch is only for the programs that come through Google's own app store. So, you can probably pretty much bet that it's only going to be used to regulate malware, or Google's app store won't last long.
Mod parent up! All the overreaction to this "news" is because people are ignoring (or ignorant of) the fact the "kill switch" is in the terms of service for the Android Market. The consumer isn't agreeing to let Google delete any app, just any app from the Android Market. If Google abuses this, people will just go to a different web store such as Handango for their android apps.
Parent
Re:Oh come _on_ (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to play Devil's Advocate, Google did say that killed apps will be refunded. Apple has made no such promise. Score 1 for Google.
Apple has shown a history of anticompetitive practices and an unwillingness to allow certain apps on the iPhone in the first place. Google has not. This lends credibility to the idea that Google will only be using this on bad applications, whereas we have no reason to believe this of Apple. Google allows users to install their own apps, which means that if someone really wants to run that killed application, they should be able to by loading it themselves instead of using the Android Market. Apple doesn't give this option at all.
Google's implementation of the kill switch is a clear safety measure. For most users, and for the safety of the network, it's a good thing. For power users, it shouldn't matter, as it can be bypassed. I think that there's a real argument that Google's kill switch is less evil than Apple's, and it may even border on good.
Parent
Say what (Score:5, Insightful)
A kill switch in any type of consumer device owned by the consumer is bad, no matter what platitudes are used to justify it.
If people trust Google more than Apple that's fine, just don't insult my intelligence by claiming it's OK for either of them to much around with a device I paid good money for and therefore is my property, including whatever happens to be installed on it.
It doesn't matter what the so-called reason is, period.
Kill switches are for ICBMs and evil terminator robots, not cell phones.
from what I can see, Apple's is better (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple has not killed any apps remotely, even the one that violated AT&T's terms of service. They just stopped more people from buying them.
Android explicitly reserves the right to delete apps you already bought.
So I can't see how Google's is more pro-consumer.
I do agree Apple's random barring of apps from the store is annoying and counterproductive.
Re:from what I can see, Apple's is better (Score:5, Insightful)
So I can't see how Google's is more pro-consumer.
You have to see the forest for the trees; the forest is what Apple can do to your use of your iPhone compared to what Google can do to your use of your Android.
For any application A, Apple can prevent you from running A by not letting it be sold on iAppz. If you buy app A from gAppz, Google can delete it, but they can't prevent you from running it altogether since you can download it from my-gAppz.author-of-A.org.
If you bring the companies' past behavior into the picture, you're trying to use it to predict what will actually happen. That sounds like buying music from Wal-Mart based on the promise that "we would never shut down the DRM servers", versus buying mp3s from amazon: one of the companies can decrease the value of your product, the other can not do so.
It stands to reason that those who can't decrease the value of your product [that would be Google] are more pro-consumer.
-- Jonas K
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For any application A, Apple can prevent you from running A by not letting it be sold on iAppz. If you buy app A from gAppz, Google can delete it, but they can't prevent you from running it altogether since you can download it from my-gAppz.author-of-A.org.
Ok, lets say I pay $3 for a NES emulator for Android, Nintendo contacts Google and tells them they need to remotely disable it, so they do. The company that produced the emulator ends up bankrupt and so Google can't collect any money to give back to you. You just lost $3. In the Apple way (so far), you pay $3 for the NES emulator, Apple stops it from being on the app-store, but you still have on your iPhone.
Google v Apple (Score:5, Funny)
Ooo! Ooo! Fanboy fight! Everybody come watch.
In this corner, we have the challengers -- thousands of lukewarm Google fanboys. And, in that corner, we have the 32-time heavyweight champions of the world -- almost a dozen pry-my-Mac-from-my-cold-dead-fingers Apple fanboys.
I rate this match a toss-up, what about you, Steve and Larry?
My bet is on... (Score:3, Funny)
Do I offend the ones who can draw pretty pictures or the ones who can root my computer and steal my credit information...
That being said, the iPhone app store definitely sucks more, and so does the iPhone!
http://www.eatliver.com/img/2008/3509.jpg [eatliver.com]
There IS a difference (Score:5, Insightful)
An Android user has the Android Market, while an iPhone user has the App Store. But if an owner of an Android phone decides not to use the Market, this user need only visit another site with Android applications to install any mobile app outside of Google's purview. To put it bluntly, Android has a multitude of possible channels for the distribution of apps. The iPhone does not. This functionality is built right into Android and isn't the weekend project of some particularly clever hacker. Furthermore, keep in mind that this kill switch will only affect apps distributed through the Market, not those installed from the Web.
The kill switch on Android only affects the apps downloaded from Google's Android Market. The Android user can still download and use apps from other web sites without worrying about the kill switch. OTOH, the iPhone can only use apps from Apple's app store but not from any other source. So there IS a difference. Of course, there's the possibility that Android doesn't really have the facility to connect to third party app stores and TFA is just spreading lies.
Simply stated, no (Score:3, Interesting)
I see Google doing the same thing that MS did way back when, which clearly created some advantages, but did not create the milk and honey world so many predicted. MS did provide a cheap OS for the emerging cheap PC. It was still as single source as IBM or Apple, but it was cheaper. In those days, the PC market had not become 100% based on commodity parts, so the computers were still pretty single sourced as well. Over time, MS pushed it advantage to attack customers(threatening copyright violation on customers that did not pay for all MS services for every machine), limit innovation of the PC by forcing OEM to only include MS products, and risking world commerce by purposefully borking common communications between OSes. We can see that while google will play nice while it is still cementing it dominant status, assuming that it will continue to play by those rules are naive.
To end lets look at two common passages in the license the use provides Apple for Mobile me and Google for Docs. While the user grants both license to do what is necessary with the data to organize and transmit the data across all appropriate network, Apple explicitly states this is, at least theoretically, a limited situation. Both allow content to be uploaded, sometimes sensitive content
Said license will terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you or Apple remove such Content from the public area.
Google contains no such limitations. Google does however contain this section
You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services..
I am sure some people will spin this, just like the kill switch, into a situation where Google is only doing this to help the consumer, and would never expose sensitive data for financial gain. Such a spin would of course be ludicrous.
A google phone is just another smart phone. It is a good choice for people who want to use Google to store personal data, or people who think having the most apps makes them a winner in life. The iPhone is a good phone for those who .mac for the storage of personal data, or iTunes for music, or has apple kit. The Blackberry has obviously developed a good set of solutions for enterprise. I am not sure what MS phones are good for. But all these phones exist to generate a profit for the company by locking the customers into certain other services. All these phones run on networks controlled by private companies that are very protective of their networks and can exert some control over what kit is used. I do not see how the G1 has changed the features or services of T-Mobile. I do not yet see the App for the G1 that will unlock it, or set it up as independent WiFi device that does not need a cell contract, as it will just up VOIP. Maybe that will come, and when it does then Google has done something other that generate a profit for itself.
slashvertisment (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm... sock puppetry much? Unbiased summary? Not a chance.
Grrrr (Score:3, Funny)
"It came out this week that Google's Android phone OS, like the iPhone, has a kill switch that lets Android Market applications be disabled remotely.
This is an outrage! I was taught in school that the Three Laws would protect us!!!
Benevolent Dictatorship? (Score:5, Funny)
We are
( ) Microsoft
( ) Apple
(X) Google
and we know what's best for you.
Like i said before (Score:3, Informative)
Android (Market)'s Kill Switch is completely different from iPhone's Kill Switch.
anyone who actually bothered to read the info and public statements by Google can see that this kill feature is meant to enforce Android Market's distribution agreements, therefore it doesn't affect apps installed from other sites. secondly, all of the info points to this feature being used to protect consumers, not to exploit them. if somehow a malware app gets distributed by Android Market, Google is making it their duty to remove any potentially damaging applications from all android devices that have purchased the application from Google's website. not only that, but they want to refund any money android users have paid for said malware.
despite the huge lead that the iPhone has right now, i think Google's open, pro-consumer, pro-homebrew policies are major selling points over the locked down iPhone, which is further tarnished by Apple's increasingly anti-consumer attitude. the fact that Google seems to support 3rd-party/homebrew development for the Android platform just makes Android that much more enticing to developers of all stripes. no need to worry about an app being rejected by Android Market because it competes with an existing app, and no need to distribute your app through google in the first place.
these are really two diametrically opposed business philosophies. no NDAs, no need for users to jailbreak the phone, and a much more developer/consumer-friendly attitude in general. one Kill Switch is used by Apple to shut down potential competitors; the other is used by Google to be responsible by removing any malware they may have inadvertently sold to customers (and refund those charges). one platform is completely locked down under Apple's iron grip, while Android is completely open and allows application installs from 3rd party websites free of conditions.
irrational fanboyism aside, i'd have to say that Android wins hands down.
Who says ONLY Appstore apps can be killed? (Score:3, Informative)
I read the article, and the trail of html links going to ONE other author who "thought that it only applies to Google Appstore aps, not other channels." There's no certainty there, not even a concurring opinion from a lawyer or statement affirming from Google.
If you really believe that the carriers via Google don't have the final say about what apps get on the phone appstore or not, you're really stupid. The carriers will ALWAYS demand that power from the handset makers, and they have the final say about what apps are allowed on the phone. Period. If they don't get that control, they're not going to allow the phones on their network, silly "open 700 mhz" rule or no. They'll find some way around the rule, drag their feet, go to court, pay some congress-critters, do whatever while the shut down as many apps as they want.
I've been developing for handsets for a while, and been watching the market for even longer. There is NO way you are going to have a mass-market handset that doesn't have the carrier ability to shut off any apps they want.
You might get around it on a few developer phones that have the security turned off and an app signature that's unique to some little project. When I say "mass market," I mean like 6 million phones, all identical and all with the possibility of running your app without some type of code signature being applied. This is NOT like 1983 and the PC revolution, where people get to pick the applications they want on their equipment. The business folks have already figured out how they're going to control app delivery for maximum profit and control. Don't expect any revolutions here. Expect slow progress only when absolutely pushed, and even then, as little as needed to relieve the pressure.
Remember that the carriers have years and billions invested in their networks. They're all still trying to digest their last acquisitions and get all the hardware to play nice together. They're all desperately looking for any 1% margin that they can squeeze from the customer before they switch to the competitor. They're desperately trying NOT to become "pipes" like the land carriers have become for the Internet, so they're not just going to roll over and let the customer decide what cool new app gets installed.
I fully expect that Google will fold the minute that T-Mobile finds something they don't like. Of course, I'd really like to see it happen (handset maker stand against carrier), but we all know it's not going to happen. You're just deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Read TFA: (Score:4, Insightful)
Hunh? Since when is it a good idea for anyone other than the owner of a piece of hardware to decide, without the right of the owner to override, to uninstall software?
Mostly because it's via the marketplace. From TFA:
Google intends to have its Android Market be the central repository for the vast majority of mobile app distribution. Their oversight will provide users a reservoir of safe, trusted apps under the promise that they have been checked for quality, much like the promise of the App Store....
Sounds very much like what I get from the Ubuntu repositories.
Think about it -- every repository for every distro, or even every sufficiently-privileged package manager, is a kill switch for your computer. When a repository has (very occasionally) accidentally delivered a package with some sort of malware attached, that package was immediately rolled back -- effectively killing the malware. There's no reason a critical update couldn't do anything it wanted to my system -- after all, I have absolutely no warranty to fall back on.
Which means I guess we'll all have to wait and see if this applies -- or is ever used -- for software other than malware, and/or software distributed through channels other than the Marketplace.
That's the real difference -- we're all speculating about how this might work. Apple already has banned apps for no discernable reason whatsoever ("I Am Rich").
Parent
I don't agree (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not think that a kill switch is good for anything -- regardless of whether or not it is only for official-market-regulated products.
People see kill switch as bad because it violates the freedom to install anything on their phone. It is right in Apple case, because Apple's App Store is the only source for app on iPhone. But it is different in Google case, as you can install programs from another sources other than Google one. So if you want some app, just find a source for it. Google kill switch only work for app that come from Googles App store, and that will make sure Google don't spread malware or anything bad. Have you ever thought of upgrading windows and then your computer is infested with malware and bugs? Well, there are bugs, but not not malware.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, suddenly, for whatever reason, white knight or bad mood, your app from google gets killed. It might be able to take other stuff with it. Even if it doesn't, it should be my right, and only my right by consent (explicit opt-in) for google to kill MY apps. MY apps also contain MY data, and I own that, too. Should they do this under the laws of any number of states (and likely other jurisdictions), they could be both ciminially and civily prosecuted.
Apple's 'jail' is bad enough. Only users should have the
Re:I don't agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Kill switches are bad because grant their controllers power over products beyond the point of purchase. If Google wants to control the Market, they can pull apps from the store and make them unavailable for future customers. The kill switch allows Google to terminate programs that people have already paid for.
Parent
Re: Citation needed [Re:I don't agree] (Score:5, Funny)
Is there a source for this statement? People in the comment threads have said this a dozen times, but nobody's mentioned why they believe this is true.
Strange as this may sound, if you look hard enough in the summary, you'll find that some words are underlined. The fact is, that if you click on these words, your web browser will take you elsewhere, and even stranger is that one of these "links" (as we call a consequent group of such words leading to the same destination) will lead you to a site other than Slashdot. We call that place the "article" in layman's terms ("TFA" in common Slashdot parlance).
Now, of course, I wouldn't expect you, or many others, to actually know these secrets, but some would consider them a source for points in the discussion of, well, an article.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many other people are explaining the article. They don't cite sources either.
In fact, as far as I can tell, people are simply making things up based on wishful thinking.
Re:Citation needed [Re:I don't agree] (Score:5, Informative)
And you can get your Android apps elsewhere without jailbreaking, unlike the iPhone.
Parent
Re:I don't agree (Score:5, Insightful)
You can install other apps on the iPhone, too. It's called Jailbreaking.
Kind of like buying a house and having to pick the lock to get inside. No thanks.
Parent
Re:I don't agree (Score:5, Informative)
let me make this clear: i don't have anything against jailbreak. i'm a ardent supporter of homebrew on the PSP.
the iPhone and PSP are both absolutely amazing pieces of hardware. they are truly marvels of modern engineering. and while the PSP's beautifully designed XMB interface perfectly complements the device's slick and sexy exterior, it is still lacking in many respects. now, the iPhone's touchscreen interface is even more impressive than the PSP's in terms of stylish aesthetics and supreme usability. but the iPhone too has its drawbacks in its software.
it saddens me that these two marvels of portable engineering are held back from their true potential by simple software problems which have their roots in not so simple corporate policies and anti-consumer attitudes held by Apple and Sony. here are the major complaints:
Sony PSP
iPhone
Android
Neither Sony nor Apple support homebrew/CFW/jailbreak. as a result, if you want the freedom to use your own device as you see fit, you need to void your warranty, and Apple/Sony have shown that they will actively try to combat such practices. i can't speak for Apple, but i know that Sony's anti-consumer attitudes have resulting in their releasing useless update after useless update without ever fixing the problems with the official PSP firmware that drive consumers to homebrew/CFW.
Google encourages developers to write applications for Android and do not try to control the distribution of 3rd-party apps. they support 3rd-party software rather than wasting resources to impede their development. the Android Developer Challenges issued by Google offers $10 million in prize money.
Parent
Re:I don't agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember... The iPhone OS is open source too.
Here's where you can download the source to Android's OS [google.com]
Can you please point me to where you can download the source to the iPhone's OS? (not Darwin, but specifically the iPhone's OS)
Oh - that's right! You can't.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> "Google good, Apple bad."
Google: Some apps we say are okay, some we don't, but we still let you install the ones we don't okay freely and easily
Apple: Some apps we say are okay, but if you install others we're going to fry your phone.
So yeah, google good, Apple bad. Not to mention the fact that Apple blocks apps that "do too much." God (Jobs) forbid you have too much functionality in an app. Google only "doesn't recommend" apps that "suck", but if you disagree you can still install them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)