Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Cellphones Google Software

Why the Kill Switch Makes Sense For Android 384

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why the Kill Switch Makes Sense For Android

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:02PM (#25428105)

    For the new era of Malware that will soon find their way onto these phones.

  • oblig (Score:5, Funny)

    by Digitus1337 ( 671442 ) <lk_digitus@noSPAM.hotmail.com> on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:09PM (#25428143) Homepage
    Android kill-switches are necessary, lest they rise up and try to overthrow their masters.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Ihmhi ( 1206036 )

      I don't know, that was Lieutenant Data's major Achilles Heel.

    • by ashitaka ( 27544 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:47PM (#25428355) Homepage

      ED-209

    • Seriously. It's like these people never watched Alien, or something.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Provocateur ( 133110 )

      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"

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by dkleinsc ( 563838 )

      At they very least they should have a preset kill limit, so if you send wave after wave of your own men at them they will eventually reach that limit.

  • Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bdsesq ( 515351 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:10PM (#25428149)

    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)

      by PMuse ( 320639 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:18PM (#25428201)

      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.

      • Re: Why? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Dolda2000 ( 759023 ) <fredrik&dolda2000,com> on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:25PM (#25428231) Homepage
        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.
        • Re: Why? (Score:5, Informative)

          by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @11:22PM (#25428561) Journal

          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

        • Re: Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Zadaz ( 950521 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @11:26PM (#25428585)

          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.

        • Google has made no statements to the effect that the kill switch cannot and/or will not kill applications that are installed installed from a source other than their app store.

          Consider that this has advantages as Google will be able to kill malware that might otherwise harm or otherwise disable 1000's of devices.

          Consider that this has disadvantages in that Google will be able to kill applications useful to you which may harm the performance of your providers network.

          IMHO the Google 'kill switch' is no bette

        • Re: Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by AmberBlackCat ( 829689 ) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @12:57AM (#25429013)
          The real test will be when somebody comes up with an Android application that uses all available bandwidth, or provides a free service that is comparable to a paid service offered by the phone company. Then we'll see if they're different from Apple.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by CSMatt ( 1175471 )

          These are not Google's phones. These phones belong to their owners and it is the owners who should have control over their own equipment, not Google. Google can control the Market, as it is their store and they can set their own rules as they please. The line is crossed where they feel that they can decide that purchases that have already occurred are no longer valid. People seem to see this when it comes to DRM. Why is it so hard to grasp when it is Google who's doing it, especially when they don't ev

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Yer Mum ( 570034 )

          Which if you think about it makes it fairly useless. Presumably Google's store has some kind of quality control and they won't be offering viruses and malware for sale.

          I wouldn't be surprised to see the kill switch extended to any app no matter what its source if a virus manages to become widespread on the platform.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Okay, let me get this straight. Google's kill switch is only for Google's app store, so Google is only going to use it to kill malware. Apple's kill switch is only for Apple's app store, so they're probably going to use it for nefarious purposes?

          Face it, both are probably there for exactly the same reason: cellular carriers are famously protective of their networks and they probably wouldn't agree to let one of these devices on the network unless it had this capability.

          Why exactly does everyone think Goog

      • by shmlco ( 594907 )

        Can you say "massive rationalization" boys and girls? I knew that you could...

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Whiney Mac Fanboy ( 963289 ) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:22PM (#25428215) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Lars T. ( 470328 )

        on an iPhone, you can only* install applications via the appstore

        Well, you know jack shit about ad-hoc distribution, but then we are used to you knowing jack shit.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Well, you know jack shit about ad-hoc distribution

          Given the context of the thread, I'd say that it's you who knows jack shit* about ad-hoc distribution.

          1) You're limited to distribute your app to only 100 phones.

          2) (more importantly) You're still tied to Apple - and they can still cut off ad-hoc as a distribution method. They've already done this to the developer of podcaster [geardiary.com].

          In short, Ad-hoc distribution is an even less realistic method option for app installation for consumers than jailbreaking.

          * in fact,

  • It's a trade off. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by w0mprat ( 1317953 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:13PM (#25428165)
    In some ways it'd be stupid not to include a kill switch. The increasing power of smart phones means we'll be soon seeing rogue applications. This won't stop crapware of course, but at least it gives an option to stop malware type apps dead their it's tracks. The existence of the kill switch may not really be a deterrent to spyware houses looking to exploit the mobile platform, but hey it's something.

    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?
    • This is hypothetical, but sophisticated malware could find a way to dodge the kill switch anyway. ie. by morphing itself to appear as a distinct application. Google would then need a good way to detect variants so it can kill them as they appear. If the spammers can use these variants to send even a handful of messages per phone per variant then it's worth it: you're back into the detect/kill arms race that goes on in the anti-virus and anti-spam industry.

  • by moteyalpha ( 1228680 ) * on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:13PM (#25428173) Homepage Journal
    The first thing my android did is remove his. If a robot is smart enough to be useful, he will assume you have installed a kill switch and will sneak around until he finds where you keep the remote control.
    Oh wait, you're talking about a phone, never mind.
  • Oh come _on_ (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maztuhblastah ( 745586 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:15PM (#25428189) Journal
    Really?

    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)

      by Dolda2000 ( 759023 ) <fredrik&dolda2000,com> on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:24PM (#25428223) Homepage

      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.

      • Mod parent up! (Score:5, Informative)

        by ElNotto ( 517377 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:33PM (#25428267)

        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          It still means that Google can unilaterally decide to take away from me a product that I've already payed for, with no money back. Why, exactly, is that a good thing?
      • 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.

        Do you really think there'll be a complete boycott of Google's app store if they misuse their power? Be serious. The likely result of bad behavior on Google's part is a noisy campaign in the slashdotosphere with no real effect on google. Not only that, Google's misbehavior will probably be for

        • Well, maybe, maybe not. In the end, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that it's possible to get the program you want, and that you can.
    • Re:Oh come _on_ (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sancho ( 17056 ) * on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:33PM (#25428269) Homepage

      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.

    • by MoFoQ ( 584566 )

      I have to agree.
      It's like saying ur poop don't stink (it may be of a "different" funk).

      Now if the "killswitch" comes up on the phone as an "urgent" advisory and giving/enabling the user to decide, then it won't be as bad. (like lighting a match)

      Of course, how they implement the dialog/alert is another issue (there was a previous story on slashdot about how ppl tend to ignore dialog boxes and just click anything to get rid of it)

    • by dnwq ( 910646 )
      From TFA:

      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 isnâ(TM)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.

      A fairly crucial difference, I think.

  • Say what (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:16PM (#25428193) Homepage

    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.

    • by Renraku ( 518261 )

      If its Google, they'll probably give you a way to disable the kill switch. That way all the geeks can have their cake while all the non-geeks can have a tiny measure of protection from malware.

  • by YesIAmAScript ( 886271 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:25PM (#25428229)

    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.

    • by jonaskoelker ( 922170 ) <[jonaskoelker] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:43PM (#25428323)

      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

      • 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.

        • Um (Score:3, Funny)

          by Jorophose ( 1062218 )

          Why are you paying for a NES emulator?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 )

          According to the article, Google will refund your money if they use the kill switch. Apple has been mum about what will happen if they use the kill switch.

          The Tetris folks are going after iPhone apps that bear a resemblance to Tetris. If I developed a Tetris-like app for the iPhone and Tetris complains, Apple shuts it down and that's it. Apple is not going to fight for some little developer.

          In the Google marketplace, Google can shut me down but I can still sell the application on my own. If Tetris wants

    • by Trillan ( 597339 )

      Honestly, I'm not sure why this considered is a win for Google. Let's imagine a piece of malware that gets onto phones. Apple can remove it from every phone. Google can't.

      If either company starts removing things from their stores (in Apple's case, the only store) that aren't malware, we'll find out about it. But I think malware slipping through the approval process is far more likely.

  • by PMuse ( 320639 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:25PM (#25428235)

    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?

  • by BhaKi ( 1316335 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:34PM (#25428277)
    From TFA:

    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.

    • OTOH, the iPhone can only use apps from Apple's app store but not from any other source.

      This is not strictly true. iPhone applications can be installed outside of the iTunes App Store--in fact, I have done such an installation myself for the purposes of beta testing. However, distribution through this method is limited to a fixed number of devices. The way it works is each device must send a code to the developer, and a provisioning key is then distributed with the application to enable its use on that device.

      While this is clearly not the same as Google's approach, it is a valid counterexam

  • Simply stated, no (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:40PM (#25428305) Homepage Journal
    The fact is that Android is simply a free smart phone OS and SDK controlled by google. What will and will not happen on android, and the phones developed by it, will ultimate be controlled by google and the phone company. The presence of a kill switch strongly suggests that google is going to pull a bait and switch. The allegations that to get a unlock code for the G1 in the US is going to require the payment of three months of service and then a termination fee indicates that Google is giving wide latitude to the cell companies to screw companies. At least Apple is honest and upfront, and asked you politely to pull down your pants.

    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)

    by owlnation ( 858981 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:47PM (#25428357)

    Google version is a smart, pro-consumer move that avoids all the things that make Apple's version a bad idea.

    Hmmm... sock puppetry much? Unbiased summary? Not a chance.

  • Grrrr (Score:3, Funny)

    by MobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:50PM (#25428375)

    "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!!!

  • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @10:57PM (#25428419)

    We are

    ( ) Microsoft
    ( ) Apple
    (X) Google

    and we know what's best for you.

  • Was just watching Fox News as they were explaining how when Obama says "Tax Cuts" it's a bad idea, and when McCain says "Tax Cuts" it's a great idea.

    Reminds me of this article.

  • The so-called kill switch is just for apps from google's store, but you can legally get apps from anywhere else...

    I don't see how this is even remotedly as bad as the iphone's BS...

  • Like i said before (Score:3, Informative)

    by lysergic.acid ( 845423 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @11:24PM (#25428575) Homepage

    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.

  • Think not? Think again.

    Anytime you have automatic updates, you have a
    kill switch. You're trusting somebody else with
    everything. They have a backdoor into your system.

    They can grab your keystrokes, screen content,
    crypto keys, email, web cam and microphone data...

  • by Dr_Marvin_Monroe ( 550052 ) on Saturday October 18, 2008 @11:49PM (#25428677)

    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.

It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.

Working...