Why the Kill Switch Makes Sense For Android

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."

oblig

Android kill-switches are necessary, lest they rise up and try to overthrow their masters.

Why?

Why does one have to be good and the other bad?
Perhaps the kill switches are there for the same reason.

Re:Why?

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?

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?

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:Does not void warranty

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?

Re:Why?

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.

It's a trade off.

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?

My android is too smart

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.

Re:My android is too smart

If he can't remove it on his own he could find a naive farm body with a pair of pliers and distract him with a video of his hot sister.

Oh come _on_

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_

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!

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:Oh come _on_

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.

Say what

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.

Google v Apple

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?

There IS a difference

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.

Benevolent Dictatorship?

We are

( ) Microsoft
( ) Apple
(X) Google

and we know what's best for you.

I don't agree

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.

Re: Citation needed [Re:I don't agree]

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.

Re:Citation needed [Re:I don't agree]

Because the infamous "kill switch" statement is part of the Android Market Business and Program Policies [google.com] (see Product Removals). If you don't use Android Market, you're not subject to the kill switch.

And you can get your Android apps elsewhere without jailbreaking, unlike the iPhone.

Re:I don't agree

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.

Re:I don't agree

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

• closed platform (no 3rd party or homebrew apps).
• constant updates to break compatibility with CFW/homebrew without adding any value to the system.
• intentionally locked out of the PSN/Playstation Store unless you buy a PS3.
• PopStation crippled to prevent playing self-ripped/converted PSX games (forcing users to repurchase PSX games they own off of the PSN).
• No Skype for PSP-1000 owners (unless you run homebrew Furikup).
• No booting ISOs off of a memory stick, which eliminates the loading problems associated with UMDs.
• No access to useful homebrew apps like better media players, ebook readers, etc.

iPhone

• closed platform (no homebrews apps).
• updates designed to brick jailbroken iPhones.
• all 3rd-party apps have to be approved by Apple and distributed through Apple's App Store.
• competing apps are removed by App Store without notice.
• NDA suppresses discussions about app rejections, and users receive no refund.
• Kill Switch function to delete all App Store installed applications.

Android

• open well-documented platform (all 3rd-party/homebrew apps alloved).
• Android source is released under the Apache License an GPL.
• 3rd-party apps can be distributed either through Android Market or any other means.
• imposes no conditions on non-Android-Market applications.
• open source OS gives users complete freedom to customize their system.
• Kill Switch function only used for removing malware purchased off of Android Market (for which users will be reimbursed).
• is devoted to the advancement of open standards.

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.

Re:I don't agree

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.

Re:from what I can see, Apple's is better

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