Apple's Ability to Deactivate Malicious App Store Apps

[FreeState]

I own the iPhone. Not them. If I want to put a frikkin app on there that I paid for, or is free, that's my business, not there's. This is terrible, how is it any better than the other trojans that have been found in Sony, Real Audio, etc? I will hack it out as soon as I can!

You own the physical phone - not the operating software on it.

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/appstore/us/terms.html

 

[Small White Car]

I own the iPhone. Not them. If I want to put a frikkin app on there that I paid for, or is free, that's my business, not there's. This is terrible, how is it any better than the other trojans that have been found in Sony, Real Audio, etc? I will hack it out as soon as I can!

Here's another news flash you may not like.

You own a DVD player and a DVD, but you don't own the movie on that DVD!

Same principle here.

 

[Santa Rosa]

I see this as a good find.

All the complainers out there about Apple's closed policy on apps for the iPhone should quiet down. You obviously don't grasp the concept as to what would happen if the iPhone was open to everyone and anyone to develop for and install applications in any way they thought fit. The iPhone is a high profile platform which would be targeted viciously if that were allowed to happen.

Apple is being rightfully very cautious as to how its approaching the 3rd party scene. Yes I certainly do not agree with their minimal dev contact and the dev NDA but apart from that they are doing a pretty decent job. This just shows another step of responsibility they are taking for the platform.

Yes there are many problems that need ironed out at this early stage but I think Apples approach will, in time, provide a very very good rich vein of high quality applications in a safe environment where everyone can have a good experience.

 

[err404]

I own the iPhone. Not them. If I want to put a frikkin app on there that I paid for, or is free, that's my business, not there's. This is terrible, how is it any better than the other trojans that have been found in Sony, Real Audio, etc? I will hack it out as soon as I can!

Relax a bit. They are trying to help you here. Nothing malicious has happened. The framework for blacklisting apps if very useful. For example, if an app slips by their QA that logs your calls and emails them out, they can shut it down. Just jailbreak it if your not happy about it.

 

[happydude]

This is exactly the problem with a closed phone and the app store. Everyone will say it's fine until Apple turns off an app they think is useful/fun/paid for/whatever.

yeah, this is a bit too big brother for me. once paid for and downloaded, i don't think they shouldn't be able to take anything off. the quality control should be at the app store level, not on my phone without me knowing . . .

 

[JML42691]

I own the iPhone. Not them. If I want to put a frikkin app on there that I paid for, or is free, that's my business, not there's. This is terrible, how is it any better than the other trojans that have been found in Sony, Real Audio, etc? I will hack it out as soon as I can!

You do realize that there is no confirmation yet that they will actually be deactivating apps removed from the store, there is only confirmation that they will deactivate malicious apps, not all apps that are removed from the store. Think of this for example: if you payed $10 for an app that was secretly stealing your personal information and working a way to steal your identity, wouldn't you want Apple to deactivate it as soon as they found out about it? I know I would....

 

[notsofatjames]

I own the iPhone. Not them. If I want to put a frikkin app on there that I paid for, or is free, that's my business, not there's. This is terrible, how is it any better than the other trojans that have been found in Sony, Real Audio, etc? I will hack it out as soon as I can!

whoa, whats the big deal? This blacklist would probably only ever be used for extreme apps that stole your entire phonebook and emailed it off somewhere, or did things that are harmful to the end user.
Apple is not stopping you putting your own software on the phone, since like you said, you own the phone. However as many other people have pointed out, none of us own the Operating System, therefore have no right to do what we want with the operating system. If you really want to put any app you want on your iPhone, go write an OS for the iPhone. Im sure apple wont give a damn.

 

[Bob Knob]

MY example?

1 - Bob Knob makes a post saying the app store is like every other store on the planet.

2 - I make a post disagreeing, saying that this store is different than other stores.

3 - You (and 2 or 3 other people) all respond to me and explain how software is different from the real world, and thus this store is different from other stores.

It seems like you should all be telling Bob this, and not me. But since there are more than one of you saying the same thing, I'll admit that I must be the one on crazy pills. I obviously did something wrong in my post. I'll drop it now and let the conversation get back on track.

We are all on the same basic page, but I think the confusion comes from your reply to my first post (please re read it), my comment was solely aimed at the critics who a bitching and moaning that Apple won't allow an application that does xy or z. Know what I mean?
I'll open a Guinness, you open your favorite, and we'll drink together, all is good.

 

[DaBrain]

Yes. If a person buys an app in good faith, only to have Apple decide (based on whatever criteria) that the app should be revoked, then Apple should credit the purchaser.

Absolutely! After all is not Apple the one that either accepts the app or rejects it for their store?

One would think that ANY apps for sale, Apple has approved as that is their process. But to go ahead and remove an app from your Apple device and NOT remiburse you seems just plain wrong!

I can just hear the complaints cause it will happen and soon I bet!

 

[digiguy23]

No thanks. I like my freedom, not some corporation telling me what I can do with my phone. Apple have gone too far already

I didn't realize the iPhone was the only phone you can buy today.

 

[DaBrain]

Apple needs to communicate with their developers. It's mutual relationship.

If Apple wants developers to create quality apps for the iPhone, they need to work with the developers. It's not comforting that Apple cut off your business's entire income with no warning and no explanation.

Note: there are two issues. Deactivating malicious apps is fine, and I don't think anyone would disagree with it. Removing Apps from App Store is "ok" too, but they just need to tell devs why so they can remedy it.

arn

You left out the BUYER Arn! Don't you think they deserve their money back? After all Apple approved the app for their store.

 

[antielectrons]

Then don't buy one.

Problem solved!

Thats what I just said. Learn to read before you comment.

 

[surferfromuk]

This is a good thing because when some complete arseh*le ( and they exist) puts a malicious app on the app store which is ingeniously masquerading as something else ( for months even) and one day it goes rampant and begins doing damage - Apple can make it stop.

One day you might be very glad Apple did this - and I'm certain if this ever happens and Apple hadn't put such a contingency in place the 'indignant uproar' would be immense. This is not about stopping legitimate apps it's about stopping the lunatic fringe that wants to destroy good things - my goodness the knee-jerk hysteria is beyond belief in this place sometimes.

 

[onicon]

i think that deactivating malicious apps is a good feature. it'll prevent the necessity of buying anti-maleware apps which would do the same job.

asw for taking apps of the store, for now i am inclined to give apple the benefit of doubt. i sincerly hope we'll see netshare back sooner or later (latest when i buy my mbp ).

 

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

No thanks. I like my freedom, not some corporation telling me what I can do with my phone. Apple have gone too far already

Apple hasn't done anything questionable yet. NetShare, if a conflict of interest with AT&T, was removed legitimately. BoxOffice was removed for reasons unknown, so I'm not sure what's going on there. I Am Rich needed to be removed -- what a load of crap that one was.

If a malicious program were to propagate across their network this security measure would allow them to kill it dead immediately. Period. As long as that is what Apple uses it for, great, more power to 'em.

 

[DaBrain]

My point is your example is flawed. You do not buy software in the app store - you lease it.

If you lease a car the dealership can come and take it back at any time depending on your lease agreement, because you do not own it, the car dealership owns it. If you buy a car the dealership can not come and take it back because you do own it.

WRONG! You never heard of repossessing a car?

Same with software - you don't own it - the creator does.

Then refund the License Fee! The buyer bought it in good faith.

 

[Bob Knob]

Here's another news flash you may not like.

You own a DVD player and a DVD, but you don't own the movie on that DVD!

Same principle here.

So true,
Here's an even bigger brain twister...

With cash, you buy a computer and the "MyPaint" program (a fictitious program that is used to create digital paintings). You create a masterpiece of a painting using MyPaint that you saved as "MyMasterpiece.paint", what do you own and what do you not own?

You own:
- The physical computer.
- The intellectual property rights to the contents of digital painting you made.
That's it.

You do not own:
- The operating system of the computer.
- The MyPaint program.
(and here's the real big one)
- You do NOT own the MyMasterpiece.paint file you created!
The company that made MyPaint owns the .paint file format and you only have a license to use it... once your license expires you no longer have access to the contents of the file.

This is true of every software that saves to a proprietary format (.doc, .pages and so on). While it is highly unlikely that this would ever really come up in a court case, if it did, you'd lose.

 

[jc1350]

Gee, just like every store on the planet Apple decides what it wants to have in its store. Maybe the critics should build their own phone and store. What a bunch of crybabies.

This is different. Let's say you bought an xbox game from Big Box and some time later Big Box no longer sells that game and thinks you shouldn't continue to have for any reason they have. So, they come barging in and just take it. That's what this blacklist can do to iPhone apps.

And if there's one to make the list, I bet it would be NetShare.

 

[JML42691]

Thats what I just said. Learn to read before you comment.

Somebody care a little bit too much about their post count and being the only one to say something

 

[iOrlando]

People own the phone..the material guts to it yes. Without AT*T and Apple, what would the materials amount to? So you are using att and apple's service. They can do whatever they want to you, as long as they arnt breaking any sort of signed contract or laws. The thing I dont agree with and I dont think it will stay this way..is apple removing the application from your iphone even after you paid for it.

I mean with only 900 or so applications, apple can easily look at each application as it first becomes availble..so I am not sure why this problem is occuring.

 

[Sweetbike40]

BoxOffice was removed???? I still have that on my phone. I really like that app. Now i'm tempted to delete it. Anyone know why it was deleted?

Edit: I just found this:
http://gizmodo.com/5032642/apple-yanks-another-popular-app-from-itunes-this-time-box-office

 

[mkrishnan]

Note: there are two issues. Deactivating malicious apps is fine, and I don't think anyone would disagree with it. Removing Apps from App Store is "ok" too, but they just need to tell devs why so they can remedy it.

And, I think they need to create clear guidelines over time that allow developers to develop "acceptable" apps (whatever that might mean, both from a "high quality user experience" standpoint and a "doesn't piss off Apple" standpoint).

Apple is playing a dangerous game with their app store, by having such a public development process and so much attention, a giant unmanaged developer base, and relatively cryptic responses such as pulling apps without explanation.

There are lots of examples of managed development bases -- either directly or through de facto limitations, you cannot just go and develop your app and sell it for the XBox 360 or the Wii without the approval of MS or Nintendo, right? So those are also closed development ecosystems. Selling console games this way has worked well for almost three decades now. However, the App Store is not entirely analogous to console game sales (particularly for the things I mentioned above). And Apple has much less experience managing a developer ecosystem than Microsoft or Nintendo do. So Apple needs to be really careful.

 

[lowbatteries]

WRONG! You never heard of repossessing a car?

Umm ... the only way the dealership (or bank) can reposses the car is if you signed a loan on it - the car is collateral.

They can't come and just take back a car if you own it.

As to the thread topic - I take the position that you must treat all power as if it will be abused. Goes for the government, and for Apple.

I can't wait for iPhone 5.0 when I can install any app I want, just like any other computer I own. Or - an alternative app store for jailbroken iPhones would be awesome.

 

[jlbrown23]

Whining

Let's stop with all of the disingenuous talk about these apps "mysteriously disappearing".

-Box Office was taken down because the name was a trademark violation(re Box Office magazine/web site).
-I am Rich was clearly a scam.
-Netshare creates a major grey area for AT&T, Apple and their customers. Tethering is usually a premium service for smartphones. I am sure that Apple has legally binding agreements with AT&T that apps that they sell are restricted from certain activities, and they need to show good faith in this agreement. Which means that letting an app slip through may not make them liable to AT&T, but leaving it up once they know about it will.

All three have legitimate concerns - only two of them are real apps, and "Box Office" is still available, it just has a different name. Apple is wise to take down NetShare while they figure out if it violates their agreement with AT&T(or abets AT&T's customers in breaking their agreements, which Apple could also be on the hook for).

And Nullriver is playing stupid here - they know full well why NetShare was taken down. They probably were amazed it got through in the first place. Don't get me wrong - I hope they DO allow NetShare for sale with full Apple and AT&T approval, but I can't get mad at Apple for meeting their obligations to AT&T.

I think everyone needs to give Apple a break on this one. The app store is a new thing, and there are over 1000 apps online in just a few weeks. If 1 or 2 get through accidentally and are quickly removed, just consider it growing pains. MobileMe was a bit of a debacle - but the app store is amazing and worthy of praise not criticism.

 

[whooleytoo]

I mean with only 900 or so applications, apple can easily look at each application as it first becomes availble..so I am not sure why this problem is occuring.

900 applications released in about 3 weeks; plus many or most of those have updates being released as well; and with the success of the App Store that number is going to grow very, very fast.

Apple really, really don't want to be doing QA on these apps. There just isn't enough money in it for them for all that workload.