Apple's Ability to Deactivate Malicious App Store Apps

[theBB]

I haven't read any of the licensing/developer contracts in great detail, but Apple has NO business enforcing IP claims between third parties.

AFAIK, the US law says otherwise. If somebody approaches a reseller about an IP violation claim, the retailer cannot just ignore the claim and tell that person to take it up with that third-party. Otherwise, it would be very easy for retailers to make money off IP violations.

 

[Sjakelien]

My theory

There are two things that I can think of, where it could be useful to retract applications from people's iPhone, that are not necessarily evil.

1) Developers are allowed to test their (beta) apps on a specific, limited amount of iPhones. Suppose I'm a developer, and I send out version 0.34 beta to that select group of people. Then, after a while, I bring out version 1.0 (release version). It would be nice, if the beta version would be erased, because I don't want to have crippled beta software hanging around. That would save me quite a lot of support issues.
2) I am running a big corporate company, and I have developed an app that is very specific for my company (e.g. an intranet reader). This app is distributed on all of my employees' iPhone. Either an iPhone is stolen, or one of my employees left/was forced to leave the company. In that case I would like to be able to remove the app, to make sure no confidential corporate information would leak.

In any case, this mechanism, IF it exists at all, is pretty innovative: the above scenarios could be true for regular computers, and somehow we have been able to live with that so far.
The question is (and I repeat, assuming that a software revoking mechanism indeed exists): should Apple be the authority to trigger that mechanism, and if so, upon what criteria?

 

[weg]

There is a big difference between buying a physical object and a license to use something. I'm always shocked by how many people don't read or understand EULAs. This i just like the people who truly believe they OWN the music they "buy".

Yeah, stupid people. They think they're allowed to use the software or listen to the music that they've paid for.

Honestly, how's music or software different from a book? Of course, you don't "own" the content, in the sense that you're not allowed to reproduce it and sell it. However, would it be ok for you if a representative of Borders or Amazon visited you at home and started ripping out the pages of all your books (or blacking out the text, after all, you own the "physical object")? ("Sorry, you just leased them, we've decided to revoke your license. No, or course you're not getting the money back.")

 

[Macsterling]

Apple has really got to work on the App store. Their lack of communication to developers who have put a lot of time and work into apps that just disappear, the slowness of "approving" new apps, the organization of the store, etc. There's so much potential, but the execution has been bumpy.

Geez guys, give Apple a break already. The App Store has not even been out a month for public use. It's not going to be perfect at first but as with all their products, they do get better. I'm just sick of all this bashing about the App Store and Apple... If people have problems with them, then switch to another phone.

 

[sam10685]

Thank you for removing I Am Rich. I was scared of being drunk and accidently buying it. (I have one click buy on.) Now, if you'll excuse me-- I'm going to go get drunk.

 

[dizzy13]

This is bad

 

[jplan2008]

Wow, finally a respectable comment on issues of IP. I'm very curious as to Box Office--If Apple is unilaterally acting as judge and jury of trademark, patent, or copyright claims, I would be extremely scared. I haven't read any of the licensing/developer contracts in great detail, but Apple has NO business enforcing IP claims between third parties. It's scary to say since they are so disfunctional, but the courts are a much better realm for those kinds of issues. Between the lingering NDA and the utter opacity around the app store, I worry that Apple is creating an environment that is just a little too capriciously controlled for long-term buy-in by professional code-slingers.

If a multi-billion dollar company gets calls from lawyers of a trademark-holder (or lawyers for AT&T, etc), what is everyone expecting them to do? You think they should just ignore it. Everyone else here seems to think they should put in WRITING IMMEDIATELY without research or thought, to the developer, "Oh, this is against copyright/trademark violations, so we're pulling it." You'll notice that on the new website, http://code.google.com/p/metasyntactic/the developer does not say anything either about why it was pulled or why the name change, that would be crazy if it's really related to a legal issue. If it starts to seem like Apple or their lawyers are going overboard or totally paranoid, then yeah, people should complain. And yes, maybe they should at least have a boilerplate email saying "we've pulled it for further review," but I think expectations of detailed communication to the developer or the public if it's a legal issue are unrealistic, and if it's come up in 3-4 cases out of over 1000, I'm not surprised they don't have a system in place. Other complaints about lack of communication with developers about accepting apps and updates developer licenses, etc., seem much more justified.

 

[TonyHoyle]

*
wow...has this happened to anyone else...basically Apple has complete control of your iphone

My bank screwed up my debit card recently and I couldn't download free apps - even updates - until the card was fixed (which took almost two weeks).

My existing apps kept working though.. I'm sure I'd have noticed if one of them went AWOL.

 

[n8236]

I'm surprised it took this long to find this out. I actually realized this when 2.0 first hit. When it was updating, it got rid of some of my safari-based apps w/ custom icons. I wonder if it still does the same, because that's just plain annoying.

 

[Pandaboots]

Why is I Am Rich removed?! 1.0.1 was going to include costume colors and a choice of jewels! And a Lite version for only 552 bucks was ready... Screw art i guess...

Apple was jealous that someone else was charging exorbitant prices for a beautiful product that lacked the features and functionality of much less expensive alternatives.

Ok at least I won't create a list of examples and lead this thread astray

 

[edoates]

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.

Unless there is some ULA I've not seen anywhere, I supsect it is not legal to turn off any application you have on your phone, unless it is not paid for (that is, stolen).

I seem to remember years ago a significant case where a mainframe application vendor tried to delete applications and associated data when a license ran out (timed license), and the and result was that the application could refuse to run, but that removing "bits" from hard drives, etc., was not proper. Damages were awarded.

Eddie O

 

[ZombiePete]

I don't know. I do think that there's a good reason for having the ability to pull an app if it really is malicious, but then again why is Apple letting a malicious app get through their apparently strenuous vetting process. I'd hate to pay for a Slingbox player application and then have it pulled because Apple considered it malicious to play at a high quality over 3G.

 

[gnasher729]

If tethering is a premium service, why would AT&T have Apple remove a potential source of income. For AT&T it seems like a better plan to just charge all the users that use the program data overage by the KB and just move on. When people call contesting the charge tell them oh well point to service contract and keep right on trucking. Those that want to use it properly could pony up the $60 (or whatever it is) per month and continue on their merry way.

There are several scenarios: 1. AT&T complains because they cannot detect tethering, it is not allowed by the phone contract, and AT&T loses money. I would expect Apple to remove the application under pressure from AT&T (Apple wouldn't want to induce its customers to breach their AT&T contract). 2. As you said, AT&T detects tethering and charges an arm and a leg for it. In Britain I have seen charges of £0.20 per Megabyte when exceeding some limits; I have also seen higher charges. At that rate it would be easy to get a $2000 bill for using tethering. If that is the case then I would really hope that Apple removes the application.

Of course the real solution would be for AT&T to allow tethering and charge a reasonable amount of money for it.

 

[edoates]

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.

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

There is no provision in the ULA I can find which let's apple REMOVE an application, or make it unusable (unless it depends on a service which is discontinued).

The "lease" is permanent, unlike a car lease. The reason for that language is to make clear that you do NOT OWN the software, so you can't make copies and sell it to others.

Eddie O

 

[paj]

Apple was jealous that someone else was charging exorbitant prices for a beautiful product that lacked the features and functionality of much less expensive alternatives.

Ok at least I won't create a list of examples and lead this thread astray

LOL! Good one!

 

[Veri]

Sorry but courts have overwhelmingly upheld EULAs. Do a google search, spend some time on EFF.

Give me one example of a software (not service) EULA with term restricting an individual consumer (not business - the consumer is treated quite differently in Europe, for example) that's been successfully defended outside the USA.

Anyway, SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc. is rather pleasant reading. Basically, SoftMan was reselling parts of a bundle, believing it owned the software under a first sale doctrine (y'all listening, Psystar?). Adobe thought that software was licensed, not sold. The court agreed with SoftMan. To quote:

The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license." The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license.

Your opinion doesn't hold water in court, the agreement (EULA) you clicked on does.

I'm not a US IP lawyer, and I've never received legal advice suggesting anything like that. The reasonable person's expectation, which amounts to his "opinion" in this case, certainly does hold water. Meanwhile, the EULA may have terms which are either void or unenforceable.

Anyway, isn't morality more interesting than legality? If Apple wants to license, it should label its button "LICENSE APP", not "BUY APP" with a resort to smallprint to inform the customer that "buy" doesn't mean 'buy".

 

[gnasher729]

Wow, finally a respectable comment on issues of IP. I'm very curious as to Box Office--If Apple is unilaterally acting as judge and jury of trademark, patent, or copyright claims, I would be extremely scared.

This might be caused by the DMCA act. If you write an application and sell it through Apple, and I think it is somehow infringing on my copyrights, then I can send a takedown notice to Apple. In that case one of the following will happen:

1. Apple removes the application. Apple is then legally of the hook as far as my claims are concerned. If this is damaging to you (quite likely) and you were not actually in any way infringing, then you can sue me for damages.

2. Apple doesn't remove the application. In that case, if I sue you for say copyright infringement and you are found guilty, then Apple is deemed to be guilty as well for distributing the application. Not a risk that Apple would want to take, especially since they have no clue whether there was actual infringement or not, and this could be very expensive.

 

[FSUSem1noles]

I have no problem if they do this with Apps that are malicious, harmful, etc..

But for Apps like Netshare or BoxOffice, if they suddenly go "into" my phone and remove them or prohibit them from working that's just a crying shame..

 

[ChrisA]

One would hope, however, that if the app approval system is working this shouldn't be necessary and would be only for the most severe problems.

There is a very simple trick anyone could use to get around Apple's approval system. All one needs to do is have your software check the date. If it is before December 31st 2008 than it does something simple like a game. then after Jan 1st 2009 it switches behavior to do something bad.

I guess Apple might in their testing try setting the date forward to look for tricks like this but then the app might simply "phone home" and ask if it time yet to stop acting nice.

Almost all well written malware waits a while before doing something. Apple needed a method to remove a "time bomb".

 

[corr429]

Three members of my family have the new iPhone 3G.
They have plenty of fun programs on their iPhones. But the one thing that pisses them and all their friends that have the new iPhone 3G the most... The fact that Apple disables any free application that is "malicious" or "the user didn't pay for". So the programs such as iWant (a program for finding local restaurants based on price, location, type/kind of food), and/or any other cool little tools or games for the iPhone can/will be disabled at any time by Apple. Not mentioning the fact that if any of the sponsors of the iPhone do not like any application available to consumers of the iPhone, they can simply get ahold of Apple, and have them remove it. Wouldn't that be part of any privacy issue? Since it is getting into person devices and removing/tempering/snooping (with/in) personal items.

 

[Syrus28]

Geez guys, give Apple a break already. The App Store has not even been out a month for public use. It's not going to be perfect at first but as with all their products, they do get better. I'm just sick of all this bashing about the App Store and Apple... If people have problems with them, then switch to another phone.

I hope that's not your solution for everything. Have a problem, quit and try something else? Problems don't get fixed unless someone complains.

 

[Archie-]

I am amazed how sheep-like people are about this. Is there anything people are NOT willing to accept from Apple? Justifying Apple removing an app just because it embarrasses them? How is that conscionable?

So people are so scared of the terrorist malicious software that they are willing to subject themselves to Apple's random whims?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin


So many sheep around. I can see why George Bush got voted in twice now.

 

[dizzy13]

hey apple, don’t delete my app!

This is what I just posted on my blog about how I feel about this...

hey apple, don’t delete my app!

dizzy says...

Just read an interesting article over at MacRumors. I’m not going to go into the details as you can just read them by clicking the MacRumors link, but basically it talks about how apple can remotely shut down apps that it finds to be malicious.

I believe this article points out what I feel is the biggest difference between apple and microsoft. Apple tries to protect / coddle its user by having control over every little, tiny, minute detail of its products. I really wish apple would meet somewhere in the middle. Coming from a PC background it is frustrating to me that a lot of the time my hands are tied by apple. I do understand they make products for the masses, not the 5% of tech savvy users, but if this article is true I think this is going a bit too far. I wouldn’t mind having an alert (SMS?) telling me an app might be bad, but not to uninstall it without my knowledge. I would even go so far as to let apple disable the app and force me to re-enable to use it…but uninstall NO!

I’m hoping apple doens’t abuse this, but since they own the app store the decision of what to put on the blacklist is up to them. How would you like that nice netshare app (if you were lucky enough to grab it) to disappear from you phone and find out about it while on a road trip and in need of using it in a crunch?

Are you in the camp that likes to have big brother watching your back or would you like to be able to make some of your own decisions? Leave some comments and let me know how you feel about this!

 

[arn]

But the one thing that pisses them and all their friends that have the new iPhone 3G the most... The fact that Apple disables any free application that is "malicious" or "the user didn't pay for". So the programs such as iWant (a program for finding local restaurants based on price, location, type/kind of food), and/or any other cool little tools or games for the iPhone can/will be disabled at any time by Apple.

I don't think you understand what "malicious" means. Malicious would include, but not limited to

- stealing your bank login and passwords
- spamming all your contacts with porn
- call 1-900 numbers billing you with long distance charges
- send 10,000 spam SMS messages that are billed to you

Would it piss you off that Apple would disable these apps remotely?

Point is, Apple is not going to be heavy handed about it. Apple has disabled no apps so far.

arn

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I am amazed how sheep-like people are about this. Is there anything people are NOT willing to accept from Apple? Justifying Apple removing an app just because it embarrasses them? How is that conscionable?

So people are so scared of the terrorist malicious software that they are willing to subject themselves to Apple's random whims?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin


So many sheep around. I can see why George Bush got voted in twice now.

The funny thing is that these "sheep" you deride here most likely did not vote for GWB, if they voted at all (assuming they were eligible). So why don't you put your political generalities on the shelf here. There really is no reason for it, especially in your derisive use.