Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Ability to Deactivate Malicious App Store Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The funny thing is that the iPhone "CALLS" home everytime you attach it to the dock. If you lose internet and want to sync your material you won't be able to until the iPhone has successfully made a call home. Turn off your net and try.....
I don't know if I agree with this 100%, but I understand the concern and certainly feel better about Apple doing this than I think I would about most other companies.
I guess the alternative is to jailbreak your iPhone and install whatever you want at your own risk.
I guess the alternative is to jailbreak your iPhone and install whatever you want at your own risk.
Thank you for this post.
I completely agree that people on this forum are just lemmings.
Here is something - replace the word Apple with Microsoft.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I like Apple and their products but they don't give a sh*t about what you want and what is fair. It's all about the Benjamins.
I completely agree that people on this forum are just lemmings.
Here is something - replace the word Apple with Microsoft.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I like Apple and their products but they don't give a sh*t about what you want and what is fair. It's all about the Benjamins.
Arn
It's pretty simple Arn! If they bought an app via the Apple store and it gets deactivated the customer would like their money back!
I don't think they are really getting worked up as you put it, but rather concerned that this may happen.
and what Apple will do to address this?
.Other than that I would think people would be glad to know that a malicious program was deactivated and saved them what could be a major problem, like identity theft.
I love that avatar
It drives me nuts. I'm always slapping and wiping my screen to get rid of it.
Well, if my screen is damaged, I know whom to sue...
It drives me nuts. I'm always slapping and wiping my screen to get rid of it.
Well, if my screen is damaged, I know whom to sue...
Hang on a sec and I'll see if I can remotely deactivate it on your Mac!-)))
Nope! No can do as it was determined not to be malicious!--)) But Im off now too find a good lawyer!
I love that avatar
I think that there are about 3 or 4 members here with that avatar, it drives me insane.
Lame solution.
You'll notice my criticism was constructive and pointed out the potential. As Steve Jobs himself said (in the MobileME email), they overextended themselves with rolling out too many new products/services at once. You're right, it has been out a month and it's been in the planning stages a lot longer. Nobody thought how they'd deal with notifying developers when their apps mysteriously disappear, etc?
Blah blah blah AT&T.
Newsflash: Not every iPhone owner is an AT&T subscriber. What AT&T allows doesn't necessarily apply to O2, for example. So the world has to accept AT&T rules and regulations? Some countries carriers DO allow tethering, but because AT&T doesn't allow it, no one can, regardless? Do you think that is acceptable?
Does Nokia, BB etc threaten to disable phone apps? Nope. Apple should let developers release applications as they would OS/X. The iPhone will not crash networks, contrary to popular belief.
Replace the word 'Apple' with 'Microsoft' in this story and this forum would be spitting blood. I guarantee it.
BB and Symbian etc CAN do what iPhone can do. Apple's marketing is so good that people actually believe the iPhone is a first, for everything, for example, being able to download software remotely - which of course, it isn't.
Apple are behaving like communists and really, really need to drop their control freak attitude.
Personally, I believe there are better phones out there than iPhone. You see, it goes on a person by person requirements, not a blanket statement. iPhone may be good for one person, but useless for another.
I am stunned that so many people think this is a good idea - that Apple can meddle with your iPhone applications on its whim? People really believe this is a good idea? Replace the word 'iPhone' with OSX. Still like the idea?
Newsflash: Not every iPhone owner is an AT&T subscriber. What AT&T allows doesn't necessarily apply to O2, for example. So the world has to accept AT&T rules and regulations? Some countries carriers DO allow tethering, but because AT&T doesn't allow it, no one can, regardless? Do you think that is acceptable?
Does Nokia, BB etc threaten to disable phone apps? Nope. Apple should let developers release applications as they would OS/X. The iPhone will not crash networks, contrary to popular belief.
Replace the word 'Apple' with 'Microsoft' in this story and this forum would be spitting blood. I guarantee it.
BB and Symbian etc CAN do what iPhone can do. Apple's marketing is so good that people actually believe the iPhone is a first, for everything, for example, being able to download software remotely - which of course, it isn't.
Apple are behaving like communists and really, really need to drop their control freak attitude.
Personally, I believe there are better phones out there than iPhone. You see, it goes on a person by person requirements, not a blanket statement. iPhone may be good for one person, but useless for another.
I am stunned that so many people think this is a good idea - that Apple can meddle with your iPhone applications on its whim? People really believe this is a good idea? Replace the word 'iPhone' with OSX. Still like the idea?
No thanks. I like my freedom, not some corporation telling me what I can do with my phone. Apple have gone too far already
exactly why I'll never own an iphone under current circumstances - Faaaaar too locked down. But I highly doubt Apple will budge much - they like to be in control.
Unfortunately the legitimate iphone will never be in Thailand. Everyone here has a few sims for whichever mobile network is currently running the best deal. But buying and unlocking a 1st gen iphone is as easy as going to the Thai mall. unlocking stations at every vendor if you have 800 bucks to drop on the iphone.
There is a member here whose avatar is a closeup of his face, which is not exactly something I care to have to see every day - if you're using Firefox, you can adblock the image. Problem solved.
Eh, I got no real problem with this. If something could cause problems and they remove it, so be it. As long as I get refunded if I pay for it, I will stay content. I have a feeling that Apple will not be going as over-board on this as some are predicting so I doubt it is a big deal for me to be honest.
Apple having such control isn't a shock as this seems to be something they would do so I am a bit surprised that so many are surprised.
I figured heading into the App Store that they would make some decisions about Apps that would anger the crowd.
Apple having such control isn't a shock as this seems to be something they would do so I am a bit surprised that so many are surprised.
I figured heading into the App Store that they would make some decisions about Apps that would anger the crowd.
Exactly.
It's utter ******** that Apple has the final say so on whether or not you can put an app on your phone.
They should have the app store, don't get me wrong, but if people want to make their own app and distribute it among their friends or for free, they should be able to do so via their computer, without asking Apple for permission.
That'd be like asking Apple everytime you wanted to install a new program on your Mac. It's completely absurd.
And for the people who worry about malicious apps, that's why you have a two pronged system. For the people who want a hassle-free experience without worrying about whether the app is stable etc, etc, they can go through the app store.
But for the rest of us who want to try out an app we designed or a friend designed and want to circulate freely, it shouldn't be up to Apple to say whether or not we can.
If someone wanted to install a torrent app or a Skype app, or anything else along those lines, it'd never make it through Apple's approval. It's censorship, plain and simple.
They're so afraid of freeing a device because they think there will be total anarchy as people fill up their iPhones with malicious apps or something. In reality, you'd likely see most of the users remain with the App Store, while the other 10% or so of us who want to run apps independent of El Jobso's approval would do so. And they'd remain on AT&T since jailbreaking would no longer be as attractive as it currently is.
I mean really, what do they plan to accomplish?
Thats not exactly what I would call a good example.
When you buy a movie on DVD you are granted a use license for the life of the media. That is to say, I can watch that movie on that disc as many times as I like in the privacy of my own home and the movie studio (who owns the film) does not have the right to change that deal. Its a contract.
Typically when you buy software - you don't own the code, but again you enter into an agreement that stipulates you can use the compiled code as delivered to you by the agreed upon delivery mechanism. If Apples license terms for app store software states that they have the right to revoke the software license without notice, then my point is moot.
Does Apples license actually say this? If it doesn't, then the agreement is that you can use the software in perpetuity on your iphone until such a time that you decide to remove it.
So this whole 'I own this' thing is a red herring. A license to use something is a contract that cannot be altered at the whim of either party, and I'm unaware of any software license that stipulates the vendor can withdraw the product from your private property without your knowledge or consent.
Until someone points to text in the app store license agreement (is there one?) then this is all academic.
FYI - my response here is meant to offer a position on who has the right to do what. I don't believe for a microsecond that Apple would remove an app from the iphone without good cause, and good cause does not include "we changed our minds about letting you have it."
Yes, because clearly what Apple says is the final say on legal matters.
EULA enforceability has been spotty at best in the United States. And the UCITA has only passed in two states, meaning that everywhere besides Virginia and Maryland, it falls under the classification of a good.
The rulings thus far have been on a case by case basis. But no software company has had the balls to try to get an official clear, once and for all ruling on the matter from the Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court has thus far approached the subject in a cautious manner, providing little in the way of precedent. No software company is willing to risk having the EULA agreements invalidated. There's no real clear precedent on the subject, however more and more of the cases rule against it. Nearly all cases where the EULA has been dismissed it is cited as unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C.
That doesn't mean you have the right to redistribute it, however it does mean that once you own it, it cannot be seized/disabled by the software company. You paid for it, it's yours. Now, if not explicitly stated that the purchase allows you unlimited support of that software, that is fine. If they want to cut off updates to the product (if it doesn't say they are included with the original purchase), that's fine. But they may not revoke something that has already been sold.
The way Apple and other companies try to enforce the EULA is by basically saying you agreed to lease the software from them for use, and that they can revoke that ability any time they like, for any reason, without question.
Which is why they the rulings generally fall under unconscionability. It's the same as a book store breaking into your house and stealing your book that you paid for, because it suddenly says that it no longer sells the item and therefore even those who have already purchased it may not have it.
It's completely absurd.
They want to remove an app from the store? Fine.
They want to prevent you from upgrading firmware if you still have that app? Fine.
But taking control of your phone and remotely disabling it? I don't think so. Wait until this happens to someone with a bankroll and their enforceability will go down the ******* once a trial judge sees it.
I like apple products, I think they're well made and I've owned many over the years. But this is enough for me to avoid the new iPhone. I'll take a Nokia with S60 any day.
3G Phone out of the Box is not Smart Phone, it's Dumb.
I think what everyone is seeing is Apple showing it's true colors here.
It's obviously not about putting out a superior product anymore.
2.0 - Buggy and unstable as is 2.01
Mobile Me - Advertised as True Push and can't deliver
20x More countries this month - Cha Ching for Steve
3g Coverage in the USA - AT&T poor coverage, they went to Verizon first & they cover most of the USA.
App Store - Give me a break, if an app like "I am Rich" can make the list for $999.99 and is 1 screen. Hello... Wake up Apple, you look Stupid for even allowing this to pass your rigourous QC check to make the store with the other 237 tip calculators.
GPS - Why put it on the phone if you are going to make someone pay for Turn by Turn directions.
Voice Dialing - On the cheapest phones and a safety hazard without it.
I could go on but I'm upset I paid for a plastic piece of crap that is going to crack with lousy coverage and voice quality.
I'm amazed this phone is even considered in the category of "Smart Phones". Because out of the Box it's really DUMB!
One last note. Give us fricking Video and not QuickTime and YouTube. Flash, Windows Media, Real Networks.
It's a joke I have a full browser and can't view 50% of the web pages because they aren't built like Apple wants.
Get rid of the Square and give the phone some video viewing capability and I'm not talking Video Conferencing, I'm talking viewing web pages I'm tired of looking at that dumb square that says "I can't play your video becuase I'm not smart enough".
I think what everyone is seeing is Apple showing it's true colors here.
It's obviously not about putting out a superior product anymore.
2.0 - Buggy and unstable as is 2.01
Mobile Me - Advertised as True Push and can't deliver
20x More countries this month - Cha Ching for Steve
3g Coverage in the USA - AT&T poor coverage, they went to Verizon first & they cover most of the USA.
App Store - Give me a break, if an app like "I am Rich" can make the list for $999.99 and is 1 screen. Hello... Wake up Apple, you look Stupid for even allowing this to pass your rigourous QC check to make the store with the other 237 tip calculators.
GPS - Why put it on the phone if you are going to make someone pay for Turn by Turn directions.
Voice Dialing - On the cheapest phones and a safety hazard without it.
I could go on but I'm upset I paid for a plastic piece of crap that is going to crack with lousy coverage and voice quality.
I'm amazed this phone is even considered in the category of "Smart Phones". Because out of the Box it's really DUMB!
One last note. Give us fricking Video and not QuickTime and YouTube. Flash, Windows Media, Real Networks.
It's a joke I have a full browser and can't view 50% of the web pages because they aren't built like Apple wants.
Get rid of the Square and give the phone some video viewing capability and I'm not talking Video Conferencing, I'm talking viewing web pages I'm tired of looking at that dumb square that says "I can't play your video becuase I'm not smart enough".
And yet, courts have ruled repeatedly that copying that movie onto your computer as a backup is legal. The enforceability of EULAs is very very muddy. And in my opinion it's not a contract.
It's a good. It has been ruled repeatedly that it is a good. You buy the DVD. You are free to watch it, to let your friend borrow it, to sell it when you don't want it anymore. That is no different that any other good. The only difference being you are not allowed to copy the media and then sell the DVD.
I buy a car. I can drive the car as much as I want. When I'm done with the car, I can sell it to whomever I please. But I may not build a duplicate of that vehicle and apply the exact same VIN numbers to it and pass it off as the same registered vehicle.
Those "contracts" or "leases" regarding software and EULAs are repeatedly ruled as unconscionable.
You don't own the source code. You own the compiled code. I don't own the right to see the source code for a program simply because I bought the compiled version. Likewise, you don't own the blueprints and all details regarding the construction of an automobile when you buy it.
If the license term for the app store does say that, then it'll be very hard to hold up in court. They are not licensing source code or original information on how to compile or produce a good. They are selling you a good, a final product.
If Apple suddenly said they would revoke anyone's OSX license who installed software that they don't agree with, for any reason, at any time, with no notice.....would you still be so complacent?
Even if it does say this, you can use it in perpetuity until you remove it. It's called an unconscionable contract. It's why contracts get thrown out in legal disputes left and right every day. The enforceability of this revolves more around venue than it does legal precedent, because there is none. If they get to try the case where the EULA was granted, then it's more likely to be ruled in their favor. But the minute you get an impartial venue, it's anyone's game.
No, it's not a red herring. Learn the definition of red herring. EULAs have no solid legal basis. Therefore the "I own this" is completely relevant to software discussion, especially when many courts have ruled against EULAs. And particularly when a company decides suddenly for no reason that you no longer may use something that you already bought.
The only way that might be remotely considered a red herring is if there was a clear precedent on EULAs or settled law as handed down by the US Supreme Court (which there isn't). It isn't attempting to change the topic to something completely unrelated. Contracts and ownership are two directly related concepts and in this case something which hasn't been made clear and therefore the inclusion of one in the discussion of the other is not a red herring.
They absolutely would do so without good cause. It would be with good cause for THEM, or AT&T, but it has nothing to do with your interests. If someone designed a skype app and distributed it and suddenly Apple revoked it, that is not in the best interest of the consumer who purchased it, it's in the best interest of the company.
If you sign a lease on a car, and pay your monthly payment as stipulated, and suddenly the car dealership attempts to take the car from you and says "sorry, we changed our minds" despite the fact that you paid the required amount each month, they'd be sued to high heaven.
If portions of the contract are found to be unconscionable, they are therefore unenforceable. And the second a parallel is drawn to this application of contract regarding the sale of film/audio/text, it'll be shot down.
Agreeing to a EULA is more complicated that the traditional sale of a good. In rulings against it, it has been stated that no average consumer can fully comprehend the ramifications of a EULA when making a consumer purchase. It'd be like selling land rights on the shelf at Target. Or Mineral rights at Wal-Mart.
The only reason EULAs have remained is due to the fact that there hasn't been a widespread challenge of it. This is due to the fact that the software companies haven't tried asinine maneuvers like what Apple is doing. So the consumers have remained happy. Microsoft hasn't tried to disable all copies of windows because you installed uTorrent. Or remotely access your computer to delete a piece of software they don't agree with. If they push too far, there will be a class action suit challenging the validity of the EULA.
Personally, if they want universal validity of EULAs, they need to treat it like more complicated transactions, such as mineral rights to a property. The consumer must first file for a permit to use that software, the permit must be approved. Both parties must be present to a legal representative to express consent. Etc., etc.
If you want a once and for all ruling on EULAs, you can't sell them on a shelf like any other consumer good, and then say the laws that govern consumer goods suddenly don't apply. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. And an online store should be treated the same as a brick and mortar store. Even more so because there is no personal interaction between two parties. A store shelf is equal to an App Store page. Otherwise they better take all the copies of OSX/FinalCut/etc. off the shelves and remove all software boxes from their stores.
People would dump EULA software at an exponential rate if it were suddenly enforced as a legal transaction wherein the product use is leased. You'd see people going to Linux by the boatloads. XP and OSX would be abandoned over night. It's the "apocalyptic" scenario that no software company wants, hence they haven't tried to request an official ruling on EULAs. Leaving it ambiguous allows them to screw the consumer, particularly if the case has to be tried where the EULA was written, giving them a favorable venue.
As far as I'm aware iPhone "owners" don't even own the phone they buy. It is the property of the carrier until the contract ends...
Can't really understand the disabling of Netshare myself. My Nokia n73 records video, pictures, has a 3.2 megapixel camera, a full OS with thousands of downloadable applications, which incidentally aren't restricted by nokia. It also comes with a full Webkit based browser, and Opera is an option too. It also makes calls, video calls and sends sms and mms messages? It is also nearly 4 years old. Other than the touch screen, I see nothing in the iphone that puts it head and shoulders above my old Nokia. The nokia can be used as a modem too and Apple are actually STOPPING people using this feature?
The N95 blows the iPhone way outa the water in terms of specifications. Yes, the iphone interface is cool. Yes, the touch system is appealing. But paying twice as much for a phone with half the features is not appealing no matter how cool the touchscreen is.
Apple actively disabling programs which provide these features doesn't make the iphone any more competetive.
The N95 blows the iPhone way outa the water in terms of specifications. Yes, the iphone interface is cool. Yes, the touch system is appealing. But paying twice as much for a phone with half the features is not appealing no matter how cool the touchscreen is.
Apple actively disabling programs which provide these features doesn't make the iphone any more competetive.