You're right, and part of me wishes they would so we could get this EULA nonsense into court once and for all. Pretty much all software providers want to avoid going to court over EULAs because they are afraid that many of the draconian provisions they put in them will end up being ruled against. So when you say that you only lease software and that the software provider can shut it off at anytime because it's in the EULA keep in mind no provider in their right mind would do that. The case would end up in court and EULAs as they are currently known would most likely be destroyed.
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
You're right, and part of me wishes they would so we could get this EULA nonsense into court once and for all. Pretty much all software providers want to avoid going to court over EULAs because they are afraid that many of the draconian provisions they put in them will end up being ruled against. So when you say that you only lease software and that the software provider can shut it off at anytime because it's in the EULA keep in mind no provider in their right mind would do that. The case would end up in court and EULAs as they are currently known would most likely be destroyed.
JML42691
macrumors 68020
If Apple wanted to be able to shut down any app that they saw fit, then they wouldn't have used the term Malicious, they would have used an even broader term that would have allowed them to shut down all removed application. And what most people here think of the term "malicious" is not what Apple and Apple Legal think. Apple made it clear what this ability is for, and you (not just you, all the people who are taking the same side as you) are attempting to twist what they said to make them seem like the bad guys in this situation when they are actually trying to protect their users. Nowhere does Apple suggest that they will deactivate apps like NetShare, Box Office, or I am Rich, and they haven't yet because people are still able to use those apps (except for I am Rich, as nobody downloaded it in the first place😀). So how can this be sick on Apple's part when they never said that they would actually do what you are suggesting.
In a situation like that music app, if there was a term in the condition that an app of that sort was not allowed, then it would be removed from the App Store, but nowhere does Apple say, or this article say that they would black list it and make it unabled to be used. They didn't do this for NetShare, and nobody at Apple is suggesting that they would. Only you are because you are attempting to make your own definition for malicious, and try to claim that Apple will abuse this ability, which they never said that they would.
What the hell do you mean with that 3rd paragraph?
Once again, this article does not suggest that Apple will be deactivating apps that disagree with their policy, but only apps that will cause harm to the user, the user's privacy, their contact's privacy, or the security of the phone. This ability only exists so Apple can disable an application that would invade your privacy or safety. Say if that music app that you made up also secretly stole all of your friend's emails, and flooded their inboxes with pornography, wouldn't you want Apple to be able to disable that app immediatly? I know I would.
Ntombi
macrumors 68040
I don't disagree with the main points of your post, but you're saying things about BoxOffice (and I Am Rich) that are either unsubstantiated or simply not true. You don't know why BoxOffice was pulled, unless you know something the developer doesn't. Using absolute terms when you're only guessing does no one any good, and only serves to muddy the waters.
As for I Am Rich, I thought it was a BS app, but it wasn't a scam, and I thought Apple took a big step down the slippery slope for removing it, unless there was something going on behind the scenes. I really hope they didn't pull it just because it was what it was.
As for NetShare, if Nullriver wanted it sold in other countries, than it should have been pulled in those countries where it violated Apple's agreement with the wireless provider, and sold where it did not. I hope it's resolved soon.
But none of those are malicious apps, and those of us who got any of them when they were available are still able to use them, which is as it should be.
No one knows why BoxOffice was removed, including the developer. People are speculating rampantly, but without any hard evidence. BTW, it's been on version 1.2 since a couple of days before it was pulled. There's a long thread on it in the App Store forum if you want to see the developer's input, and not outsiders'. I hope it comes back soon, but it's working perfectly for most of us who got it before it was pulled, so there's something to be thankful for. 😉
The difference is that Big Box sold you the physical media from which you cannot be dispossessed. IE: You own it. However, the license to the media content (the game) is still subject to the license agreement with the developer. The developer can revoke the license at any time subject to the terms of the agreement.
With the app store, there is no physical media, only the application content, and the license is subject to being revoked at anytime in accordance to the EULA. Now there ought to be consumer remedies available for when a consumer doesn't violate the license agreement and the developer revokes the license anyway (refund). Hopefully we don't have to find out.
Also, with regards to auto repossession, if you have a loan/lease on a car, then you technically don't own the car, the bank does. If you fail to meet the terms of the commitment (the loan contract), the bank is able to repossess it. If you've paid for it completely, the bank couldn't touch it (for most purposes, this is a generalization).
i dont' see this as much different from anti-virus apps that routinely update virus definitions or firefox's database of malicious websites. mobile phones are a hot target for hackers currently and i see this as a precautionary measure in case something pops up. you all have a lot of personal and maybe sensitive data on your iPhones and Apple is committed to keeping that safe (or secure).
but yes, it requires a certain amount of "trust" in Apple. Apple can pull apps from its store and but this is an extra measure in case something truly malicious gets out there.
but yes, it requires a certain amount of "trust" in Apple. Apple can pull apps from its store and but this is an extra measure in case something truly malicious gets out there.
Virgil-TB2
macrumors 65816
irresponsible claptrap
Given this:
I don't know why MacRumours is trying to stir up fear about this newly discovered list. 😕 How about just stating the facts and not getting all "wow this might be scary" about it? there is absolutely nothing remarkable about this "discovery" the hacker made at all.
We all knew Apple was going to be doing this because they told us they would. It's not like it's something that any other managed device doesn't also do. 🙄
Worse, over at Engadget, they have printed the most irresponsible junk story about this that is causing all kinds of people to freak out. They are even implying the device "calls home" like WGA does and is "spyware."
If I was Apple, I would sue Engadget for publishing what amounts to an intentional misrepresentation about this process.
Another feather in the cap of "Citizen Journalists" showing just how unreliable and irresponsible the non-professional blogosphere can be. 🙂
.
Given this:
MacRumors said:
I don't know why MacRumours is trying to stir up fear about this newly discovered list. 😕 How about just stating the facts and not getting all "wow this might be scary" about it? there is absolutely nothing remarkable about this "discovery" the hacker made at all.
We all knew Apple was going to be doing this because they told us they would. It's not like it's something that any other managed device doesn't also do. 🙄
Worse, over at Engadget, they have printed the most irresponsible junk story about this that is causing all kinds of people to freak out. They are even implying the device "calls home" like WGA does and is "spyware."
If I was Apple, I would sue Engadget for publishing what amounts to an intentional misrepresentation about this process.
Another feather in the cap of "Citizen Journalists" showing just how unreliable and irresponsible the non-professional blogosphere can be. 🙂
.
Which ones? Name them.
How about the Sony Rootkit one? It was in the EULA. Guess what, Sony lost.
How is the MacRumors article not factual? The article is not fear-inducing at all. (I can't be responsible for the more paranoid commenters.)
hey... I'm a "professional" blogger now. 🙂
arn
that's the reason I don't use iTunes, it's a perverse application (apple can control so much with it, remotely!).
I'm sad to see that apple is becoming the new microsoft 🙁
I'm sad to see that apple is becoming the new microsoft 🙁
This seems like an important aspect of Apple's plan to open up the iphone for development by anyone. The cost involved in reviewing every line of code for every app that has been posted on the app store is more substantial than the ability to revoke malicious apps. Apple never intended for anyone to be aware of this little trick and likely will change it in some coming update. Everyone needs to breathe, Apple is not going to shut down an app that is not malicious in some way. I for one am glad it is in place.
As Ntombi said, there are comments on blogs saying that Box Office was violating a trademark, but unless the developer is lying, no one sent a C&D to the developer, so we don't actually know. Also, for what it's worth, Box Office is no longer functioning on my phone (4 GB Edge): if I touch it, it starts to open, then immediately returns to the icons page that the Box Office icon is on. The app worked fine last time I used it, and I'm still running the 2.0 firmware, so unless it's failing to handle a change in one of its data providers, the most likely suspect for this sudden failure is ....
I think you're correct. I'm not aware of any case where the individual EULAs clauses were disputed. The one the original poster was referring to probably had to do with 'click through' and accepting the EULA as a contract.
The blacklist list is public. Click on the link in the main story. No "Box Office".
The most likely reason for the app crashing is that 2.0 and 2.0.1 are buggy. See this thread:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/518102/
The steps are
1) Turn iPhone off and on
2) If not fixed, delete apps from iphone and reinstall (redownload or resync)
3) If still not fixed, restore firmware.
arn
bplein
macrumors 6502a
Someone buy this man a beer! We have a winner!
I was going to post much the same reply. This could be an unused stub, like the human appendix, created but not currently used for anything useful. Maybe it is referenced from time to time, but there's obviously not anything in it, yet.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling! bleh...
🙄
hobo.hopkins
macrumors 6502a
I agree completely - robbieduncan summed it all up perfectly.
But furthermore, if this feature could be used to Black List out-of-control applications doing things like Arn described, the people complaining about it's "invasion of privacy" would be the very same ones complaining if something happened and it didn't exist. (Run-on sentence, yes) If an application stopped some of these paranoid idiots from calling/texting/emailing people, or did anything else obviously malicious, they would be the first people to say, "Why didn't Apple have a method to stop these applications?"
That is, if that's what it's even for 😛
my iPhone is watching me
I think my iPhone is watching me. I swear to god I think the camera turns itself on and videos me. Yes, I know there is no native video capture built in to it but my paranoia exists nonetheless.
The other day I was in the shower and I swear it turned itself over so it could snap pix and send them over to someone at Apple.
I now just put duct tape over that little 2.0 mega pixel camera hole. But I think there is a second hidden camera on the front side. Remember the one that was rumored to be in this new iPhone 3G? Well it's there and it videos me.
I think my iPhone is watching me. I swear to god I think the camera turns itself on and videos me. Yes, I know there is no native video capture built in to it but my paranoia exists nonetheless.
The other day I was in the shower and I swear it turned itself over so it could snap pix and send them over to someone at Apple.
I now just put duct tape over that little 2.0 mega pixel camera hole. But I think there is a second hidden camera on the front side. Remember the one that was rumored to be in this new iPhone 3G? Well it's there and it videos me.
hobo.hopkins
macrumors 6502a
I know that you stole that from Patrick, on Engadget 😛
But people, stop being so paranoid! It just isn't healthy...
Unanswered questions ....
Actually, I think it's fairly obvious, if you read all the AT&T fine print, why NetShare was pulled. AT&T doesn't want people using it unless they've paid the extra monthly charge that allows "tethering". None of the standard iPhone plans include tethering, and as we all know -- most people downloading a copy of NetShare were hoping to "slip under AT&T's radar", doing the occasional tethering without paying for it.
Is it fair to people who DO want to pay the extra $20 a month or whatever, and tether legally? No. But possibly, the app could be redesigned in some way to verify a user actually has tethering paid for on his/her plan before it would run? And then, AT&T would be fine with Apple selling it again.
BoxOffice's removal seems more suspect. The author clearly stated all of his data sources were perfectly ok with him using them in that manner, and even encouraged it. Being a free app, there's not even a possibility of a 3rd. party becoming upset that it amounted to "selling their information", like they might try to say if the app was commercial.
Since Apple themselves provide pretty much the same kind of movie data as widgets in OS X, I have my own suspicions that maybe BoxOffice just happened to be TOO much like something they were already working on as a new iPhone default app for future firmware?
The "I am Rich" app? I think it pretty much served its entire purpose as "art" or a "political statement" or what-not, by Apple allowing it to exist in the first place, for even a short time, on their store. Leaving it online would just cause more trouble than it's worth. It artificially skews any "average app price" type of figures to make the whole store look more expensive than it really is. It opens the door for big problems too, if someone accidentally clicks to download it and winds up overdrawing a credit card attached to their account. And the ease of which an identical "fake" could be made rendered it pointless, even for rich folks really wanting to buy it as a status symbol on their iPhone (Hollywood stars, etc.).
Actually, I think it's fairly obvious, if you read all the AT&T fine print, why NetShare was pulled. AT&T doesn't want people using it unless they've paid the extra monthly charge that allows "tethering". None of the standard iPhone plans include tethering, and as we all know -- most people downloading a copy of NetShare were hoping to "slip under AT&T's radar", doing the occasional tethering without paying for it.
Is it fair to people who DO want to pay the extra $20 a month or whatever, and tether legally? No. But possibly, the app could be redesigned in some way to verify a user actually has tethering paid for on his/her plan before it would run? And then, AT&T would be fine with Apple selling it again.
BoxOffice's removal seems more suspect. The author clearly stated all of his data sources were perfectly ok with him using them in that manner, and even encouraged it. Being a free app, there's not even a possibility of a 3rd. party becoming upset that it amounted to "selling their information", like they might try to say if the app was commercial.
Since Apple themselves provide pretty much the same kind of movie data as widgets in OS X, I have my own suspicions that maybe BoxOffice just happened to be TOO much like something they were already working on as a new iPhone default app for future firmware?
The "I am Rich" app? I think it pretty much served its entire purpose as "art" or a "political statement" or what-not, by Apple allowing it to exist in the first place, for even a short time, on their store. Leaving it online would just cause more trouble than it's worth. It artificially skews any "average app price" type of figures to make the whole store look more expensive than it really is. It opens the door for big problems too, if someone accidentally clicks to download it and winds up overdrawing a credit card attached to their account. And the ease of which an identical "fake" could be made rendered it pointless, even for rich folks really wanting to buy it as a status symbol on their iPhone (Hollywood stars, etc.).
Virgil-TB2
macrumors 65816
Okay, maybe I was reading in an emotional tone that wasn't present, but this seemed to me like another in a long string of articles about this situation that was presented as if it was some kind of scary Kafka-esque "problem" when it's clearly not.
- Everyone knew the iPhone was a "managed device"
- Everyone heard them announce the fact that they were going to be able to do things like remote wiping and remote app deletion.
- Everyone knows, or should know, that code signing certificates were going to be used
- Everyone with any background knows that there has to be more than certificate revocation at work here.
Occams razor alone would have us take the simplest most likely explanation which is that from a customer service point of view, if there was a malicious app out there, the customer would want to know about it.
It is waaay more likely that this "black list" is primarily a means of notifying customers that one of the apps they bought has been tagged as a problem. Why wouldn't this be exactly what it's for? Does anyone expect them to email each customer individually and tell them about it? Or to email *all* Apple customers and let them know about it even if they haven't bought the app?
It doesn't take any thought at all to see that this whole thing is really a *non* story and not surprising, not likely nefarious in any way, yet it's all over the blogosphere as some kind of big scary deal. Engadget and TUAW in particular should know better than to be fanning the flames on this kind of stuff.
That's why "average" in many cases is useless - you need to look at the mean 🙂
Case and point - the highest *average* salary for a grad (bachelors degree) from UNC for a long time was History. Why? Michael Jordan - obviously the mean was much lower but his exorbitant success made the average for History majors balloon through the roof.