Well in Apples case it does make sense because they have already prevented many non-malware apps from even getting onto the iPhone. The last app that was rejected was given the reason that it duplicated functionality already available. Well Office duplicates functionality found iWork so why not pull/prevent Office. IMHO, Apple has shown why people are so skeptical of walled gardens and kill switches. Google for the most part has always acted hands off, so like I said earlier I'll reserve judgement on them until they do something equally as stupid as Apple has (something they may not do).
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.
Google Also Includes 'Kill Switch' for Apps in Android
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well in Apples case it does make sense because they have already prevented many non-malware apps from even getting onto the iPhone. The last app that was rejected was given the reason that it duplicated functionality already available. Well Office duplicates functionality found iWork so why not pull/prevent Office. IMHO, Apple has shown why people are so skeptical of walled gardens and kill switches. Google for the most part has always acted hands off, so like I said earlier I'll reserve judgement on them until they do something equally as stupid as Apple has (something they may not do).
The approval process and the kill switch are two totally different things.
Citing the use of one as an example of the other is pointless.
The device is a phone first and a sw platform second (in the case of the iPhone, not in the case of the touch). As such, it is usually sold with a contract, tied to a carrier, with a flat monthly rate, with free sw upgrades: you have bought a service and a device to use that service and three parts are there: Carrier, Apple and you.
I guess we would even like that switch for some sw upgrades (vs patches, time machine, manually downloading previous upgrades, extracting previous versions, backups ...).
Google has not invested a lot of time and effort, distribution contracts, sw for multiple OSs, hw devices (iPhone, AppleTV, iPods ...) ... in an online store. Not that I don't like Android but (now) it is more for geeks, while iPhone is more for the general consumer.
I bet that if you could somehow use Android to remove Google adds (or to diminish Google's revenue) ...
I guess we would even like that switch for some sw upgrades (vs patches, time machine, manually downloading previous upgrades, extracting previous versions, backups ...).
Google has not invested a lot of time and effort, distribution contracts, sw for multiple OSs, hw devices (iPhone, AppleTV, iPods ...) ... in an online store. Not that I don't like Android but (now) it is more for geeks, while iPhone is more for the general consumer.
I bet that if you could somehow use Android to remove Google adds (or to diminish Google's revenue) ...
The internet is probably as important as a mobile network.
They are common and well-understood on Windows. They are very rare on Macs (but they do exist and are well-understood).
A carrier is in a similar situation as an ISP, except that taking out one ISP is less serious than taking out on carrier.
For some people their computer or internet connection is as important as their mobile phone connection.
If your phone breaks down, you simply take out the SIM card and put it into a new phone. With a computer you either pop out the hard drive (easy on some, difficult on others) or take your (hopefully up-to-date bootable backup) and another Mac. Getting another phone is very cheap, from $50 onwards (for a used RAZR for example). Getting another Mac is rather $500.
The internet and a mobile network are very similar. They are the cloud, a phone or a computer is just a client that is replaceable.
These are totally separate issues, guys. Apple approves or declines an app based on their criteria which, in a case such as the GMail program, sounds like it sucks quite a bit, but that has nothing to do with their remote kill switch, which they haven't abused at all.
They didn't even use it on a program like NetShare. I would say they have been extremely responsible with it. Until that changes, it seems wrong to assume otherwise...
Which can also potentially remove software I intentionally install and want on my phone. If I download software and Google can in anyway be aware of it or one of their automated program can but I did not want them or it to they have invaded my private device. If the Android had the option to disable the checker completely I would be fine with it.
Personally I do not trust anyone to have power over my choices since the potential for abuse of that power exists.They could, but of course that would be abusing their power. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt until they start abusing that power like Apple does
Apple has blocked products of duplicate functions to those built into the iPhone. My example is an extreme and if they had the same option with Mac OS X. My argument is also valid since the Android or similar device is a tiny highly portable computer as stated in my original argument.
How about if Google decides to block third party e-mail applications because the Android has the function built in. I am not saying they will but they can.
My Macs and PCs have third party firewalls. For MS or Apple to do something like that they would have to hack past my router firewall and software firewall. Which is a criminal offense and I would seek prosecution and compensation. I also use these firewalls to block apps from communicating with the internet when there is no reason for them to as I download and install updates manually.
With all being said if you are fine with the checker scanning for malware and other apps on your phone then kudos. I just want to have the option to block and disable the checker and if I do let it run to have the option of it prompting me for approval before sending any information or removing anything.
But they have yet to KILL a single one. AT&T doesn't like the tethering app one bit. Why do people still have it? Why hasn't Apple killed it? Surely their business partner would like that to happen.
And yet they haven't. Can you explain that?
Did anyone ever think that this article was posted not as an informative piece, but to knock the Android? Even though Apple contains the ability to provide a killswitch, they can't advertise that way... so to me it seems that this article is meant to be a slam at the Android to make it look like they will kill any App that moves in its Android Store even if it wasn't "proven" to be dangerous.
Crossed the Line...
This just crosses the line. No, not the story: All of you. I have been avoiding registering to post for a loooong time but I'm finally too sick of listening to people's whining to hold my peace.
So here's my two cents:
First of all, Apple and Google are not just going to suddenly rip Tetris from off your phone. They have people who monitor these and other forums (and they're not idiots), so they understand what that would do.
Also, where's all the hate towards Google? I saw hundreds of posts on multiple forums just BASHING on Apple when the "Killswitch" was found. I guess its just fun for people to hate Apple on Apple-related forums...
And lastly, neither Apple nor Google has actually USED this "killswitch". it only exists to cover their legal butts. Stop getting so worked up over all of this until you actually get your oh-so-essential $15 lightsaber app wiped off your phone.
P.S. Yes i'm aware its not tetris or lightsaber you're worried about. it was an example
This just crosses the line. No, not the story: All of you. I have been avoiding registering to post for a loooong time but I'm finally too sick of listening to people's whining to hold my peace.
So here's my two cents:
First of all, Apple and Google are not just going to suddenly rip Tetris from off your phone. They have people who monitor these and other forums (and they're not idiots), so they understand what that would do.
Also, where's all the hate towards Google? I saw hundreds of posts on multiple forums just BASHING on Apple when the "Killswitch" was found. I guess its just fun for people to hate Apple on Apple-related forums...
And lastly, neither Apple nor Google has actually USED this "killswitch". it only exists to cover their legal butts. Stop getting so worked up over all of this until you actually get your oh-so-essential $15 lightsaber app wiped off your phone.
P.S. Yes i'm aware its not tetris or lightsaber you're worried about. it was an example
So people were angry when Apple implemented this functionality, now upset that Google has done the same -- but not realizing that RIM has had this from the very beginning.
It is simple insurance to ensure the integrity of the platform and network, which by the way cannot be compared (as it has so many times) to a desktop OS.
You are responsible for your desktop computer and OS, but these 'proprietary' mobile devices are contracted on networks in which multiple parties carry heavy risks if an application either abused the network or caused severe damage that effected its users, which in turn can effect reputation and profits in an almost instant fashion.
I believe both Apple and MS would love to have such functionality implemented into our desktop OS's, however there just isn't any proven PR spin that works yet.
Someone earlier pointed out that you trust Google to read / organize your email. In addition you are allowing them to gather statistics that you are told help them combat SPAM. MS users run anti-virus with the trust they are only watching out for our best interest to keep our machines clean.
It's all about perception.
It is simple insurance to ensure the integrity of the platform and network, which by the way cannot be compared (as it has so many times) to a desktop OS.
You are responsible for your desktop computer and OS, but these 'proprietary' mobile devices are contracted on networks in which multiple parties carry heavy risks if an application either abused the network or caused severe damage that effected its users, which in turn can effect reputation and profits in an almost instant fashion.
I believe both Apple and MS would love to have such functionality implemented into our desktop OS's, however there just isn't any proven PR spin that works yet.
Someone earlier pointed out that you trust Google to read / organize your email. In addition you are allowing them to gather statistics that you are told help them combat SPAM. MS users run anti-virus with the trust they are only watching out for our best interest to keep our machines clean.
It's all about perception.
SpamBots
And if you want to talk about invasion of privacy, yeah, take a look at the SpyBots that read your Gmail. nobody seems to care about that. But of course some legal clause about a "just-in-case" capability has people throwing their iPhones and Androids at each other like an 8th grade food fight.
...cool
And if you want to talk about invasion of privacy, yeah, take a look at the SpyBots that read your Gmail. nobody seems to care about that. But of course some legal clause about a "just-in-case" capability has people throwing their iPhones and Androids at each other like an 8th grade food fight.
...cool
I was using it as an example of how Apple has used it's other app control policies. They have no problems limiting apps which seems like they could be of use to people.
They are not separate issues. Both deal with control and the software you are allowed to have on your. Netshare isn't a malicious app, but that doesn't mean they won't use the kill switch on it in the future (or another app like it).
This was the same argument used prior to when they started pulling or preventing good apps from getting on the app store. They haven't done it yet means nothing. In any case I'm guessing they want to prevent those apps the best they can so they don't have to use the kill. IMHO, the kill switch means their approval process completely broke down and they have to resort to a last ditch effort.
The approval process, app pull, kill switch are all related because they all deal with control over your phone. Apple has clearly shown that them just not liking an app is enough to prevent it from even entering the store. So far they have reserved the use of the kill switch, but I'm betting if Netshare had been downloaded by more people they may have made a decision to do just that.
*EDIT*
And I actually have no problem with a kill switch as long as it is clearly documented that the switch is there to remove apps that really are malicious in nature. Duplicate functionality doesn't count.
I hate to burst your bubble but firewalls do not protect you in any way from potential threats coming from the OS provider. For example, Safari could upload information about you to Apple because you allow it to communicate with the internet and if you don't trust anyone it seems strange that you trust the firewall manufacturers. They are in a superb position to log all your data if they wanted to.
It's nice to have another "no whining" team member! Welcome!
To be quite honest, those who don't whine, pretty much get tired of trying to stop it, so like me (I imagine), we just stop posting until we can't hold it anymore.
My ultimate whining favorites are the following two:
1) The out of control rumor craziness that builds up an Apple event to such an incredible level that it could never possibly be met, then all of the whining about it being "lame", "boring", "how can you call that an event", "what a waste of time" and "nothing exciting".
2) That most of the whiners here believe they are much more important than they really are. They believe that because there is a "hot" topic on MacRumors that they are right and Apple is wrong, not realizing that Apple could really care less if you don't like "black keys" or "non-replaceable batteries".
Ask 100 random (well, as random as you can get) people on the street if they've heard of MacRumors. That will help you measure it's overall importance in the world of technology.
I would say that's debatable, especially in the short run (especially as there are multiple networks, many secure and isolated for governmental use). In the event of a large-scale disaster, what do you think people do? Reach for their phone or run to start blogging about it?
Even for a small personal disaster, your phone is your best friend. Get in a car crash, dial 911, but can't talk? It'll help them locate you through triangulation and/or GPS. I think this is the major liability above and beyond identity theft. Which do you think carries a larger financial reward in a tort: loss of money or loss of life (the most valuable thing anybody possesses)?
Naturally, Apple does it first, it gets made public, everyone makes a fuss about it, then everyone else in the industry follows and no one cares anymore.
I am well aware that these measures are not foolproof. What you are missing is that given that I am taking such measures to protect my data and that I made no agreement for them to take such important data, they would be circumventing a technological measure taken to secure access to private data and be civily and criminally liable for such an act. If caught I would have the option then to seek prosecution and compensation for punitive damages.
I have no reason to speculate on that. I never stated that these killswitches absolutely mean that Apple, Google or anyone else will absolutely use them. My argument is that they have the option and I just want the option to opt out and block their potential use of the killswitch.Small White Car said:
I do not need a killswitch for a possible malicious program. I am not in the habit of simply clicking and downloading a program. Before downloading and installing any software I read about it and decide whether I find the company trustworthy or not and if I will be able to easily remove the program if I do not like it. In the many years of both Mac and Windows ownership I have not had any malicious software take over my system nor installed software that could not be removed.
What someone can do with the tools they have is different to what they have done or will do. Men have the tools to be a rapist but the vast majority will never use them in that way.
Anyone want to take bets on how long it will be until Microsoft and Apple implement this in their computer operating systems? My guess is that Windows 7 will have such a feature, and MacOS 10.7 or 10.8. Any "authorized" authority (the OS manufacturer, the cops, the MPAA, the RIAA) will be able to disable any application, worldwide.
You will need to become an official Apple or Microsoft approved developer and your apps will be reviewed before they can be "published" to the world, just like for the iPhone.
On the bright side this will probably end up dramatically accelerating the advancement of Linux. On the dark side Linux will probably become illegal in the USA and several other countries based on WIPO decrees.
You will need to become an official Apple or Microsoft approved developer and your apps will be reviewed before they can be "published" to the world, just like for the iPhone.
On the bright side this will probably end up dramatically accelerating the advancement of Linux. On the dark side Linux will probably become illegal in the USA and several other countries based on WIPO decrees.
Well, in that case it is not a question of trust but a question of liability. I see no reason why Google would not to be just as liable as any other company.