Slashdot Mirror
Android Also Comes With a Kill-Switch
Aviran writes "The search giant is retaining the right to delete applications from Android handsets on a whim.
Unlike Apple, the company has made no attempt to hide its intentions, and includes the details in the Android Market terms and conditions, as spotted by Computer World: 'Google may discover a product that violates the developer distribution agreement... in such an instance, Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your device at its sole discretion.'"
and here I was looking forward to this phone for the reason I would be able to add whatever apps I wanted. Google please do not become apple.
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
"Developer Distribution Agreement" Sounds like it applies to their marketplace.
We are still going to be allowed to install our own apps though right? I hope so, and from what I can tell from TFS it won't apply there.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Yawn, yet another inflammatory Slashdot article.
The search giant is retaining the right to delete applications from Android handsets on a whim
Good use of 'whim', makes it seem utterly random rather than based on a particular criteria.
Yes, they can remove apps you buy at the App Store from your phone. Unlike Apple and the iPhone however, you can get applications from other places that aren't subject to the kill-switch.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
I, for one, welcome a way to stop a potential robot uprising. But, I think robot's sufficiently intelligent to rebel, will also have figured out how to disable the switch.
People go on and on about how Android is Linux based and Open Source, but it's not. The Linux backend is all but invisible and likely just as locked down as the Linux installs on other embedded devices. You are not going to be able to easily replace it, assuming you can even get close enough to the system to have a hope of doing so. Tivo, all over again.
Google is doing everything in the Java environment precisely to put you in a sandbox they (and the cell networks) can control. Sure the developer agreement is not quite as onerous as the one Apple uses, but it's certainly just as controlling when necessary.
And, sadly, so long as the cell carriers are seen as the customers of these phones, we'll only get more user-hostile phones that implement every security measure they can to keep you from doing what you want with your hardware.
As I suggested in a previous thread, it sounds like the Android won't be an open smartphone like a Palm, Nokia, or Windows Mobile device. It's in the same almost-a-smartphone category as the iPhone.
... now, hands down if you're a malware writer.
Come on folks, how exactly this is news? One of the major advantages of a central repository for software is that you do have that central control, so you can require programs to be of a reasonable standard and can also disable malware or abusive software that makes it on there. It's a big advantage distributions like Ubuntu have over Windows.
*If* Google were to abuse this like Apple have done then yeah, it'll be bad. Until then it's just common sense.
"violates the developer distribution agreement ... in such an instance, ..." != "on a whim"
Whale
If they delete an app you paid for, will they reimburse you?
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
If someone really wants to produce a fully open, Four Freedoms-safe, Stallman-friendly cellphone, they'll have to set up a fully open, Four Freedoms-safe, Stallman-friendly network to run it on. Which probably means someone kindly donating a few squillion for the infrastructure.
The internet got close to that by starting off below the radar. The comms companies will not let that happen again.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Data: If you had an off switch, Doctor, would you not keep it a secret?
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
It's at the "sole discretion" of Google. There's no provision for binding arbitration or litigation. So "whim" is correct.
If you want openness, get OpenMoko.
Everyone's complaining, but this is only the first phone ever released with Android. Any lockdown with the G1 is by T-Mobile. Nothing's stopping another carrier from getting a model built that doesn't have these problems, or HTC selling unlocked versions.
...someone will be able to distribute a patch that disables the kill switch. If no such patch is possible or violates the purchase contract then the "phone" is not Open Source.
If such a patch is possible but results in termination of service the system is technically Opne Source but useless as such.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
So take the OS source, fork it, and update your phone. There, kill switch is gone.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
Google is doing everything in the Java environment precisely to put you in a sandbox they (and the cell networks) can control.
This is my problem with Android, you may as well go with Windows Mobile. They are just about as open. If you are concerned with freedom then you should get an OpenMoko FreeRunner. You can run whatever software you like on it in whatever language you want. There are plenty of other problem with OpenMoko, but software freedom is not one of them.
IANAL, but this could well be subject to legal challenge in the UK under a combination of the Computer Misuse Act and the Unfair Contract Terms Act. The first piece of legislation means that you're not allowed to run code, modify data or attempt to access a computer that doesn't belong to you without the owner's permission; the second places restrictions on the type of clauses that companies can place in contracts with consumers. If Google deleted an application that I'd previously paid for, they'd be skating on some very thin leagal ice.
Honestly why anyone is surprised at Google acting like a real company is a mystery. Since Google became a publicly traded company they only have one obligation.....
Making stockholders a profit
Few companies set out to do bad deeds but most won't rule them out. Google was supposed to be different. Regarding "Don't be evil"(tm), CEO Eric Schmidt recently clarified the policy saying that it was simply meant as a conversation starter.
Here's Google from good to bad...
+7.1 - Philanthropy
Creating a foundation to fight poverty.
+5.3 - Coddling staff
Establishing on-site day care as an employee perk.
-2.4 - Moral Triage
Giving Brazilian police access to private photo albums on Orkut to assist an investigation into child pornography.The lesser of two evils is still pretty lame
-4.8 - Immaturity
Google's on going smear campaign against Privacy International for giving them a last place rank.
-6.7 - Screwing staff
Raising cost of on site day care to $57,000 per year.
-8.3 - Censorship
Instituting keyword filters at the request of the Chinese government. Google's do no evil policy only applies to the U.S.
Source: Wired 16.10
I know RTFA is out of fashion here... can't blame people if TFA isn't even the TFA but a F Blog Post -on- TFA, but all the same...
``In addition, Google says that if it does remotely remove an application, it will try to get users their money back, a question that iPhone users have wondered about in the case of an iPhone application recall. Google said that it will make "reasonable efforts to recover the purchase price of the product ... from the original developer on your behalf." If Google fails to get the full amount back, it will divide what it gets among affected users.`` - http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9117279&source=rss_news , AKA: TRealFA
This situation reminds me of the pre-Carterfone phone system, in which the phone company (there was only one, which is a reminiscence for another day) prohibited attachment of "foreign" devices. If they didn't make it, you couldn't attach it. They'd even 'ping' your wiring to make sure you didn't have any unauthorized extras on the line. It took the Carterfone decision to get rid of that prohibition, leading to today's ability to attach anything we want, so long as it doesn't harm the system. I hope that we'll eventually get something like that for these new phones so that we're not subject to somebody else's ideas of what we're allowed to run on our own hardware.
i was waiting for android to come out, holding on purchasing another phone. for some godforsaken reason, i dont know why, i was thinking that since google was doing it, android would be better, since they have been sufficiently reliable on the web.
now i find out that an external company is going to control what i do on MY phone if i buy android, regardless of it is google or not.
the most polite thing i can say to google on it, after making me wait like this and popping that crap - shove it up your butt, where it belongs. also pay my respects to the brainless moron who thought that this kind of policy was a good idea.
Read radical news here
I guess I'll have to stay with the open (as in playground) solution, Windows Mobile...
I almost have an aneurysm saying that, but hey, it works. M$ can't delete MY software and neither can AT&T =)