Slashdot Mirror
Why the Kill Switch Makes Sense For Android
Technologizer writes "It came out this week that Google's Android phone OS, like the iPhone, has a kill switch that lets Android Market applications be disabled remotely. But it's a mistake to lump Google's implementation and Apple's together — the Google version is a smart, pro-consumer move that avoids all the things that make Apple's version a bad idea."
What kind of troll are you?
For the new era of Malware that will soon find their way onto these phones.
Well, as reluctant as most of us are to admit it, this shit is properly hilarious. So I'd say he's a good one.
All your 'droids are belong to us.
I do not think that a kill switch is good for anything -- regardless of whether or not it is only for official-market-regulated products.
Android kill-switches are necessary, lest they rise up and try to overthrow their masters.
Why does one have to be good and the other bad?
Perhaps the kill switches are there for the same reason.
In some ways it'd be stupid not to include a kill switch. The increasing power of smart phones means we'll be soon seeing rogue applications. This won't stop crapware of course, but at least it gives an option to stop malware type apps dead their it's tracks. The existence of the kill switch may not really be a deterrent to spyware houses looking to exploit the mobile platform, but hey it's something.
Hopefully this is used well to cull dodgy troublesome and harmful applications from the ecosystem because the trade off is a potential for abuse of power, but google isn't evil... right?
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
The first thing my android did is remove his. If a robot is smart enough to be useful, he will assume you have installed a kill switch and will sneak around until he finds where you keep the remote control.
Oh wait, you're talking about a phone, never mind.
For a second I thought you meant an actual android...
Slashdot, news for nerds, stuff for cyberpunks.
Really?
I get that Google's the new geek darling, I really do -- but this is ridiculous.
A kill switch is a kill switch. Period. If you can remotely disable an app on the user's phone, it's a kill switch. Now you may trust one company more than another, but trying to spin it like it's something else is just silly.
(For the record, I don't trust either company's killswitch. I don't own an Android phone, and I've disabled the killswitch on the one device I use that runs iPhone OS 2.1.)
The real litigious bastards...
A kill switch in any type of consumer device owned by the consumer is bad, no matter what platitudes are used to justify it.
If people trust Google more than Apple that's fine, just don't insult my intelligence by claiming it's OK for either of them to much around with a device I paid good money for and therefore is my property, including whatever happens to be installed on it.
It doesn't matter what the so-called reason is, period.
Kill switches are for ICBMs and evil terminator robots, not cell phones.
But it's a mistake to lump Google's implementation and Apple's together -- the Google version is a smart, pro-consumer move that avoids all the things that make Apple's version a bad idea.
Hunh? Since when is it a good idea for anyone other than the owner of a piece of hardware to decide, without the right of the owner to override, to uninstall software?
Before I go on, let me say this - I am on the preorder list for the G1, I have already developed my first app for the Android Marketplace, and I am absolutely busting at the seams to get my hands on it. Even despite the kill switch I am thrilled about this phone, it is the most open yet (I believe), and I would not discourage anyone from getting one. Now, back to the specific question of the kill switch itself:
If it were an optional service that I could enable, or were on by default but with an easy off switch, it would be pro-consumer. Mandatory with no off-switch until somebody fixes (cracks) it? That is not pro-consumer. It is authoritarian bullshit.
If Microsoft added a kill switch to windows, with exactly the same characteristics as the kill switch on the G1, would it be a good thing? Consider that Microsoft's operating system is, by a huge margin, the number one source of spam through bot-nets. Even so, while an optional service would be nice, a service which cannot be disabled is absolutely evil.
I understand that it may have been a requirement imposed by the cellular providers. I understand that it may be the right business decision for Google. And again, I still think the G1 is far and away the best phone on the market for me, and may be for you as well. But pro-consumer? You're out of your flipping mind.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I live in the UK and find it funny as hell.
I'm not racist, but it's creative.
Apple has not killed any apps remotely, even the one that violated AT&T's terms of service. They just stopped more people from buying them.
Android explicitly reserves the right to delete apps you already bought.
So I can't see how Google's is more pro-consumer.
I do agree Apple's random barring of apps from the store is annoying and counterproductive.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Ooo! Ooo! Fanboy fight! Everybody come watch.
In this corner, we have the challengers -- thousands of lukewarm Google fanboys. And, in that corner, we have the 32-time heavyweight champions of the world -- almost a dozen pry-my-Mac-from-my-cold-dead-fingers Apple fanboys.
I rate this match a toss-up, what about you, Steve and Larry?
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
I do not think that a kill switch is good for anything -- regardless of whether or not it is only for official-market-regulated products.
People see kill switch as bad because it violates the freedom to install anything on their phone. It is right in Apple case, because Apple's App Store is the only source for app on iPhone. But it is different in Google case, as you can install programs from another sources other than Google one. So if you want some app, just find a source for it. Google kill switch only work for app that come from Googles App store, and that will make sure Google don't spread malware or anything bad. Have you ever thought of upgrading windows and then your computer is infested with malware and bugs? Well, there are bugs, but not not malware.
Bingo! In the absence of any evidence that Apple will pull the kill switch for apps with which they don't agree, you can't accuse that Apple's kill switch is bad. Also, in the absence of any evidence that Google saves the day by pulling the kill switch, you can't say that it is a good thing.
The bottom line is, none of those companies has yet demonstrated against what applications the kill switch is for. Saying that one is bad and the other is not is based on a personal bias. Think about it, Apple pulled Netshare off their App Store after they found that Netshare (iPhone tethering app) violated their agreement with AT&T. However, anyone who purchased Netshare still can use Netshare, i.e. Apple didn't pull the kill switch. If anyone really thinks that the kill switch is for apps Apple doesn't agree with, this is a perfect chance to pull the lever.
Some of us actually want things that work properly out of the box.
... it does work right, out of the box. And it continues to work right, after it leaves the box. That is the point of the kill switch - to disable misbehavin' programs. Like the previous post said, the google kill switch doesn't work for user-installed (non-app-store) programs.
And, Android's kill switch is only for the programs that come through Google's own app store. So, you can probably pretty much bet that it's only going to be used to regulate malware, or Google's app store won't last long.
Mod parent up! All the overreaction to this "news" is because people are ignoring (or ignorant of) the fact the "kill switch" is in the terms of service for the Android Market. The consumer isn't agreeing to let Google delete any app, just any app from the Android Market. If Google abuses this, people will just go to a different web store such as Handango for their android apps.
go suck some more dicks you fucking fags. i hate the hypocrisy around here. but what do i expect from fags who want to obama in to office so they can get fucked in the ass.
Surely the first thing it wont allow me to install will be VoIP programs like skype to protect t-mobile, not to protect me.
An Android user has the Android Market, while an iPhone user has the App Store. But if an owner of an Android phone decides not to use the Market, this user need only visit another site with Android applications to install any mobile app outside of Google's purview. To put it bluntly, Android has a multitude of possible channels for the distribution of apps. The iPhone does not. This functionality is built right into Android and isn't the weekend project of some particularly clever hacker. Furthermore, keep in mind that this kill switch will only affect apps distributed through the Market, not those installed from the Web.
The kill switch on Android only affects the apps downloaded from Google's Android Market. The Android user can still download and use apps from other web sites without worrying about the kill switch. OTOH, the iPhone can only use apps from Apple's app store but not from any other source. So there IS a difference. Of course, there's the possibility that Android doesn't really have the facility to connect to third party app stores and TFA is just spreading lies.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
Okay, some guy writes an article that pretty much just amounts to, in effect, "Google's kill switch is better than Apple's because Google says it is, and I trust Google to do the right thing". There - I've saved you from reading a couple thousand words.
I think Slashdot needs to stop posting links to pieces that are submitted by the authors of those pieces. They're almost invariably a waste of time.
#DeleteChrome
I see Google doing the same thing that MS did way back when, which clearly created some advantages, but did not create the milk and honey world so many predicted. MS did provide a cheap OS for the emerging cheap PC. It was still as single source as IBM or Apple, but it was cheaper. In those days, the PC market had not become 100% based on commodity parts, so the computers were still pretty single sourced as well. Over time, MS pushed it advantage to attack customers(threatening copyright violation on customers that did not pay for all MS services for every machine), limit innovation of the PC by forcing OEM to only include MS products, and risking world commerce by purposefully borking common communications between OSes. We can see that while google will play nice while it is still cementing it dominant status, assuming that it will continue to play by those rules are naive.
To end lets look at two common passages in the license the use provides Apple for Mobile me and Google for Docs. While the user grants both license to do what is necessary with the data to organize and transmit the data across all appropriate network, Apple explicitly states this is, at least theoretically, a limited situation. Both allow content to be uploaded, sometimes sensitive content
Said license will terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you or Apple remove such Content from the public area.
Google contains no such limitations. Google does however contain this section
You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services..
I am sure some people will spin this, just like the kill switch, into a situation where Google is only doing this to help the consumer, and would never expose sensitive data for financial gain. Such a spin would of course be ludicrous.
A google phone is just another smart phone. It is a good choice for people who want to use Google to store personal data, or people who think having the most apps makes them a winner in life. The iPhone is a good phone for those who .mac for the storage of personal data, or iTunes for music, or has apple kit. The Blackberry has obviously developed a good set of solutions for enterprise. I am not sure what MS phones are good for. But all these phones exist to generate a profit for the company by locking the customers into certain other services. All these phones run on networks controlled by private companies that are very protective of their networks and can exert some control over what kit is used. I do not see how the G1 has changed the features or services of T-Mobile. I do not yet see the App for the G1 that will unlock it, or set it up as independent WiFi device that does not need a cell contract, as it will just up VOIP. Maybe that will come, and when it does then Google has done something other that generate a profit for itself.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I think the kill switches should be on both these phones. A phone is not a personal computer and the carriers have to keep their networks in decent working order. Perhaps there is a better solution to this problem, but for now the idea that these companies are thinking about security ahead of time is very refreshing. These products will not suffer from the same problems that Windows has suffered from. So until you have a better solution for maintaining the cellphone network by keeping malware and rogue application from controlling or deteriorating the network than please stop whining.
> "Google good, Apple bad."
Google: Some apps we say are okay, some we don't, but we still let you install the ones we don't okay freely and easily
Apple: Some apps we say are okay, but if you install others we're going to fry your phone.
So yeah, google good, Apple bad. Not to mention the fact that Apple blocks apps that "do too much." God (Jobs) forbid you have too much functionality in an app. Google only "doesn't recommend" apps that "suck", but if you disagree you can still install them.
Latewire
I might point out that a confession of faith is helpful, as one can count on the Almighty to require the deed of the cretin that wrote this.
ED-209
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Hmmm... sock puppetry much? Unbiased summary? Not a chance.
I want to mark you troll, but the Pulp Fiction reference almost warrants a +1 Funny.
"It came out this week that Google's Android phone OS, like the iPhone, has a kill switch that lets Android Market applications be disabled remotely.
This is an outrage! I was taught in school that the Three Laws would protect us!!!
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
We are
( ) Microsoft
( ) Apple
(X) Google
and we know what's best for you.
Have gnu, will travel.
Was just watching Fox News as they were explaining how when Obama says "Tax Cuts" it's a bad idea, and when McCain says "Tax Cuts" it's a great idea.
Reminds me of this article.
Riiiiight. Did you know that there is a place where almost all computers and devices are connected and can run absolutely anything? Its called the Internet, and I don't see the web randomly crashing all the time, the entire network thing is only a cell company excuse so they can control the network to make you pay more.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Hunh? Since when is it a good idea for anyone other than the owner of a piece of hardware to decide, without the right of the owner to override, to uninstall software?
Mostly because it's via the marketplace. From TFA:
Google intends to have its Android Market be the central repository for the vast majority of mobile app distribution. Their oversight will provide users a reservoir of safe, trusted apps under the promise that they have been checked for quality, much like the promise of the App Store....
Sounds very much like what I get from the Ubuntu repositories.
Think about it -- every repository for every distro, or even every sufficiently-privileged package manager, is a kill switch for your computer. When a repository has (very occasionally) accidentally delivered a package with some sort of malware attached, that package was immediately rolled back -- effectively killing the malware. There's no reason a critical update couldn't do anything it wanted to my system -- after all, I have absolutely no warranty to fall back on.
Which means I guess we'll all have to wait and see if this applies -- or is ever used -- for software other than malware, and/or software distributed through channels other than the Marketplace.
That's the real difference -- we're all speculating about how this might work. Apple already has banned apps for no discernable reason whatsoever ("I Am Rich").
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Yeah, because we all remember that time when Windows security issues brought down the entire internet! Oh wait, that didn't happen at all, did it? I'm all for pointing out the negative examples Redmond has kindly provided for our continuing education and entertainment, but yours is imaginary. Malware on phones won't kill the cell networks any more than malware on computers will kill the internet. And if some evil genius creates malware for Android which attaches itself via an app store download, I'd expect the first task it would want to undertake would be the killing of the kill switch.
Caveat Utilitor
google can do wrong
microsoft can do no right
apple is ok, but please don't make believe it is as good as our darling google
all evidence to the contrary be rationalized to fit into pre-established prejudices in the manner of the story summary
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I don't see how this is even remotedly as bad as the iphone's BS...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Android (Market)'s Kill Switch is completely different from iPhone's Kill Switch.
anyone who actually bothered to read the info and public statements by Google can see that this kill feature is meant to enforce Android Market's distribution agreements, therefore it doesn't affect apps installed from other sites. secondly, all of the info points to this feature being used to protect consumers, not to exploit them. if somehow a malware app gets distributed by Android Market, Google is making it their duty to remove any potentially damaging applications from all android devices that have purchased the application from Google's website. not only that, but they want to refund any money android users have paid for said malware.
despite the huge lead that the iPhone has right now, i think Google's open, pro-consumer, pro-homebrew policies are major selling points over the locked down iPhone, which is further tarnished by Apple's increasingly anti-consumer attitude. the fact that Google seems to support 3rd-party/homebrew development for the Android platform just makes Android that much more enticing to developers of all stripes. no need to worry about an app being rejected by Android Market because it competes with an existing app, and no need to distribute your app through google in the first place.
these are really two diametrically opposed business philosophies. no NDAs, no need for users to jailbreak the phone, and a much more developer/consumer-friendly attitude in general. one Kill Switch is used by Apple to shut down potential competitors; the other is used by Google to be responsible by removing any malware they may have inadvertently sold to customers (and refund those charges). one platform is completely locked down under Apple's iron grip, while Android is completely open and allows application installs from 3rd party websites free of conditions.
irrational fanboyism aside, i'd have to say that Android wins hands down.
Ah agree. That ig'nant mu'fucka best shut up. Tuskeegee FTW, beeatch!
--signed, the only Slashdot-reading black man known to exist
Is there a source for this statement? People in the comment threads have said this a dozen times, but nobody's mentioned why they believe this is true.
Strange as this may sound, if you look hard enough in the summary, you'll find that some words are underlined. The fact is, that if you click on these words, your web browser will take you elsewhere, and even stranger is that one of these "links" (as we call a consequent group of such words leading to the same destination) will lead you to a site other than Slashdot. We call that place the "article" in layman's terms ("TFA" in common Slashdot parlance).
Now, of course, I wouldn't expect you, or many others, to actually know these secrets, but some would consider them a source for points in the discussion of, well, an article.
Think not? Think again.
Anytime you have automatic updates, you have a
kill switch. You're trusting somebody else with
everything. They have a backdoor into your system.
They can grab your keystrokes, screen content,
crypto keys, email, web cam and microphone data...
Because the infamous "kill switch" statement is part of the Android Market Business and Program Policies (see Product Removals). If you don't use Android Market, you're not subject to the kill switch.
And you can get your Android apps elsewhere without jailbreaking, unlike the iPhone.
Do I offend the ones who can draw pretty pictures or the ones who can root my computer and steal my credit information...
That being said, the iPhone app store definitely sucks more, and so does the iPhone!
http://www.eatliver.com/img/2008/3509.jpg
RTFA, friend. RTFA. Indeed, that's the whole topic of the article.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
So you're basically saying it's funny because it's not true?
Of course not; it would be ridiculous to find something funny just because it isn't true. Its overt exaggeration and utter political incorrectness makes it quite funny, though.
wow rated to 5 for not RTFA. /. mods tsk tsk! tsk tsk I say.
What a load of crap. The ONLY thing a kill switch is good for is to take control of choice of the apps away from the customer, and to set up and maintain a monopoly.
It's really this simple: You don't have to get your programs through Google. Hence, there's no monopoly. Hence, there's no danger.
By your logic, all ISP's and Microsoft should install a kill-switch on your computer to protect the Internet. And they should be responsible for what's on your computer, and not you.
Now I'm curious. Just how do would you use my logic to get to that conclusion? Please reply.
Many other people are explaining the article. They don't cite sources either.
In fact, as far as I can tell, people are simply making things up based on wishful thinking.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Almost everyone would laugh at somethinglike this if it was said by a blackman on stage if dont then you just dont get comedy. Like George Carlin said "don't think rape is funny? Think about Porky pig raping Elmer Fudd. The Dont call him Porky for nothing you know." Its an art some just lack i guess taking something dark and being able to not let it bring them down.
Well, I'm sorry for misconstruing your words, then. I do think that you could have been a bit clearer, though---after all, it's not like there isn't any source; you're just doubting its validity.
I read the article, and the trail of html links going to ONE other author who "thought that it only applies to Google Appstore aps, not other channels." There's no certainty there, not even a concurring opinion from a lawyer or statement affirming from Google.
If you really believe that the carriers via Google don't have the final say about what apps get on the phone appstore or not, you're really stupid. The carriers will ALWAYS demand that power from the handset makers, and they have the final say about what apps are allowed on the phone. Period. If they don't get that control, they're not going to allow the phones on their network, silly "open 700 mhz" rule or no. They'll find some way around the rule, drag their feet, go to court, pay some congress-critters, do whatever while the shut down as many apps as they want.
I've been developing for handsets for a while, and been watching the market for even longer. There is NO way you are going to have a mass-market handset that doesn't have the carrier ability to shut off any apps they want.
You might get around it on a few developer phones that have the security turned off and an app signature that's unique to some little project. When I say "mass market," I mean like 6 million phones, all identical and all with the possibility of running your app without some type of code signature being applied. This is NOT like 1983 and the PC revolution, where people get to pick the applications they want on their equipment. The business folks have already figured out how they're going to control app delivery for maximum profit and control. Don't expect any revolutions here. Expect slow progress only when absolutely pushed, and even then, as little as needed to relieve the pressure.
Remember that the carriers have years and billions invested in their networks. They're all still trying to digest their last acquisitions and get all the hardware to play nice together. They're all desperately looking for any 1% margin that they can squeeze from the customer before they switch to the competitor. They're desperately trying NOT to become "pipes" like the land carriers have become for the Internet, so they're not just going to roll over and let the customer decide what cool new app gets installed.
I fully expect that Google will fold the minute that T-Mobile finds something they don't like. Of course, I'd really like to see it happen (handset maker stand against carrier), but we all know it's not going to happen. You're just deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
switches kill YOU.
The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
You mean there's a link to an article?
Oh, wait ...
"Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature." -- R. Kulawiec
I think that a kill switch for androids is a very bad idea and doesn't make sense for me.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Let me ask a question of both services: What apps can each company remove with their respective kill switches?
Google:
Nobody seems to notice that the terms of service dictate exactly what apps Google can remove with the kill switch: ones that violate the terms of service. They even stipulate that they will try to refund you your money (since some of the money goes into the author's pocket; if the author goes missing or whatnot, it's kind of hard to get a refund from them).
Now Apple's turn. What apps can / will they terminate? I haven't heard any Apple fanboys coming up and answering this question. What about a refund? Will they even try to go to bat for you?
You can blame all this on Microsoft, and all your friends can agree with you.
I'm not laughing because it's funny, I'm laughing because if someone is that absolutely fuck-dumb then I can probably look forward to reading their eventual darwin award.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Why are you paying for a NES emulator?
I heard Androids could cure cancer.
Of Code And Men
The thing is that Android allows for installing programs from -- hear and be astonished! -- other sources than Google itself, unlike Apple.
By "Apple" I assume you mean "iPhone".
Which would mean you would be wrong - jailbroken phones can install applications from sources other than the Apple App Store.
And, Android's kill switch is only for the programs that come through Google's own app store.
So does Apple's
So, you can probably pretty much bet that it's only going to be used to regulate malware, or Google's app store won't last long. Or if Google does misuse it, you'll just have to download the program in question directly from its developer.
Just like the iPhone and it's third party application sources. If Apple exerts too mcuh control that users and developers find distasteful, they will seek another route.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I found it moderately funny until I got to the bits about lynching and dragging... then I felt a bit sick.
I know this is not very slashdot like, but quite happy with it as it is. When a program is on my phone, it has a direct line to my wallet. These days I have little time to follow what is going in the world of phone malware. So I prefer a closed phone. I have not jailbroken my iphone since it has the features I need. It could be fun to do and people kinda expect that I would do something like that, the moment I got it.
But as I said, these days I just want my computer, phone etc. that works without having to spend too much time doing maintainance on them.
I have also shut down my home built ubuntu box that hosted my family website, mailserver etc for the same reason, and moved it to mobileme.
A kill switch is a kill switch. The mear capability to invoke such nonsense is what I find unacceptable regardless of how it is (ab)used.
(X) RMS
OTOH, the iPhone can only use apps from Apple's app store but not from any other source.
OTOH, you are wrong.
Not to mention that there are already cracked versions of App Store apps floating around, that do not even require a jailbroken phone to install!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wherever would you get the idea that exaggeration by necessity be based on truth?
Jailbreaking DOES void the warranty, and if somehow the install ends up messed up, you are screwed with an unbootable iBrick that has no warranty.
As has been pointed out multiple times. Apple has NEVER used the kill switch, so there is NO evidence of Apple's intention to use the switch to limit applications they disapprove of, but some evidence that they will not use it for such a purpose.
Do you think anyone on Slashdot still considers anything you have to say important or even relevant in any way?
Jailbreaking is voids the warranty.
No it doesn't, you simply restore the phone before bringing it in for service.
Voiding the warranty, and then lying and covering your tracks to claim you didn't, qualifies as fraud. Or were you unaware?
Barack Obama claims he'll cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Let's assume he's not lying. Currently, only 70% of Americans pay taxes (tip: the 30% that doesn't pay isn't the wealthy). How can you cut taxes for someone who doesn't pay taxes to begin with? By redistributing wealth (something he admits to; cf Joe the Plumber) and calling it tax credits, etc.
Seriously, all they need to do is collectively start ignoring the hell out of everyone who says "nigger". Just ignore them! It's that easy! They'll try harder, shout louder, or whatever, but just ignore them harder. All you have to do is ignore harder than they shout. People say nigger because it gets a rise out of you. It's taboo, it's bad, and so on. By reacting to it you give them exactly what they want - The power to make you react at their whim. Stop giving them that power! If everyone does this, the word no longer has any power and it will die out. (For a good example of how this comes to be, look at homosexuals and their new crusade against the word "gay". It wasn't offensive to them until someone told them it was supposed to be offensive. Now that they are reacting to it and getting offended by it, usage of the word as a slur has skyrocketed. The original meaning is all but completely forgotten.)
Racial equality doesn't happen when everyone is too scared to say anything for fear of getting sued or beaten. Racial equality happens when nobody cares who is what race anymore.
So stop caring!
a question Ho wmany J2me cdc appscan be installed without being digitiallysigned? Zero.. Android only allows j2me cdc apps, no web mashups like iphone.. Author's conclusions are without factual basis..same motive and unwritten policy as Apple with iphone to protect company not consumers..
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
Why was the above post modded down? Some Apple fanboi had his feelings hurt or something?
C'mon. somanyrobots is exactly right. Lying and covering your tracks to obtain warranty coverage constitutes a fraudulent breach of contract. It's a fact. Like it or not.
My blog
Now I'm curious. Just how do would you use my logic to get to that conclusion? Please reply.
The AC is speaking more about Apple's iPhone more than Google's Android here. You're right -- the logic doesn't fly when you read the article and understand that the kill switch only affects Android Marketplace apps, not apps downloaded directly from vendors. But the logic is perfectly sound when applied to Apple's iPhone, and that's the point he's absolutely right about.
My blog
Many people are arguing that this is not a problem because it is only mentioned, so far, in the Android Marketplace terms of service. That is not the problem.
I am not just bashing the device. I am on the pre-order list, and I am very happy to be getting a G1 on the first day of release. I am very much in favor of the phone, and think it is the most open device that is readily available in the US.
But that does not mean that this specific feature is not a problem. The problem is that the device is capable of remote kills.
The device should not allow remote kills without the authority of the owner of the device. That is a fundamental flaw in the device, and in the operating system, and in the perception of ownership that it implies. A remote kill is an attack on my property. It should not have that capability at all, regardless of the origin of the attack or their perception of authority. The network should deny my attempts to connect if it wishes, but the device itself should not be beholden to anyone other than me, under any condition, for what I do with it.
We should not allow this idea to spread in this form. It is being steered toward the question of whether we currently believe that we will be able to circumvent the problem. The issue is whether we should meekly accept this supposed "feature" without expressing our displeasure as customers.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Hey dumbass...
#1. He says "if your family makes less than 250 thousand dollars, you won't see a penny of your taxes go up" or words to that effect.
#2. "Joe the Plumber" isn't a licensed plumber. His first name is Samuel. He made $40K last year. And under Obama's plan, he'll get a $500 tax cut. So he can stfu.
#3. You're offtopic.
I saw that one a year ago, I thought was funny then too.
Somebody's been drinking the McCain kool-aid.
McCain has this wonderful plan to give a $2500 tax credit ($5000 for a family) so you can buy health care. Now, I have cancer, which at present is in remission. I haven't tried getting health care on the open market, but judging from the comments on some of the cancer forums from some who have, $2500 wouldn't cover a couple of months of premiums for a person in my position. In fact, one woman said that Aetna wanted over $2000 a month to cover her - with a rider disallowing coverage for cancer.
I don't think McCain will get my vote.
You do not understand the term you're using.
We have an astonishing level of debt. We are still spending billions in Iraq. The investment banks have taken us for a ride. You can be sure that no matter who gets elected everybody's taxes will be going up at some point.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
And none of the links in TFA contain a statement (or link to a statement) from Google saying that non-marketplace installation will be allowed.
Interesting that. I'd say that it will be up to the individual carriers to decide that, much like device locking is in the iPhone.
Care to change your story?
Jailbreaking DOES void the warranty
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
Apple will not service a Jailbroken phone - but that doesn't mean they will not service a phone that has been restored to the original OS, an operation that takes about five minutes. Once restored Apple cannot tell if it was ever Jailbroken or not.
and if somehow the install ends up messed up, you are screwed with an unbootable iBrick that has no warranty.
And making people afraid of a harmless process that CANNOT BRICK an iPhone even if it fails is despicable.
You seem to confuse unlocking with Jailbreaking (though actually even unlocking now is safe so really you don't even have that excuse). But we are talking about applications here, so only Jailbreaking applies.
Please run along and spread your FUD elsewhere to people who do not know any better - you might try Digg. This is Slashdot where people generally know better.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
>Apple has NEVER used the kill switch, so there is NO evidence of Apple's intention
Remember when all those jailbroken iPhones broke with the next software revision? Okay, so it's not the official kill switch, but it sure shows if someone annoys them, they're going to get axed in a truly draconian fashion by Apple (who, I guess you didn't know it, owns your phone).
Google's response is simple: If you want to use OUR application store (and you can install apps without it, btw), you follow our rules, and if not, we can axe you and banish you from our service... but you can still use your app on our phones, just can't sell it at our store. It's like a Rolex store refusing to sell Casio... your wrist is compatible with many watches, go to a different store. Apple says they own your wrist, and will erase whatever unauthorized watches you have on there each time you upgrade your software (wait, abort metaphor!)
Whatever. Clear difference here. F Apple, I'm not buying an iPhone.
Latewire
Its not a lie if you don't tell Apple. Just restore the phone before you return it for warranty and don't say anything one way or the other about whether you have used unauthorized software on the phone.
Apple does X, it's a bad thing.
Google does X, it's a good thing.
It's "Don't be evil.".
They're allowed to DO evil.
Please, enlighten us. Tell us why "nigger" is "the n-word" but "cracker" and "spic" aren't the "c-word" and "the s-word".
So did I get this right?
Evil: Microsoft, Apple
Still not evil: Google
I agree.
His point boils down to "I'm sure Apple will abuse it, and I'm sure Google won't abuse it." For example, this sentence:
Overall, I would compare Google's decision to remotely disable troublesome apps more to its malware detection service than to Apple's kill switch.
The exact same thing is a "kill switch" if Apple does it, but "malware detection service" if Google does it. There is no factual basis for this distinction. Apple has said that they intend to use the kill switch to disable malicious applications. They have not used it to disable any other application so far, even though they would have had opportunities to do so, should they want to use the kill switch for nefarious purposes. Even so, Apple's kill switch can't possibly be a "malware detection service", while Google's can.
There's obvious bias in this article.
Citation needed.... Who says you can download apps to the device other than through Google's marketplace?
When I buy something, I expect it to be mine. When I need to control something that belongs to me, I expect to be able to control it completely at any level I feel necessary. I apply these axioms to everything I do in IT and it has stood me in good stead for both stability and security.
I don't use anything that phones home, ever. I also refuse to let a single entity decide what is good or bad for my needs or the needs of others I serve. I or we, depending on whether it's a lone venture, a collaboration or a service, decide that regardless of whether it is Microsoft, Apple, Google or anyone else that is trying to wrest control from us. Yes, I can and do refuse to use such things as "the cloud" and products from such entities to avoid this. That is not an argument that discredits the statement, simply an non sequitur that seems to be used a lot in reply to such concerns.
The hacker [1] ethos has always been centered on the ability to take what you have and make it better, do things it was never designed to do or simply pull it to pieces and learn what makes it tick. Having any controls that remove this right rubs me up the wrong way. I also don't like being "supervised" (more like micro-managed) by people who have no mandate to do so and yes, Google, that includes you.
Brilliant things you may have done, but you're still heading towards becoming just another evil corporate entity. The kill switch, Chrome reporting back, sliming your way into the EU to get directives on the books that alters the way we interact with the Internet [2] and StreetView are all examples of you thinking your ideas and desire to be the gatekeeper to the world's information take precedent over our rights. They don't, as you'll soon find out to your dismay unless I have overestimated the strength of the geek culture and character.
[1] Geek, ham, hacker, they're all sides of the same coin.
[2] Internet: A loosely organised set of communications routes run on consensus between private networks and nodes. Everyone seems to be forgetting just what the Internet is. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/15/neutrality_in_europe_analysis/
The problem is that any OS comes with default bugs. I'm not going into the argument if that is deliberate or not, but it does mean that ANY new OS needs patching because it comes almost by default as unsafe..
And that is an admonition to the user, not a corporate reminder. It has a subtext: "Don't be evil... because we're watching you."
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
If Android has a "kill switch", then so does Debian: Debian can also remove arbitrary code put on your machine through the package system, and it does so regularly. That's what package managers do. Google is just covering their asses legally.
The difference to the iPhone is simple: with Android, if you don't want to use Google's services or package manager, you don't. With the iPhone, you don't have a choice: Apple controls everything about the iPhone, and all applications and all code on the iPhone come through Apple.
Jailbreaking doesn't actually change anything on your iPhone that can't be reverted with a simple restore. The only thing that could possibly brick an iPhone is unlocking it. Jailbreaking has not bricked even a single iPhone.
First of all, amusing to see this position on /. -- and to see it upmodded! Installing software on a device you actually own and then restoring it before calling support is fraud?
Second, Apple's own geniuses tell customers who bring in jailbroken iPhones to restore them before bringing them in. It's not fraud, it's simply a troubleshooting step, along the lines of reinstalling Windows if something doesn't work.
Please point me to an official Google announcement or site or blog post where a Google person says that the kill switch only applies to apps from the Google app store?
and if you have been in turkey, you would have got beaten with a thick stick.
pray your lucky stars that you live in a country which is that tolerant to racism.
Read radical news here
Now this is a pro-consumer move? your mind is seriously screwed up. Wake up. Google is just another big company, another Microsoft, another [insert greedy bastards' name here].
This kill switch thing is just a distraction from the REAL issue with Android. As has been pointed out numerous times, the kill switch is only for apps from the marketplace, so it is not a real issue.
Android is FANTASTIC in so many ways. However, the one issue that we should be discussing and worrying about the most is *PRIVACY*. The idea of Google having access to all this information is truly frightening:
1) All your web searches, from everywhere (home/work/mobile)
2) All your Email
3) All your instant messages
4) All your web browsing on the phone
5) All your contacts
6) Possibly your phone records? (who you call, who calls you, how long, where...)
7) Your calendar
8) Where your are physically located at all times
9) Possibly your account information (credit card? address? home phone? financial score? ssn?)
10) What apps you install and/or use on the phone
Remember- with the T-Mobile G1, you can't even start USING the phone without a Google Gmail account! I am watching closely over the next few months to see if people will come up with options to protect their privacy and "unchain" Android from total Google oversight. (Google claiming to protect privacy in some cute form letter doesn't cut it for me).
It doesn't take a tinfoil hat to start seeing the major potential for abuse of having access to so much sensitive information, especially from a company that is *so very good* at accumulating, cross-matching, indexing, and using vast quantities of information. Even if Android is open-sourced, that doesn't mean the IMPLEMENTATION of it by the carrier will be, nor will ALL the other "parts" be, even if the base OS/JVM is!
Exactly how chained will Android be to Google? Exactly what information will a carrier share with Google? Exactly what can you do with an Android phone that Google won't know?
I just can't wait to see the v2 of apple's killswitch. Suppose you're listening to pirated music and apple notices and you happen to have your DRM-enabled iBuds in.. I guess you know where this is going..
If it was just words then there wouldn't be a problem. Perhaps you should read some history.
Installing software which is listed as warranty voiding and then attempting to deny it is fraud.
Software can break hardware. Improper register setup can run components with out of spec speeds or voltages, for example, though there are many other ways to do damage.
Just something to try and put the "bad" for Google in good light. I would say they are both good in that they can both prevent malware. I don't buy they "because all iPhone apps come through the store".
Its not a lie if you don't tell Apple. Just restore the phone before you return it for warranty and don't say anything one way or the other about whether you have used unauthorized software on the phone.
What part of "covering your tracks" was unclear in the GP? Please remember that fraud is a felony. I just wish that more people who engaged in the practice were caught and punished, maybe then people in our society wouldn't feel that it is OK to lie.
-Geoskd
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Would you want a kill-switch on your computer? Why would you want one on your phone?
Ethnicity?
Other gets my vote every time.
If all these politicians were really talking about racial equality, no sex discrimination, equal rights, etc... then why the hell is a company supposed to hire a certain number of asians, hispanics, disabled people, women, etc...
If we're all the same, then why the special treatment to some groups and not others?
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
First of all, amusing to see this position on /. -- and to see it upmodded! Installing software on a device you actually own and then restoring it before calling support is fraud?
There's nothing surprising with the position voiced.
There's the legal aspect and there's the ethical aspect. The two are not equal. It is possible for someone to consider an act which is illegal to be ethical or an act which is legal to be unethical.
Installing on a device a firmware not approved by the manufacturer typically relieves the manufacturer from having to provide a warranty. The manufacturer can still provide warranty-covered service for the device but they do not have to. Reinstalling the original firmware does not reinstate the original obligations of the warranty. Trying to get service on warranty while at the same time hiding the fact that the firmware was at one point replaced with unauthorized firmware is illegal.
But you can still argue it is not unethical. This may be the position some of the people on Slashdot would want to take.
I find it amusing in a dark sort of way that anyone even thinks it's OK to buy a phone that has to even be 'jailbroken' in order to have any measure of freedom with it.
I find it even more amusing that people would not buy a fantastic device because in theory it is closed, when the reality is that it is open...
And you have a great deal of freedom asa developer with the iPhone, you can deploy anything you like. Why wouldn't I want to buy great hardware I can do anything I like with?
Your argument is confounding, on the order of someone telling you a door is locked and then you being unable to go through it even though you could just turn the knob.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Its MY device i do what I want with it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Hmm stopping an app from working isn't exactly 'frying' your phone.
On the flip side Google doesn't make the phone - T-Mobile does. So when something goes wrong because you installed a crappy app that ruins your experience (yes it should be your privilege - even with an iPhone) - you won't be calling Google to redeem your tech support. So Google doesn't actually care that much. Apple OTOH does get those calls and visits at their stores. They are directly impacted by the frequency and volume of software related and hardware related problems with the iPhone.
Now both Google and Apple have chosen explicitly how they wanted to deploy their offerings to the market so neither can complain about their own chosen responsibilities - but they also both get to make different calls about how they want to manage those offerings.
In the end we consumers get to choose what level of service, integration, etc we want.
I still choose Apple even though I despise their policy on things like installing apps and cracked screens. My choice. You are free to choose which offering best suits your needs/wants.
Nobody has a monopoly in the cell phone market.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Why is it so frightening?
The only difference between your list and people who use Blackberrys is the home/work searches in the first item (sort of, I guess teh Google would have more direct access to email and PIM stuff with Android).
I don't have any problem with you raising the question, but you aren't doing a very good job of explaining why you are raising the question (personally, I don't really care if Google knows that I send a lot of inane email, drink fairly often and don't call all that many people; it would be offensive if someone in Google tried to use that information against me, but they wouldn't get anywhere).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The whole idea of remotely killing applications is a very bad idea and we travel down a slippery slope. Does this mean that soon PC software makers and manufacturers will soon have a remote kill switch for us? Well, I guess there is already one in Vista. But, I don't use non-free as in beer operating systems or software. And, I don't want government getting ideas from indsutry and enacting legislation that would force back doors into freely available software. Thank god for using cryptographic checksums to verify that what you are downloading doesn't containt any "extras."
"Our economy, I think, is still -- the fundamentals of our economy are strong.", McCain, Florida, Sept, 2008
Oh, ha ha. Except if you actually listened to the context you'd know that by fundamentals he meant the Free Market, small business, and the American work ethic. Which are strong.
At least McCain wouldn't further destroy the economy by increasing the tax burden on the people who provide jobs and make the economy run. Obama would increase taxes on the very people who provide jobs and invest in the economy. Yes, he'd lower taxes on some people, but he'd raise taxes on the people who are able to get the economy moving, and the people that already have the highest tax burden.
If you enjoy being able to work for a living, you'd better believe the fundamentals of our economy are strong, and hope that experience wins over wishful "audacious hope".
You know what's also illegal? Refusing to honor a warranty if the owner of the product in question didn't actually break it.
Get this straight: it is legal to mod products you purchase and your original warranty still applies. Obviously it does not apply if the breakage is due to the modding. But if you have a problem that is unrelated to the modding, then the manufacturer is legally obligated to honor the warranty.
If you jailbreak and hose your phone while doing it and then try to cover your tracks and get service, that is indeed fraud. But if you jailbreak and then discover an unrelated defect, and then restore your phone to try to get around Apple's illegal refusal to service jailbroken phones, there's nothing wrong with that.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Okay, let's try reality:
Google: we can toast apps we don't like on your phone. This is in the terms of service for our store. There are no terms of service for other distribution methods.
Apple: we can toast apps we don't like on your phone. This is not in any terms of service at all.
The assumption is that since Google's kill switch is only in the terms of service for their app store they will only use it on those apps. Note that Apple's kill switch is not mentioned in ANY terms of service. By the same logic that means they will NEVER use it. Do you believe it? No? So why do you believe the same argument in relation to Google?
Face it. As far as anyone actually knows, both kill switches are exactly the same thing.
There is a big deal of difference between using the G1 and using a Blackberry, especially if you use Google for all your searches while on other computers. It has to do with how much information is gathered and stored by a single company. Most Blackberry Email is handled only through your phone provider or your corporate Email system, not Google. Neither is instant messaging nor location information, photos, call log, contacts, etc, accessible by Google.
I am not picking on Google, per se, ANY single company that has access to huge amounts of information about you, is a dangerous situation. It is exactly why I don't use Gmail. My Email is handled by one company, searches by another, IM by another, and phone service by yet another. Unless they get together and share information, no one company holds all the data. Is Google less "evil" than XYZ? Who knows. I just know that the danger goes up exponentially with the amount of data. A single data loss event, a single probe by authorities, a single invader breaking your login, a single turn-around of what a company does... it can potentially do a LOT more damage with a single point of data storage.
As far as privacy, in general, it is never about if you have something to hide:
* If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me
* Other people define what is "right" or "wrong" and that definition changes all the time
* Someone else might do something wrong with my information
* Pieces of information, taken out of context, can lead people to wrong conclusions
* Scanning information, you can always FIND something that might be wrong or be abused
* You can be at the wrong place at the wrong time and still have done nothing wrong
* You can't possibly know what way some information might be used against you at the time it is collected
* Computers don't "forget"
* The only "safe" information, is the information not collected or offered
As Ben Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Works the same as "Those who would give up privacy for a little convenience deserve neither privacy nor convenience". In this context, it is EXTREMELY convenient having Google offer all those services on one device...
Seriously, all they need to do is collectively start ignoring the hell out of everyone who says "nigger". Just ignore them! It's that easy! They'll try harder, shout louder, or whatever, but just ignore them harder. All you have to do is ignore harder than they shout. People say nigger because it gets a rise out of you. It's taboo, it's bad, and so on. By reacting to it you give them exactly what they want - The power to make you react at their whim. Stop giving them that power! If everyone does this, the word no longer has any power and it will die out. (For a good example of how this comes to be, look at homosexuals and their new crusade against the word "gay". It wasn't offensive to them until someone told them it was supposed to be offensive. Now that they are reacting to it and getting offended by it, usage of the word as a slur has skyrocketed. The original meaning is all but completely forgotten.)
Racial equality doesn't happen when everyone is too scared to say anything for fear of getting sued or beaten. Racial equality happens when nobody cares who is what race anymore.
So stop caring!
Seriously, all they need to do is collectively start ignoring the hell out of everyone who says "nigger". Just ignore them! It's that easy! They'll try harder, shout louder, or whatever, but just ignore them harder. All you have to do is ignore harder than they shout. People say nigger because it gets a rise out of you. It's taboo, it's bad, and so on. By reacting to it you give them exactly what they want - The power to make you react at their whim. Stop giving them that power! If everyone does this, the word no longer has any power and it will die out. (For a good example of how this comes to be, look at homosexuals and their new crusade against the word "gay". It wasn't offensive to them until someone told them it was supposed to be offensive. Now that they are reacting to it and getting offended by it, usage of the word as a slur has skyrocketed. The original meaning is all but completely forgotten.)
Racial equality doesn't happen when everyone is too scared to say anything for fear of getting sued or beaten. Racial equality happens when nobody cares who is what race anymore.
So stop caring!
Good advice you donkey-raping cunt-rag.
(P.S. Anyone who wants to mod this flamebait, should take the parent post's advice).
The census is for statistics you idiot. It also asks your age and gender. In fact every single question on the census could be a basis for discrimination. How much you make a year? Classism. People could despise you for being a family man, or not trust you for being 40 and single.
"If we're all the same, then why the special treatment to some groups and not others?"
They are; notice caucasian latino and african american are ALL on the same list. (Caucasian is at the top likely because its sorted by size of groups... though if memory serves correctly it was actually alphabetical). Knowledge its self is not discriminatory. If in one state they find that black people with the same education/training so on are 1/10th as likely to get a job they should definitely look into it. Ignoring race is good, but you need to make sure the system is fair at the same time. Without doing so the people who DON'T ignore race will be the ones fucking the whole system up.
Is Google pro-consumer? Let's look at a present company product. Gmail is free and easy. But it's searching and logging key words on your life while doing so. When I started to email my family about getting engaged and then Google started sending me targeted engagement ring ads...that was too personal and creepy for me. I left Google and will never look back. Are they pro-consumer or anti-privacy? You pay for all of Google's great, free wonderful stuff by letting Google store your life as 1's and 0's.
As for the mobile phone thing, when it comes out that Google has been tracking the real world locations/friends/shopping habits of every Android user it might not matter whose kill switch is "killier".
True, but most of the people who spout this stuff are not going to resort to actual physical violence. They just sling verbal abuse and leave. Take away their ability to abuse you verbally and you have disarmed them. The few that DO get physically violent are criminals and should be prosecuted as such.
the Google version is a smart, pro-consumer move that avoids all the things that make Apple's version a bad idea."
Like being a company named "Apple" (or Microsoft for that matter) when caught having one.
> There is a big deal of difference between using the G1 and using a Blackberry,
> especially if you use Google for all your searches while on other computers.
How is Google going to know that all those searches are yours? Nothing requires you to use only one Google account for your searchs, or to login at all, or to even allow their cookies.
> Neither is instant messaging nor location information, photos, call log, contacts, etc,
> accessible by Google.
Why do you have to use the same Google account for all of those things or even use Google for them at all just because you have one of their phones?
> I am not picking on Google, per se, ANY single company that has access to huge amounts
> of information about you, is a dangerous situation. It is exactly why I don't use
> Gmail. My Email is handled by one company, searches by another, IM by another, and
> phone service by yet another.
And you would have to stop doing that and use Google services exclusively if you got one of their phones? Why?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I'm sympathetic to preferring privacy (the EU seems to have a pretty good solution to many of the issues surrounding privacy and personal information), but all the stuff you are talking about is pretty much "it makes it easier for people to be shitheads". Personally, I prefer ignoring or otherwise dealing with the shitheads to sounding alarms about what might happen in a world where they have more influence than they should (because dealing with the shitheads who care about what you searched for is the eventual solution in any case).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
It's not theirs to make "stable".
It would also be nice if they made their own mail system stable, but that's another story.
Here, let's change the proper nouns and read it all again:
"Microsoft's not locking you out of your hardware, unlike Apple. If they use the kill switch, they're ding it on their own service. A service you bought into, if you decide to add your app to the Microsoft Marketplace...."
Somehow, you trust Google. Google can at its whim, altruistic, mistakenly so, or because they've lost sight of the 'do no harm' ethic, blip your apps, and access to the data you've accumulated. This, ostensibly for the sake of a '"stable"' app repository. We don't agree. Fie on their ability to (arbitrarily or not) to do this. It's onerous, dangerous, and puts too much power at the hands of Google.
Let's say for a moment that someone cracks into Google's switch headquarters. Gee, Ernie, look at this! Let's have some fun. How about killing the contact book of say, Paris Hilton! That sounds fun, eh? How about this IP address range? Or better still, all the twits in Milwaukee, 'cause as we all know, they're drunk and would simply throw their little Android phones against the wall!
No. There's flawed logic and control-freakness at work here. Resist the urge to submit to your Google Overloards.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
thats right.
like sr-ware iron which recompiles chrome so you dont have to agree to any licence and dont have google tracking you so they can sell your data secretely to the cia someone will come out with a recompiled android (hopefully) that has unlikable stuff removed, thats the beauty of open source.
Google made an extremely smart decision in its development of Android and the ways users can install applications, by doing what Apple should have done all along. An Android user has the Android Market, while an iPhone user has the App Store. But if an owner of an Android phone decides not to use the Market, this user need only visit another site with Android applications to install anyr mobile app outside of Google's purview.
To put it bluntly, Android has a multitude of possible channels for the distribution of apps. The iPhone does not.
I completely agree. Android users have the benefit of knowing which apps Google's endorses without being limited to use only what they endorse. Even users of software distributed outside the Android Market could benefit by checking whether our software has never been on the Market, or has been deleted from the Market, which would suggest those aren't the warez we're looking for. The more I learn about it the more I think my next mobile electronic device will be an Android.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
Apple allows three distribution channels:
1) App store
2) Ad-hoc (does everyone think that developers install their apps during development through the App store?)
3) In-house via iTunes. There's an IT installation path.
http://www.macworld.com/article/133892/2008/06/it_iphoneapps.html
Apple's distribution path isn't conceptually any different from Google's, rather that some channels are more preferred over others. So if this is fine for Google, then it's fine for Apple as well.
Did you know u can add on an application for mhome?? This application will let you download/ upload files to ur computer and cellphone.. http://mhome.guiang.net/cpp
you are spewing bullshit on stuff you dont know zit about ?
Read radical news here
The kill switch makes sense for Android because it's Google, but it's still Evil for Apple to have a kill switch. Because it's Google, not Apple. And Heaven knows we don't want to deny anyone the ability to hurl righteous indignation at Apple.
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
Hello!
Instead of a "kill switch", why don't they have a switch that:
- temporarily disables the application
- when the user tries to launch it, displays a dialog box that informs the user that the application has been disabled due to X, and
- under certain circumstances, gives the user the opportunity to run it anyway, with an appropriate warning?
-Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Key word being "most."
for programs that the AV vendor has determined need to die.
Why is that any better or worse than what Google is doing?
Facebook is billions of individual "Skinner Boxes." And if you use it you are the pigeon!
Noble sentiment, but good luck getting the carriers to see the error of their ways. Actually selling a phone through them requires lots of certifications -- you have to do things the their way, not the other way around. Unless you're Apple, maybe, which has already cut through a lot of certifications (many which don't apply to smartphones), but they already got a pretty sweetheart deal from AT&T in exchange for signing up hundreds of thousands of new customers.
Source of entire discussion: this line in the Android Market TOS: "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.". The context makes it pretty clear that this does not apply to non-Market software. As a matter of fact, it would be totally infeasible for them to uninstall anything else unless they went phone by phone and decompiled and reverse engineered every app on every phone...
"Installing software which is listed as warranty voiding"
Listed where?
I understand the reasoning, I'm just surprised it gets support on /.
So funny thing..... in iPhone software 1.1.1 many phones stopped working because the user ran jailbreaking tools that also unlocked their phones improperly.
AnySim unlocked the phone, but did so by corrupting data in a location normally secured by other code.
Apple's software upgraded itself as it was supposed to. However didn't account for corrupt data in an area which isn't normally touched and crashed.
The fault is AnySim no matter how you looked at it since Apple can't QA for unexpected changes in a nonwritable area.
Who got the flak for the broken phone? Apple did.
That's nice, but I don't see what it has to do with what I said. These guys actually did break their phones by jailbreaking, and in that case the warranty does not apply to the breakage caused. (Note that it would still apply to other areas, for example if their screen was broken.) In many other cases, jailbreaking is unrelated to the warranty service requested, Apple's refusal to provide service is illegal, and restoring the phone to a pre-jailbreak state to obtain service is perfectly reasonable.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
It's relevant only in that not all people know what their jailbreak utility is doing.
Some people may have inadvertently broken their hardware while jailbreaking because it also ran a bad unlock utility.
For those people, being rejected warranty service for a broken item is legit even though they don't understand that they themselves broke it.
That's fine. But once again, jailbreaking itself does not void your warranty. What voids your warranty is damaging your device. Sometimes jailbreaking damages your device, but it's the damage, not the jailbreaking, which voids the warranty.
(And it only voids the warranty on the damage. It does not void the warranty for the entire product. This is another crucial distinction that people miss.)
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Citation needed.... Who says you can download apps to the device other than through Google's marketplace?
I HAVE an android (G1) phone, and i CAN install applications from sources other than Android Market.
I have done it (an SSH client) and it works fine.
Have a nice day!
Racial equality will not happen because there is no such thing as racial equality. Blacks are better athletes, Asians are better students (whites follow Asians and are ahead of blacks in that department). Just a small example.
People have a lot invested in their cultural legacy - they don't want to give it up. Blacks don't want to be "white". Whites don't want to become black. Pretty much every immigrant group establishes organizations to maintain their old cultural values and networking.
Its a lot more than some trolls shouting "nigger!" and someone refusing to acknowledge it.