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."

Comments

Precautionary measures

[Anonymous Coward]

For the new era of Malware that will soon find their way onto these phones.

Why?

[bdsesq]

Why does one have to be good and the other bad?
Perhaps the kill switches are there for the same reason.

from what I can see, Apple's is better

[YesIAmAScript]

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.

I don't agree

[Clarious]

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.