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."
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.
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.
Why does one have to be good and the other bad?
Well, the kill switches could be the same. However, the Mob has already concluded that Apple's is bad. Now the Mob is trying to work out whether it can conclude that Google's is good without committing hypocrisy.
It's hard out there for a Mob.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Why does one have to be good and the other bad?
The argument the article makes is that both kill switches only affect items installed via the respective online application stores (Google's Android Market & Apple's App store).
The big difference however is that on an iPhone, you can only* install applications via the appstore, whereas you will be able to install Android apps from a multitude of sources, including the market.
I don't believe the kill switch 'makes sense' for either platform, but Google's implementation can't be the big stick that Apple's implementation could be.
* Yes, I'm aware of jail-breaking, but that's not a realistic option for most consumers.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
It may sound remote, but you may want to try RTFA:ing. I know it's not going to happen, though, so I'll summarize why it's OK for Google. :)
The thing is that Android allows for installing programs from -- hear and be astonished! -- other sources than Google itself, unlike Apple. Without any extra or undue inconvenience.
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. Or if Google does misuse it, you'll just have to download the program in question directly from its developer.
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.
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.
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.
So I can't see how Google's is more pro-consumer.
You have to see the forest for the trees; the forest is what Apple can do to your use of your iPhone compared to what Google can do to your use of your Android.
For any application A, Apple can prevent you from running A by not letting it be sold on iAppz. If you buy app A from gAppz, Google can delete it, but they can't prevent you from running it altogether since you can download it from my-gAppz.author-of-A.org.
If you bring the companies' past behavior into the picture, you're trying to use it to predict what will actually happen. That sounds like buying music from Wal-Mart based on the promise that "we would never shut down the DRM servers", versus buying mp3s from amazon: one of the companies can decrease the value of your product, the other can not do so.
It stands to reason that those who can't decrease the value of your product [that would be Google] are more pro-consumer.
-- Jonas K
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.
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?