Windows Marketplace For Mobile Kill Switch Details
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft recently gave more details on Windows Marketplace for Mobile during the Tech Ed New Zealand 2009 session titled 'Distributing and Monetizing Applications through Windows Marketplace Mobile,' led by Loke Uei Tan, Senior Product Manager on the Windows Mobile Team. Geekzone covered the event in good detail, but one of their points caused a lot of uproar in the blogosphere: 'If an application is approved but later removed from the marketplace it will then be automatically removed from all mobile devices.' That sounded a bit ominous to Ars Technica, so they checked in with Microsoft. 'In the vast majority of instances where an application is removed from Windows Marketplace for Mobile, users of this application will continue to be able to use these applications on their phones,' a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars. 'In the rare event an application from Marketplace exhibits harmful behavior or has unforeseen effects, Marketplace has the capability to remotely uninstall these applications. While we hope to avoid this scenario, we will make refunds available in such cases.'"
Woot. I was the one that asked that question too! Well, I clarified the question anyway since the guy didn't get it the first time.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
What if the program encrypted your data and then it was remotley un-installed, what then?
Didn't you learn from the Kindle incident?
If an application is doing some harmful (virus, worm, whatever) it should be removed. A mobile OS isnt like Windows where you have or should have an anti virus running.
Not saying Microsoft would be honest with that kind of power, I doubt it. Good idea though.
exhibits harmful behavior or has unforeseen effects
Doesn't sound like Windows Mobile and the Marketplace App are going to be with us for long.
Troll? Nice. If that mod was actually present, they'd actually know that it actually was me. Well, if you knew who I was anyway.
Still, it seemed the presenter thought that he was asking if the app would be removed from sale, not remote nuked from devices. Anyway, pleased to hear that this isn't necessarily the case- the response seemed to indicate that the nuke would occur for any app Microsoft removed.
Bear in mind folks, that Apple can do, and have done, the same thing as well.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Windows Mobile phones CAN be locked down to that extent and be setup to required signed cabs and reject unapproved applications (including those exe's that haven't been digitally signed. Most carriers do not enforce this, although the Motorola i930 for Nextel is a notable exception.
This signature was left intentionally blank.
No, I'm Spartacus! And my wife is too!
I see the reasons for doing this, but I'm not sure I agree with the implementation. To me, a better way to handle this would be to not remove the application but to disable it instead and the next time the user tries to start it, give a short explanation on why it was disabled and maybe a link for more technical details with an option to enable/delete/stop. Sure, most users would probably immediately delete it, but it would be the users CHOICE too.
http://consumerist.com/5035528/jobs-confirms-iphone-kill-switch
Jobs himself confirmed the capability is in the iphone. I don't know if they've used it, but they can.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
and have done
Your citation does not say what you said it said. It does say they have the ability to remove them though, you're right. Have you got evidence that apple actually have removed an app, ever?
If any other company said "we are doing it this way because it's for the best... trust us" we might still have the same reaction to it. We see it everywhere we go. Amazon did it with their removal of eBooks. And in every case of internet censorship I have ever heard of, it went well beyond its stated purpose of "guarding against child porn."
It's bad enough that "we don't trust." It is worse when a company believes it can "impose a trust relationship... or else."
Don't buy this shit.
I can't believe they are actually serious about this. Let's do the car analogy. I sell you a car, and find out later that a lot of those cars have been used as getaway cars in robberies etc. The police would like me to withdraw this car from the market.
So, doorbell rings on Sunday afternoon and a guy stands there with a box with has everything you left in the car, an envelope with the payments you have already made and a confirmation that the rest of your loan is cancelled, and he wants your remaining keys (because they kept a set when they sold you that car - think about that one for a moment). And he shows you the clause in your agreement in 6 point font in light grey on white where they make this legal. The car is about to be towed - they opened your garage already because they somehow gained access.
You need "car functionality": You have to bring the kids to school on Monday, you have a work appointment straight after, and you have to do some shopping because it got late on Saturday.
Would you:
(a) thank the guy, accept the box and figure out WTF to do next
(b) tell the guy to drop the box, hand over his copy of your car keys and tell him to be off your drive -minus your car- before you come back to the door with an appliance to assist in his removal which may or may not consider his health in the process.
Bonus question:
Would you EVER consider buying a car from that company again, even if it somehow got sorted out?
This gig has just closed the market for me for phones with an MS OS. I hope Apple doesn't try to pull this one either - they have no removal clause in their T&Cs (which is probably why they are rather retentive in their app checking to start with).
Where the hell have we got to over the last decade? Since when did it become acceptable for a company to become judge and jury about what you buy? /rant
Insert
A refund is no good. I don't want Corp/Gov pulling these kinds of strings. That's too much power. It's my computer, my data. They have no right to reach in and mess with it. The Amazon Animal Farm book rescinding fiasco proved how bad an idea this is. They destroyed the class notes people had made while reading the book. That was the user's data. I won't buy any products with remote deactivation. A kill switch is a product killer.
I find the lack of outrage over this really surprising. Seems like we are drifting closer and closer to a time when texts found online will be changed globally without anyone knowing the difference. All "bad" news (stories not conforming to the party line) will suddenly disappear. All apps that do things Apple or any other company don't like will just disappear off of your phone (no matter how much you paid for it, or where you bought it from). Now you know why they are trying to kill the written word in all it's non-digital forms. You simply can't change a story on the fly if people have a solid printed copy of what it use to say.
-Oz