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.'"

Comments

Woah. That was me!

[Kalriath]

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.

Thats kind of scarry

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the program encrypted your data and then it was remotley un-installed, what then?

Re:Thats kind of scarry

[EdIII]

I don't put a lot of faith in software on any platform

I don't put a lot of faith in a platform in which I am not the all seeing, all powerful God of it's digital universe.

That's the problem. The platform that Microsoft (and others) provide is one in which they don't respect that cold hard fact. They refuse to respect it. In physical terms, it would be like renting a place and the landlord can come in and take out furniture and property at their whim. Sure, Microsoft is offering a refund. I don't care. I still had to come home to find my couches missing.

The poster you replied to mentioned encryption. That would be like finding the refrigerator missing and all your food on the kitchen floor. Will Microsoft be compensating you for the spoilage? The inconvenience? Most likely not, in fact, I am extremely shocked they even offered a refund.

This situation played out on the Kindle with 1984 (talk about a cosmic joke).

To bottom line it, people need to be educated about how all this "stuff" works. When they start to understand that they have zero control and are basically being treated like 4-year olds with their property, I expect change will come then.

Until that point, I guess we just have to hope these corporations are benevolent with our best interests in mind and would never, ever, compromise their ethics at our expense for a buck.

First Task

[Statecraftsman]

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.

Re:dumbass

[Sonic McTails]

The difference here is that you could sell a program that could cause a phone self-destruct (for instance, damaging the /Windows folder which will cause the phone to fail to boot) and require a manual reflash (which while is not a difficult process, would still probably require most users to bring the phone to a store to do it).

Since in all cases, Microsoft can only examine binaries, and can't see if such a Trojan horse exists, and even if they could see the source, it is still possible to obscure the behavior. If such a self-destruct feature is found, Microsoft can remotely delete the application, the Android Marketplace has the same sorta kill switch for the same reason.

If the program is just delisted, Microsoft won't remotely delete it (at least according to their press release). If you believe them is an entirely different problem.

Re:Woah. That was me!

[Kalriath]

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.

Re:So what?

[Sonic McTails]

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.

Re:dumbass

[StreetStealth]

Well, this is different. Kind of.

A book, being a non-executable, isn't going to suddenly delete your data or leak personal information to a third party. As long as the kill switch is only used for actually dangerous applications, it should be fine, with one caveat:

It shouldn't be automatic. The user should be prompted with a severe warning, and then allowed to continue at their peril. Because there are always exceptions.

Actually, if Amazon had set up their system to do something similar, there wouldn't have been a firestorm. "Warning: The seller of this book has been discovered not to own the distribution rights to it. You may keep this copy, or click here to exchange it for a properly-licensed one." That's all they would have needed to do.

Why not ask the owner 1st?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why not ask the owner 1st?

[Statecraftsman]

Yes and yes. Why is it so hard to start with respect for the user and work from there?

Re:Why not ask the owner 1st?

[Arainach]

Because it was tried. And it was discovered that users don't read.

Re:Woah. That was me!

[AuMatar]

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.

It's so simple

[spacefight]

Don't buy this shit.

Refunds as in "pre-installed MS Windows" refunds?

[cheros]

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