Google outs remote kill switch in Android, those rascals
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Oct 16th 2008 7:33AM
posted Oct 16th 2008 7:33AM
"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"Google then claims that it will make "reasonable efforts to recover the purchase price of the product ... from the original developer on your behalf." This on top of the Android Market's policy which allows you to "return" (er, how, it's electronic?) any application within 24 hours for a full refund. Aw shucks Google, come over here and give us a hug.
This is Google simply protecting Android's good name. It only takes one program with a very nasty intention to totally destroy Android in the marketplace.
But when Apple does it, it's a despicable attempt to exert control over the apps we run. Obviously.
@AlekZander
Yes, but apple had to be found out, they didn't write it down for all to see... In the terms for android from the beginning.
I don't see Apple offering refunds for blocked Apps either.
@andrew
And Google including this in their terms could not have had anything to do with Apple getting a hard time with how they did it. Nope.
gPhone kill switch: "This is Google simply protecting Android's good name." - HIGHEST RANKED
iPhone kill switch: "Apple sux! Steve Jobs is Satan!!!" - HIGHEST RANKED
You people are hilarious. I don't know why I even bother reading the ridiculous comments section on Engadget. Another Internet site overrun by anti-Apple-ranting trolls.
Astroturf Different.
I don't know how I feel about this. I know EA must be pissed about the thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of people who downloaded Tris on the App Store before it got pulled, and still are able to keep it. Then again, they need to make the official Tetris worth playing, like the infinitely better (and free) Tris.
Android would be able to yank it from everyone's phones. THAT's a little scary. But at the same time, I can see it being a hit with carriers, who can yank tethering apps or other TOS violating apps. I guess if it gives them better market penetration, more power to them.
*SIGH* This is nothing like the iPhone version.
A) It only applies to removing apps from the market, not the phone itself
B) They have been very open about the fact that they will not remove apps that they don't agree with (when asked about tethering specifically)
C) They have been very open about the fact that you can still install ANY apps via your computer by obtaining them directly from the developer or other channel
still they wont be able to remove it if im not connected!!
I do not care what there reasoning is. ITS THEFT OF PROPERTY. If I purchase a phone I OWN the damned thing. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE has the right to even be AWARE of what I have on my phone not to speak of be able to ACCESS my phone without my EXPLICIT authority and then make CHANGES to my phone again without my explicit authority!!
This is 100% unacceptable and will NEVER be tolerated by me. It guarantees I will NEVER own an "android" based phone till I am sure NO ONE and I mean NO ONE but me can access this device and make any sort of changes or gather ANY information without my explicit and VOLUNTARY authorization.
PERIOD.
The WSJ says that "The G1 also limits third-party applications to a paltry 128 megabytes of memory". I am already on 500 megabytes of applications on my iPhone and I have just started.
Open source programs tend to be pretty small. I dont think 128 megs would be a problem for me.
Per app or total?
@Chris: what are you on about ? What makes you think Android apps written in Java are going to substantially smaller in size than iPhone apps written in Obj-C ?
I'm pretty sure they are talking about RAM here guys..............
How 'open' of them.
If Android is completely open as advertised, how was this (and every other potential limitation) not known about before?
opensource fanboys here we come.
Hooray! Everyone loves double standards... How come Apple gets a hard time and Google gets a hug?
because Apple is a fruit and Google a robot and everybody loves robots.
Apple didnt.
After some initial gripping, the talking points got circulated, and people went back to sleep.
Major4Play brilliantly reused that talking point at the start of the comments:
"This is Google simply protecting Android's good name. It only takes one program with a very nasty intention to totally destroy Android in the marketplace"
I dont want to give either one a hug...
"... [I]f Apple is indeed monitoring iPhones or touches (even passively) for applications it doesn't want or like, it signals a problem deeper than a company simply wanting to sign-off on software ... [T]he suggestion that a process of the OS would actively monitor, report on, and possibly deactivate your device's software is unreasonable, and clearly presents an issue ... [W]e're not going to buy the "for your security" angle, so don't even bother."
Yeah. Not a hard time at all.
Oh, and this isn't supposed to be directed at the author of this particular piece, who has obviously got his head on straight about this kind of thing.
lol YAY FREE APPS!!! download today.. return at 23 hours 50 mins... download again... and so the cycle continues..
im sure ill be able 2 whip out a app tat does tat for u... rest your wallets gentlemen... and *cliche seductive accent* llllaaddddiiieeesss....
No wonder they need a kill switch.
too bad that kill switch only applies to applications and not users.
Hmm... a G1 app that turns the remote kill into a remote detonation (of the battery)! And right before it detonates, you return it for plausible deniability! Brilliant!
So, there's nothing to stop Android users buying games, playing them heavily for a day, and then returning them for refunds. Unless I'm missing something, the return rate on many games is going to be HUGE...
I love how the phone I "buy" i don't own and i can't run what i like on it. When will these companies learn that sony like tactics won't cut it
Chances are you'll never encounter anything like this unless you're trying to do something immoral.
Or trying to do something like King_Kash
So you want your smartphone to be able to install any applications that you decide you want? Two words... Windows Mobile.
I think it was mostly faux outrage.
Thank goodness. Now Google will be able to swiftly banish those evil Tetris clones which would surely plague Android's good name.
Damn those tetris clones, damn them!!
Bloody shit, hell yes!
A kill switch? You mean a switch... That Kills?
No, a kill that switches.
Switches don't kill. People with switches kill.
Trolley problem, anyone?
Of course there's a kill switch. If you didn't see this coming, what with the "open" market and all, then I hope you're not voting next month.
My guess this is a feature to prevent the clueless knucklehead users out there from spreading malware through Google's repositories. Certainly not a feature I'd want, but probably something your average Windows user would need.
The difference between Android and the iPhone is that with Android someone simply can (and probably will) fork Android to a 'kill switch' and TOS free version, much as people have done to remove the TOS from Firefox. This is obviously not possible with the iPhone. This, my friends, is the glory of open source - if you don't like how the original vendor is doing things, fork it and change it to how you like it. You have the freedom to do so.
Now we just need Google to release the source, which I 100% believe they will do, but probably not until after the G1 is released.
Quix -
"gPhone kill switch: "This is Google simply protecting Android's good name." - HIGHEST RANKED
iPhone kill switch: "Apple sux! Steve Jobs is Satan!!!" - HIGHEST RANKED
You people are hilarious. I don't know why I even bother reading the ridiculous comments section on Engadget. Another Internet site overrun by anti-Apple-ranting trolls."
Well put Quix, this is the reason why I never come to Engadget (except through external links from other site to articles like this) I came to this article to see what the Engadget hippies are gonna reply after being cought with their pants down.
And they haven't disappointed. True to their biased ways. LoL.
Hippies? no way man, we are chicks with dicks!
Excellent, Engadget is now /d/.
"Don't be evil"
allows you to "return" (er, how, it's electronic?) any application within 24 hours for a full refund
How can you be whining about that? Even if it's just the choice of using the word return, that's what the average consumer wants to be able to do. Return an item that doesn't work the way they expected. I'd love to be able to return Rome: Total War. It's not nearly as micro-managing as I wanted but I can't. Google says I can with their product. Works for me.
But what happens when I like malware on my phone?
But I'm an open source hippie and and like the idea of TOTAL freedom and openness, everyone should be free to develop whatever their heart desires - even if it is spyware, malware and virus that steals my confidential and personal data like credit card numbers.
How dare they try and kill my malicious app.
I love how the open source hippies are trying to backtrack their stance when all of a sudden when their new baby follows Apple's (closed) lead. Summed up perfectly by the very first post
"This is Google simply protecting Android's good name. It only takes one program with a very nasty intention to totally destroy Android in the marketplace."
The difference between Google and Apple is that Apple want to make money from their own software while Google want to make money from other "revenue streams" such as advertising and getting a chunk of the line rental. This makes Google much more "pure" in what they want to do with their kill switch. If Apple killed a competing product which was both better and free, it proves that their interest is financial and not levelled at eliminating malware. They've done so. If Google do the same, so be it - condemn them for the same crime. In the mean time, let's see how many times they save us from malware apps trying to call premium rate numbers with 56k modems streaming incredibly low quality porn.
With Android being open and modifiable, there is little to protect. They don't want to protect their OS from people tinkering with it. They want people to tinker with it. Think of this as a centralised version of an antivirus/antispyware system, so you don't have to waste your battery with scanning files or your memory with definition lists.
"incredibly low quality porn"
Heh, I imagine this would be a decent video clip compressed and down-converted so many times that it ends up a single, blinking pixel.
Hawt, I tell you.
"The difference between Google and Apple is that Apple want to make money from their own software while Google want to make money from other "revenue streams" such as advertising and getting a chunk of the line rental"
No, Apple want to make money from their hardware sales - which comes with their software for 'free'. Any additional updates for the iPhone from Apple come for free (iTouch is not an iPhone) with the exception of games. Though I'm sure there will be a time were a point iPhone release doesn't meet minimum spec on a old gen iPhone.
"This makes Google much more "pure" in what they want to do with their kill switch."
Hahaha hilarious, seriously, you think by going for an ad related revenue stream is a more "pure" form for the consumer. You think where revenue model is dependent on the income generated by 3rd party commercial companies won't have any bias. Or if Google is sharing revenue with the phone provider they'll have no bias, or be more "pure". You think this "pure" revenue model phone provider will allow a tethering app for Android in this current form - which I'm sure will happen one day but only because of competition pressure - mostly likely pushed by Apple with the iPhone as they have with unlimited mobile net use.
"If Apple killed a competing product which was both better and free, it proves that their interest is financial and not levelled at eliminating malware."
Apple have never used their kill switch - not selling an app in their OWN store is a different argument, and don't get me started on that - any withdrawn iPhone app already brought by someone has never been removed/killed on an individual iPhone. So yes while their invention of the iPhone is a financial decision - the last I checked Apple was a publicly owned business, and not from a bunch of THOSH (Tree Hugging Open Source Hippies) to mess around with - the kill switch isn't a financial one.
"If Google do the same, so be it - condemn them for the same crime. In the mean time, let's see how many times they save us from malware apps trying to call premium rate numbers with 56k modems streaming incredibly low quality porn."
Hypocrites. So you're saying leave Google alone until they have done the crime (in regards to the kill switch). Then why are you all THOSH basing Apple, not waiting to see what Apple does before burning the 'Witch'. Oh I'm sorry I forgot their Apple, so they must have evil intentions, who made you the mind reader?
"With Android being open and modifiable, there is little to protect. They don't want to protect their OS from people tinkering with it. They want people to tinker with it."
To a point which is why they have imposed some rules and limitations.
"Think of this as a centralised version of an antivirus/antispyware system, so you don't have to waste your battery with scanning files or your memory with definition lists."
Uitility
LoL. Beautiful, So now its become an AntiVirus App. As well as a Energy Saver Utility. But it's not 'Evil' like Apple's kill switch. Good One.
You THOSH make me sick.
DISCLOSURE:
- I have no problem with Google, in fact I am a fan and a customer
- I have no problem with Google's Android platform, I love the fact that there is a platform with a different business model then the iPhone.
- I just happen to prefer the iPhone model, it suits my needs more, but I like the idea that others have the choice of a different model like Android and me the iPhone. But I find it strange that those THOSH we bang on so much about freedom of choice want to take the choice away from me by this crusade of trying to get Apple to change with model.
FTR, I'm not a THOSH... Microsoft all the way for me. I'm a .Net developer and loving it. But if they introduced a "kill switch" for Windows apps I would be not a happy bunny.
Look at what Google produce and allow people to use for "nothing", such as Google Earth, Google Docs, Google Mail, etc. Because they get their money from somewhere other than the consumer, their focus is very different. They have a very different business model to Apple. And nothing they've done so far has been aggressively anti-competitive. They simply quietly go and do what the competitors are doing better and then slap it down on the counter in front of them. Though it'll be a while before Chrome gets good, before which time their in-browser earth exploration may well be "invisible" to a great many potential users.
We already have Killbits for ActiveX in Windows, BTW, and have had for quite some time. But Microsoft have limited its scope to their browser.
Consumers do pay for the use of all Google products, they are not free as everyone seems to think, they are paid by the ads that Goolge places on our screens when we use their products. Granted we are not pay in currency sense but were are paying in some from or another. Now I'm not saying this is the right or wrong way to conduct business but nor does it make Apple's business model a right or wrong way to do business. Their just different methods of doing business.
I pay for MobileMe for email so I don't get ads on my webmail or worse at the end of each email I send, that is the choice I like to make and the user experience I enjoy. Though I am glad that there is a free ad supported model for consumers who do not mind ads or cannot afford to pay for their email. It's good to have both.
I just fine it strange that THOSH and you seem to think it's wrong of Apple to do the 'paid closed' business model, or that this some how shows signs of being "evil".
Lastly being anti-competitive is not against the law, it's good business sense they all do - if you honestly think Google doesn't you need to do a little bit more research. It's only when you're a monopoly and then mix in anti-competitive behavior in the mix does it become illegal.
@ Hugh
Android has to serve the interest of not only the consumer but Googles own cloud apps, the open source community, the telecoms like T-Mobile, their hardware makers starting with HTC and most alarming the corporations funding the Google universe through advertising.
Where do you think advertising budgets come from? Googles advertising revenue comes from businesses and corporations trying to sell to the consumer. A part of the cost of each item you buy from these corporations goes right back into a corporations advertising budget.
Nothing is ever free - we all pay for it one way or another.
Me personally I rather pay for hardware or a service up front and not get pounded by advertising.
How much you want to bet that if Apple developed an app for Android (highly unlikely, I know; almost makes it worth not betting), and it got pulled; Apple would pull the Google Mobile Search app from their store?
OK, android is dead, next contender please.
I'm more concerned with apple killing an app then google. At least google says they would only do it if they think it will endanger the marketplace. Apple on the other hand, has the legal right to pull any app that becomes popular, make their own version, and sell it for whatever price they want.
It's just hard to trust apple anymore, but then again, maybe i wont be able to trust google in 6 months either.
So what popular app have they (Apple) pulled, made their own version and SOLD it for a price of their choosing.
Word of advice, before you say Podcaster seriously think about it before getting into this argument.
Though I would not take away from the fact that the open source community does have some, if not the most of the best programmers in the would, unfortunately that is where there skill sets end, they have a total lack of understanding of business, the world around them and an understanding as to what the general consumer (95% of the would) wants and needs.
You miss the point. They neither have the right nor should it even be POSSIBLE for them to exercise such an ability.
The fact that people do not have a more serious problem with this is EXTREMELY concerning to me.
This is absolutely analogous with the GOVERNMENT having the "right" to come into your home and say "remove" an undesirable book from your book shelf for whatever reason they so choose.
This should not be tolerated folks. PERIOD. there should be an absolutely 100% boycott on android hardware until good 100% removed this functionality and in fact ALTERS it to physically PREVENT the implementation of such functionality.
Alas too many lemmings and sheeple will buy it anyway "sub consciously" confirming there justification and power to do this.
The same with the iphone. People should mail there iphones enmass back to apple and DEMAND they be "fixed" so that "I" (the end user) and ONLY I dictate what will or will not run on MY PROPERTY.
This should shut the people up who were talking about malware & viruses on Android market, while saying Apple will have a better product with more control on their App store. So far it seems Google as much control over the market as Apple has over their App store. I think the sole purpose of these kind of terms is to do that.
I'm not going to go into defensive mode about this, as I wasn't one of the ones who raised hell over the kill switch in the iPhone. We'll see how it pans out and if users complain about it.
Oh sure they retain the RIGHT but how long will they retain the ABILITY with an open system?
I see a hacked app that lets the user determine which apps the kill switch can affect (one you may not trust) and which ones you don't want the kill switch to affect.
I could be wrong (and probably am) but I would imagine with most of this being open source, you could simply download the source code, and install it yourself rather than download it from the App store, or even get it submitted to the app store.
You aren't wrong. You don't have to install apps on the app store. However to do this you need to turn on the feature in settings.
*shrugs* I didn't care when Apple had one either. Its what they do with "THE BUTTON" that matters. I'm certain that a kill switch on Android is purely to combat malware, and that is all. The minute they do this to cave in to T Mobile or any vendor's demands because they don't want a routing application is the minute I shitcan Android for WM again.