Google outs remote kill switch in Android, those rascals

Remember the outrage at Apple's inclusion of a sneaky application kill switch in the iPhone 3G? Yeah, well, Google's got one too. This time, however, it wasn't discovered by some meddling developer, Google owns up to it from right inside the Android Market terms of service:

"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.

[Major4Play @ Oct 16th 2008 7:50AM]

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.

[AlekZander @ Oct 16th 2008 7:57AM]

But when Apple does it, it's a despicable attempt to exert control over the apps we run. Obviously.

[andrew @ Oct 16th 2008 8:11AM]

@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.

[Major4Play @ Oct 16th 2008 8:33AM]

I don't see Apple offering refunds for blocked Apps either.

[rawhead @ Oct 16th 2008 8:38AM]

@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.

[Quix @ Oct 16th 2008 9:35AM]

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.

[Ryan Trevisol @ Oct 16th 2008 9:35AM]

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.

[BluesK1d @ Oct 16th 2008 12:05PM]

*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

[Ian @ Oct 16th 2008 2:07PM]

still they wont be able to remove it if im not connected!!

[Chris Taylor @ Oct 18th 2008 4:24AM]

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.

[Sid @ Oct 16th 2008 7:59AM]

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.

[Chris @ Oct 16th 2008 8:07AM]

Open source programs tend to be pretty small. I dont think 128 megs would be a problem for me.

[Lowen SoDium @ Oct 16th 2008 8:11AM]

Per app or total?

[Nathan @ Oct 16th 2008 8:22AM]

@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 ?

[Major4Play @ Oct 16th 2008 8:34AM]

I'm pretty sure they are talking about RAM here guys..............

[Liam @ Oct 16th 2008 8:01AM]

How 'open' of them.

[macserv @ Oct 18th 2008 2:20AM]

If Android is completely open as advertised, how was this (and every other potential limitation) not known about before?

[Look @ Oct 16th 2008 8:05AM]

opensource fanboys here we come.

[Hawkman @ Oct 16th 2008 8:12AM]

Hooray! Everyone loves double standards... How come Apple gets a hard time and Google gets a hug?

[Boards of Canada @ Oct 16th 2008 8:17AM]

because Apple is a fruit and Google a robot and everybody loves robots.

[fred @ Oct 16th 2008 9:11AM]

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"

[htd @ Oct 16th 2008 9:50AM]

I dont want to give either one a hug...

[Hawkman @ Oct 16th 2008 9:52AM]

"... [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.

[King_Kash @ Oct 16th 2008 8:14AM]

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....

[buck @ Oct 16th 2008 8:25AM]

No wonder they need a kill switch.

[jared @ Oct 16th 2008 8:52AM]

too bad that kill switch only applies to applications and not users.

[TRAFFICBLOWS @ Oct 16th 2008 9:15AM]

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!

[LondonConsultant @ Oct 16th 2008 11:02AM]

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...

[digitallysick @ Oct 16th 2008 8:17AM]

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

[Jake Tobak @ Oct 16th 2008 8:35AM]

Chances are you'll never encounter anything like this unless you're trying to do something immoral.

[SKI @ Oct 16th 2008 8:44AM]

Or trying to do something like King_Kash

[Yogi @ Oct 16th 2008 11:10AM]

So you want your smartphone to be able to install any applications that you decide you want? Two words... Windows Mobile.

[Darren @ Oct 16th 2008 8:39AM]

I think it was mostly faux outrage.

[michas_pi @ Oct 16th 2008 8:44AM]

Thank goodness. Now Google will be able to swiftly banish those evil Tetris clones which would surely plague Android's good name.

[Bjsfreaked @ Oct 16th 2008 8:56AM]

Damn those tetris clones, damn them!!

[Boards of Canada @ Oct 16th 2008 10:02AM]

Bloody shit, hell yes!

[Dee @ Oct 16th 2008 8:54AM]

A kill switch? You mean a switch... That Kills?

[noyp @ Oct 16th 2008 8:56AM]

No, a kill that switches.

[Spiny Norman @ Oct 16th 2008 9:28AM]

Switches don't kill. People with switches kill.

[Josh @ Oct 16th 2008 5:48PM]

Trolley problem, anyone?

[Perspective @ Oct 16th 2008 9:01AM]

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.

[matt @ Oct 16th 2008 9:04AM]

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.

[ecrah @ Oct 16th 2008 10:00AM]

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.

[Boards of Canada @ Oct 16th 2008 10:05AM]

Hippies? no way man, we are chicks with dicks!

[michas_pi @ Oct 16th 2008 10:07AM]

Excellent, Engadget is now /d/.

[Sukhminder @ Oct 16th 2008 10:21AM]

"Don't be evil"

[Cole @ Oct 16th 2008 10:36AM]

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.

[Jeff @ Oct 16th 2008 10:58AM]

But what happens when I like malware on my phone?

[ecrah @ Oct 16th 2008 11:14AM]

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."

[Hugh @ Oct 16th 2008 11:19AM]

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.