From this guy
The blogs vilified Apple over the “kill switch” found in the iPhone; let’s see those blogs tear into Google for the very same thing.
Found nestled deep in the G1’s “About” menu is this notice:
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
Lo! How dare Google reserve the right to protect your phone. Evil, evil, evil.
Now, if Google remotely removes an application that you pay for, it says it’ll do its darnedest to recover your money. Thoughtful.
Whether or not people try to make a distinction between how Apple handled remote removal—that is, by not telling you about it—versus Google’s “here’s what’s up” approach, I don’t know. At the end of the day, does that make any difference whatsoever?
If I install a program on my phone that’s my right. I paid for it and I OWN IT!!! Google is becoming too much of a BIG BROTHER. It’s a long way to fall from the top of that glass castle. Microsoft is finding that out. Google, Take note.
Well that or, you know, they may assist you to kill an app you downloaded that gets from the phone your private info and sells it to third parties.
Take ZOHO, for an example… Has Google in any way stopped them from using their technologies with ZOHO? ZOHO is a direct competitor to Google, one that has superior products IMHO and yet they still have Gears integration, maps, et all.
There’s an episode of CrankyGeeks (one of the most recent ones) that has a guy from Google saying that with Android you will get several warnings about the things this or that app will do, once you OK them you are free to use them anyway.
Maybe we should be holding this conversation once we scrutinize the developer distribution agreement instead of defaulting to “ZOMG, Big Brother”…
This would make a very interesting class action lawsuit. I wonder why there hasn’t been one. It’s black letter law. If you buy something (as opposed to simply licensing it), you OWN it. Maybe the software on the phone is just licensed though. In any case, it’s more than enough reason for me not to buy either phone. I’m not about to buy something I don’t get to own.
I wonder which OS you use on your computer…
You do not own anything there (that is unless you coded it yourself or bought the company).
And OS vendors like M$ probably have the legal right to disable THEIR software if it’s being misused. Disabling or removing software on a device *I* own that they had nothing to do with writing is a completely different matter. Actually, a legal argument could be made that that kind of action constitutes assault – which by legal definition is simply offensive touching or contact.
Microsoft’s OS is on a device you own. And the software you are using on your device has to have that licensed copy of the OS to run. While one could make the argument that removing the software from the phone should not be legal, removing/disabling it from running on the OS is perfectly legal, it’s their software.
I am longer willing to sign a phone contract; I use prepaid and pay for my phone up front, including the phone I use for mobile internet. I feel it’s my right to have control of the OS. I hope other users will take this attitude as well. I would no more want my phone company to take control of my phone than I would want my landlord to take control of my bookshelves and filing cabinets. It’s especially galling that the motive behind all this control is probably DRM, when I don’t use entertainment content on my phone anyway, and when security is more important.
sounds like Google will lose favor and begin to be unpopular… cant take something that belongs to a person just because it supports a device… big no no no on google.
sounds like Google will lose favor and begin to be unpopular… cant take something that belongs to a person just because it supports a device… big no no no on google.
Well thats kind of sucking as I wasted alot of time trying to convince that there is no application restriction in G1 like iPhone (i.e. it has to be approved by apple)
Well thats kind of sucking as I wasted alot of time trying to convince that there is no application restriction in G1 like iPhone (i.e. it has to be approved by apple)
And what is the evil M$ position? You can put whatever you want on your device, we don’t care. Strange times.
Hell, witn Windows Mobile you can even remove/replace any of the software, even core OS files or the dialer, and they don’t care.
Now understand I don’t even own a phone but I do own a PalmTX and a Linux powered N810. I gotta say that if I buy a gadget then whatever changes I make to it by installing software, hacking it to run an alternative OS, or adding hardware to it ought to be my own business.
I can’t believe that phone consumers would put up with “Big Brother” doing anything like this.
While it might be explained as protecting the consumer, I’d rather just get a message from the cell provider that a certain application is a threat and that I should remove it or bring it to their store for removal. That message should also have a checkbox allowing me to disregard it and not be bothered again about it for a number of days chosen by the consumer right then or a never again choice.
If there was software on the phone that threatened the cellphone company’s services or the user agreement then the phone ought to display a message that can be checked to disregard permanently or a certain number of days. Anyhow as long as that software remains on the phone then the customer’s cell service would not be available however the phone’s software would be. It would be blocked at the cell tower from making calls.
Imagine buying a car that would not unlock it’s gas flap unless you purchased gasoline from certain gas station brands. Imagine a car whose computer would not allow the car to be driven or started with aftermarket repair parts on it. Imagine a car that came with wheels that only fit tires from the manufacturer of the car.
That’s the kind of stuff that the cell providers, ISPs, and hardware manufacturers do sometimes through their marketing games. Note to those companies: I am the customer and I pay your bills. Don’t forget who is in control here.
To be fair however, most consumers don’t know what the hell is going on with their devices and just click yes to everything. Many others just don’t care. Ive seen many people with infected computers who didn’t care because “they didn’t do anything important on it anyway” not realizing that an infected machine could harm others.
If you install applications that misbehave and have adverse effects on the carrier’s network then it’s better to remove those applications. Better that than have it affect potentially millions of other subscribers and you get sued by the carrier.
If you know anything about law, legally they are required to prevent misuse of the developers distribution agreement – there’s no way around this one folks.
How is this any different than there EULA for there services/products that states ” By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any content which you submit, post or display on or through, the services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the services and may be revoked for certain services as defined in the additional terms of those services.” –Fine Print not everyone actually reads–
The killswitch is only for apps sold through Google’s App Market, or whatever they call it, and it’s being publicly stated before the phone is even released. You can still install any app from anywhere else, including the same apps that Google may have killed, and Google can’t kill them.
It’s a liability thing. They are the distributors of the stuff that comes from the app market, and have to maintain some solid standards in order to protect them from liability. Once you leave them, you’re on your own. Nothing like the Apple sandbox.
Apple is still evil. Google is not evil yet.
J sez: “It’s a liability thing. They are the distributors of the stuff that comes from the app market, and have to maintain some solid standards in order to protect them from liability. Once you leave them, you’re on your own. Nothing like the Apple sandbox.
Apple is still evil. Google is not evil yet.”
Both companies are trying to protect the user from malware and themselves from lawsuits. When you can successfully run a corp. with 20,000 employees, and meet payroll every week, then you may be qualified to speak about who, or what is evil in business.
First off, just because you bought it doesn’t mean you own it. Purchasing any phone results in two things, first you do actually own the physical peice of metal, plastic, silicon, and glass, as well as the battery. But the software that comes with that phone is still the property of either the manufacturer of the device or the service provider(i.e. Verizon’s OS,) all you get is a license to use it. If you don’t want the restrictions that come with the device and OS, don’t spend your money on it. It’s that simple.