Why the Kill Switch Makes Sense for Android, and Not for iPhone

By  |  Friday, October 17, 2008 at 6:50 pm

“Gasp!” went the collective Internet on Wednesday when the IDG News Service spotted a clause in the terms of service for Google’s Android Market stating that:

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.

In other words, Google has a built-in “kill switch” to remotely disable applications that violate their developer agreement.

While the terms of this agreement certainly seem reasonable, tech critics thought back to February, when Apple explained its own terms of service for the iPhone, which also seemed reasonable at the time. As we know, Apple’s developer agreement turned out to be much more trouble than initially anticipated, causing a storm of criticism around the developer NDA and Apple’s disqualification of apps that “duplicated functionality” of other Apple applications.

Apple hasn’t deleted any apps that have made their way onto iPhones. But it did make trouble for a developer when the author of the controversial Podcaster application decided to distribute his application via the iPhone’s “ad hoc” back channel, originally intended for developers to do beta testing with a limited number of users. Not surprisingly, Apple closed this distribution channel to him as well. As a result, some fear has been spreading that Google might also pursue similarly obnoxious policies. However, this fear is unjustified here, and, in fact, I would go so far as to say that Google’s kill switch is actually a good move.

The main difference between these two tech giants is in their respective models of application distribution. Google made an extremely smart decision in its development of Android and the ways users can install applications, by doing what Apple should have done all along. An Android user has the Android Market, while an iPhone user has the App Store. But if an owner of an Android phone decides not to use the Market, this user need only visit another site with Android applications to install anyr mobile app outside of Google’s purview.

To put it bluntly, Android has a multitude of possible channels for the distribution of apps. The iPhone does not. This functionality is built right into Android and isn’t the weekend project of some particularly clever hacker. Furthermore, keep in mind that this kill switch will only affect apps distributed through the Market, not those installed from the Web. This should make Google’s intentions very clear.

Google intends to have its Android Market be the central repository for the vast majority of mobile app distribution. Their oversight will provide users a reservoir of safe, trusted apps under the promise that they have been checked for quality, much like the promise of the App Store. However, should folks decide to completely forgo the Android Market, they may do so easily. We can also assume that Google will provide multiple incentives for people to use the Market versus using the Web, such as making the install process much, much easier. And Google promises to be an advocate for its consumers by offering to go after problematic developers for the money fraudulently paid by Android customers in the Market .

Most people, undoubtedly, will just use the Android Market. Think of it as a highly incentivized opt-in model, where the Market gives people the peace of mind that Google is overseeing the apps, but the knowledge that they could easily move elsewhere.

Imagine if Apple had taken the same strategy, and created an App Store that was the best place to get iPhone apps, instead of the only place. I guarantee that most of the heat the company has gotten over their policies would never have happened, even the initial criticism surrounding the kill switch.

Some of you may protest, however, that the iPhone does have another channel for distributing applications: jailbreaking. I will admit that jailbreaking your iPhone, or iPod Touch in my case, offers you a great selection of quality apps, many of which offer functionality well beyond the capabilities of the official SDK. However, jailbreaking is nowhere near the same as Android’s native third-party distribution model.

First of all, jailbreaking your iPhone is very risky. The talented coders at the iPhone dev team admit that jailbreaking incurs substantial risk, despite how dead simple the process now is. All it takes is one corrupt file during installation, and suddenly your shiny, new iPhone is unbootable.

As with all aspects of Android, another factor to consider is the openness of the platform. Should Google decide to extend its hands into third-party apps by enabling the kill switch on all installed apps, then you can bet that someone will find a way to turn it off. In fact, the entire third-party app distribution network is going to make the process of developing for Android much easier than the iPhone. Easy installation methods lead to easy distribution and quick feedback from users during beta testing, which in turn leads to faster development cycles. This will be a killer feature, especially considering how far Google has to go to catch up to Apple in courting developers.

Overall, I would compare Google’s decision to remotely disable troublesome apps more to its malware detection service than to Apple’s kill switch. As Google catalogs the web and stumbles upon what it thinks are malicious web sites, it has recently started presenting users with notification of these sites in search results. As upsetting as it may be for the owners of sites that are false positives, we all agree that we don’t mind that little extra bit of protection from Google. After all, when push comes to shove, we can still click the link if we want to.

 
42 Comments


Read more: , , ,

35 Comments For This Post

  1. Susan Says:

    Do you *REALLY* think Apple is ever going to just randomly start
    deleting software off everyone’s iPhone for no reason whatsoever?

    Remember… they only make (big) money for apps… if you *DO*
    buy them.

  2. Beavis Says:

    The thing I like about Google’s model is that it keep Google honest and competitive. If Internet-based marketplaces like Handango take off and become popular, it’s going to make Google double down and fix it’s own marketplace (policy or technology) to make sure it is attracting the talent that will help make its platform successful. Free enterprise.

  3. David A. Sampayo Says:

    @Beavis: that’s exactly my position. I think that Apple’s restrictive policies will not only hurt it’s own growth but also the prosperity of their developers and level of happiness of their users. The Android system has a very good chance of having other online marketplaces hold similar status to Google’s own Market. That competition is very exciting!

  4. Jonathan George Says:

    You’re wrong.

    The kill switch makes sense for any mobile platform. It’s probably even being required by the carriers, since they are the ones so up-in-arms about what is being pushed across their network.

    What happens if an application turns out to be malicious? Whose at fault? Where’s the anti-virus software for mobile phones?

    While most iPhone and soon Android users may occasionally use the computer to check their e-mail and do other mindnumbing tasks, I’m sure they’re not all reading iPhone blogs and sites like Technologizer. Sorry, but this is a different market. The average user isn’t like you and I. They’re not *going* to hear about how a certain app will send all of their contact data to Russia, until it’s too late. If even then!

    It’s smart for both companies to have this. Protecting the users is up to either the platform owner or the carrier. Remember NetShare? It didn’t hurt the users device. It just pissed the mothership (AT&T) off. I still have my copy on my iPhone. Apple could have easily removed it using the kill switch — but they didn’t. I think that says a lot about what the intent of the feature is.

  5. David A. Sampayo Says:

    @Jonathan and @Susan: I see what you mean, although I’m not sure that I disagree with your statements, but rather see them in a different light. I do not think that Apple will just start deleting apps “randomly”, certainly not. You are right that it is Apple’s best interest to encourage people to its platform. I also do believe that a kill switch is a good idea, if carried out correctly, and I said as much in the article. However, the kind of power that that sort of technology opens up for people like Apple and Google can easily be misused, even if it is only in a few instances. Public relations is such a huge part of this business, and if people even *think*, irrationally even, that you as mobile app distributor are abusing your power, then it will discourage growth and development on your platform.

    For Apple, the existence of the kill switch is fine, objectively, but in light of their other snafus with locking down applications, it might seem like they are being too restrictive. Since Google has the “open” tag, they can pull a kill switch off without seeming overbearing, as their App Market is not the only source of apps. In truth, probably in the long run if both companies only distributed Apps through their proprietary channels with the kill switch functionality, most people wouldn’t care and it wouldn’t affect them. However, I intended this post not to be about what is factually best, but more about the image of what is best. Either way, I thank you for the feedback. Hope this clarifies my position a little bit. Thanks for reading Technologizer!

  6. turn.self.off Says:

    another thing is that unlike apple, google is very clear about when the “kill switch” will come into effect.

    apple seems to want to muddy the water as much as possible with its use of NDA’s and similar.

  7. crux Says:

    I am sure all the platforms including Windows have some sort of kill switch. This issue is blowing out of proportion. So far we haven’t heard anything that kill switch is implemented. We will never be.

  8. Fred Grott Says:

    Clue to author of this article

    How many MIDP 2.0 apps can a user install that are unsigned as uncertified?

    NONE as in zero..
    Same app signing policy is in place for J2me CDC which Google uses.

    The kill switch has nothing to do with protecting users but protecting Google from those apps that compete with Google same as Apple’s unwritten policy with iPhone.

    Necxt time ask a developer as it my help you have facts verified before makign wild assumptions.

  9. Tom Says:

    I thought it was always clear that Google will do no quality control of any kind on the Android Market Place. Why is the author claiming the opposite?

  10. dan Says:

    I like the single channel Apple App Store. Vetting apps for stability and for the absence of malware gives me reassurance. The last thing I want is a buggy or malicious app messing with my telephone. Let Apple have the opportunity to nix a few close competitors – so what. All that matters is the end-user for stability and variety of app selections.

    A kill switch is very unlikely to be used, ever, by either vendor.

    The idea of a bazaar of a range of unsupervised app distributors does nothing to improve my user experience or my confidence in Android as anything more than a hobbyist device.

  11. David Kanarek Says:

    You make an interesting point, but unfortunately it’s muddled by a lot of bias and a little FUD. The killswitch makes sense for both platforms, but it also makes sense that it should be blockable on a per application basis by the end user. This allows the tech savvy to keep their valuable applications and protect those not so savvy users from malware.

    I do agree strongly with Jonathan that NetShare shows that Apple does not intend to use the killswitch lightly. Apple makes tightly controlled products for a reason- you get the whole package and it just works. For some, that’s not enough, but for the vast majority of cell phone users, what the AppStore delivers is perfect.

    Finally, I must contest your analysis of jailbreaking. While unlocking an original iPhone (which many confusingly refer to as the 2G by network rather than model) it is possible to brick your phone. Jailbreaking, however, is a safe procedure. Yes it can be screwed up, but that screw up can be fixed with DFU mode. Jailbreaking an iPhone takes about as much tech savvy and time as installing a couple of applications from outside of the Marketplace on the G1 if not less.

    I’m not in love with Apple’s policies. I would love to be able to theme OS X 10.5 and I jailbroke my iPhone after a week of ownership. Having said that, you clearly have much more disdain for them than I do and unfortunately it shows in your writing.

    P.S. If you jailbreak your iPhone, BossPrefs lets you disable Apple’s kill switch with one flick of your finger. Can you turn Google’s killswitch off?

  12. Brian Says:

    dan – And I suppose only apps authorized by Microsoft should run on Windows? That is way too much power for one company to have, even if they start out with good intentions. If you value a sense of security over the possibility of more innovation that’s fine; nobody’s forcing you to install unapproved software. But there’s no reason why your preferences should be imposed on everyone else.

  13. Tard Nugnent Says:

    Yeah we get it. You like Google, you dislike Apple. Fine, that’s your choice. But a “kill switch” is a “kill switch” regardless of platform, and be damn glad it’s out there, because it’s a line of defense for malicious software, which ironically will be much more likely in your beloved Google model.

  14. SW Says:

    If all these mobile computers have kill switches, how are people going to use them to organize a revolution?

  15. Anonymous Says:

    “Same app signing policy is in place for J2me CDC which Google uses.”

    No! Android is emphatically *not* an implementation of J2ME. It uses the Java programming language, but compiles for a different virtual machine, and has a different (but slightly overlapping) API.

  16. Jon Says:

    The kill switches are the same. If you want to make a pull for malware protection then it seems obvious that Apple’s system is superior because they can kill any malware while Google can only kill malware they gave you. Apple hasn’t used their kill switch yet so clearly they aren’t abusing it.

    You’re conflating ideas here and it doesn’t make sense.

    If you want to talk about openness that is another story. It looks like that goes to Android, no contest. But the kill switches don’t come into that equation.

  17. In on the Killswitchtaker Says:

    Both google and apple had an opportunity to redesign the way mobile apps operate so that no killswitch would be required at all. That apple passes on this is no surprise — they are focused on providing an end-user experience, not on re-inventing the wheel. But the culture at google seems more amenable to doing the kind of academic project necessary to make that happen. (one solution to the malicious apps problem is already extant in google’s chrome browser) For this reason we should hope that android is marginalized and fractured to some extent — this will give google the incentive to go back to the drawing board — if google can get this right, then there will be no good reason for apple not to one day support android apps on the iphone.

    as google’s profit comes from the use of google’s services, not their OS, there’s no reason google should prevent that from happening either.

  18. Gunnar Says:

    Susan,

    I think you are right in your presupposition, but wrong in your conclusion.

    It is obviously correct, as you write, that Apple will not “randomly start deleting software [...] for no reason whatsoever”. However, they may delete software for a reason which _they_ think is reasonable, but which _I_ as a user find highly unreasonable. That is the problem.

    Fundamentally, this is about distribution of power between user and producer. It seems to me that Google has a rather different view in this regard than some other players in the market, thereby losing power but gaining goodwill. I hope and believe that this will (continue to) prove to be a wise choice.

  19. Leif Says:

    Dan Wrote > “The last thing I want is a buggy or malicious app messing with my telephone”

    And this is why kill switches are good? Does anyone remember those ancient times when we had phone which came into our houses using wires. We had these things called modems which let our computers use these phone wires to get to the internet. Anyone could have written malware to do whatever they wanted on the phoneline and give Windows security they could have made it happen.

    Yes, there were a few instances where this did happen but it was pretty rare. I don’t know anyone it happened too? Do you?

    I think kill switches are there to limit competition, and to enforce the carriers idea of how the bandwidth we pay them for should be used. Any fear of malware making your phone do evil things is mostly just FUD, spread to make you accept the killswitch.

  20. J T Says:

    It’s bizarre to me how people get so worked up about such inconsequential things that MIGHT happen with all the impactful things that ARE happening. Gunnar says he finds it “highly unreasonable” that Apple MAY delete hypothetical software for an unspecified reason he expects he wouldn’t agree with despite the fact that NetShare illustrates the unlikelihood of such a thing, which has never happened. I find it highly unreasonable that a few people here are trying to press a kill switch on Apple’s App Store (or is it the iPhone, or is it Apple, or is it Apple stock) for what they imagine Apple is capable of doing to them IF they owned an iPhone, which their comments and attitudes suggest that they do not. So not only is Apple unlikely to do this unreasonable thing, but even if they did, it wouldn’t affect you. But you hope you can convince certain types of people to chafe at this imaginary bit. (No pun intended.)

    Your most self-damning statement is found in your 9:22 response of the 17th: “Public relations is such a huge part of this business, and if people even *think*, irrationally even, that you as mobile app distributor are abusing your power, then it will discourage growth and development on your platform.” The very purpose of your article is to foment the irrational thought that Apple is abusing (strike that, make it could potentially abuse) power, and you admit the result of such a thought would discourage growth and development on Apple’s platforms, and there we have this article’s raison d’etre: Wave potential developers away from Apple and toward Google, because even if they don’t buy your argument, they should cower before the incorrect perception of those who do.

    Stick your head out the window…watch the news…they’ve been, are now, and are likely in the near future to be pushing kill switches on corporations, jobs, candidates, administrations, governments, economies, oversight, laws, policies, homeowners, armies, Supreme Court decisions…often on criteria, pretext, prejudice and conjecture as flimsy and as obvious as I’m reading here, but with real implications in millions of people’s lives. Meanwhile other truly dangerous entities sail onward, causing real fear and wreaking havoc in their respective wakes.

    “Why democracy makes sense for Afghanistan but not for Palestine”; “Why marriage makes sense for pregnant teens but not adult homosexuals”; “Why socialism makes sense coming from George W. Bush but not from Barack Obama”. All likely would be a more interesting read, all potentially would have more convincing rhetoric, all surely would ring as false to an objective reader with a modicum of experience with the issues as does your article.

  21. Andrew Says:

    You seem to be very pro Android and Anti Apple. You tout how great Android will be with Marketplace and other channels for apps, then you turn around and say that the other channels will not be safe. Then you want to show how jailbreaking is not the same back channel as that offered for Android outside of Marketplace. Your facts about jailbreaking are incorrect – they may have been correct 18 months ago, when the first jailbreak options were out, but not anymore. Jailbreaking is safe, and if it fails, the original firmware can be flashed back on the iPhone. You also go on to talk about the podcaster application and how the developer bypassed the app store – and how does this relate to the kill switch.

    Your article is a rambling of information (not facts as some things are incorrect) that is supposed to somehow support your theory, that Google’s kill switch is better then Apple’s, but there is really nothing linking all your unrelated data bits together.

    If you look at the subject objectively, both Apple and Google installed the kill switch to disable malicious applications. Neither has been used in practice yet, so only time will tell if either company uses this for good or evil. Google can be evil sometimes too.

  22. pv2b Says:

    I’ve never seen so many seemingly articulate comments to a single article who seem to completely miss the point of the author.

    So I’m going to break down the argument in the above article, an argument I happen to agree with into a number of simple statements.

    1. Kill switches have a negative use: to let a manufacturer remotely disable software that is inconvenient to them or a carrier.
    2. Kill switches have a positive use: to let a manufacturer remotely disable malware.
    3. The kill switch on the iPhone is bad, because it can’t be disabled by the end user if Apple abuses it, unless he breaks the end-user agreement for the iPhone.
    4. The kill switch on the Android Platform is not bad, because it can be worked around by the end user without breaking any end-user agreement.

    Pretty much everyone I’ve talked to about the iPhone’s restrictive software development processes has been surprised and disgusted when I tell them about the depths of the restrictions put on users and developers and Apple. Then again, I haven’t talked about this to a representative part of the population, most of my friends are engineering students studing either computer networks or computer programming.

    Now, reservations by a few geeks and a few engineering students aren’t going to stop the iPhone from being the success it already is, but they managed to lose me as a customer. I’ve used a Mac on the desktop and laptop since 2002, and they’ve been a part of my computer life for much longer, and I plan to keep using Macs for the forseeable future — unless I decide to build my own PC and put Linux on it. (I switched from Windows to Linux longer ago than I can remember.)

    I decided not to go with the iPhone, despite the fact that it’s a very nice mobile device, specifically because of the restrictions on third-party software development. Instead I chose to buy a Nokia E71, which I am quite happy with.

    Sometimes, when browsing the web, I regret my decision. The Nokia E71 has a capable web browser, but it’s not quite up to the standards of the iPhone. The built-in GPS functionality certainly would be nicer with the larger screen of the iPhone compared to the Nokia E71.

    But then when I use the keyboard to quickly type out some SMS messages, maybe send an MMS or two (ha!), SSH into my Linux server at home, or use RealPlayer to listen to the BBC World Service over 3G networks (works remarkably well, even in spotty coverage areas the buffering is certainly doing its job), or call abroad using Voice over IP over the 3G network, I remember why I didn’t go with the iPhone.

    Apple and the carriers can keep their walled gardens. I just want my carrier to be the pipe that feeds the irrigation system neccessary to plant my own garden. Fortunately, the carriers here in Sweden don’t seem to be too awkward about just being a pipe.

  23. James Says:

    Bottom line: There is only one place to get iPhone apps (without significant risk) and the kill switch applies to all of them. Android users may choose where to get apps and the kill switch only applys to one.

    Essentially, it is mandatory on the iPhone and opt-in on the Android.

    It would still be better if the Android was configurable to enable or disable this. People don’t like the idea of not being in control. When you “buy” an iPhone it feels like you are just “borrowing” it from Apple.

  24. Pajama Boy Says:

    Given that neither Apple nor Google have used their kill switch, let’s talk about something that has been used – the power to exclude apps from their store. Apple has used its power to deny several applications the opportunity to be sold through the App Store. This seems to be Apple’s real power. Without distribution of your app through the App Store, you don’t have a viable business model. You have virtually no chance to earn a six figure monthly income with your iPhone application unless you get into the App Store.

    Certainly everyone would expect Apple to keep malicious applications out of their store. However, customers would not expect that beneficent apps that merely compete with Apple’s own apps would be excluded from the store. Apple stockholders may rejoice, but I wouldn’t expect customers to be pleased. Even then, stockholders may conclude that the policy will work against them. The more Apple uses this power, the more they limit their customer’s choices. Every time an application is barred from the store, it’s an admission that Apple’s own apps can’t stand up to competition. Apple’s institution of a gag order on developers when their application is denied shows that the tarnished image is exactly what they fear.

    Now how will Google’s Android Market work in contrast? Will Google exclude certain applications from their Android Market? If so, what will be the basis of their exclusion? Will exclusion from the Andriod Market be the same Siberian exile sentence it is for iPhone developers? For now, we can only speculate.

  25. Mario-Infinity Says:

    Hi.

    Was curious; are your commentors all idiots? Because a lot of the comments here are stressing that Apple has yet to use their kill switch. I mean; really? They have..

    A kill switch goes back in technology a ways; and with software its any means to remove or hault a program/process or otherwise from being used/spread etc.

    By removing an APP on the store; you cannot download it anymore. Which means if it accidently goes poof off yer hard drive, and you at ANY TIME re-sync your iphone/itouch those apps also go poof. Oh, and not to mention, your apple store account syncs with your iTunes and will re-download paid apps.. if those apps dont exist, and you Update iTunes, buy a new mac, have a buddy log into your iTunes to browse his store account… guess what? no more app. So, yes, they have indeed used their kill switch.

    The compelling thing about Google is that they refuse to say you must only use them. Speculation is that its going to be extremely difficult to install from the web; but with how streamlined mobile phone tech is, it should seem very unlikely. And the differential for them on the kill switch, is that it won’t effect the user…

    Lastly, “common users” tend not to exist in these market places. If you buy a high-tech phone you tend to know the ins and outs of it very well. My cousin is 10 and knows how to skin her phone using java (and its not a smartphone). Most people commenting here seem to be very taken aback at the viewpoint of apples mistakes, as if you don’t know crap about the 400$ toy you just bought, and have no idea about all the cool stuff your not able to do because of apple’s current blunders.. Honestly, i would say that a fair amount of the commentors need a hard-reboot to recover from user-error.

  26. Wayne Says:

    Bottom line is we’ll just have to wait and see how successful each approach is; Android or iPhone. If Android phones reach the level of iPhones (10 million plus users), then I predict you’ll see why Apple was smart to have only one (vetted) channel for apps.

  27. Jan Says:

    Folks, I wonder why a kill switch is such a wondrous idea? When a PC app phones home, everyone is up in arms. When a mobile app or even better – the OS itself – does, it is suddenly “reasonable”??

    It is for sure not done to protect the mobile networks – the network operator has way more ways to protect their network against malicious devices already – e.g. by blocking your access. If your device cannot get on the network, it cannot wreak any havoc there neither (except of radio interference, but that is what government regulators are here for).

    I think the reasons are purely commercial – to be able to turn off inconvenient applications, such as ones competing with your own (hello Apple!) or to force paid upgrades (“Sorry, but your version of this software is obsolete, please upgrade. Oh, by the way, the new version is only $99.99!”)

    Just because it is Google, it doesn’t mean that the facility cannot be abused. Google tends to be naive in some regards – e.g. the wall they hit with the web censorship in China. Now Google is censored there, same as everyone else, despite their “do no evil” policies. Business is business, finally.

  28. medwards Says:

    Your argument seems to boil down to ‘Android users do not have to use the Android Market for their apps and thus will always have an alternative to obtain killed apps.’ Except that there isn’t really anything that prevents Google from closing those channels. Given the current situation, I would say you are correct. But it isn’t really sustainable, there is not a strong business dis-incentive for Google to not eventually make Market the exclusive distribution channel.

  29. hwertz Says:

    @Susan:
    “Do you *REALLY* think Apple is ever going to just randomly start
    deleting software off everyone’s iPhone for no reason whatsoever?”

    Yes I *REALLY* think they would do this. They’ve removed functionality from apps in the past (not due to a rewrite where the functionality wasn’t reimplemented, but because they chose to remove features). See Itunes for one example. It gained an ability to pick some friends and let them all listen to your music. Then it eroded to other people on the same local network. Then not at all. Then, when others implemented plugins to return this functionality, Apple went that extra step of disabling these people’s third-party plugins. They’ve already blocked apps from the store for pretty much random reasons (claiming they duplicated functionality when they totally did not). It’ll be par for the course for Apple to start kill-switching software just because they decide after the fact that they don’t like it.

  30. turn.self.off Says:

    on the comment about signed only j2me installs. im positive i have installed unsigned j2me stuff on my phone.

    it all depends on how restrictive the settings in the firmware are. and operator branded phones may likey have a limitation set to only accept operator signatures or similar…

  31. chaitucastle85 Says:

    Yes I *REALLY* think they would do this.

  32. Keegan Roberts Says:

    This is arguably the most important aspect of the Market. The Market # 1: Using Too Many Indicators This is a reservoir.

  33. Manish Says:

    The kill switch really doesnt make a difference to me personally…If I needed either one, i’d get it without hesitation..

  34. uxp Says:

    This article is old, and I’m just bumping, but whatever…

    When a company owns a network such as AT&T or T-Mobile, they have to maintain this network, and when it is entirely distributed and something in the middle of it is causing issue, they cant just send an IT guy in to pull the LAN. I personally believe that as their network that you pay for access to, not pay for a share of ownership of, it is their responsibility to maintain that network for the good of ALL customers.

    So if I decide to install the AndroidSDK, and in the middle of my calculator application I have a kill timer that in 6 months from now all my apps conduct a DDOS attack on T-Mobile’s network, that app should be remotely killed. 90% of the customers with the bad phones wouldnt know otherwise and the few remaining, if they got pissed off, then who cares. Its the other millions of customers who didnt have compromised phones who would be pissed off if they didnt have access to a service they were paying for that i would want to take care of first.

  35. random password Says:

    You are truly right on this blog

7 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Android Phone to have a Kill switch. « Krkegley’s Weblog Says:

    [...] A link to the original Article can be found here. [...]

  2. alfonsofuggetta.org » Blog Archive » Android vs. AppStore Says:

    [...] link: Why the Kill Switch Make Sense for Android, and Not for iPhone | Technologizer [...]

  3. Mi·Movil - Blog! » El controvertido Kill Switch de Google y Apple Says:

    [...] Edans, Technologizer Puedes seguir los comentarios a esta entrada con nuestro RSS 2.0 feed. Puedes dejar un [...]

  4. www.ihatethebus.com Says:

    [...] to see what develops in the future with the phones running Android, as I’m a bit more fond of Google’s policy regarding third-party applications.   |  [ 0 Trackbacks ]   |   [...]

  5. Android rappa e si consegna agli umani « GmG’s Weblog Says:

    [...] alle difese appassionate del proprio modello di business, Google nelle ultime ore ha poi incassato anche il sostegno di un [...]

  6. It’s Time for Google to Rethink the Android Market Says:

    [...] Android malware is nothing new, this apparently marks the first time that the problem has occurred on a larger scale. At least [...]

  7. Time for Google to Rethink the Android Market Says:

    [...] Android malware is nothing new, this apparently outlines a initial time that a problem has occurred on a incomparable scale. At [...]

Comment on This Story