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

By: uxp

uxp — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:27:39 +0000

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.

By: Manish

Manish — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:20:19 +0000

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

By: Keegan Roberts

Keegan Roberts — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:11:34 +0000

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

By: Android rappa e si consegna agli umani « GmG’s Weblog

Android rappa e si consegna agli umani « GmG’s Weblog — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:54:03 +0000

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

By: www.ihatethebus.com

www.ihatethebus.com — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:52:50 +0000

[...] 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 ] | [...]

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

Mi·Movil - Blog! » El controvertido Kill Switch de Google y Apple — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:42:22 +0000

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

By: chaitucastle85

chaitucastle85 — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:40:40 +0000

Yes I *REALLY* think they would do this.

By: turn.self.off

turn.self.off — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:59:22 +0000

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…

By: hwertz

hwertz — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:57:06 +0000

@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.

By: medwards

medwards — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:53:49 +0000

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.