Filed under: News, Apple, iPhone
Steve Jobs confirms iPhone app "kill switch"
There's been some debate about whether Apple's ability to remotely disable apps on users' iPhones is for real. At Download Squad, we've had readers both affirming and denying the "kill switch" rumors. For a while, it seemed like an app blacklist had been found, but it turned out that it was just a list of apps that aren't allowed to access Core Location. Steve Jobs finally ended the debate today in The Wall Street journal, where he admits that the kill switch is real.In the WSJ piece, Jobs "argued that Apple needs it in case it inadvertently allows a malicious program -- one that stole users' personal data, for example -- to be distributed to iPhones through the App Store. 'Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull,' he says." This shouldn't be a big deal, since Apple already has some control over what becomes available through the App Store. If something nasty does sneak by them, though, at least there's a countermeasure available.
[via Daring Fireball]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Bartman said 6:14AM on 8-12-2008
Do you remember Apples first TV commercial back in '84. It was all about how they were anti big brother and anti control.
Steve, You've come a long way baby.
Reply
Michael K Pate said 10:44AM on 8-12-2008
Just replace "iPhone" in his quote with "OSX" and see if it sounds reasonable. After all, we were all told originally that the iPhone was actually a handheld computer running a full version of OSX. Or could it be that this "feature" is actually legacy code from the regular version?
Reply
hazard said 10:44AM on 8-12-2008
On the surface the ability for Apple to disable/remove apps is quite outrageous. Nonetheless, it's quite justifiable in concept. Don't know if anyone remembers but MS removed the Kill switch in Vista because of poor implementation not because of an outcry against the concept.
I'd be interested to know what Apple's definition of a "malicious program" is? Wonder if this functionality is in the iPod Touch also?
Reply
Tim said 12:19PM on 8-12-2008
If you replace all Apple references with Microsoft ones and were to republish this article, there'd be outrage. Quit drinking the Jobs-is-God kool-aide, people.
Reply
bcurran said 12:35PM on 8-12-2008
It is amazing to me that it seems like people are just letting Apple get away with this. If Microsoft or Google, or some other company admitted something like this about one of their products, they would be crucified in the media about it. But everyone's little darling Apple can do no wrong. Give me a break. All you people who are not pissed off about this are brainwashed by Apple. They design great products, sure, but what price are you paying with your privacy to get them?
Reply
kevjohn said 12:37PM on 8-12-2008
It looks like Jobs has been studying at the University of Homeland Security. He's learned he can do all sorts of douchy things if he just puts it under the guise of "protecting us".
Reply
fabbaz said 12:42PM on 8-12-2008
that's just great. geez, if apple wants to rent phones but in reality keep them to theirselves, that is ok, but dont you usually pay a price for this product?
whats next?
"yes, we had to lock internet access to certain webpages like dell and microsoft, and yahoo and wikipedia, since those are informations our customers might be pessimistic about when buying our products again. we think it is good that we have this lever of destroying your hardware, just in case you don't do something the way we want it. and to prove just HOW little we care about you fellow sheep in reality, we tell you that we would check each app before allowing you to install it - which we don't - so that any inconveniance is certainly not on our side. oh, before i forget, that also has to do with why we charge extra for songs you can actually play on an not-ipod." (steve jobs, keynote wwdc 2013)
Reply
Tony2X said 11:51AM on 8-12-2008
Unlikely, but possible. I don't think even Steve Jobs would shoot his market share in the foot like that.
James said 12:46PM on 8-12-2008
It would be one thing if Apple had a pushed-out autoupdate feature like Windows does, that has an option to turn it off or refuse a particular update. It's quite another to allow central remote control of a bought-and-paid-for device, and I hope there's universal outrage.
Of course, I don't *expect* it, but I can *hope* for it.
Reply
go_biffle said 4:14PM on 8-13-2008
Of course, if Apple took the time (and showed their clients the consideration) to *screen* the apps before making them available to the general public, the odds of a malicious app getting through would be much thinner.
Of course, why waste precious time and resources making certain an app is safe when that time can better be sent making smug commercials?
Reply
Ayle said 4:14PM on 8-13-2008
Wasn't that the aim of the Appstore anyway? Didn't they say that every programs would be thoroughly checked before being released on the Appstore? Meh, the only reason I still have my iphone 4gb is because of the large screen and browser. Once the htc dream is out, bye bye Apple ^_^.
V4d3r said 1:32PM on 8-14-2008
Its My Phone, I Paid for it, if they wanted to put some security reason I think at least I should be warned and give me the option to turn it ON/OFF. This is a kind of censorship if they don´t give the user a way to turn ON/OFF the option.
Reply
james said 3:35AM on 10-09-2008
just jailbreak ur iphone and then install boss prefs and then u can turn the kill switch off. personally i think its bull they did that but at the same time id rather them delete a app that is malicious then not. its if they overstep their boundaries that its gone to far.
Reply