Filed under: Google, Mobile, Android
Android Marketplace gets a 'kill switch'
Remember back in August when Steve Jobs confirmed to The Wall Street Journal that a "kill switch" existed within the iPhone API, allowing Apple to remotely disable malicious third-party applications distributed through the App Store? A big brouhaha ensued with lots of hand-wringing about how a closed marketplace wasn't acting like purely free market (shocker). Nevermind that the "kill switch" hasn't actually been used to remove apps from user phones and is actually just a security precaution to protect users against programs that might do actual harm to software devices (or I guess, potentially, mine data), its mere existence was decried and lambasted -- you know, until we all got bored and moved onto the next App Store scandal.
Well, Google has revealed that a similar switch exists within the Android API for Android Marketplace. According to Computerworld, the Android Marketplace Terms of Agreement state, "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."
Thus far, the cries of outrage seem to be fairly muted. Computerworld and Engadget argue that this is because Google is being straight-forward and open about this provision from the get-go -- whereas an iPhone developer discovered the initial iPhone hook, and it was confirmed by Steve Jobs a few days later. I'm sure that is part of it, but I think the users are also more willing to accept this provision because the outrage over iPhone's similar provision passed as merely a blip on the radar.
Additionally, Google has announced that in the event a pay-application is remotely removed from handsets, Google will do everythign they can to recover the money paid to the developer and refund that money back to consumers. Computerworld also notes that the Android Marketplace will have a 24-hour refund policy for paid applications, if users are dissatisfied with the purchase. Initially, all Android Marketplace apps will be free, because Goole hasn't implemented the mechanisms necessary for developers to charge for software. A 24-hour return policy addresses one of the core complaints about the App Store: the inability to try apps before buying. That's a positive move for consumers.
I'm of the opinion that a "kill switch" for Google, Apple or any other official handset marketplace that allows apps to be downloaded directly to the device is a prudent and necessary provision. It will not be in Google's best interest, just as it is not in Apple's, to remove applications for any reason other than security. Although Apple has removed a number of applications from the App Store, the company has not deactivated any of those programs on user handsets. If you bought NetShare before it was permanently pulled from the store, you can still use the program, even if it does violate your carrier agreement. Likewise, Tris, the free Tetris-clone that was pulled because of intellectual property violations, still works for any user that downloaded the program before its removal.
Think about it this way: If Google did not have a mechanism in place to remove an application that could potentially erase, ruin or muck up data on your phone -- or even worse, an app that stole personal information stored on the phone -- imagine the true user outrage, not to mention the very real financial liability.
The first Android phone, the T-Mobile G1 will be released on October 22, 2008. Download Squad will be getting our grubby paws on a phone as soon as our T-Mo store gets them in stock, and we'll be posting about the best software, development tips and tricks and other Googlelicious information.
[via Engadget]
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
whiskey said 2:11PM on 10-16-2008
Let us review what the SDK agreement for Android say, shall we?
... any application you develop on the SDK that infringes any copyright, trademark, trade secret, trade dress, patent or other intellectual property right of any person or defames any person or violates their rights of publicity or privacy...
So let's say somebody creates an app that harms your data, shares it with third parties for spamming or fraud, keylogs you or portrays itself as something that is not... What if it can riddle your phone with malware? This is a kill-switch that provides you even with assistance to get your money back.
Thing is that you will be getting the freedom to install apps outside from the Android Marketplace, which, AFAIK, will not respond to the kill switch.
But i guess that Google detractors will use this to speak negatively about the platform anyway.
Reply
Christina Warren said 2:12PM on 10-16-2008
I am in complete agreement. Anyone who doesn't think that Google wouldn't be irresponsible to NOT have this type of provision, well, you can't argue with people who won't see reason...
Mysterius said 8:00PM on 10-16-2008
Agreed. Google acts responsibly to monitor apps distributed over its Marketplace.
Meanwhile, users can still install apps through non-Google facilitated channels, that will be the user's own sole responsibility. Unlike the iPhone (w/o jailbreaking).
Peter said 9:41AM on 10-17-2008
I agree it is the responsible thing to have it available. But it sort of begs the question why is it acceptable/necessary to have it for a phone, but not for a regular computer? Why would we accept Apple disabling an application that might steal data from our phone, but we won't accept Apple disabling an application that might steal data from our desktop computer?
The data on my desktop is far more sensitive and personal than the data on my phone.
oleg said 12:20AM on 10-18-2008
I am always paranoid when I am not in full control, but I guess I never fully am. Remember, just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you. I would prefer an opt out/in policy. Regarding apple iphone / ipod touch, I hated the fact that i could not install application and save it on a hard drive because of DRM. On a bigger side note I also hated that Ipod touch would crash with more than 10 apps, and the community had to rely on apple to fix it.
By the way, has anyone noticed the amount of spelling mistakes in this post. I don't want to be a grammar nazi, but you can't have that in a professional blog. I notice them in a few posts, mostly by the contributors who post a lot (not surprising)
What does this even mean "...property violations, still works for any user that downloaded its removal." There's a whole word missing there!
Comon download squad, get your act together!
Reply
Christina Warren said 12:31AM on 10-18-2008
I understand being conflicted about giving up control, but as you said, with cell phones especially, we never are in "full control." As long as this is a last-resort policy only, I'm perfectly fine with its existence.
In regards to your comment on spelling and grammar: I apologize that I omitted three words from that sentence. It has been changed -- thank you for pointing it out. Sometimes when writing something quickly, a thought that is fully processed mentally, does not come out as such on the page. We do strive to keep grammar and spelling errors to a minimum, but sometimes stuff slips through the cracks.