Google's Android also comes with a 'kill switch'

The world was up in arms when it was discovered that Apple's iPhone comes with a "kill switch" that "allows Apple to remotely delete malicious or inappropriate applications stored on the device." That terrible, proprietary, all-controlling Apple!

Well, as it turns out, Google's open-source Android comes with a similar feature, as reported by Computerworld:

In the Android Market terms of service, Google expressly says that it might remotely remove an application from user phones. "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," the terms, linked to from the phone, read.

So far, Google is getting a free pass on its kill switch, perhaps because it has been more open about the "feature," as Computerworld suggests, or perhaps because, unlike Apple, which vets applications in its App Store, this may be the only way Google can protect users from malicious applications added to its Android Market, which allows any apps through the door and onto devices like the T-Mobile G1. Google enables freedom to put applications onto its Android-based phones, but it reserves the freedom to yank them off, should it want to do so.

Prudent? Yes. Android customers, however, will have to depend upon Google's anti-evil promise.

It would actually be quite funny to see what Google would do if Microsoft or Apple put an application on the Android Market that installed Windows Mobile or Apple's iPhone software over Android. Worthy of the kill switch?

[pkiyangar]

If I am paying loads of money for a phone. I should be able to install whatever I want on it. I am guessing that it would null the warranty if something were to happen to the phone due to the application. Kill switch today. Whats gonna prevent them from peeking remotely into my phone to see what I am doing. I think its an invasion of privacy.

[The User]

Google is notoriously bad when it comes to privacy. With every service and product it tries to capture as much info about users as possible.

[thelemurking]

Just be thankful that Android already has apps.

The Sprint app contest for the Instinct has been over for close to a month and winners were supposed to be announced last week and we are still APPLESS!

I would take Google's Kill Switch decision on apps any day compared to not having apps on the Samsung Instinct. I can't even fracking IM on the damn phone! So give Google the free ride, let Apple slide a bit and count yourselves lucky! Sprint is more concerned about product placement than improving the actual product. I could care less that half the people in Heroes are using the Instinct. I just want to be able to do simple things like Yahoo Messenger or see animated gifs or even Flash for the piece of crap browser, but NOOOO! They can't do that, but they can poor countless millions into advertising and product placement.

It's a shame that Android isn't even out yet and it's already got more apps than the Instinct.

[kennonk]

Well and based on the open nature of the platform, I'm pretty sure users who wish it so will have the option of disabling this type of remote intervention soon if not already.

[mathoj]

The difference between this "Kill Switch" and Apple's is that Apple has it so that people can only use Apple's Applications. Google has stated that it does not intend to use this as a way of controlling whose applications are used, but to ensure that malicious applications that could harm the phone or a user's personal information, are not being distributed. A lot of the user's information goes into smart phones and if an application were created that would hack that information, address books, credit card and bank information (through banking applications), e-mail addresses and passwords... etc... a lot could be on the line for that user. Having an open source application device makes the phone prone to such attacks, and Google counters that by having the "Kill Switch," It's definitely in your best interest not to intervene with it, to ensure you have that protection.

[tacit]

"The difference between this "Kill Switch" and Apple's is that Apple has it so that people can only use Apple's Applications."

Huh?

There are many non-Apple applications. Some are sanctioned by Apple; some are not, and will only work on a phone that has had jailbreaking software run on it. Yet Apple has not killed any of these applications. What are you talking about?

[mathoj]

What I meant is that Apple has a predetermined set of Application's that they allow you to use. "Kill Switch" or not, you have to hack the iPhone to be able to add Application's that would be readily accessible on a phone such as the G1. By admitting that by hacking the iPhone is the only way to add a non-sanctioned application, you are agreeing with my statement; Apple uses the "Kill Switch" to protect Apple's Applications so that they could monopolize what is used on them. Apple has indeed claimed that this is the intent of the "Kill Switch" and it is a fact that it has removed and disallowed Applications that they do not want on the iPhone, neither of these can be denied. I suggest that you research Apple's "Kill Switch" and all the information that I have listed above will be found in any article you read.

That's what I'm talking about.

[ArtInvent]

If it's all truly open source, you can go into the code and kill the kill switch.

Google will have to - absolutely have to - police it's own app Market against malicious apps, otherwise it would be guilty of distributing malware. What Apple has done is far beyond this - remove or disallow apps that compete with Apple's own chosen apps, purely for anti-competitive purposes.

Google is pushing Android for this very reason, to have an open system. If they close it down and make it anti-competitive, there would be no reason for it's existence, and people would just fork it or move on to some other OS if they wanted a truly open environment. Google really has to have a pass on this unless and until they prove anti-competitive.