[rab777hp]

Wait for some hacker to go in and kill everything for a laugh. Then it'll be real nice.

[louielu12]

A kill switch isn't inherently bad, but I'm skeptical of Apple's.
I highly doubt they will ever use it on something like NetShare; if you use it under AT&T, it is your fault and AT&T will punish you accordingly (even though I think it should be allowed). Additionally, Apple would need to take money back from the developer (and lose money themselves), and give users a refund.
But if there is an app that will steal my personal data, I want it shutdown. I just wish Apple would do something where it disables it, but it is up to the user to decide if they want it removed. For example, if there were to be a malicious app today that many people installed, I would like there to be a message on my iPhone saying it was malicious, they disabled it, and if you are willing to risk using it, do the following. It may be confusing for non-tech savvy users, but they can just dismiss it.

[tobybrut]

There's a big difference between removing an application from the App Store versus putting in a kill switch that disables applications that have already been bought. For one thing, anyone who bought Netshare or I Am Rich can still run the apps they bought. They have not been disabled. Removing something from the store just means that you can't buy it. We don't know why Apple removed some of these apps. We can only guess. My guess is that Apple didn't want complaints from too many people who accidentally spent $1000 on a program they didn't want. There was at least one and that's probably why it was yanked. We can guess AT&T is behind why Netshare has been removed but Apple did not disable it for those who bought it.

What's the difference? In one, you paid for an app and can't use it anymore. In the other case, it disappeared from the store shelf but you didn't spend a dime on it. So stores can no longer choose what they can sell and what they can't sell anymore? The fact that we developers paid our $99 and submitted apps to the store means that we've agreed to an oversight process where Apple can say what goes in and what doesn't. Like any disclaimer, we as customers can simply agree to opt out and not buy a phone or not buy any apps, or as a developer we can choose to not write an app. We can complain about Apple's opaqueness behind their decisions but that's another story.

The fact that Netshare still works is evidence that Apple doesn't consider Netshare malicious, no matter what AT&T may think. As Jobs says, "malicious" means if there's an application out there that is doing real harm to people such as stealing their private data or corrupting their phones. It has not meant apps that are inconvenient to AT&T.

Like others have said, I don't have a problem with a kill switch unless Apple proves to be untrustworthy. I'm a developer and if I had created something like the iPhone, I sure would want to protect it from rampant viruses or data-stealing apps, especially since it's a closed system, unlike the Mac OS where you have the option of running anti-virus software.

I think the crux of the matter is that people are uncomfortable with Apple deciding what "malicious" means. Some are willing to trust. Others are not. I can't argue against that, but I do have an issue with comparing removing apps from the store versus invoking a kill switch on an app.

[jester888]

I posted this article on my blog regarding this topic. It is currently two parts.

http://www.nnbfn.net...or-iphone-apps/

http://www.nnbfn.net...mission-part-2/

[adobephile]

I think it was prudent on Apple's part to do this. All they have to do, if anything, is to prove they know how to use it wisely.

[Xaqtly]

So many responses to my post that didn't do what I asked for, namely provide proof that Apple is going to randomly remove apps from your iPhone. Talk is cheap, PROVE that Apple is going to do that. I understand the general paranoia some of you seem to be suffering from, but in this case I don't feel that it's deserved or appropriate. As somebody above pointed out, Apple removed the Nullriver app from the store (and the I Am Rich app), but did NOT remove it from anybody's phone. You know what that is, boys and girls?

That is PRECEDENT. You see how that works? I have precedent as proof, and you have nothing. Zero, zip nada squat. I will become just as pissed as anybody if apps start randomly being removed from my phone, but I don't believe that will ever happen. If somehow I download a malicious app on my phone, I hope Apple does remove it, since that's exactly why Apple implemented that function to begin with.

Any comparisons to a normal computing platform like Windows or OS X are null and void. The iPhone is NOT a "normal computing platform". We don't have the tools to remove this theoretical malware ourselves like we would on a normal computing platform.

[jester888]

Who cares about proof or precident about Apple's intent. The proof and precident you need to be concerned with is the history of back doors and the tendency for them to be exploited.

I have pointed out a simple idea on how to hack it using existing, KNOWN flaws that have not been fixed by apple. I am by no means a cracker and if I can come up with this, then those who actively spend their time thinking about it will take it a lot further.

It is Apple's mistake for putting it in place to begin with. It will be to their users dismay when it gets abused.

[jmincey]

Proof of Apple's bad intent is irrelevant and a red herring. All that matters is that software I pay for remains under my control and is subject to MY criteria of use -- not to Apple's.


You purchase locks for the doors of your house even though you don't have proof you will be robbed -- right? Instead, you figure locks are a good investment ON THE CHANCE you might be robbed. Well, by the same token, I am opposed to this kill switch ON THE CHANCE a corporation may change its criteria or that it may delete apps against my wishes.


Jeff Mincey

[tmedia1]

Ask Jobs what happened to NetShare!? If they didn't kill Netshare I'd buy an iPhone.

[jester888]

You beat me to it Jeff. :)

[tobybrut]

What you say is actually not true. If you've ever read any software license agreement, you should already know that you are not allowed to use software you purchase in any way you choose to because it doesn't actually belong to you. Just as an example, I can install my copy of Aperture or FCS on more than one computer but I can only run ONE copy at a time. Apple even enforces this by checking over the network to see if a serial number is in use. It's annoying but it's part of the license agreement that I agreed to by clicking on "Agree." So I am not allowed to do whatever I want with that software. Why are iPhone App Store apps any different? The use of those apps are subject to Apple's software license agreement and those of the app sellers, NOT YOUR CRITERIA.

If you want to abuse your license agreement, that's none of my business but according to the law, you do not have carte blanche on all the software you buy to use in any way you want.

If you disagree with Apple's software license agreement, don't buy any apps. Then you won't have to worry about Apple abusing their discretion and disabling your apps.

[zarchanalin]

i just came across this article on my MacWorld feed and really, I have to say something which is highly unusual for me. I've sat here for some time and saw so many people attacking Apple over various different security practices and issues. I had to kind of scratch my head in confusion when "security experts" claimed that OS X was a bad choice for business because there were only users and administrators and nothing in between because the last time I checked OS X was built on Darwin, a version of FreeBSD, and the groups commands still worked. The home use inteface of the system, Aqua, was designed for the work flow of the home, so no, there's not a nifty little interface to setting that stuff up. There isn't in Windows XP Home or Vista Basic/Home Premium either. I have been baffled where people get their ideas when they say that Apple is going to start killing your stuff because they want to control what you can and cannot do. There's no evidence to support such a claim at all.

This kill switch is, it seems to me, a necessary part of the iPhone software. The iPhone is not like the computer. If someone compromises your computer, as many windows users can attest to, the most you have to worry about is information theft and data loss. The iPhone, because it is a cell phone, can suffer from theft of much more. Has everyone forgotten that experiment that was run some time back and detailed in an article in Wired magazine about the ability to utilize a security hole in Windows' mobile platform and reverse SMS to create a blue tooth propagating hijacker virus that could jump between any two blue tooth enabled phones and send charges against your phone bill? Do you really want Apple to be powerless to stop such an app in it's tracks, or would you rather them have the ability to kill it before it can rack up hundreds of dollars worth of charges on your phone bill?

Another thing I've seen no one mention here is Microsoft's kill switch in their operating systems, the Remote Procedure Call. This bit of code allows Microsoft to access any Windows based computer and shut it down. If you want to know how annoying that is, just ask anyone who got the blaster worm that resulted in Windows computers just shutting down every thirty seconds to two minutes. Even government computers weren't immune to that bit of control and that was a danger to our national security (since so many of our defense agencies have switched to Microsoft).

The point being, killswitch software is nothing new, and as far as such things go the ability to kill a virus or malicious software from your iphone before it can cause a serious problem sounds to me like something we should all be thankful for having.

[jester888]

One major difference between this and a DRM solution like you describe is, it is not arbitrary and does not have the potential scope of abuse the kill switch has. Say you break the licensing server for FCS then all of the FCS users who have to activate will be SOL. That is it. One application. You take this kill switch and put a dozen apps on it and all of the iPhone users now all of the sudden have no access to the applications they once did. Potentially even making the phone useless.

As for the licensing comment. Shrink-wrap license agreements don't always come out of a court case as enforcable or in the way the developer intended.

[jmincey]

Tobybrut, I'm not asking for carte blanche and I'm not unwilling to use software in accord with the legally valid and enforceable terms of the license. The problem with the kill switch, though, is that the party which enforces its criteria is NOT the party which developed the software and the user license thereto. Indeed, the iPhone developers themselves will tell you they have no idea as to the terms Apple requires of them. They are asking for transparency about this so they will know where they stand.
In any event, either we rent software (via a subscription model) or we pay for the license outright. If I pay outright, and if the software and its functions are not illegal, then Apple had damn well better not delete this software without my approval -- not even with a refund and especially not without one.
Jeff Mincey