[Peter Cohen]

jmincey said:

And by the same token, I don't want Apple, on principle, to be the deciding party as to what software can run on my computers -- including my mobile computers, (irrespective of their honorable intentions or not).

And here we can digress into a long debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of the DMCA and whether or not a usage agreement is an enforceable document, etc. These waters get muddied quickly. I'd only point out that for those who find Apple's terms of service or actions so objectionable, there are -- and will be -- alternatives (such as Android).

[jmincey]

And here we digress into the "love it or leave it" mentality -- rather than just engage in nuanced discussion about the merits of specific technologies or policies.



Jeff Mincey

[Peter Cohen]

jmincey said:

And here we digress into the "love it or leave it" mentality

Not necessarily, but it occurs to me the line is pretty clearly drawn. There are some, and I admit that I fall into this camp, that think the kill switch idea is a good one for various reasons. There are others, like yourself, who clearly don't. I understand that you're not didactic or dogmatic in your belief and neither am I, but at the end of the day, Jeff, it's something we're going to have to live with, because Apple makes it so. So arguing about its basic merits is rather beside the point, at least in the framework of what we're discussing here.

[jmincey]

Well, of course you are right, Peter, that Apple has made its decision. At the same time, on occasion Apple has shown the ability to respond not only to direct market realities but also to feedback from the user community.
In any case, even if Apple chooses to stand fast, I find value in exchanging perspectives on the merits of Apple products and policies.
By the way, while I'm an opponent of DRM, and while I see some overlap between DRM and a kill switch, I do also see a distinction which could be made between the two.
Jeff Mincey

[nextwave]

[quote name='Peter Cohen']
>

jmincey said:

>
> And here we digress into the "love it or leave it" mentality

Not necessarily, but it occurs to me the line is pretty clearly drawn. There are some, and I admit that I fall into this camp, that think the kill switch idea is a good one for various reasons. There are others, like yourself, who clearly don't. I understand that you're not didactic or dogmatic in your belief and neither am I, but at the end of the day, Jeff, it's something we're going to have to live with, because Apple makes it so. So arguing about its basic merits is rather beside the point, at least in the framework of what we're discussing here.

So, Apple has made her decision, and therefore, there's no point debating this?

Wow.

That's really the ultimate Apple blind loyalty.

[Peter Cohen]

nextwave said:

So, Apple has made her decision, and therefore, there's no point debating this?

Not here, anyway. A more germane discussion is "what is the kill switch, how does it work and how will at affect iPhone users?"

[Xaqtly]

jmincey said:

I'm not the least bit paranoid. It's not paranoid to want control over what software runs or does not run on my computing platforms.

BZZT, wrong answer. The fact that you're freaking out because Apple has the ability to remove malware from your iPhone remotely is the definition of paranoid. I say "you're paranoid", you respond with "I'm not paranoid, I just don't want Apple to have the ability to remove apps". Right... because you're paranoid about it. If you weren't worried that Apple was going to remove apps from your phone, this would be a non-issue, wouldn't it?

You can use whatever hair-splitting semantics you want, it boils down to the fact that you don't trust Apple with this ability. That's because you're afraid they will use it in a way that doesn't meet with your approval. Trying to justify your position using vague and unsound reasoning like "I don't agree with the concept of a kill switch" doesn't really fly in the real world. You let me know if it becomes an actual, real problem. You know, in the real world, not just in your head.

Quote

The device belongs to me. So long as the software I use violates no law, the decision to remove it must be mine alone. I pay for its use, I expect to have that use.

You're assuming Apple will remove that software arbitrarily. Will they? Really? Where is the reasoning to back up that assumption? Oh right... you're paranoid. That's your reasoning.

Quote

Or do you suppose Apple will supply a refund to everyone whose software is deleted without their approval?

Assuming the app was malware, I don't see why they wouldn't. They share a responsibility for preventing malware from showing up on the app store in the first place. And on that note, I love how stoic you are about the "it's my software, I get to decide who gets to remove it" thing. So if you get malware on your iPhone, you don't want Apple to remove it? Did it ever occur to you that if malware ever did get on your iPhone they would probably make it impossible to delete by the end user? Think about it.

[jester888]

It greatly amuses me to see everyone jumping to defend Apple in their decision. As I have said several times now. It doesn't matter if Apple's track record shows it to be impeccable. The fact that the ability exists means that SOMEONE OTHER THAN APPLE can exploit it. You can not argue or deny this point. Why do people climb mountains? Because they are there. Why do people crack software, perform DoS attacks, write malware? Because they can. Because of $, Because of <insert ANY reason here>. Why will people attempt to exploit this? See previous answers.

If you want to talk about precedent, look at this history of crackers. Opportunity exists, they exploit it. YEARS of this kind of behavior to prove the trend.

To open this kind of security hole is irresponsible of Apple. They have created an EASY means of effecting a denial of service attack against all of iPhone users. What is their goal this year? 10 Million? For someone who is looking to put their efforts into something that will give them the "best bang for their buck". Pissing off 10 million iPhone users is a pretty damn appealing target with out taking into consideration the perception Apple's arrogance toward security.

Get it through your heads. This is not specifically about Apple. While I completely agree with Jeff in that I don't want Apple acting as a nanny for me. I even more importantly, don't want the use of my phone denied to me by someone who is morally gray.

[jmincey]

Xaqtly, you advise that we wait and see if it becomes a problem and deal with it only once it does. I'm from the ounce-of-prevention school myself. Where problems can be foreseen and prevented, I prefer taking that approach.
Would you be open to a kill switch on your computer? Would you object to allowing Apple, HP, Dell, Sun, etc., to determine what software is acceptable for computer owners to install and which is not?
Here's an idea. Why don't we agree to have kill switches on every device we own and then we can just wait and see if it should become a problem before "freaking out." How's that?
Jeff Mincey

[tewha]

jester888 said:

It greatly amuses me to see everyone jumping to defend Apple in their decision. As I have said several times now. It doesn't matter if Apple's track record shows it to be impeccable. The fact that the ability exists means that SOMEONE OTHER THAN APPLE can exploit it. You can not argue or deny this point. Why do people climb mountains? Because they are there. Why do people crack software, perform DoS attacks, write malware? Because they can. Because of $, Because of <insert ANY reason here>. Why will people attempt to exploit this? See previous answers.

This does not follow at all and is actually kind of funny.