Oh by the way, it isn't yours really, it is owned by Google who can and will remove any applications you download from them and possiibly other third parties that it deems unfit.

I was considering Android purely because I thought I would have control over a handset that I purchased. Open source, no hidden nastiness has to be a good thing. It is now tainted.

I wait until someone smarter than I hacks google control out of the device, then I will reconsider. Until then the OS on this device is no better than that on any other proprietary handset.

I can understand the Google position on this, if anyone can distribute any applications they like the device is ripe for abuse. Still informing the user of any malicious application and it's behaviour and allowing the user to chose whether or not to remove that app would be imho the more fitting solution.

Google have just admitted that the device is monitored and has a back door just like the iPhone. More fool those who allow this kind of invasion.

If you seriously want freedom then you need to turn to the world of pengiun and get an OpenMoko based device.

So long as a phone or platfform is developed by a large organisation and is sold under contract you won't be able to do what you like with it.

Given how well Google writes EULs it wouldent suprise me if the point in this is to wipe any apps from there site, and from affected phones, which will damage the phone of anyone who downloads it befor they can stop it going out.

oh... the wonder phone has a weakness its just as locked down as the Iphone, just as expensive, looks shite, etc... Id rather have the Jesus phone! oh, wait.. no i wont! :)

and what about the little WM phones... write what you want for it, charge what you want, distribute it however you want! yes... big evil microsoft at it again! lol!!

I think about 60 years ago, a bloke with a small moustache was suggesting what was good for his followers... that worked out well for him, didnt it!

...just like the kill switch that carriers retain to be able to disable handsets in particular scenarios? But would never really use in reality?

Move along please, nothing to see here.

Way to bring Hitler into a conversation about mobile phones...

I can't say I like the idea of Google reserving this ability with Carte Blanche to apply for whatever reason they see fit, how ever they have openly announced it and are massively more open than Apple who won't let you install many things without them anyway.

Looking at this practically, chances are that Google is concerned people will try and sneak Malware through their marketplace. Many people might have a false belief that because it is found via the Google service that they have to be less careful about who they trust, and Google wants an easy way to protect its reputation in this event.

I seriously doubt Google intend to act like Apple who obviously use their control of the device to limit users to software that they choose, refusing to allow software that provides functionality they don't like to be added.

i remember the oh-so-righteous comments about the iPhone's kill switch in which people were saying how Android was going to be superior because Google wouldn't stoop so low as to do something like this

Ummm...so "my" phone would phone home to Google base occasionally and they may or may not (depending upon some criteria) remove applications I installed. Just who does the phone belong to then? Who pays for the phone home bit?

I'll pass on this then.

One of the nice things about Windows Mobile is the abundance of tools not only to remove simlocks but to install what you like and even rebuild the entire rom - to include/exclude whatever you want/don't want. I suppose this will come to the iphone and others but there is some catching up to be done.

not really - the kill switch is an indiscriminate write action to (remotely) disable a handset (or SIM). This seems to be more like a read action to see what's on the phone, analysis of what applications are installed on the phone, followed (potentially) by another command to initiate deletion of specific applications from your phone.

Also, extrapolating wildly, if google can execute remote commands on your phone then presumably so could anyone else...

I certainly don't feel comfortable with Google telling my phone which apps it deems as 'ungood'. But then, if something dastardly happens, for example, a worm that spreads around eating up your call credit calling 09xx numbers in the background, I bet we'd all be grateful then if Google can just whack it from everyone's handset in one swoop.

Perhaps it needs to be clearer under what conditions such a kill could be justified.

Jolyon

Typically, virus writers go after the low-hanging fruit. The stuff that's easiest to exploit - for a reasonable return.

Giving (well, OK: selling) people a device where most of the code is available, or to be made available AND can be used to suck money directly out of your bank account is a bit of a game changer. It now becomes much more profitable for the baddies to spend a lot of time and ingenuity to find ways to subvert, exploit or create loopholes in this open platform. Their motivation (and numbers) being far greater that that of the developers, it's only a matter of time before Andriod exploits start circulating.

Up to now, linux has had a reputation for being secure. A lot of this is based on the fact that M$'s products are far more popular - thus providing a bigger, if not juicier target and traditionally containing security holes large enough to drive a SCSI bus through. As a consequence, the number of Linux exploits - ones that have actually been used to do nasty things on other people's linux platforms, have been scarce. I can see that the assumptions the security assessments are based on will soon be challenged.

Personally, I'll give the Andriod a miss - it's only a phone afterall - and stick with the tried and trusted rule: never use version 1

Chrome regularly phones home too.

I'm surprised people are surprised. The only way Google can make money is to look at people's usage patterns and show them adverts based on them. They're not going to go to all this effort to make a mobile phone platform and really give it away for free.

Wouldn't it be better to have the ability to remove such a program yourself?

Else what happens if you get a worm that dials out and removes all your paid-for content?

"A lot of this is based on the fact that M$'s products are far more popular - thus providing a bigger, if not juicier target and traditionally containing security holes large enough to drive a SCSI bus through."

No.

Otherwise Apache would have more than 2/3 of the exploits, being the most popular web server. Web servers being a great resource for information that can be used for nefarious purposes. And, unlike desktop machines, generally on 24/7.

The reality is quite different.

MS's desktop products are more hacked because they are more hackable.

End of story.

We own you and everything you own

By Simon B Posted Thursday 16th October 2008 12:20 GMT

Google seem to think they own everyone and everything you own, nothing changes does it.

i thought they already did so why beat the dead horse?

Mobile companies, both the handset providers and the bandwidth providers, are very sensitive about their property. We buy our handsets from the phone company, subsidised for the life of the account. The retail price of the average smartphone is £3-400, proved by the cost of the Freerunner, and I'm sure that there are very few people reading this who slapped that down for their Crackberry or Pomegranate or whatever shiny toy dragged them into a Vodafone shop last time they passed. In return the providers support these phones, so if yours dies, you can call them and get some assistance in getting it fixed, even if it's just RTB, back up your SIM and get a new one. So the phone companies aren't keen on random software on their machines, and want some kind of control on what data goes in and out of it. Why isn't there a free usable version of MSN Messenger for non-Windows phones? Why is Opera pretty much the only decent alternative (and indeed often main) web browser for smartphones? One is because the phone companies believe IM bites into their call revenue in an unbalanced way, the other is because the web experience is potentially bandwidth-intensive and can't be guaranteed on a handset, despite what Apple thinks.

The G1 business model has been dictated by the success of the iPhone. Remember that Google weren't going to create a phone at first, but have probably been forced to by the reluctance of the phone companies to open their architecture. It came as no surprise to me that it was HTC who have picked it up because they are seemingly trying to find an alternative to Windows Mobile, but they will have required concessions, the FCC will have required concessions, there will have been concessions required for CE certification and no doubt T-Mobile will have had their say too. So a 'killswitch' is the response to a bunch of concessions for every party involved. It could be something as simple as the revocation of the API key, which Google use everywhere, and really, if you downloaded an app that calls Madagascar every 10 minutes, who would you be blaming?

Do you think you could then tell the FSF to stop punting the Freerunner as a viable alternative to the iPhone on their site?

Freerunner's hardware (emphasis on hardware) needs radically changing, not just the software... I just don't think OpenMoko has much chance until it throws the design out and goes back to the drawing board. At the moment you can't even use the stylus on the boundaries of the touchscreen due to the poor bezel design.

Then again, that'll put OpenMoko even further behind (not even basic 3G connectivity confirmed for the GTA04 phone)...

"I can understand the Google position on this, if anyone can distribute any applications they like the device is ripe for abuse"

Hm? That was funny! The device can be considered a computer. Would you like to use a computer that doesn't let you install some programs or that de-install them without your consent? Who owns the device? Has Nokia or any other vendor made anything similar? Apple and Android are going too far, they do not own the devices they sell and they must not control them/configure them to call home

"I was considering Android purely because I thought I would have control over a handset that I purchased. Open source, no hidden nastiness has to be a good thing. It is now tainted."

Like with Neo Freerunner?