iPhone chatter .... or, something else to worry about?
If you want something relevant to say when next you're wasting time at work, consider dropping something like this in the mix:
"Hey, did you hear about how Apple can really mess up your iPhone apps without you knowing about it?"
There's more than enough background material out there on the net, but I will summarize it for you. Apparently, this guy found coding that Apple later confirmed as a "kill switch" — a means whereby the company can eliminate an application from an iPhone without the users' consent. And apparently, the switch can be activated without a user syncing first.
In confirming the as-of-yet unused kill switch option, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said it would be "irresponsible" of the company to supply its customers with an over-priced phone without the ability to later micromanage it to fit its wishes.
Ok .... He didn't say it just like that, but he did use the "irresponsible" terminology. The rest I added for emphasis.
Disclaimer: I have an iPod Nano (3rd gen, red) and a MacBook (duo core, white). I don't own an iPhone, and I'm not in the market for one.
My general stand on that product is that it's a nifty, overpriced gadget with more uses than I could ever possible find an excuse to try.
And there are likely many many many people who've convinced themselves that they must have an iPhone for their very daily existence, but in reality they're just being silly. These same folks will have the same reaction when the next generation of so-called "smart phone" hits the market.
But I must say that I'm surprised that someone was able to push Apple enough to have them simply confirm a pretty frightening thought — they can take away from you a feature that they no longer want available .... good, bad or otherwise.
This is really an unheard of level of control for any similarly positioned consumer produce, at least that I can think of at the moment.
You, Mr. and Mrs. iPhone Customer, must rely on the judgment of wholly unknown individuals to determine whether a kill switch must be activated for your device. It would be like Ford Motor Co. deciding tomorrow that your Focus no longer needs its radio and power brakes, but will later introduce a better entertainment and stopping utility for your purchase.
"Big Brother" fears aside, this is an electronic sword of Damocles they can employ when it suits them. Of course, they better be pretty sure they have a strong "threat to the system's stability and/or security" story lined up before using it. But they can apparently destroy something without checking with you — the customer — first and make you come back to pay for the replacement later. It's just unreal ....
How does this in any way encourage even greater future participation or innovation for a product that has such a strong customer base? I guess we'll leave it to Jobs to figure out.
Nevertheless, now when you or a co-worker want to talk about the news of the day, you'll have something else to discuss other than how well the Chinese have prepared for the olympics compared to everyone else (except Mike Phelps, I guess).
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go tinker with my totally outdated cancer-causing cell phone ...
I feel as an iPhone owner, I must throw in my two cents. I actually believe this is not a bad idea at all, and I think you are misinterpreting the purpose of the app "kill switch". It was put in place to safeguard your device from malicious apps. The app store already has thousands of applications, and while there have not yet been any malicious apps, it is possible that someone could make an app to brick people's iPhones. The kill switch is only there in a worst case scenario instant response to protect the iPhone OS from being taken over. It seemed a little "irresponsible" to quote one word and pile opinion on it, but hey, that's what blogs are for, my friend.
I agree this does give Apple a big amount of power, but it's their everything: their device, their infrastructure, their app delivery system. Apple has always been about closed systems that they control, it really rubs some people the wrong way, and some people don't have a problem with it. But I don't think there is anything sinister here, or anything that violates privacy.
Reply to this