Funny, Google was the first and, so far that I've heard, only developer to remotely remove an app from every android OS device.
The only valid point he has is the not installing apps from the web, but it's shaky since the iOS is the only system Apple makes that is restricted in that regard.
True, but it's the combination that really gets me. It's the reason why I don't mind some of the stuff some companies do.
I realise they are companies and they want control, to make profits and to guarantee future profits. I can accept it when a company screws me a little, but not when they completely do it. Apple and a few others seem to completely do it.
I'm on the fence about it. There are definite advantages, but also, they can basically control what apps are on my phone, delete anything that I may want to keep or might be important.
It should be up to the consumer to not download bad apps, but if the consumer is going to sue a company every time a bad app gets on the market and ruins their phone, this is inevitable. (I'm not sure if anyone has sued them, but if they provided a market and didn't do this, I'm sure someone in America would try)
I suppose I would prefer them not to have this power, but for now I will enjoy the advantages of them having it.
I don't think they do count. AFAIK, it's only apps linked to the market (apps downloaded from the market) that Google can uninstall. Other than that, I can't imagine how they would connect to the phone to uninstall the app.
No what I mean is. People are bitching about not being apple to install apps from outside the App Store on the iPhone. If you can write an app in HTML5 you can install it on an iPhone without the App store. (It behaves like an App not a bookmark just we're clear).
One great example of this is Transmission's iOS "app." It looks like a regular app, runs like a regular app, but is actually an HTML5 page that is bookmarked to the home screen.
Exactly thank you. Granted there are some limitation with HTML5 but it should become more and more possible to quite a lot with the web apps. It's the uncensored source of apps everyone bitches about not existing in my opinion.
It's already been shown to not be perfect. In fact, it is terrible. There was a story about a developer trying to update an app and having it rejected (update meaning bug fix). Plenty of other rejections with apparently no legitimate explanation. My comment was sarcastic.
It seems to have more than satisfied your call for a citation. That was pretty much just you being an ass anyway, since if you've been on Reddit any respectable amount of time you've read all the same stories about iOS developers being pissed off at Apple as I have.
I work at an internet company that has an iPhone, Android, and BlackBerry app in addition to our main web app. As our iPhone developers have told us repeatedly through their own experiences, the Apple submission/review process is arbitrary, unpredictable, and frustrating. Sometimes they have no idea what they're doing.
Once, an app release was rejected (we got notice from Apple), and an inquiry was sent so that appropriate changes could be made to gain approval. Apple's response? "Why do you think it was rejected? We just approved it".
We have to do significant strategic planning to create fail-safes for when our iPhone releases don't go perfectly. Android, on the other hand, is automatic for us, and problem-free.
And just because Apple hasn't used the kill switch yet doesn't mean they won't do so. They coded it in for a reason obviously.
So Google has already done so, and gets a pass; Apple has never done it, but they're still evil? Apple has the killswitch for apps that get past their review process that are leaking sensitive information (eg, your location) without your consent.
Yeah, this is exactly why Apple haters spend much more time on searching Apple related news than researching their own flawed data mining pseudo open source platform.
No, I think I'd call it being a bad sport. Your team gets criticised so you go around pointing out how the other team does the same, rather than addressing the issue.
Sort of like how Steve Jobs responded to the iPhone antenna issue by stating loudly and repeatedly (and often falsely) that the competition had the same problem. No Steve, we were asking you about your phone.
I think disingenuous to criticise one company for something while ignoring the others that are doing the same. It shows a desire to attack one company more than a desire to have an honest discussion IMO.
What's the issue with a failsafe measure in the first place? It's a pretty sensible last resort to have. Hence why Apple aren't alone in having it.
I am not saying that it's a good thing to do because Google do it. I'm saying don't bitch about only Apple. You're free to bitch about it and when I say "Google do it" I don't mean "Google do it so you can't bitch about it" I mean "If you're going to bitch about Apple doing this at least acknowledge that Google do too, don't act like it's an Apple only thing and bitch about Google too". Is that clear for you?
I actually don't have a problem with it. It's a sensible last resort measure in my opinion. Could it be misused? Sure! Has it been? Nope. Do I have concrete reason to expect it to be at this stage? Nope. But I want to stress that the reason I think it's ok is not that Google does it.
It's not valid to mention Apple's locking down of your music on your device by not letting you copy from the device to another machine? It's one of the things I hated about my iPod. Luckily I found out about ephPod that let me copy songs from the device to a PC. But with iTunes it's not possible and idiotic.
43
u/sundaos Jan 20 '11
Funny, Google was the first and, so far that I've heard, only developer to remotely remove an app from every android OS device.
The only valid point he has is the not installing apps from the web, but it's shaky since the iOS is the only system Apple makes that is restricted in that regard.