Apple No Like Your Application... Apple Smash!

[Jon Westfall]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://gizmodo.com/5034007/apple-can-remotely-disable-apps-installed-on-your-iphone' target='_blank'>http://gizmodo.com/5034007/apple-ca...-on-your-iphone</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"By now, we're well aware that Apple can make apps vanish without a trace (or explanation) from the App Store. But Jonathan Zdziarsi, the author of iPhone Forensics, says that Apple can actually remotely disable apps installed on your iPhone. Apparently, there's a blacklist URL in the iPhone's OS that he says "suggests that the iPhone calls home once in a while to find out what applications it should turn off."</em></p><p>So while Apple hasn't disabled anything they don't like to date (such as NetShare), this suggests that there are ways that Big Fruity can take you down a notch or two application wise (yea yea, I know - it's meant to disable malware... but that doesn't limit it to just malware!).</p><p>But then again, cool people respect Apple's authority and should be alright with this, right? As far as the Windows Mobile world goes, Microsoft can't really even get <a href="http://pocketpcthoughts.com/news/show/90179/the-broken-ecosystem-for-windows-mobile-updates.html" target="_blank">updates out in an organized fashion,</a> so for better or worse, I doubt they'd be up to this type of potential control. (Microsoft: The Less Evil and More Disorganized company compared to Apple... :) )</p>

[Kevin Daly]

In all fairness, there *is* a positive aspect to this: Apple could use this feature to protect their customers if they learn that apps which have already been deployed are doing evil (I'm not saying this is what it's for, only that there is a non-evil use to which it could be put).

[tal]

In all fairness, there *is* a positive aspect to this: Apple could use this feature to protect their customers if they learn that apps which have already been deployed are doing evil (I'm not saying this is what it's for, only that there is a non-evil use to which it could be put).In this case (if the original analysis is really true) I would only accept an opt-in option that would allow Apple to check running apps and notify me if there is some malware running on my phone. This is basically a Virus scanner (which I can set it to "prompt" or to "auto-fix").

For me Apple's attitude reminds me of the "good king" or "good dictator" concept: if you trust your Big Brother to make the right decisions then you'll live a save life at the sake of limited choices. For me I'd rather choose freedom although freedom always brings some risks since you also have the freedom to do the wrong thing.

Translated to the iPhone (and this is fact not speculated backdoor behaviour): It is definitely more safe if BigBrother Apple doesn't allow me to install applications that Apple considers dangerous. This might prevent installing a Trojan (although thanks to the security wholes in the iPhone OS this is still possible) or applications that bog-down the iPhone (although I doubt that Apple can really test this). It also means that they forbid to install an emulator or a tool to tether your phone with your laptop or anothing else that Apple or their bussiness partners consider inappropriate.

[whydidnt]

This is a pretty good example proving Jason's point from a few days back. If something like this was found on a Microsoft Product, it would be front page news, every internet site would be screaming about it, and there would probably be a congressional investigation. But since it's Apple, we mostly have people saying it's to "protect" us from malware, which is total crap. It would appear to enable them to kill applications that you legally bought. If was truly to protect from malware, the same functionality could be provided in an opt-in basis, giving users the right to decide if Apple can verify their applications as "good".

[Phillip Dyson]

In all fairness, there *is* a positive aspect to this: Apple could use this feature to protect their customers if they learn that apps which have already been deployed are doing evil (I'm not saying this is what it's for, only that there is a non-evil use to which it could be put).

The truth is that any law passed by the government has a "positive aspect". The important part is really the potential for evil. With this capability built in there is no way to know how Apple will use it in the future. Regardless of what they say or don't say today. I agree with the opt-in option. It should a "value added service" if you will.

On another note, its strange, I forwarded the article to a fellow developer. I know he is a bonafide mac enthusiast. Apple can do no wrong. I also know that he's very much a cowboy when it comes to software development. He wants neither process nor structure getting in his software developing way. I'm sure we all know the type. For the record he is very smart and very good at what he does.

But when he replied, he basically shrugged and said "this is exactly what I would expect from a great company like Apple".

[macattack]

This is really a case of a bunch of sites grabbing a hold of one piece of information released by a single source and regurgitating it without any further investigation of their own. At least Brighthand decided to do some legwork and updated their original posting (http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=14256).

It looks as if the purpose of this "evil" functionality is to protect the iPhone's users from applications that could send a phone's location information back over the internet. If iPhone users suddenly started receiving targeted advertising (via SMS, or otherwise), based on their current location, people would be crying foul as well. They'd demand that Apple should have seen this coming and built a system into the iPhone's software to prevent such "abusive" and "intrusive" use the devices GPS data.

I'm both a WinMo user and an Apple user. I try real hard to look at both ends of the spectrum with objectivity. Both platforms have their pluses and minuses. Many Microsoft proponents love to talk about Apple "fanboys," but refuse to see any positive things coming out of Apple at all. They're fanboys in their own right. What are the odds that Smartphone Thoughts will do any leg work of their own or even update the original post with the possibility that Apple might have had good intentions? Probably pretty slim.

[whydidnt]

It looks as if the purpose of this "evil" functionality is to protect the iPhone's users from applications that could send a phone's location information back over the internet. If iPhone users suddenly started receiving targeted advertising (via SMS, or otherwise), based on their current location, people would be crying foul as well. They'd demand that Apple should have seen this coming and built a system into the iPhone's software to prevent such "abusive" and "intrusive" use the devices GPS data.

The problem with this is that Apple gets to decide what is "Evil" and end-users have no say in the matter. Perhaps Apple's view of evil is different than mine, or perhaps Apple decides this is a good way to lock out a product that offers similar services that they are making money off of. If the feature is truly intended to protect me, how about letting me decide if it's turned on or off. I don't need Apple, Microsoft or any other corporation deciding for me how to use a device I bought and paid for. If the intent is as benevolent as you imply, Apple could have easily added an on-off switch to the device settings, enabling me to decide if I want this monitored.

Once again, we see double standards on this sort of thing. "It's Apple, so they are protecting us from evil". If it was Microsoft, I suspect we would be hearing things differently.

[macattack]

Once again, we see double standards on this sort of thing. "It's Apple, so they are protecting us from evil". If it was Microsoft, I suspect we would be hearing things differently.

I don't want to get into a petty tit-for-tat here, but just to clarify myself. I in no way said that Apple has nothing but the consumer in mind with every move they make. They clearly also look out for what they perceive are their best interests. And despite your assertion to the contrary, I do no believe that I would immediately jump to the conclusion that Microsoft had "evil" intentions, were they attempting something similar. I was merely pointing out that comments like: "But since it's Apple, we mostly have people saying it's to "protect" us from malware (http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=689658#), which is total crap," and"Microsoft: The Less Evil and More Disorganized company compared to Apple..." do indeed jump to a conclusion on the matter without having all of the facts in.

As far as the "feedom to do the wrong thing" argument goes, nearly every writer of code that interfaces with a network or the internet (including Mozilla, Microsoft and Apple) limits our choices in a multitude of ways in an effort to protect us. Some of these things we can opt out of, others we cannot. It's just a byproduct of our connected world, and let's face it, software coders are in a lose/lose situation. If they close holes hard and fast, they'll be criticized for being "benevolent dictators" (see earlier post). On the other hand, If they let users (most of whom, let's face it, don't know a phishing scheme from a macro virus) opt out of their "protection" they'll be harshly criticized for leaving holes open. In theory, I agree with your "opt out" idea, but I see why Apple and all the others often choose to let the ignorant remain ignorant, but safe.

Could Apple use it to block useful, safe software that doesn't line-up with their vision? I don't know. Do they intend to? I don't know, and neither do you. If they do, they'll be roundly criticized and probably backtrack. Just like they did in allowing for the iPhone App Store.

Gear Diary has handled this thing pretty even-handedly: Apple iPhone + Unsupported Rumours = Big News Day|Gear Diary (http://www.geardiary.com/2008/08/08/apple-iphone-unsupported-rumours-big-news-day/)

[Fritzly]

I have two observations about it:

1) The idea that a company could decide what I do with my phone, or my car etc. etc., is simply unaccettable.

2) The other observation , and at least for me as a MS shareholder, much more serious is that what we are seeing here is another example of how badly MS is managed: today they should have issued a long and detailed statement about WM 7 with pictures etc. etc. .
Timing is a key factor in a succesfull attack; they would have been able to exploit the momentum and gained a lot of attention, without running negative ads which are always a big if.
Did they do it? Of course not! They are silent as usual.

[DaleReeck]

I have two observations about it:

1) The idea that a company could decide what I do with my phone, or my car etc. etc., is simply unaccettable.


You have to realize though, it may be "your" phone, but it is "their" network that your phone is on. There is a legitimate reason to want to block an app that initially slips though the cracks, but later is found to cause damage to the network.

More unsettling is Apple's use of this store feature to enforce DRM. For instance, there is a free app called PhoneSabre that emulates the sounds of a Star Wars light sabre. Ol' George didn't care for that, so Apple pulled the app. They could conceivably deactivate the app on your phone too (though they haven't so far). A free app is one thing, but what if it's a paid app that gets deactivated? That would be a mess.

[Cybrid]

I'm finding the one iTunes per device rule is a serious pain.
Example, you went on vacation...and met some relatives, friends and stayed at their house, you decide to snag some old photos from them..iTunes will promptly come up with a "this iPod synced to another account..." error message and the proceed to delete all your music.
So in an instance like this were I to visit my Uncles and Aunts in the "Old Country"
I'd need a laptop or a separate USB drive. I may have 22Gb free on the Touch but that is useless to me since I must use iTunes to move data in or out.
This post here (http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f359/mis-adventures-appleland-90082.html#post689803)

[whydidnt]

I'm finding the one iTunes per device rule is a serious pain.
Example, you went on vacation...and met some relatives, friends and stayed at their house, you decide to snag some old photos from them..iTunes will promptly come up with a "this iPod synced to another account..." error message and the proceed to delete all your music.
So in an instance like this were I to visit my Uncles and Aunts in the "Old Country"
I'd need a laptop or a separate USB drive. I may have 22Gb free on the Touch but that is useless to me since I must use iTunes to move data in or out.
This post here (http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f359/mis-adventures-appleland-90082.html#post689803)

Just set the touch to Manual Sync Only and then manually drag the pictures to it. You can set it up to sync again when you are back home.

[Cybrid]

Just set the touch to Manual Sync Only and then manually drag the pictures to it. You can set it up to sync again when you are back home. Didn't see that option until after it syncs...
If it is once set does it stay set perpetually?

Also the pics are then "optimized " to 480x320 and named *.iThmbs. Which really is no solution anyway.

[Mikeisme]

I synch music, videos and pictures on my Touch with 2 different macs.
I'm guessing it is the same with the iPhone.

[alcedes78]

I have two observations about it:

1) The idea that a company could decide what I do with my phone, or my car etc. etc., is simply unaccettable.

Read the EULA. According to the EULA you only own the phone but not the software on the phone. Paying fees in iTunes for software licenses the software for your use but Apple in the EULA makes no garantee that your access to the software will go uninterupted. If you accepted the EULA then you accepted allowing a company to govern what you are able to do with the phone.

[Cybrid]

Read the EULA. According to the EULA you only own the phone but not the software on the phone. Paying fees in iTunes for software licenses the software for your use but Apple in the EULA makes no garantee that your access to the software will go uninterupted. If you accepted the EULA then you accepted allowing a company to govern what you are able to do with the phone.
Well... I'm glad someone can read... :D I just don't remember the clause that said...

We also reserve the right to utterly control your access to YOUR OWN DATA and delete or modify it as we see fit to suit our needs or those of our affiliates. We will do this and not seek explicit consent but rather assume it. We know better than you anyway.


Sync to one PC only. If you try to sync to another. The Touch will format itself. Wait till a hard drive fails on you or your laptop goes missing and you need to build from scratch. Hurraah!
While my Win Mo device will open and show a 6Mp .jpg (to the best of its abilities) the Touch will rename the extension, re-size to 480x320. Utterly useless as a "storage tank". Same applies to music and video in a sense but I'll lend some leeway there.
The lack of a proper BT stack or memory card slot and a file explorer of any kind making the iPhone/iTouch very limited in I/O...namely that single solitary iTunes connection which if lost...will result in data loss.



Sorry alcedes78, Please understand. I have nothing but respect for you as a PPCthoughts member. Apple, I am not too keen on.