Marketplace Can Revoke Application's License - Remotely!

[Jon Westfall]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/17/windows-phone-marketplace-can-remotely-revoke-app-licenses/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/17/...e-app-licenses/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Speaking at a MIX10 session about Windows Phone 7 Series architecture this morning, Microsoft's Istvan Cseri mentioned that the Windows Phone Marketplace -- the one and only clearinghouse for apps in WP7S -- will be able to remotely revoke licenses. Since devices will only run properly-licensed apps, this effectively means the company will be able to shut down apps remotely -- a capability they'd probably invoke if a Marketplace app were to badly misbehave en masse, for example."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/wpt/auto/1268872074.usr7.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>The paranoid in me says "Whoa... what if I want that app". The sane person in me says this is actually a good thing - it can be invoked to prevent bad applications from messing up the phone experience. While it sacrifices flexibility, it increases the likelihood that your Windows Phone 7 Series experience will be much better than (certainly) Windows Mobile 6.5. Now lets just hope that this 'bad' applications discipline extends to provider bloatware!</p>

[frankenbike]

As long as Microsoft has a mechanism that refunds what you paid for the app, maybe it's OK.

But honestly, it's just another thing where WMP7 sounds like iPhone 2007.

[ibap]

What makes them think that a 'badly behaved' app will let itself be revoked? And can you picture the effect of any serious bugs in their system?

[Fritzly]

Not that it was needed but this is a further reason not buy WP7....
It also creates a very bad precedent to further undermine the rights of people who buy any kind of software.

[doogald]

How many times has Apple remotely revoked an app in almost two years now? I know that they have pulled apps from the app store, but I believe that none of them were actually revoked from users's handsets after purchase. I imagine that Microsoft will be similarly careful about this, only using it when it is clear that it is damaging to end-users (i.e., keystroke logging and what-not.)

[efjay]

Isn't this capability already in the current marketplace?

[Fritzly]

Isn't this capability already in the current marketplace?

Honestly I do not know, never used it; I never used Apple market too......

[Fritzly]

How many times has Apple remotely revoked an app in almost two years now? I know that they have pulled apps from the app store, but I believe that none of them were actually revoked from users's handsets after purchase. I imagine that Microsoft will be similarly careful about this, only using it when it is clear that it is damaging to end-users (i.e., keystroke logging and what-not.)

Amazon did it, din't it?
But beyond who did and did not..... yet, I do not delegate to any private commercial entity this kind of power over me.
Others will not have the same concerns and will play along, fine for me as long as we have the freedom to choose.

[Dyvim]

So Apple, Google, and Microsoft all have app kill switches in their stores (and I don't know but I assume that Palm does too). So what? They'd be negligent not to in case a virus or some other malware mistakenly gets out there onto people's devices. AFAIK, no one has had to use the kill switch yet for anything even though Apple has removed any # of offending apps from being sold in its store, those who did purchase copies before they were yanked can continue to use them to this day. Anyway, much ado about nothing IMO.

[frankenbike]

Yeah, it's that "power over me" and something I paid for that irks me the most.

All I can think, is the difference between 7 and what we like is that there won't be something like O!Market, where you can get useful, free apps. Omarket, instant freeware for Windows Mobile - FreewarePocketPC (http://www.freewarepocketpc.net/omarket/)

It really shows how the MS Marketplace strangles the phone. Sure, not everything on O!Market is ready for primetime, but a lot of things work and are useful, and they are NOT available on Marketplace. Thousands of apps at the moment, though the initiative would have to start from scratch with 7.

edit: though now that I've done a little more research, Android and the iPhone have alternative app stores, so maybe that will be possible with WMP7 too.

[Jason Dunn]

If a developer manages to slip something into the app store that is destructive, of COURSE you want Microsoft to be able to nuke it across every device out there. That's just common sense.

The tinfoil hat theories that Microsoft will somehow use it to cheat users out of their purchases, or abuse the user's trust, are a bit silly IMO. :rolleyes:

[whydidnt]

If a developer manages to slip something into the app store that is destructive, of COURSE you want Microsoft to be able to nuke it across every device out there. That's just common sense.

The tinfoil hat theories that Microsoft will somehow use it to cheat users out of their purchases, or abuse the user's trust, are a bit silly IMO. :rolleyes:

Except that Microsoft has a history of abandoning DRM technologies such as this. Remember Plays for Sure? It sounds as though we will once again be dependent on MS authorizing usage of items we have already purchased. When Microsoft gorws bored with the marketplace all of our apps will also cease to work, right?

Don't say it can't or won't happen, it has!!

[Rob Alexander]

If a developer manages to slip something into the app store that is destructive, of COURSE you want Microsoft to be able to nuke it across every device out there. That's just common sense.

The tinfoil hat theories that Microsoft will somehow use it to cheat users out of their purchases, or abuse the user's trust, are a bit silly IMO. :rolleyes:

It's not silly at all and there is no reason to think that your scenario is the most likely one. We have exactly one example of a company nuking a purchased product (Kindle) and they did NOT do it to protect their users. They did it because there was a copyright dispute between an author and someone else.

This is exactly the type of the thing that is most likely to happen here. You buy GreatApp 1.0 from the marketplace and Apple sues GreatApp, Inc. for a patent infringement. MS, being the good corporate citizen they are, comes along and nukes everyone's copy so they don't get included in the suit. The thing lingers on for years and GreatApp wins but it doesn't matter to the user because the application is obsolete long before s/he ever gets to use it. Of course, no one will rush forward to pay back the user for the lost software.

Some folks scoffed back when I warned that DRM music would eventually cost users money because you cannot trust companies to spend money forever to be sure you get to keep using the music you paid for. And that's exactly what happened. Well it's the same thing here. When you let someone else have control of your software, then you accept that you will eventually lose it... and at a time of their choosing, not yours.

This isn't limited to the kill switch either. I purchased the oldest application that is currently on my Imagio in 2001 (Omnisolve calculator). It was a good app then and it continues to work well on my WM 6.5 phone. The company that sold it hasn't updated any of their apps for a couple of years now, but I can continue to use it because I have the installation file on my PC. Now kill switches aside, what do you think are the chances that an app you buy from Marketplace in 2011 will still be available for you to install in 2020? I'd say about zero.

When you buy into a company controlled environment for your software you will, one day, lose applications you paid good money for. We may not end up with a choice if every phone system goes this way, and it's hardly the end of the world, and I'm not even saying that I won't buy one over this (except that I'm moving to Android over it ;)), but I don't think the people who lost money on MS's music service were 'silly' to be upset and I don't think people are 'silly' to distrust MS to keep the faith here either.

[doogald]

It's not silly at all and there is no reason to think that your scenario is the most likely one. We have exactly one example of a company nuking a purchased product (Kindle) and they did NOT do it to protect their users. They did it because there was a copyright dispute between an author and someone else.

Yes, this happened once. But, what was the result? Amazon refunded the purchases of all users (even before the backlash.) They were pilloried in the press, to the point where they admitted making a mistake and announced that they would never do it again. They gave any affected user a different copy of Animal Farm and/or Nineteen Eighty-Four, their annotations back. They were sued and settled, agreeing to never do this without a court order (or non-payment by the user), and they donated $150,000 to charity that promotes literacy.

Do you think that every other company learned a lesson from this? Do you think that Microsoft will be eager to jump into that shark tank just to turn off an app without determining that the action is completely worth that pain?