Google Bans Sale of Android Spying App 415
dbune writes "Google is not letting a handset application that spies on someone's text messages be sold at its Android App Store. The Secret SMS Replicator developed by DLP Mobile to help lovers find out if their partners are cheating on them violates company policy, according to Google. The app works by secretly duplicating incoming text messages and forwarding these to another mobile phone number."
Good For Google (Score:2)
Re:Good For Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if this app smelled like roses and shat apple pies, it shouldn't be allowed in the app store.
It's not about 'evil intent', it's about a program that behaves badly...it doesn't appear in the list of installed apps, it doesn't use the normal install/uninstall procedures, etc.
I can think of several legitimate, useful reasons for an app that duplicates text messages, even if such a program could be used maliciously. OTOH, a piece of code that circumvents the OS to hide itself? That's not an application. "Applications" are expected to mostly conform to certain norms on how they interact with the user and the OS.
There is no heavy-handedness on Google for kicking this one to the curb.
Re:Good For Google (Score:4, Interesting)
Somehow a "parental control" spy app is orders of magnitude creepier than a "suspicious spouse" spy app...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
google bans stuff...
from its own market.
They have every right to ban whatever they feel like banning from their market. In this case, Google claims that the app went against their policy.
which is only one
Not quite. There are alternatives. [wikipedia.org]
enjoy platform openness
The platform is still open. Google hasn't banned you from installing this particular app onto your android device, just removed the possibility of buying it from their market. You can still acquire the app through the developer or from an alternative market and install it on your phone as a third-party app. The question is wheth
iPhone version? (Score:5, Informative)
DLP Mobile also tried to sell the app on Apple's iPhone app store but was rejected.
I doubt that. The iPhone walls off SMS messages from apps. Apple can't have rejected it - you can't write it.
Re:iPhone version? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure you can. If it exists on the iPhone, you can weasel your way around and get at 'em. However, you're probably going to have to use enough private APIs and the like that you'll be rejected immediately for failing the static code test.
Anyhow, it's not like Android doesn't warn you - isn't that widely approved "permission list" that it pops up going to tell you it has access to SMS and the like? (Even though in practice with Joe User, it fails miserably since Joe User doesn't read dialogs and such things just impede progress to their goal of playing with the app).
Finally, I think it's an app that has been marketed truthfully. All this will do now is have other app developers embed such functionality into their apps now from all the news. Suddenly all those "2-factor bank SMS" things don't seem so secure anymore, do they?
Re:iPhone version? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyhow, it's not like Android doesn't warn you - isn't that widely approved "permission list" that it pops up going to tell you it has access to SMS and the like?
If you have access to someone else's phone to install this spyware, you have access to approve the SMS permissions on install. The person being spied on gets no warning.
Finally, I think it's an app that has been marketed truthfully.
It's an app designed to be installed on someone else's phone without their consent.
Re: (Score:2)
My only concern would be that (I expect) the app makes itself hard for the owner to find. If the app intentionally removes itself from the app manager list etc then I'd say that was a flaw in the OS design. Otherwise this is simply the risk of letting someone (who you evidently can't trust) have full and unmonitored access to the device.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you let me into your house and I leave a bug, most people wouldn't blame the bug, they'd blame the person who abused your trust.
I also don't blame Whole Foods for not selling High Fructose Corn Syrup. I don't blame vendors for not selling magnet 'health bracelets'. In a similar manner I don't blame Google for not selling this product.
Conversely, this isn't like Google Voice being banned from the Apple store because Google Voice doesn't tread into a legal grey area.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We're on /. we can only dream of having that problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if I trust someone, and that trust winds up violated? It happens.
Re: (Score:2)
This is going to be installed by someone else on your phone. They will just click OK on the dialog, and you will never hear about it again.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the fact that Joe Developer claims he needs access to all rights because he's too lazy to come up with the minimal set he really needs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder - never done any phone software developments, but shouldn't the SDK's and toolkits come with some sort of "minimal access profiler"? Just run your app on your dev platform, go through all functions and the profiler would tell you what accesses it really needed?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Suddenly all those "2-factor bank SMS" things don't seem so secure anymore, do they?"
That's why some banks, i.e. Barclays in the UK, send you the digital equivalent of a one time pad.
It's a pain in the arse if you want to manage your account on holiday or whatever and forget the pad though.
Its rather Ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Its rather Ironic that a company who's business relies on spying (cough) tracking what other people do should ban an app designed to track what people are doing.
Yes, but the Golden Rule clearly states "Do as I say, not as I do".
Re: (Score:2)
If you were just being sarcastic, my apologies.
Re:Its rather Ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
Which Golden Rule is that? Last I checked it was "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule [wikipedia.org]
Yes, but in practice, it's usually "he who has the gold makes the rules".
Re:Its rather Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
I choose to go to google, knowing that they will use that information to sell me ads. This software is about someone's wife or husband slipping a trojan on another person's phone that will forward all text messages to him/her.
Do you not see a difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: it isn't a trojan, so much as spyware.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. The husband/wife has a great deal more right to know what *their own spouse* is doing, than Google has rights to know what *everyone* is doing.
I say that even tho I object to spyware on principle, and figure if a relationship is already that devoid of trust, the *real* function of such spyware is to collect evidence for divorce court.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in the days of mom & pop stores, one of the selling points was that the store would be run by a kindly old man who would form a relationship with the customer. (I'm romanticizing, but please understand the marketing pitch). You go in and buy your groceries ever week, and he gets to know you.
I see Google's role analogous to the shop-keeper. He isn't following you out of the store, and (AFAIK), he isn't selling detailed reports on your shopping habits to some other store. He's just remembering that y
Re: (Score:2)
An app that only affects a device that someone must physically have access to in order to install, no less.
Re:Its rather Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its rather Ironic (Score:4, Funny)
"I see you are attempting to spy on your relatives and loved ones. You might also be interested in this trailer for Mission Impossible 4."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google almost certainly pulled the app because the expressed purpose of the app is to violate the law. The only question is why it got into the market to begin with. I'd've thought they'd make a quick cursory glance at the summary before putt
Re: (Score:2)
It's not spying if they're up front about it. Which they are.
Really? You're going to use their free web mail and their free browser and then complain about them using the info they harvest? Did I miss something?
Re: (Score:2)
But you can still get it, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't one of the advantages of Android the ability to install apps from other than the Google app store? So people who really want this thing can still get it, independently of Google's disapproving glare, right?
Genuinely curious about this.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, exactly. Even with no jailbreaking/rooting. That's why this shouldn't be a big deal either way.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a big deal if you're the one who's being spied on. A few people are going to have a "Wish I'd bought an iPhone instead" moment because of this.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
as opposed to:
"wish i'd locked my phone instead" moment
or
"wish i hadn't cheated/got caught having an affair instead"
the solution is NOT always an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
this could be solved requesting the lock passkey/password/pattern before installing (no needed when updating), that way you can lend your phone to anybody and they will not be able to install any spying tool
Re:But you can still get it, right? (Score:5, Informative)
Correct, provided you don't have a carrier-locked-down Android phone that prevents you from installing apps from sources other than the official market (though that kind of thing is quite rare...I believe there are only a couple out of the myriad of Android devices set up like this.)
Re: (Score:2)
That there is any carrier lockdown at all is a pretty hilarious illustration of just how much some companies don't get it.
If I'm in the market for a smartphone, and I don't choose the iPhone, lockdown is likely a major factor for the decision; it's one of the major things Android has going for it over the iPhone. A carrier making the non-locked-down phone locked down just makes me giggle.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That would be AT&T. But there is still a way around that by downloading the Android SDK (apk tool that is in there). No need for rooting.
Re:But you can still get it, right? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes indeed. I am much less concerned about this decision than I would if this happened on App Stores. I think Google's point is that they don't want a stalker to sneak 2 minutes on a target's phone while they're going to the bathroom and install the app easily from the Android App Store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's still just a couple of touches away from being installed from a different location.
It's the equivelent of Blockbuster refusing to rent out adult movies. You can still find adult movies for rent...just not at Blockbuster.
This is why not being tied to a single app store is awesome. Unless you jailbreak an iPhone, you're stuck with "Blockbuster", whereas on an Android phone, you can go to any "video rental place" you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I'd love to see is them add an administrative password feature to certain settings which would allow you to prevent access to certain settings without entering it. By default the Android phones won't install apps from anywhere other than the market. You have to go in and manually enable unknown sou
Re: (Score:2)
My Android phone has a checkbox in the settings to control whether apps can be installed other than from the marketplace.
If it's configured to allow it, installing is just a matter of launching a package file.
What's significant is that inclusion in the marketplace could be perceived as some kind of minimal Google "blessing", which of course Google doesn't want to be seen to give, in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't one of the advantages of Android the ability to install apps from other than the Google app store? So people who really want this thing can still get it, independently of Google's disapproving glare, right?
Genuinely curious about this.
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, this shows a serious flaw in security model of Androi
Cost of Text Messages? (Score:2)
And so it begins (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd still call the Android Market pretty open. The platform as a whole is still quite open, considering you can easily install apps without going through the Market - Just download the installer and run it on the phone and you have it again. All that really happened here was getting de-listed from the Market.
What irritates me the most (Score:4, Interesting)
What irritates me the most is how many apps now request access to my GPS data. I mean, why does Com2Us's Homerun Battle 3D need to know my GPS location? It's a freaking game! Pageonce personal finance or Live Scores? Why do you need to know where I'm at?
You don't. You just want to sell my information.
Re:What irritates me the most (Score:4, Interesting)
This.
It's even more annoying when you are somewhere you know you won't get good GPS information and have intentionally turned it off. Groupon's applet is particularly annoying in this regard. Dammit, just load and log me in to my account and give me the deals for the city I told you I was in.. don't sit there and freeze while you try to get a GPS fix that may never happen because I'm in the subway.
Lovers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Call me "old fashioned, but they don't sound much like lovers to me!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Call me "old fashioned, but they don't sound much like lovers to me!
I'm mystified how people cannot see that when you have reached the point in the relationship when you consider hiring an investigator or installing spyware it's long past time to move on.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're right, it would probably be more accurate to refer to them as "fuckers".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously? You're example is the removal of a malicious app?
Re: (Score:2)
how is it malicious? the person installing it has to have physical access to the phone. it's not like going to a website and downloading a virus
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's malicious in exactly the same way as someone installing a USB keylogger in an internet cafe - they have to have physical access to the machine!
Re:so much for being open (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so much for being open (Score:4, Funny)
apparently you don't have teenage children
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so much for being open (Score:4, Insightful)
Talk to your kids about behaving responsibly, and openly talk with them about their concerns, and yours.
Well intentioned, but misguided (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the OP, but the replies.
I used to think EXACTLY like that, until I had children of my own. We often tend to think in terms of one-size-fits-all, or "if it works for me it should work for you". This is very likely human nature, so I'm not denigrating anyone. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. I have three teenage step-daughters. To say the older two have been "challenging", would be the understatement of the century. In a nice suburban home, with decent income, a loving mother and step-father, a good school system, dinner at the table, help with homework, support and encouragement; I've had to deal with drugs, law enforcement, runaways, and a very, VERY serious suicide attempt. I can't even begin to tell the readers of this site the complete and utter hell I've endured in the last few years. I wish this upon no one. Yet through it all, I love them with every fiber of my being.
Unless you are prepared to lock your child in their room until they are 18, there are forces acting on them that are well beyond the parents' control. It's fantasy to think that good parenting will overcome all. I'm a step-father because the biological father passed away. That does more than a little damage to a child, and no amount of therapy (been there), talking (done that), and good parenting (always) can fix it. There can be neuro-chemical imbalances that you just can't sit down with a child and rationally talk away. Problems can often happen faster than you can detect or address. Teenagers, even good ones, are deceitful by nature as they want to explore the world and there place in it...unencumbered by their parents views or morality. Of course, you do everything you can to prepare them for the challenges, pitfalls, and evils of the world; but there will be missteps, and a rare few can have permanent consequences.
The point of my little self-pity party, is that while "spying" on your children may not be for everyone, or even desirable by anyone, it should be tool at a parent's disposal if they deem it necessary. While I don't disagree with Google's decision to pull it from their store, I would have words with anyone who tried to keep me from having that technology when it was available because if their own rose-colored world-view from atop the ivory tower. Had we had the ability to see our daughter's text messages, it might have spared her five days in ICU and another ten in a step-down hospital room. As a parent, I can tell you there is simply no price too great to pay to prevent that...nothing, and I mean NOTHING is off the table.
Having gone though what I have, I've met many parents with similar stories. While you never really know what goes on behind closed doors, most of them do not strike me as the kind of people who let technology babysit their children. They don't seem to be absent in their children's lives. They don't seem to be anything other than loving, conscientious parents who for whatever reason, found themselves dealing with problems no parent ever wants to face; and are looking for any way possible to protect their children.
Re:Well intentioned, but misguided (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to respond to these AC's for those who are reading this part of the discussion with interest:
AC1) After the ordeal and due to extenuating circumstances, we had cause to have an attorney contact our cell carrier who then provided transcripts of that child's text messages. Through those, we found several references to suicide, as well as a "final goodbye" an hour before the attempt. My daughter wasn't some emo goth kid, always looking depressed. She seemed outright happy, even more so than usual in the week leading up to her attempt. She had good grades and played violin in the school orchestra. She wasn't an over-achiever or a type-a kind of person; and we aren't the kind of parents that pressure the kids into achievement. We want them to succeed, but be happy and stress-free too. She's just naturally talented, academically.
It's not about spying. Parents have better things to do than read every single text message their kids send out. It is about having tools at your disposal if you think you need them. Kids don't always talk to their parents when things aren't going well, and parents can't make them.
AC2) It is very likely they were already "broken toys" in some respects before they lived with me, but that in no way absolves me of responsibility in terms of how I parent or protect them. Despite my lack of biological input, they are very much "children of my own". Not so much because I say so...because they do. As the youngest once told me on Fathers Day: Anyone can be a father. It takes someone very special to be a dad. I tear up just typing it.
AC3) While I won't stop worrying or caring when they're 18, my role in their lives will be diminished. Once they leave the house, it will be up to them to forge their path and make their decisions. See below.
AC4) I suppose that is the slippery slope isn't it. It's the "Think of the Children" bumper sticker that gets slapped all over everything, and ends up having lasting implications and repercussions for everyone else. I really don't want that either. I think this decision is different for everyone, and different people may come to it at different points (or not at all) given the same set of circumstances. So I guess I'm saying, I won't insist that everyone should read their children's text messages, and in exchange for everyone not telling me what's best for my particular situation. Because if you haven't walked in my shoes, then you really don't have the right. You can try to empathize and see yourself in my situation, but you would be so far from the reality. You just don't know...and really can't know...unless you've gone through it. And if you aren't a parent, while your feelings aren't devoid of merit, you haven't earned a seat at the discussion.
I know what I'm about to say next is total flame-bait for the younger readers. As long as you are a minor, you don't have the same expectation of privacy or freedom as you do when you're an adult. You can expect *some* level, but not total. Not having total freedom is no surprise to anyone living under the heavy mantle of their parents' Stalinist Regime. But privacy? Do parents honestly think their children should not have total privacy? This one does. I want to know where they are, whom they are with, and what they are doing at all times it is possible to know such things. Is it an invasion of privacy? Sure. But it's also being a good parent. I should I add that the level of this microscope was earned by my daughters. They used to have a lot more freedom and privacy. I do have some degree of trust in my daughters, I'm just not gullible. I know they will make mistakes. I know they will get hurt. I don't expect or even want them to be perfect. Happy, healthy, and safe is all I'm looking for. Everything else will be up to them. I wouldn't read their text messages any more than I would read their diary. If I thought their lives were in danger though? They can hate me for the rest of their lives. I'll just be grateful they have a "rest of their lives" in which they can hate me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can sympathize with your plight. It's not a situation I would like to be in. I can also understand your attitude that there is no tool that can not be used given the circumstances. The worst that could possibly happen has already happened, so there is no way you could have made it worse.
But even given the above, I wonder if there still isn't another perspective that might be useful. Before I say anything, I will admit first that I have no right to say anything at all. I don't know the details of the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trusting that your kids will make the right choice is one thing. Your kids actually doing the right thing is another.
Kids who feel that they have free rein to do as they please are IMO less likely to always do the right thing. However, a kid that knows that mom and dad will find out about me breaking this rule or that rule are probably more likely to not go down the road of bad choices.
My kids are 7 and 12. Do they always do what I tell them to do? No. Do I always find out that they didn't do it? No.
Re:so much for being open (Score:5, Insightful)
I had stupid amounts of freedom and discovered that stricter kids went crazy when they finally left the house.
My Mom's rules were:
1) "Clean up your own messes."
2) "Be polite to guests that are over."
3) "Learn something new every day."
My Dad was constantly deployed and played a smaller role in parenting.
If i skipped class or did poorly on a test and the school called the House to talk to my Mom.. she would ask them if they have talked to me about it yet. If not, she would ask them to speak with me about school related problems first because only the school and myself have the ability to directly change an outcome.
This set the stage for how i live my life. Laws aren't a substitute for morals. Laws aren't something to obey because The Man will catch you. It's up to the individual to internalize the differences and learn (usually through experience) why rules exist and specifically why. Everyone reading probably breaks the law every day.. speeding. But very few if any are breaking the spirit of the thing and that is to set a safe speed to travel at. Police obviously are supposed to enforce the law to the letter but from experience we know a good officier is lenient and follows the spirit of the law. After all, we are Human.. not machines.
Strict kids go fucking nuts when they get out of the house. No rules man! That's because they haven't internalized the reasons for the law existing.. it was pressed upon them from above.
all imo, of course.
Re:so much for being open (Score:5, Informative)
The Wii has a great system where it just records daily activity to a friendly little log, and stamps Mario's smile on it. There is no way to delete it, alter it, move it, or whatnot. And they put it in its own friendly little calendar view where file activities like faking your usage or deleting the log doesn't really come up. They've invisibly made it completely natural that the system records what you do, and that you can't do anything about it.
Re:so much for being open (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good for you, telling the publisher how to adapt their app a little. If the app popped up and told you that it was installed, and what it did, by whom, and that uninstalling it would signal the original installer that it was indeed being removed, then hey, kids can uninstall it and face their parents later. Ok.
I don't have kids. If I did, I would give them some rules about computer and phone usage:
- Everything on a computer you use at home or portably is available to me. I will ask you to translate the r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"apparently you don't have teenage children"
Apparently you messed yours up. Now would be a good time to pay attention to other points of view about whether spying on your kids is OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you hardly need to keep that hidden from yourself. I think that's the sticking point, not the app as such.
Actually there are plenty of Apps which I would like to run and be invisible to me. Install and forget. In addition the phone user may not always be the owner.
There are some programs which NEED to be invisible to the user for them to work such as theft recovery apps which report the current location of the phone or its IP address and a snapshot from the camera. Such an App may well be preferable to be hidden from the user.
Re:so much for being open (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't need to know what my computers are doing at all times in the background. To steal an infomercial catch phrase, I like to set it and forget it.
There’s a difference between “out of sight, out of mind” and “if I go looking for it, it tries to hide”.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you were marked Troll? shit the apple idio^H^H^H^H fanbois clearly have mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
Dammit. /seppuku
Re:so much for being open (Score:5, Funny)
He could have spelled it "yore" :) I am as annoyed by misspelling of your/you're, there/their, thats/that's, then/than as you probably are. Turns out that complaining/correcting doesn't have any affect on the masses. But then again, I am not sure anyone has ever tried putting it on a road-side billboard yet... so let's get a "correct you're damned english" foundation put together and by some signage.
Re:so much for being open (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
isn't the Android Market supposed to be more open than the App store?
Exactly! How dare Google not help people do something illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
isn't the Android Market supposed to be more open than the App store?
Absolutely! It's amazing what you can do and still be more open than the App store.
Jokes aside, Google has a degree of responsibility over the apps that they sell to you. It's perfectly reasonable for them to refuse to sell an app which is specifically designed to be installed without the knowledge or consent of the phone's regular user and who's purpose is to spy on the regular user (with costing the owner money from extra SMSs as a side effect), as that can easily be considered illegal. If you really want
Re:so much for being open (Score:4, Insightful)
It is.
A) This is a snooping app, and malicious.
B) With a simple selection in the options on the phone, you can install it from another site.
Re: (Score:2)
Too late...the "first" guy already posted one. Wasn't even an AC!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work that way. People will use it for illegal things, having a "[ ] You are the owner of this phone" checkbox during first install will do nothing for anyone.
Yes there are legit uses for spying on people - they can get it from a source other than the app store.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Inherent to keylogger/sniffer/trojan is illegitimate snicky procedure of installation which is not legal. It should have EULA, the user should be able to understand what the program is doing.
That is the class of the software I am describing.
Re: (Score:2)
How, exactly, do you suggest an EULA would help anything, if the attacker is the one clicking past it?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is really the problem. An app like that is unlikely to be installed by a person for their own use, it's going to be installed by people that are wanting to stalk or are engaging in domestic violence. Tracking
Re: (Score:2)
So what, exactly, is the problem with this app, Google? My right to legally investigate my partner is being taken away, possibly illegally, if all apps of this type are removed.
Who says the app's use would be limited to partners/spouses?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
However, my husbands / wifes property is also my property, therefore I can install whatever I want to spy on him / her
I suggest calling a lawyer. You need one. Badly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no legitimate reason for this technology to be used without a court order. If you can't get a judge to sign off on it, then you shouldn't be doing it. There is no grey area involved. We have the 4th amendment for a reason.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Whil
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) YHBT
2) Who says I would or wouldn't - this is about the RIGHT to do so in my legal jurisdiction if I suspect blah blah...
3) Morales != Ethics.
Rachel x
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Windows?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As of now, we have:
Maemo/Meego which are only on one device (N900). Six click root and no lockdown whatsoever make the platform very appealing. Downside is that it isn't a popular dev platform (although it should be.)
Windows Phone 7 -- apps are getting a slow start. Time will tell because it has great Exchange support, and might be able to oust Blackberries from the corporate sector.
BlackberryOS -- kick butt security, starting to fall behind with consumers, and as the iPhone gets more and more Exchange f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google good, Apple bad. That's why this is news.
For extra points, pick the one of the two that's actually deleted apps off of handsets.