Microsoft Can Remotely Kill Purchased Apps 389
Meshach writes "The terms of service for Microsoft's newly launched Windows Store allows the seller to remotely kill or remove access to a user's apps for security or legal reasons. The story also notes that MS states purchasers are responsible for backing up the data that you store in apps that you acquire via the Windows Store, including content you upload using those apps. If the Windows Store, an app, or any content is changed or discontinued, your data could be deleted or you may not be able to retrieve data you have stored."
doubt it (Score:5, Funny)
I doubt the three people who own one of these devices reads slashdot.
Re:doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
The app store isn't just for Windows Mobile. It's for all of Windows 8. Which means that the summary missed the big ramification: as of Windows 8, you will absolutely no longer exclusively have root for your hardware.
And I'm guessing that the majority of folks here have at least one windows box.
I have several. (Score:5, Funny)
And I'm guessing that the majority of folks here have at least one windows box.
I have several. The flowers love the sun and the heat from the house keeps them from perishing on those freak cold spring nights.
Oh, and I definitely ... (Score:5, Funny)
have root access to them.
Re:doubt it (Score:5, Funny)
And I'm guessing that the majority of folks here have at least one windows box.
but the blackhats have a lot more than one.
oh, you didn't mean that, did you?
Re:doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody will be forcing anyone to use metro or buy any of the walled garden metro apps. It's just a program that lets you run the sandboxed metro apps. Close it or boot into the standard desktop. Most metro apps will support windows mobile devices and the desktop.
To the vast majority of users that download and try all the free apps they can click on and who don't know or care about any of this, being able to fix a "my phone is infected and doesn't work!" type scenarios is absolutely a feature.
Also, I doubt any os provider will want to be in the spotlight for causing mass network outages after some trojan decides to activate on 100,000 phones, with no way to stop it.
Re:doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody will be forcing anyone to use metro or buy any of the walled garden metro apps.
Of course not.
Not yet, anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"And I'm guessing that the majority of folks here have at least one windows box."
Er, good luck reaching my disconnected VMs from the Internet, and I already store Snapshots of my clean Windows installations so the future won't be any different.
Re:doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
And Ballmer's sad parade of preferring DRM over any other form of innovation nears its end, with the death of Microsoft.
Were I in charge of MS, my first standing order would be to rip out all DRM components from the OS, and dispatch any board member that disagreed with me. Followed shortly by my second order, which is to quit hiding / moving the fricking control panel every time we release a new version of Windows. And my third, and probably last order, before the shareholders revolt, would be to complete the migration of all OS functions to managed code. I say last order, as it would take several additional years to complete, during which the shareholders will no doubt lose confidence in my long term plan, and act to replace me.
At no time, during my reign, would I forget that the company was founded on a simple principle: personal computers. More specifically, the importance of personal computers, as a paradigm, as opposed to mainframes, how the two differ, and why the personal computer propelled the company to success in the first place. More importantly, however much I might be annoyed with piracy, and given to personal fantasies of turning pirates into paying customers, I will be aware that every person who runs a pirated copy of my software is not running a copy of the competition's. Additionally, I would be mindful to exercise every opportunity to utilize the underlying OS and hardware to provide a better "experience" to the end user than could reasonably be fabricated through a web browser.
Re: (Score:3)
For what, ripping out the DRM?
Re:doubt it (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem starts when you actually click "control panel". It is not rationally or logically laid out, and Win 7's is nothing like XP's. You have to hunt for everything, and many functions are several mouse clicks down.
What's worse, there are things that should be in the control panel that aren't. I searched Control Panel's mouse controls for a month before I found out where to disable the Acer's "tap to click" abomination. It wasn't even in the goddamned control panel at all!
And it's not just the control panel, it's in their apps, too. From IE1 to IE 6, "settings" was moved to a different menu location in each release. It's been under file, view, edit, and help. It was once its own menu item called "options", which has been renamed "tools". This is exactly what the GP is rightfully bitching about.
Back in the nineties when my employer decided to dump Corel and go with MS, I took an Excel class because I knew I'd be migrating. The class was worthless, because we got the next release of Excel and it was nothing like the previous version, which was what was taught. Happily, though, I didn't even need the class because the new version of Excel was more like Quattro than it was like the older version of Excel -- including where they randomly stuck shit in the menus.
And people say MS software is user friendly. What a load of horse shit. It's user HOSTILE. Telling you that you have to do it my way or not at all is NOT friendly, it's arrogant -- HOSTILE. I want my computer to obey ME, not the other way around.
If you work for MS, please tell your idiot bosses to knock it the hell off. It's way past the point that the average user says "this program is hard to use so it must be complex and good," which is what they seem to be doing.
I guess I'm spoiled, having run both Linux and Windows for so long. Linux is just plain better, period. I would guess that Apple may even be better than Linux, but I have no experience with Apple..
Re: (Score:3)
however, a program that uses arrays in C++ would use a different class in C#, like a DataTable, which is much faster than the C++ array.
This assertion is ridiculous on its face. What do you think the backing structure for DataTable is?
You don't need to guess, by the way. .NET source code is available; go have a look at it.
This all is even leaving aside the fact that if you have a piece of code in C++ that uses an array (actually, if you're talking about idiomatic C++, that would rather be std::vector, or other STL container), in C# you'd normally be using something from System.Collections.Generic. DataTable is for very different things.
Hence, when code is compiled with little modification between C++ / C#, C# appears terrible; when C# is allowed to use it's more powerful, optimized built-ins, it tends to win.
That
Re: (Score:3)
you will absolutely no longer exclusively have root for your hardware.
Considering the number of boxes I've had to clean up over the years, very few people exclusively have root on their hardware.
Re:doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
XP will be around for a LONG time after Microsoft stops with the updates. It's not like it's going to suddenly stop working on April 9th, 2014. Microsoft by law can't "remote-kill" it, any more than they could DOS, WIn3x, and Win9x (there are plenty of those still running). And it's not like you're going to hit update.microsoft.com after the EOL date.
I expect to see all the AV vendors branching out into "protecting" your now unsupported XP as part of their enhanced anti-virus suites. Businesses will snap it up rather than pay the cost of fixing their software against the latest moving target.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides... simple solution... don't buy apps through the Windows Store. Don't install/use Windows 8 if it can't install/use normal software not purchased from the Store
Few people besides OEMs buy Windows. How are you not going to use Windows when every non-Apple PC comes with it preinstalled and they've locked it down like an iPhone and you can't install a different OS without a hardware hack?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:doubt it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:doubt it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:doubt it (Score:5, Funny)
It seems safe to assume they aren't the same thing since WP7 apps won't run on windows 8
So they'll be renaming the WP7 Market "RunsForSure" ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They have made no announcement....
You may as well put a period on that and come full stop. They're thrashing about figuring out how the hell to deal with the current environment, and in the aggregate have no clue. The rumors are trial balloons, and they're hilarious. "What the hell? The world went mobile and we didn't get the memo? What's this app-store shit? What the fuck is a repository? Why didn't Intel tell us this was coming down the pike?"
From my perspective it's a beautiful thing to watch, made more delicious because I warned
Re: (Score:3)
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And? (Score:4, Informative)
And Google for Android too. They've used it before to kill malware apps. It's a good feature to have, exactly for that reason.
The difference is,
1) you are not 100% reliant and bound to Google for Applications, if you find their "controls" (mocking voice and air-quote) too restrictive, you can simply select "allow unkown sources".
2) Google are yet to use it to pull an application for offending their sensibilities or competes with them, unlike Apple.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple has never remotely killed an app. Google and Amazon have. Apple has removed apps from their store, but that's not the same thing.
Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
here's another from 2010 [phonenews.com]
So it seems your information is a bit out of date... and completely fabricated.
Re: (Score:3)
The first article title ends with a "?". The second article uses the term "may have". The reported symptoms in the two articles are completely different.
The first appears to me to more likely be the removal of functionality at the publisher's server. It's certainly isn't the "kill switch", because the app itself is still there.
The second report is contradicted by several of the commenters underneath it, who say that the app is still on their machines. It appears the app was removed from the store for lice
Score 5, Informative?! Are you kidding me? (Score:5, Informative)
2009: Your article talks about people being able to run the app still. The app which therefore hasn't been remote wiped. It doesn't work because the head-end it talks to was taken down. That was owned and run by the app vendor, not Apple. This is clearly not remote-kill; this is the risk of any head-end reliant app from any vendor anywhere. See also: http://www.pcworld.com/article/167383/update_apple_pulls_hottest_girls_porn_app_from_itunes.html?tk=rel_news [pcworld.com]
2010: Note the "Update: No" in http://www.razorianfly.com/2010/07/08/did-apple-just-use-the-ios-kill-switch/ [razorianfly.com]
See? We can both cherry pick random unsubstantiated Google search results.
TTBOMK there has been not one single verified, independently documented, uncontested example of a remote-kill on iOS. Numerous apps have been pulled from the store, though.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.phonenews.com/did-apple-flip-the-ios-kill-switch-on-ndrive-11579/ [phonenews.com]
Here's one that they remotely killed.
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
The answer to the question in the title of that article is "No, Apple didn't flip the kill switch".
See the comments at the bottom from several people who can verify that the app did not disappear from their devices. It was only pulled from the store, which is a different thing entirely.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
AT&T relented; adb install (Score:2)
Some operators also lock that feature out
Which? AT&T relented on this half a year ago [tgdaily.com] in response to overwhelming customer demand for Amazon Appstore and issued a firmware update reenabling "Unknown sources".
so you have to jailbreak it
Even on devices that have no "Unknown sources" checkbox, a user can still connect the phone to a PC with a micro-USB cable and sideload with adb install or with a GUI wrapper around adb install. Google requires that a device let the end user access to Android Debug Bridge before Google will allow the device's manufacturer to install the An
Re:And? (Score:5, Funny)
there's an $5 app that does let you run any app you want.
what happens if you run it on itself?
What difference? (Score:2)
1) you are not 100% reliant and bound to Google for Applications, if you find their "controls" (mocking voice and air-quote) too restrictive, you can simply select "allow unkown sources".
Or jailbreak or sideload. Just as approachable for the technical user (actually a little easier for non-technical people on the iPhone because there's a cottage industry around Jailbreaking).
Also on the iPhone, you are slightly better off since there's a centralized non-Apple store - Cydia.
Google are yet to use it to pull
Re: (Score:3)
Also on the iPhone, you are slightly better off since there's a centralized non-Apple store - Cydia.
Better off? Do you realize that there are a whole range of non-Google stores available for Android (ranging from strictly OSS to strictly warez), and that many of them are installable directly from Google's market without even requiring root?
Re: (Score:3)
Then I think you don't understand Cydia. Cydia itself has no apps. It is nothing but a front end to a set of repositories. Cydia does come with some pre-installed repositories. But if you want other apps, you have to discover new repositories and add them to access the apps they offer. And like the various Android marketplaces, some repositories are more deserving of your trust than others. If you connect to a warez repository, well, you were warned.
Once Cydia is installed, yes, it's seamless to acces
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, Android doesn't run on your desktop.
From TFA:
Microsoft unveiled an app store for Windows 8 apps, on Tuesday. The key ingredients of the Windows Store are easy app discovery from within and without the online marketplace, built-in app trials with quick upgrade paths, support for both x86 and ARM-based hardware, and a flexible business model, Microsoft's Antoine Leblond said then.
"In cases where we remove a paid app from your Windows 8 Beta device not at your direction, we may refund to you the amount you paid for the license," Microsoft added. "Some apps may also stop working if you update or change your Windows 8 Beta device, or if you attempt to use those apps on a Windows 8 Beta device with different features or processor type. You are responsible for backing up the data that you store in apps that you acquire via the Windows Store, including content you upload using those apps. If the Windows Store, an app, or any content is changed or discontinued, your data could be deleted or you may not be able to retrieve data you have stored. We have no obligation to return data to you. If sign in information or other data is stored with an expiration date, we may also delete the data as of that date."
Honeycomb, Honeycomb, me want Honeycomb (Score:2)
Android doesn't run on your desktop.
True, I don't have the x86 port of Android 3.2 [android-x86.org] installed in VirtualBox on my desktop PC. (Nor can it run ARM-specific NDK apps.) But I can install it if me want [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, Android doesn't run on your desktop.
From TFA:
Sure it does. [howtogeek.com]
Re:And? (Score:4, Interesting)
1) For $9 ChevronWP7 provides an officially sanctioned tool to root your Windows Phone. It's not $0 like Android, but at least easy to do and isn't disabled at on a whim by Microsoft, unlike how Apple treats jailbreaking. Yes, jailbreaking is legal, but nothing in the law says Apple has to make it easy -- so they don't.
2) Apple has yet to remote pull anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And? (Score:5, Funny)
That's it. Since Phone apps are at the whim of the provider, I'm moving all my stuff to the cloud !
Re: (Score:2)
Darn. Wonderfully sarcastic, but topical in light of the recent "Is Your Data Safe in the Cloud" topic on /.. I wish I could mod you up.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe it's good to lose one's software freedom [gnu.org] and let unknown people determine what you make your computers do.
Re: (Score:3)
And... I think it's still idiotic no matter who is able to do it. "Company X is doing it too!" isn't a good way to defense the practice, in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. I see. The "And?" in your subject made me think that you were saying that it didn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
"And" ? what "and" ? This is the egg jobs laid (Score:2, Insightful)
When jobs died, we discussed this at length. Many of us told that he set a very very harmful trend with apple, and because of the success that model had with milking the customers, ALL corporations would naturally follow suit. A lot of people objected.
And lo. Microsoft happily is following suit.
Re:"And" ? what "and" ? This is the egg jobs laid (Score:5, Informative)
I have had Amazon delete a book I was in the middle of right off my Kindle (not in mid-read, when the kindle went to sleep). They did refund me, but that's not quite the point is it Amazon?
Re: (Score:2)
I've never had Apple yank an app from my iPhone
yet.
microsoft is taking the control mania one step away. if they get away with it, and make good money in meantime, you can bet that not only apple but others will start doing the same, citing 'industry standard practice'.
Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)
And? So can apple.
On one hand, that is so off-topic that you and all the people modding you should be ashamed.
A SELLER of apps on the Apple store CAN NOT cause their app to be removed. At all.
Apple can. The seller CAN NOT.
Of course Microsoft can. The point here that you completely missed is that individual sellers using the store now have this ability.
As an iApp developer, I simply do NOT have any ability to do as you imply and remove an app from anyone's device but my own.
Only Apple can do that.
So you are all of wrong, off topic, mistaken, and completely missing the point.
Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)
And? So can apple.
On one hand, that is so off-topic that you and all the people modding you should be ashamed.
A SELLER of apps on the Apple store CAN NOT cause their app to be removed. At all.
Apple can. The seller CAN NOT.
Of course Microsoft can. The point here that you completely missed is that individual sellers using the store now have this ability.
As an iApp developer, I simply do NOT have any ability to do as you imply and remove an app from anyone's device but my own.
Only Apple can do that.
So you are all of wrong, off topic, mistaken, and completely missing the point.
Whoa there, slow down cowboy!
The summary does say seller can pull apps but there's no mention of that whatsoever in the article or anywhere else. I am going to assume that 'seller' here means Microsoft and not the developer(since MS is the one selling the goods).
What would you rather trust, a Slashdot summary filled with typos trying to bash MS or TFA?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Prior art?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
NSA Key of Yore (Score:2, Flamebait)
This better not be misused... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand a company wanting, or needing, to provide a way to remove malware or illegal content. I can't say I fully agree with it, but I can understand the need. So the existence of such a system, in and of itself, isn't a particularly Bad Thing.
But this had better not be misused. Unless it's actively and secretly causing damage to the system (sending out spam or whatnot), it had better have a court order to be forcibly removed from users' computers. Maybe even then.
No deleting people's apps just because the seller removed it. No deleting people's apps because of some vague DMCA request. It had better be a legitimate, legally-validated removal.
I think a good way to ensure this would be that, if it is ever used, both Microsoft and the seller have to refund the cost to the user. That won't help much for free apps, but it would really help make sure regular apps aren't pulled back for no real reason.
Re:This better not be misused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, now, just because they can doesn't mean...
Ah, fuck, who am I kidding. Microsoft's inevitably going to misuse this. Anyone would. Hell, you could hand me the big remote (that's how they do it, right? Giant remote control?) and I'd probably misuse it.
You need an economic disincentive to do so, besides "it pisses off consumers and we'll lose business". "Pulled apps are refunded" is a good disincentive - at the very least, they'd have to make a lot of money by pulling an app in order to use it. That's pret
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Ah, fuck, who am I kidding. Microsoft's inevitably going to misuse this. Anyone would. Hell, you could hand me the big remote (that's how they do it, right? Giant remote control?) and I'd probably misuse it.
You need an economic disincentive to do so, besides "it pisses off consumers and we'll lose business". "Pulled apps are refunded" is a good disincentive - at the very least, they'd have to make a lot of money by pulling an app in order to use it. That's pretty unlikely.
MEGACORP: We want you to kill our competitor's app.
MICROSOFT: Ca't do that. We'd piss people off and lose revenue.
MEGACORP: How much revenue?
MICROSOFT: [Looks at spreadsheet.] Hmmm... about $20 million a year. Why?
MEGACORP: We want you to kill our competitor's app... for $25 million.
MICROSOFT: Done! [To Lackey:] Bring me The Remote.
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time, at every major lawfirm: Quick, call Competitor and ask them if they would like our services for 5% of the award!
At the same time, at Apple and consumer rights societies: Quick, issue a press release!
Re: (Score:2)
That's called the slippery slope fallacy. Just because it can be, doesn't mean it will.
Nope. It isn't inferring the claim that it will be abused from the fact that it can be. It doesn't actually state the basis of the inference, but a likely one is past experience.
If we followed your reasoning, no one should ever be allowed to do anything, because they'll abuse the privilege. No driving, you might do it drunk. No buying a home, you might buy one you can't afford. No talking, you might tell a lie.
"All power will be abused" is a great soundbite for anarchists, but it doesn't hold true in the real world.
No, that's your reasoning. It's not in the posting you replied to. The reasoning of the original posting might (at a push) lead to "if driving is allowed, somebody might do it drunk", "if buying a home is allowed, somebody might buy one they can't afford",. "if talking is allowed, somebody might tell a lie." No prohibition in the o
Re: (Score:2)
Because in the real world their are legal sanctions against all of your examples, and real consequences if you are caught.
However, real-world issues like consequences and legal sanctions don't seem to apply to big corporations in situations like these, and there are cases of corporations using this power without good reason - Amazon and 1984 (amazingly enough), is a good example of that.
So really, this is just a case where the power is going to be abused, sooner or later, and consumers will probably have
Re: (Score:3)
It did cost Amazon, that I'll give you:
Here are the settlement terms:
"Techflash dug up the the settlement, which was filed in Seattle on September 25. Amazon will give $150,000 to the plaintiff's lawyers, and lead law firm KamberEdelson LLC said it will donate its share to charity. It's not clear from Techflash's report how much money 17-year-old Justin Gawronski of Michigan and a co-plaintiff, Antoine Bruguier, will get."
So yes: $150 000.00 - which goes to the lawyers. I don't see that amount being too ro
Re: (Score:3)
It's completely indefensible. If they were concerned with users, then when an app was purged it would notify you, with perhaps a handy button to go ahead and kill the app. Forcibly removing the app without input is obviously meant for situations where you have something they don't want you to have, and the problem with centralized gatekeepers like this is 'they' becomes 'everyone who does business with Microsoft' which is a scary approximation of 'everyone, period'.
The paradigm is shifting, and the golden
Well, no real surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're moving towards a complete lease model as opposed to ownership.
You already lease your software anyway.
This version of Windows will pretty much make you lease your hardware what with the "secure" boot for all practical purposes. And you'll be leasing any administrator access MS might grant you as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except....
The app will be gone the next time you connect. And if they use a Steam-esque approach, you may not be able to run apps without a connection.
They own your root. You no longer own that at all (though, Dell, Best Buy, etc have been holding on to that for some time anyway).
So - really - I guess that I see them turning your computer into a local mirror of the SaaS model. Just that you are running it on cores and in memory that you are for all intents and purposing leasing.
Re:Well, no real surprise. (Score:5, Interesting)
They're moving towards a complete lease model as opposed to ownership.
You already lease your software anyway.
This version of Windows will pretty much make you lease your hardware what with the "secure" boot for all practical purposes. And you'll be leasing any administrator access MS might grant you as well.
Actually it will push me to Linux - something I thought i'd never do. I've always used Microsoft Windows because it was the better solution - it runs more of the software I want to run (including games and graphics intensive apps) and thus gave me the most flexibility. But now Windows gaming is all but dead, all the apps have become ridiculously priced (Have you seen what Photoshop costs these days???) and now they want to control what I can run. Seeya! Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
Re: (Score:2)
Non sequiter argument you present, at best. At worst, raw horseshit. Because never before are pre-loaded signed certificates being considered as part of the manufacturer loaded bios. And there are an awful lot of bios'es out there that have the minimum number of configurable switches in them. Manufacturers go for profit; you can bet that there will be a ton that don't have a switch, or only have room for one or two certificates.
But this has been hashed out before; MS has said screw you, we're doing it a
Re:Well, no real surprise. (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot has a long history of shrilling crying out doom and gloom, and it's been wrong on every occasion that I can remember. I don't blame the other guy for thinking that some paranoid rant on slashdot is total bunk. When RFID chips were first discussed on Slashdot, people worked themselves into a paranoid frenzy, suggesting that you microwave any clothes that you buy from a retail store, so that you destroy any errant RFID chips. I laughed then, and I'm laughing now, as I recall it. Slashdot has always had a loud paranoid wing, and most of us have learned to tune them out. Their first reaction is always to predict a wildly unlikely worst case scenario, then rant and scream about how we're headed toward some fascist police state, because their Pentium III has a serial number (that can be disabled in the BIOS). I've heard it all before, I wasn't impressed by it back in the late 90s, and I'm still not impressed with it. The Pentium III serial number, RFID, Vista's DRM, Trusted Computing... these have all been complete non-issues. I agree that there's deeply troubling potential, but let's face it:
1) People generally want authoritarianism. It makes them feel safe and secure, regardless of the reality. Ranting about how walled gardens are evil is just going to make all the Apple fanboys tune you out, rather than convincing them to ditch their iProduct.
2) Security, by design, reduces functionality and ease-of-use. People hate that. Thus, security is generally minimized, unless it's authoritarian in nature. In that case, refer back to the first point.
3) Most -- not all, but most -- authoritarian controls can be disabled. Occasionally, it requires some action that voids your warranty.
Once I realized these things, I stopped caring so much. When I heard XP was going to require activation, I thought it was going to change everything. When I heard that Vista was going to have all kinds of evil DRM, I thought that would finally kill off everything that I loved about PCs and turn them into locked-down consoles. When I heard that Windows 8 was going to have secure boot, I'd shrugged my shoulders and said, "So fucking what? Slashdot has been wrong about everything they've ever panicked about, and I'm not falling into that trap again."
Maybe the Windows 8 secure boot will turn out to be a huge issue, and Linux will be locked out of 90% of all new brand name PCs, but I seriously doubt it. Every other time that Slashdot has panicked over DRM, trusted computing, or other initiatives, it's turned out to be a huge non-issue. If this does turn out to be a legitimate threat to Linux, open source, or the PC architecture, I'll deal with it then, rather than panicking about it now, like some slashbot version of Chicken Little.
The future.... (Score:2)
Naive popularity will drag horrid ideas like this along for the ride as the future consolidates application control and computing into the "cloud" elements that can crap all over you if you are not getting along.
Don't buy into the hype, so we can prolong the inevitable...but in the end, dumb people will drag us off the cliff and we won't find open alternatives that function in society.
boy do I loathe the thoughtless nature of many...and how it affects my options.
What is it with this trend of hostility? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell is wrong with our IT industry and its hostility towards their users? When did this start and where did we go wrong that brought us to this state?!
Re:What is it with this trend of hostility? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about money.
A company that can control all aspects of their product reduces cost. So, if MS controls your root access, what software you can load, what you can boot, etc - they make more money because their costs are lower. And the OEM's make more money, which also flows back to MS.
It's not about hate and hostility - rather, it's about maximization of profit. And a result of this is, in the end, a less appealing product that people will accept because it's wrapped up nicely (with a bow and sexy dancing girls selling it), and because a lot of people don't [see|have] an alternative.
Re:What is it with this trend of hostility? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't just about the mobile. This is about your desktop. The app store will be for your Windows 8 desktop. You will effectively not exclusively own root on a windows box once Windows 8 launches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is it with this trend of hostility? (Score:5, Insightful)
It happened when the likes of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook realised that being the owner of a walled garden (or even a slightly fenced garden) means you can do more-or-less what you like to users once you've locked them in.
A lot of people might be upset, but 97% of them won't do any more than bitch about it on Slashdot/Facebook/Reddit/whatever, and they'll still keep buying. The few who really will vote with their wallets for a more user-friendly alternative or go without products/services that come with nasty strings attached are so small in number that the big players can just ignore them.
That means the platform owners can adopt whatever abusive practices they want to make more money, short of breaking the law enough to lose a major lawsuit. And since the law everywhere is at least a decade behind the implications of modern technology, a lot of things that thoughtful geeks might consider dangerous aren't actually illegal anyway, at least not clearly so.
None of this will change until either a large consumer backlash begins (which is not beyond the bounds of possibility in the world today, but is on a gentle simmer right now) or legislation starts getting written by smart, thoughtful people who think through the implications of modern technology, understand the need to protect consumers, also understand the need to make commerce reasonably profitable, and try to come up with policies that balance these factors in a fair way (and then I woke up...).
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is, while I accept that your reasoning sounds compelling, I don't quite buy it.
Once upon a time, I was involved with a mobile radio network, kind of a spiritual ancestor of the mobile/cell networks we have today. In those days, to get a device approved for use on the network, some poor schmuck (been there, done that) sat in a lab with every currently approved device and the new one, and set up every possible kind of call/message/whatever between every combination of devices. The test spec to be ru
Re:What is it with this trend of hostility? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell is wrong with our IT industry and its hostility towards their users?
Because users are completely, utterly, stupid. At least the vast majority of them. 90 percent of people (I'm sure the statistic is higher) don't want computers. They think they want computers. What they really want are magic boxes that do magic things and don't want to worry about any kind of maintenance. Steve Jobs knew this. Microsoft is merely catching up.
And Slashdot is not representative of the "computing" public. What you want, dear Lotana, doesn't count.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wanting a "magic box" that is low maintenance and does useful things, does *not* make users completely, utterly stupid. I have a car that is pretty much a magic box to me. I can drive it around but I can't fix it. I use electricity but the infrastructure that supplies it is pretty much a magic box to me. Lots of different magic boxes for different people.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you speak to an actual mechanic some time.
Car owners are completely, utterly, stupid.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
Well from an it standpoint I can see distrust of users sprouting from the million upon millions of virus-laden pcs. Bot nets deluging the Internet with spam Trojan key loggers that get installed and empty bank accounts if money and companies of their trade secrets. Government agencies that issue redacted information by drawing colored boxes over text in PDFs. Users f'ing up machines so bad they can't even boot properly.
Some of that is because of faulty software, but so much of it is also due to users blindl
Just what the world needed (Score:3)
Another reason to avoid Windows.
"the cloud" (Score:5, Insightful)
Get off my lawn.
I don't see the issue (Score:3)
It sounds like Microsoft is just explicitly passing the buck for terminating an application to the application's vendor, not like they're trying to assume that capability and responsibility for anything, including malware cleanup. I'd think malware cleanup options would fall under the purview of the anti-virus service providers.
Note I said service provider. Like it or not, maintaining a secure system means subscribing to maintenance services for a lot of the software you need. You haven't been able to "buy" a lot of critical services for a long time. This is not a new delivery model by any stretch of the imagination.
Even Linux relies on service providers -- the distribution packagers and testers.
Oh great.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope, despite being one of the five best fitness apps [lifehacker.com] it was pulled from the market for unknown reasons. Some claim it was banned for posting fake positive reviews, [appadvice.com] but that seems completely unnecessary considering how [mensfitness.com] much [thatsfit.com] praise [nytimes.com] iFitness [go.com] received. [washingtonpost.com]
Because of that I no longer trust my phone or the "cloud" to keep my data safe.
Wait a minute...did I miss something? (Score:4)
...seriously, this is exactly what everyone else does, following the shitty example that Apple and Amazon set for them. I know you can jailbreak an iPhone and turn off the killswitch with a swipe of the finger, but I doubt anyone cares enough yet to jailbreak a Windows phone. But they will. Whether there are ever enough apps in the Windows Store to make Microsoft have to wipe one from the few phones they sell is another question
Let's be fair.. (Score:3)
First, they probably never purchased the apps but got a license that allows them to use the app. That license grants the user certain rights, like numbers of copies a user can run, on what device, on what day and in what rooms of the house. Certain users abuse these rights,
Second, Microsoft doesn't kill apps. Apps are like children to Microsoft. And if you mistreat them you might lose custody.
Finally, "remotely kill" sounds like a drone attack, but Microsoft is just helping the users to avoid running apps they shouldn't. A more neutral term would be "Microsoft can remotely assist users to disable apps."
P.S: I'm also looking for a new job, anything near Seattle would be swell.
Re: (Score:2)
If it takes you a month's pay to buy a gadget... it's probably money best spent elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MS OS stable long enough to remotely kill app! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
With my iPhone. At least that's an open platform.