Confirmed by Steve Jobs... iPhone 'calls home' to Apple and allows Apple to remotely disable applications.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/11/jobs-60-million-iphone-apps-downloaded-confirms-kill-switch/

Jobs said, "hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull."
-- I see irresponsible to not allow you to kill my system?

@BrianK

Perhaps it's better to let others killing your system then..

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@BrianK

Ugh.

Stories like this remind me why Apple is worse than M.S when it comes to domineering tactics & lock-in.

_________________
A1200, 68060/64MB/1.2GB/WiFi/AGAtoCRT/OS3.9 Pegasos I, G3 600Mhz/512/9200SE/80GB WinUAE, Ryzen 5 2400G/Vega11, 8GB DDR4, 256GB SSD,Win 10 Pro x64 Amiga Forever !

@BrianK

Well, if some application does turn out to be really really bad for your system it would theoretically be a good thing for them to remotely disable it.

Using it for other purposes would be not so good, though.

So the normal answer applies: It depends.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@BrianK

This feature can disable some simple viruses from working

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@BrianK
They only want to use that feature to disable possible malicious applications that have been sneaked through the AppStore to customer's phones. Imagine a trojan or virus hidden in an application. If that is discovered after the product has been sold, it can be disabled by Apple before doing more damage. Otherwise, Apple might be liable, so it's merely a thing recommended by their lawyers to prevent lawsuits from customers damaged by bad software. I think it's a good idea to have such a thing. The black list is currently empty, btw.

You couldn't pay me enough to bother with the iPhone. This, however, is a bit more interesting.

_________________

@peroxidechicken

Regarding OpenMoko, the images that they're showing look much nicer than the prototype that I remember seeing.

Hans

_________________
Join the Kea Campus - upgrade your skills; support my work; enjoy the Amiga corner.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - see more of my work

@BrianK

It's definitely somewhat disturbing that Apple could remotely disable software, but consider what would happen if a malicious application or hacker could activate the kill switch themselves

_________________

@alx

So far Apple's definition of "malicious" includes "stuff that makes our partner less money", see eg NetShare - that's an application that lets you use your iPhone as a laptop modem, but because it lets you get around carrier's bloated laptop data fees, it gets locked out. In fact, so far no apps have been locked out that are actual viruses or trojans. How do I know this? because Apple would have said so if any had been, in order to counter the increasing disapproval of the apps that are getting banned.

This has little to do with viruses and a lot to do with Apple's bottom line. If they really were concerned about viruses, they would do like every other antivirus vendor and check with the user before disabling anything. I mean, can you imagine MS doing the same thing? even when the malicious software removal tool screws up and flags something harmless as malicious, it still gives you the option of not removing it.

And, as you remark, should someone spoof the IP address for the Apple server (which could be done with the Kaminski DNS attack, since Apple hasn't patched the iPhone MacOS yet), they could wreak havoc by disabling everyone's apps.

Last edited by CodeSmith on 11-Aug-2008 at 06:08 PM.

@DBAlex

I don't know about "worse" than Microsoft.
MS built secret back door access into their operating systems a long time ago.
I don't remember if it was with Windows98 or some other version.

There is also the stupid OS activation for home versions which can lock down your computer.

And of course RMS/DRM and it's other incarnations allowing Microsoft or even third parties to remove or disable software in Windows.

_________________
http://www.hostcove.com
http://www.youtube.com/hostcove
Sam460 : X1000 : X5000

@logicalheart

True, but MS at least let you choose which hardware you wan't to run their OS on... Apple doesn't even grant you that freedom...

I suppose you have a *personal* choice though...

Alex.

_________________
A1200, 68060/64MB/1.2GB/WiFi/AGAtoCRT/OS3.9 Pegasos I, G3 600Mhz/512/9200SE/80GB WinUAE, Ryzen 5 2400G/Vega11, 8GB DDR4, 256GB SSD,Win 10 Pro x64 Amiga Forever !

@CodeSmith

Quote:

In fact, so far no apps have been locked out that are actual viruses or trojans.

Well, actually, *all* the apps that have been remotely disabled through that "lever" for being "malicious" have been viruses and trojans. In fact, each and every one of those apps has been *both* a virus *and* a trojan.

How do I know? Because I wrote each and every single iPhone app that Apple has so far used their remote-disable capability for. I wrote them using only the second toe of my left foot to arrange dominoes next to a mouse and keyboard in such a way that, once the first domino had been toppled. a finished, polished app (alas, a virus/trojan app, but an app nonetheless) was mere minutes from completion.

Quote:

but because it lets you get around carrier's bloated laptop data fees,

Ah, yes --- here in Oz, laptop data is half the price of phone data, using the exact same 3G network. Go figure....

Last edited by umisef on 11-Aug-2008 at 08:03 PM.

@umisef

Even though I do not like all the implications for this feature I think Apple executives would not dare think of using it to disable any app that maybe in competition to their own or else they would be facing a class action antitrust suite.

Anyway, I have to admit that Apple's approach to cloud computing is a lighter sense for remote storage and security is far better then making it completely clouded like other folks from other companies are talking about, including Microsoft. I just hope for the sake of having good faith towards consumers companies continue to tread lightly through most of this field.

Last edited by ReverseGTR on 12-Aug-2008 at 01:36 AM.

@umisef

Oh boy, an Apple "enthusiast". I know it's hard to see through the red mist, and I apologize for the sudden pounding headache, but if you read what I wrote just after that you'll see my reasoning for that statement. Here, let me quote it for you:

Quote:

How do I know this? because Apple would have said so if any had been, in order to counter the increasing disapproval of the apps that are getting banned.

@CodeSmith

Sounds like this thread needs to design their own OS. That will "free" them from available commercially viable OS's.

@CodeSmith

Quote:

but if you read what I wrote just after that you'll see my reasoning for that statement.

OK, I'll try to be more direct this time:

At the current time, Apple has not disabled any apps remotely. Not a single one. None. Nada. Zilch.

So, your suggestion that Apple may use that "lever" which is there for disabling malicious apps to disable apps which are merely inconvenient is not supported by fact. Indeed, we have absolutely no idea just what level of maliciousness would be required for Apple to act, because, well, so far they haven't (and at least I am not aware of any malicious apps, either, so we can't know much about the lower limit of their trigger range, either).


What you are talking about, which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread, is that Apple has pulled a couple of apps from their app store. Let me repeat that: Apple has pulled a couple of apps from THEIR app store. People who bought those apps while they were available are still using those very same apps; No suggestion has been made by anyone that they should not (well, except that the tethering one violates the contract terms the customer has agreed upon with AT&T, but that's not Apple's problem).

Having one's app distributed by Apple is not a God-given right; It is something that is at the sole discretion of Apple, just like Walmart, Amazon or Computer City get to choose what they do or do not distribute. Try getting OS4.1 distributed by any of those. Or a splatter/porn/swearing filled game, or an educational title explaining how the Holocaust is a fabrication of the Jewish Conspiracy. Or one of those special-forces-in-action games that were so popular a few years back, only this time, you play the side of an Iranian Special Forces commando tasked with taking out the president of a rogue nuclear nation who is hellbent on turning your homeland into a piece of glass...

What's more in this particular case, development of App-Store apps requires the use of the iPhone SDK, which comes with (a) rather a bunch of restrictions on what one may and may not do, and (b) an NDA. So given that those who have the SDK (and thus the list of restrictions) may not talk about them, and those (like me) who are free to talk will not actually know the SDK licensing conditions, it is also perfectly possible that those pulled apps may actually have violated some obscure licensing term --- not that that would matter, given that (see above) Apple has no obligation whatsoever to carry any particular app in their store.

@umisef

nice post man!

Last edited by Amigo1 on 12-Aug-2008 at 07:22 AM.

@umisef

OK, let me elaborate as well.

1. Apple killed the Mac clone market in the 1990s, sending many of its rivals into an early grave and punishing MacOS users for "backing the wrong team"
2. Apple has consistently been thwarting their customers' attempts at installing 3rd party applications on iPhones
3. Apple's current lawsuit against PsyStar is seeking a recall of all Mac clones, which if successful, will bankrupt the company for violating the EULA (NB: this is not software piracy, this is a circumvention of copy protection on software that was bought and paid for so it could run on non-Apple hardware) and strand all their customers, who own legal copies of MacOS X - see point 1.

Apple has a known history of putting its own interests above its customers'. So I don't think it's a stretch to think that Apple will abuse this kill switch they've installed.

@umisef

really? is that with telstra or someone else?

_________________
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.

I serve King Jesus.
What/who do you serve?