Google, and later the Open Handset Alliance, have touted Android as an open source alternative to the iPhone’s tight control of applications.  Android, for instance, allows users to download applications from developers without a central gate-keeper deciding what applications can and cannot be run.  Even key components like the dialer or the home screen can be replaced.  Sounds like a great victory for generativity, even in the face of the iPhone’s popularity, right?

Maybe not.  A few outlets are reporting that Android Market’s terms and conditions include reference to a kill switch.  Essentially, anything downloaded from the Android Market can be removed from a phone at Google’s sole discretion if it is found to violate the developer distribution agreement.

The articles linked above point to some of the interesting questions that arise from this: How will a list of “banned” applications be communicated between Google and the phone?  Can applications not downloaded from Android Market be deleted at Google’s discretion as well?  But to me, one of the most interesting questions (which the CW article does ask, briefly) is what the reaction to this kill switch will be from the user community, many of whom have been excited about Android because of its contrasts with the locked-down iPhone operating system.

Will Google face a backlash?  We’ve discussed the iPhone’s kill switch here at the FOI blog before.  A kill switch is merely one facet of what a fully tethered application can do.  I’m still working out exactly how I feel about this seemingly weaker or more partial tethering of Android phones.  Maybe this could be a decent compromise that allows Google to maintain some stability while letting generativity happen (mostly) uninhibited?  What do you think?

-Jason