• Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • News
  • Events
  • Media
  • Video
  • Glossary
  • Contact
  • Download
  • RSS

Google, looking like Apple, pulls tethering apps

April 2nd, 2009  |  by elisabeth  |  Published in Android, iphone  |  2 Comments

I’m starting to get a better sense of what Google’s open mobile OS, Android, will look like in practice. Google has just pulled tethering apps from the Market, the on-phone equivalent of Apple’s App Store. Tethering apps allow users to use their mobile phone as a sort of modem/internet connection for their laptop, and carriers hate them because they eat so much bandwidth.

The Android Developer TOS specifically provided that

“Google enters into distribution agreements with device manufacturers and Authorized Carriers to place the Market software client application for the Market on Devices. These distribution agreements may require the involuntary removal of Products in violation of the Device manufacturer’s or Authorized Carrier’s terms of service.”

and T-Mobile’s terms of service forbid tethering, so Google pulled the app per the TOS. (What will happen, though, if carrier that doesn’t forbid tethering comes out with an Android-based phone? Why shouldn’t those people be able to access the phone in the Market?) You might remember that Apple also quickly yanked a tethering app, NetShare, that upset AT&T.

The big difference between Android phones and iPhones, of course, is that Android users can go to third-party developers’ websites and download the app directly. Maybe users sophisticated enough to use tethering apps are also sophisticated enough to move beyond the Market, or maybe other big aggregator sites will pop up. Or maybe people will actually be motivated to seek out these apps by the uproar when they’re pulled. Or maybe apps not in the Market will wither away.

As I read the TOS, Google could use its kill switch to yank back even those apps downloaded from third-party websites, but I haven’t heard of that happening yet.

So it looks like what we’re seeing from Google is a relatively heavy hand in the Market and a light hand outside of it. The question is what users will do with that.

—By Elisabeth Oppenheimer

Responses

Feed
  1. Mark Murphy says:

    April 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 pm (#)

    “What will happen, though, if carrier that doesn’t forbid tethering comes out with an Android-based phone? Why shouldn’t those people be able to access the [app] in the Market?”

    They will be able to access the app in the Market:

    http://androidguys.com/?p=4418

  2. Harris says:

    April 4th, 2009 at 4:08 pm (#)

    I disagree that Google’s pulling a tethering app — or, as it appears is actually the case, limiting the carriers with which it works — amounts to a “heavy hand.” As much as we’d all love unfettered access to such innovative software and 24/7 wireless broadband, it’s reasonable for Google to step in where the limitations of its partner networks make tethering implausible. If it’s the case that T-Mobile simply can’t handle the potential demands of every Android user hitting up Battlestar Galactica torrents in the local park, there’s a real concern. Individual users can’t be expected to limit their usage for the good of the network, so a central authority needs to act to preserve what is ultimately in everyone’s interest. Given the choice, I think we’d rather all of our calls / emails / texts go through all of the time than some of us have access to tethering some of the time. This is a non-evil reason to block the app.

    Now that said, T-Mobile may object to tethering simply to preserve its own business in selling the same internet access to the same customers as a separate package. That’s a potentially more objectionable motive, to the extent it doesn’t overlap with the one described above…

Blog

  • Controlling Cyberspace
  • This semester, we’re starting an exciting new class, aimed not at lawyers, but undergraduate CS students here at Harvard. It’s called CS42: Controlling Cyberspace – and we’re sharing the syllabus online.  Anything big we’re missing? Read more »

  • Computers Going Wild?
  • Computers Gone Wild: Impact and Implications of Developments in Artificial Intelligence on Society was an informal discussion that took place at Harvard Law School on December 8th, 2011. Hosted by Jonathan Zittrain, Marin Soljačić and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, we brought together eighteen mostly local guests to discuss the ways that AI is changing society. Unlike futuristic predictions involving the Singularity or the underlying technology, this workshop explored current technology. Sessions included discussions on warfare, finance, education, and labor. Below is a list of attendees and a summary of the discussion.

    Read more »

  • Ideas for a Better Internet
  • Ideas for a Better Internet, or i4bi, is an interdisciplinary course at Harvard and Stanford that challenges students from law, computer science, and public policy to come up with novel and plausible ways to improve the Internet and its use. i4bi centers on immersing participants in Internet history, technologies, and politics, so that students can come up with ideas that help to build a better Internet — however they define “better.” Read more »
  • Microsoft Echoes Apple App Store Requirements
  • Here at Future of the Internet, we’ve already talked a little bit about Apple’s content requirements for both the iOS and Mac App Stores in JZ’s The PC is Dead post. As JZ said,

    “Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist Mark Fiore found his iPhone app rejected because it contained “content that ridicules public figures.” Fiore was well-known enough that the rejection raised eyebrows, and Apple later reversed its decision. But the fact that apps must routinely face approval masks how extraordinary the situation is: tech companies are in the business of approving, one by one, the text, images, and sounds that we are permitted to find and experience on our most common portals to the networked world. Why would we possibly want this to be how the world of ideas works, and why would we think that merely having competing tech companies—each of which is empowered to censor—solves the problem?”

    Apple’s approach is an example of a larger phenomenon. Read more »

  • A SOPA compromise is floated
  • Last week several members of Congress — Senators Wyden, Cantwell, Moran, and Paul, and Reps. Issa, Lofgren and Chaffetz — floated a proposal to substitute for the contentious proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, previously discussed here.  Sen. Wyden’s office has commented on the compromise, and TechDirt has a writeup and a copy of the document here. The proposal omits the elements of SOPA that had run into the most resistance. Gone is tinkering with fundamental Internet architecture such as the use of the domain name system. Gone is the involvement of the Attorney General. Gone is the criminal copyright streaming provision that could, theoretically, make a teenage Justin Bieber a felon for streaming amateur videos featuring his renditions of songs by his favorite artists.In all these ways, the Wyden compromise is significantly better than SOPA. So what’s left? Read more »
About Jonathan Zittrain

jonathan zittrain

Jonathan Zittrain is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School

RSS Tweets from Z

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Blog Archives



Creative Commons BY-NC-SA Jonathan Zittrain unless otherwise noted.
Powered by WordPress using Gridline Lite.