The iPhone kill switch
August 14th, 2008 | by jz | Published in Future of the Internet, iphone | 7 Comments
It’s been clear from the start that information appliances like the iPhone, tethered to their vendors, would have a kill switch — that’s just a subset of the vendor’s (in the case, Apple’s) ability to reprogram any aspect of the phone from a distance at any time. In a world of third party apps, that means that Apple could kill any app, too. After some breathless reporting caused by the discovery of a Web page meant for consultion by iPhones that lists bad apps, and debate about whether the switch was more modest — say, only to say which apps wouldn’t be allowed to use the iPhone’s GPS functionality, as a way to protect user privacy — Steve Jobs confirmed that any app can be killed.
This isn’t exclusive to Apple, of course. Microsoft offers a monthly “malicious software removal tool,” which unobtrusively goes through a PC to remove malware. Presumably it would become much less popular if Microsoft, or someone regulating Microsoft, tried to use the tool to remove software that people liked; no one seems to have tried to get Microsoft to kill anything yet, though, and such attempts are limited since any new app can immediately be installed on a PC — including one that shuts down a Microsoft app-removal tool.
On the other side of the spectrum, when Facebook kills an app the app is naturally not only unavailable to new users, but disabled for current ones, too. So Superwall or Secret Crush can go from millions of users to zero in a heartbeat.
So far Apple hasn’t seemed to try to kill any apps already residing on users’ phones. Instead, it has “merely” yanked apps from the Apps Store, which is the only place to acquire them. Recently Apple got rid of the “I Am Rich” app, which cost the maximum $999.99, and simply featured a glowing red gem on buyers’ screens.
iPhone I Am Rich app
Eight people apparently bought it, with several receiving refunds. (“Category: Lifestyle.” Heh.) The app’s author doesn’t yet know whether he’ll get the money from the rest, minus Apple’s 30% vig.
So should we care? Apple likely wouldn’t kill apps people like — they make money along with the authors. And people think of an iPhone as a more unified device, expecting all of it to work at high quality, so gatekeeping might help keep malicious or poor quality apps away.
On the other hand, people don’t know what they’re missing — and firms can be very bad, despite their own economic interests, in recognizing the value of truly novel contributions from outsiders that might take awhile to catch on. Who would have invested in Wikipedia at the beginning? And if Wikipedia required an incumbent gatekeeper’s approval or permission to get started, it might have failed to receive it — or languished at the bottom of a list of to-dos amongst hundreds of other apps and services awaiting review.
The iPhone apps model is powerful, and it’s serving some useful purpose in shielding people, prospectively and retroactively, against bad code. It’s so powerful we may see it extended to PC-like platforms, too, with the thirty-year run of open season for new software drawing to a close. Without ways of managing that open season without a central gatekeeper, chances seem strong that most will accept — even demand — one.
–JZ
August 16th, 2008 at 9:34 am (#)
[...] wild, Apple has solidified the iPhone’s status as a “tethered” device, and mark Jonathan Zittrain’s words, tethering is like DRM but [...]
August 16th, 2008 at 9:34 am (#)
[...] wild, Apple has solidified the iPhone’s status as a “tethered” device, and mark Jonathan Zittrain’s words, tethering is like DRM but [...]
August 17th, 2008 at 4:09 am (#)
What do you support: Should Apple have to justify any kill in front of a pool of experts? Would you support a committee which individual veto powers to set a list of badware? The list of problems that such platforms will come across is impossible to set in advance; openness can only be guaranteed with reasonable outside questioning power: so far the “blogosphere” (gagdet critics) has been able to demand useful things — but that was while the attention was focused on one device.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am (#)
Lest we forget the ingenuity of collaborative networks:
http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/2008/08/020953.htm
Pit a network against a hierarchy, and the network will win.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:04 pm (#)
[...] Que se reduzcan las oportunidades para la generatividad. Esto nos lleva a reducir la innovación y el control de la red por parte de los usuarios. Cada vez se delega más en los servicios y en las condiciones que los proveedores disponen, y a su vez se confía más en los dispositivos estériles que pueden ser modificados remotamente (el caso del Iphone y los derechos de Apple es uno de ellos). [...]
October 16th, 2008 at 7:46 pm (#)
[...] 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 [...]
September 15th, 2009 at 7:49 pm (#)
[...] when I say I want to see evidence, it has to be something more than a random anecdote like this “gem” I have heard Zittrain use many times: Recently Apple got rid of the “I Am Rich” app, which cost [...]