







Google elaborates:




Comments     Threshold


By quiksilvr on 6/25/2010 11:22:57 AM , Rating: 3
It's more of a "legal insurance". Suppose your phone got a virus despite getting an acknowledgment but still file charges? You could claim you never got the warning because the app stopped it from coming through and blame Google for letting this program through and compromising your security.

By amanojaku on 6/25/2010 11:38:17 AM , Rating: 3
Basically, you're saying smartphones, which are really mobile PCs, are going to have the same challenges that PCs (that includes Macs, too!) had over the last 30 years. So you'll have to buy Symmantec Anti-Virus Mobile Edition, install script blockers, etc... These aren't ROM devices, so they CAN get viruses. No remote kill option is going to stop that.

By omnicronx on 6/25/2010 12:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are missing the point, regardless if ' No remote kill option is going to stop that', there are still most likely legal obligations involved. If there was an App that actually could do damage, they could easily be liable. The fact that you don't agree with it is irrelevant, it makes business sense and unfortunately is part of the world we live in.

At least they are being transparent about it, but I think rules like these will exist for pretty much any app store regardless of device. You want assurance that your app won't be remotely killed, use another way to get your apps. Google has been pretty good in my opinion, and they have yet to actually kill something that did not make sense, well aside from the tethering apps in which the carriers forced them.(and were only removed for the carriers who asked if I remember correctly)

By Iaiken on 6/25/2010 12:55:38 PM , Rating: 5
What's unfortunate is how the Windows monopoly prevented computers from advancing to closed platforms until now.

I don't see that as unfortunate at all. Open platforms will survive (and flourish) for as long as the law allows them. The modern Apple PC (that's right, PEE CEE) has been around for 6 years now and failed to make any significant headway. That alone should tell you that the market for expensive closed platforms is a niche and that consumers don't think Apple PC's are a good enough improvement over Windows PC to warrant the cost.

To quote a friend of mine:

"Buying an Apple is like marrying a hot looking chick who turns out to be a temperamental bitch on the inside. I'm fed up with it's BS and now I want to divorce it and to start dating again."

Honestly, I couldn't have said it better myself after working to keep my wifes Core 2 Duo iMac running over the course of this year. She's already told me that when it comes time to replace it, she wants me to build her a Windows 7 machine. Ouch Apple, right in the profit margins...

By MGSsancho on 6/28/2010 3:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
What you mean is how the Microsoft monopoly has prevented faster advancement in technology in the desktop area. Evidence of this is the rapid speed of development in the last 6 years in mobile phones where increased competition speared the progress of features and capabilities. Today there are very open mobile/desktop/console platforms, very closed and various platforms in-between.

Now for my opinion; competition is what drives the market regardless of open/closed business models in the IT industry.



That's no way to talk to your mother!


Related Articles
