Mark,
It was the corp market that required a kill switch so that an iPhone could be completely disabled remotely before they would consider it to "enterprise ready". So the app kill switch is just an extension of the same idea. However, I agree with you that Apple should have mentioned this upfront, before anyone bought apps.
The idea is good, hopefully they will not use it capriciously. In the same way, I hope that Google always maintains its stance of "Do no evil." Only time will tell.
-Bruce Schmoetzer
|
Does Verizon's Voyager stack up to the iPhone? |
|
|
5 IT skills that won't boost your salary 
[1,407]
Women 4 times more likely than men to cough up personal info [589]
Japan's 10 funniest tech-related commercials [Videos] [407]
Throwing away a promo CD is "unauthorized distribution"? [1,265]
Adults too quick to dismiss educational video games [682]
Attack of the iPhone clones [Slideshow] [578]
10 things IT needs to know about AJAX [1,258]
This Year's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries [Slideshow] [409]
|
|
Not necessarily true
The corporate IT types would want a kill switch they controlled. Much like they can do with a RIM (Blackberry) BES server where the corporate IT folks can control what is on the phone. Companies I know and work for would not want data and apps controlled by a 3rd party they had no control over. What if Apple decided to remove an important (for the company) production app from the phone?
UCITA
Too bad Ed Foster passed away. Remote deactivation was one of the worst features of UCITA (the software industry's proposed "enhancement" to the Universal Commercial Code).
Apple would have been irresponsible to not include remote deactivation? Talk about doublespeak ...
Post new comment