Apple Can Remotely Disable iPhone Apps

The idea that Apple can yank software at will, even if it's something I purchased, is a bit unsettling.
Has Apple ever, in its decades of existence, give you reason to think that it would remove an app you wanted to keep, without your permission?

Only based on the reports that this is what will happen with my Box Office application on my iPhone. Of course, I still have it installed on my iPhone, and it still works.

Rumors and fear mongering only?

@Kirk: So, you wouldn't mind if Apple had a built-in function in the MacBook's closed firmware that could nuke any program you'd bought if they unilaterally change licenses to limit approved software to only programs purchased from an Apple store? Because, of course they'd only do that if they decided it was better "for your security," right?

And you wouldn't complain if your broadband provider could disable your access to the internet if you hooked up another company's VoIP box, or bought a 3rd-party DVR, or installed an anti-virus package other than the one they install. After all, you can trust them never to use that function, and it's better to have the architecture in place in case it's ever "needed." Right?

And your hybrid car's power train is a closed system and so complicated that the manufacturer couldn't possibly test every brand of aftermarket tire or stereo or windshield wiper for it's potential negative effects on the safety of the vehicle. So there's no problem if the car manufacturer maintains the ability to immobilize your car if you replace a blown headlamp yourself instead of bringing it in to the dealership. Because they should have the final say, right?

Are you really that trusting of companies to do the "right thing", or is it just Apple that is afforded that level of trust? Because in their decades of existence they've never done anything evil like "bricking" 1st generation iPhones when their owners decided they wanted to add a little more functionality to their systems.

You bought the phone, just like you buy a bar of soap or a pair of jeans or a TV or a house. Why would you give any company the right to reduce the functionality of a product after you've bought and paid for it? You own it. And if you don't want them to have that right, why would you excuse the inclusion of that kind of ability in your system?

Apple may "think different" but Wall Street doesn't. You can't base any kind of "trust" that a public company won't use that power if it's in the interest of its shareholders. Not even Apple.

The iPhone is a closed system. Either you're fine with the idea that Apple has final say over what goes on it, or you don't. A system to remotely disable apps doesn't change anything.

And there's the rub. I think a lot of people are saying that they're not happy with it being a closed system. Perhaps they should have known it was before buying it, but it's hardly stated on the box. I also think that the world is beyond closed systems. The internet has made it so, and to truly play in the market you should be open. Maybe that's too philosophical, but the nature of modern computing is like this.

So, you wouldn't mind if Apple had a built-in function in the MacBook's closed firmware that could nuke any program you'd bought if they unilaterally change licenses to limit approved software to only programs purchased from an Apple store? Because, of course they'd only do that if they decided it was better "for your security," right?

The Mac (as it exists on MacBooks, iMacs, etc.) is not and has never been a closed system. There are both advantages and disadvantages to being both open or closed. For the iPhone (and iPods), Apple took a completely closed approach.

And you wouldn't complain if your broadband provider could disable your access to the internet if you hooked up another company's VoIP box, or bought a 3rd-party DVR, or installed an anti-virus package other than the one they install. After all, you can trust them never to use that function, and it's better to have the architecture in place in case it's ever "needed." Right?

It's amusing to me because I actually have AT&T for TV, internet, and wireless service. I don't have a land-line, so VoIP isn't even an issue. But I see your point (not that it's a good one). AT&T wouldn't disable my internet if I hooked up, for example, Vonage. There's a lot of competition out there, and people can choose other options. If AT&T chose to make your scenario their policy, I could chose someone else, but they wouldn't, because it would be bad business. None of this has anything to do with the iPhone.

And your hybrid car's power train is a closed system and so complicated that the manufacturer couldn't possibly test every brand of aftermarket tire or stereo or windshield wiper for it's potential negative effects on the safety of the vehicle. So there's no problem if the car manufacturer maintains the ability to immobilize your car if you replace a blown headlamp yourself instead of bringing it in to the dealership. Because they should have the final say, right?

Again, completely different scenario from the iPhone. I see what you're trying to say, but it just doesn't apply. The fact that some things are totally open and don't have any restrictions doesn't mean everything must be that way.

Moreover, the iPhone is and always has been sold as a closed system. It's not like they suddenly changed anything. It's not like a car.

Are you really that trusting of companies to do the "right thing", or is it just Apple that is afforded that level of trust?

Apple isn't the only company I trust, but I do afford them a much higher level of trust than other companies.

Because in their decades of existence they've never done anything evil like "bricking" 1st generation iPhones when their owners decided they wanted to add a little more functionality to their systems.

There's so much ignorance in that one sentence that it hurts. The "bricking" was exclusively the fault of those who hacked their iPhones. The hacks involved editing critical system files. When software updates were (optionally, and with warnings) installed onto these iPhones, they stopped working. If you want to hack your iPhone, you can go right ahead, but you can't then expect Apple to continue to support it. You're on your own.

You bought the phone, just like you buy a bar of soap or a pair of jeans or a TV or a house. Why would you give any company the right to reduce the functionality of a product after you've bought and paid for it? You own it. And if you don't want them to have that right, why would you excuse the inclusion of that kind of ability in your system?

I did not buy it like a bar of soap, and that's just my point. I bought a highly complex device, and years of software updates. In the time I've had it, the functionality has increased dramatically. When I bought it, there weren't even third-party apps. Now that those are allowed, the security risks have increased, and so Apple has built in extra security measures.

It's amusing to me because I actually have AT&T for TV, internet, and wireless service. I don't have a land-line, so VoIP isn't even an issue. But I see your point (not that it's a good one). AT&T wouldn't disable my internet if I hooked up, for example, Vonage. There's a lot of competition out there, and people can choose other options. If AT&T chose to make your scenario their policy, I could chose someone else, but they wouldn't, because it would be bad business. None of this has anything to do with the iPhone.

Your neighborhood must be different than most people's neighborhoods in the US if you have a lot of choices regarding broadband service. Where I live, I have a choice between Comcast and Verizon FiOS for broadband internet. (At 512Kbps, I don't consider satellite internet to be broadband.) I couldn't get AT&T broadband internet service at my home no matter how much I might want it. For television service, I could add a couple of different satellite TV providers to my choices. And for wireless, there's basically 4 providers. Sure we can choose other options, just like you can have your iPhone in any color you want as long as it's either black or white. I wouldn't call that "a lot of competition."

It's kind of funny that you mention AT&T and how you could go elsewhere if you didn't like their service. What other carrier could you go to for wireless service with your iPhone? Are wireless carriers so commodity-like that you could you get the same service at any carrier?

And to your claim that you purchased "years of software updates," exactly how many years of updates did you purchase? Is it written somewhere that Apple will update your software, or are you assuming that because the iPhone 2.0 software is free and backward-compatible with the first iPhones that it will always be free and compatible?

When it comes to the "security" excuse, if you buy that load of horse manure, then you probably also believe that being forced to take of your shoes or surrender your laptop at the airport is making us safer, too. The issue is not your security or the network security -- it's the securities held by the Apple shareholders who are orgasmic at the thought that all these independent software developers will be forced to give Apple a cut of their revenues. That's the only way to legally get your app on the iPhones of the smug hipsters who are eager to insult people who expect that when they buy a tool, they should be able to use it for whatever they want to use it for. Yes, they'd rather maintain their adoration of a corporation than entertain for a moment the thought that when those first 2-year contracts expire next June, Apple is still not going to allow you to unlock your phone, and that prohibition might justifiably be called "evil."

Or perhaps monopolistic. Microsoft's saga of trials for monopolistic practices stemmed from it's including a browser in their OS. They didn't prevent users from installing another browser or prevent companies from developing other browsers and selling them to Windows users. Nope. They just included it in the OS and because the product worked well enough, most users didn't bother changing. It was just a few malcontents who wanted to use an alternate browser, even though they knew that Microsoft wasn't required to support competitor's products. Except when the court told them they had to.

Microsoft probably never dreamed that they could get away with a scenario where they would lock down their OS, take kickbacks from an ISP to mandate that users stick with just that carrier, provide updates which maliciously cripple the machines of users who foolishly thought that they could do what they wished with the machine they purchased, create a single channel for add-on software which they controlled and exacted a toll from anyone who wanted to sell to their captive market. Somehow, I can't see there being such a spirited defense of those practices from a company not headquartered in Cupertino.

Each of us assign different weight to the various components of the thing called "value". It's no surprise then, that I would find valueless that which you find valuable. I didn't buy an iPhone because I chose not to for many of the reasons I've described here. You did buy one -- along with millions of others -- but I can't help but wonder how much of your defense of Apple and its product is a true defense and how much is rationalization of behavior which would be quickly condemned coming from someone else in order to keep yourself from feeling you may have made a mistake.