backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by .. on Oct 19 at 8:46 PM


The T-Mobile G1 features Google's Android OS  (Source: CNET)
Just like the Apple with its iPhone, Google is looking to keep its Android phone programs under tight reins

The news that Apple's iPhone had a kill switch built in that could destroy users apps that they had bought and paid for was at first met with incredulity.  When users discovered that the rumors were indeed true, they reacted with shock and anger.  Now Google has a similar situation brewing after it was revealed that its G1 phone which features its Android OS has a similar kill switch.

The tidbit was gleaned from the user contract terms of Google's Android Market, which it uses to sell software, similar to Apple's App Store.  The terms stated that Google can remotely kill your programs, describing, "Google may discover a product that violates the developer distribution agreement ... in such an instance, Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your device at its sole discretion."

While the G1 phone from T-Mobile does not go on sale till October 22, many have been lent to reporters, so detailed information is becoming available.  While some may be angry at Google's decision, others are saying Google is treating the issue in more of a sensitive manner than Apple.  Google is acknowledging the kill switch for Android at the time of release.  Apple, critics point out, only acknowledged that a kill switch existed when a developer discovered it and loudly pronounced its existence to the internet community.

Also Google says that it will try to refund users for any deleted Apps.  While this sounds common sense, iPhone users have yet to discover if they will get anything back if Apple deletes their Apps.  Google, on the other hand, says it will make "reasonable efforts to recover the purchase price of the product ... from the original developer on your behalf."  It will recover as much as it can from the developer and if it cannot offer a full refund it will redistribute whatever it collects to give a partial refund.

The kill switch also makes more sense as Android is decidedly more dangerous when it comes to applications.  It does not pre-screen its applications like Apple -- anything can be sold on its market.  This raises the possibility of malicious applications.  Google has given no indication that it will delete or prevent the release of applications that overlap its products, something Apple has actively done.

Google is also kind enough to provide users with a 24-hour satisfaction guarantee, where unsatisfied users can return their application in this timeframe for a full refund.  Android Market users also get access to an unlimited number of downloads for their purchased programs, helpful in the case of phone loss or failure.

Injecting a bit of humor, Google also added that "no robots were harmed in the making of this product" and that further, "None of the products are intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities, life support systems, emergency communications, aircraft navigation or communication systems, air traffic control systems or any other such activities in which case the failure of the products could lead to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage."

The new user terms also include friend "shout-outs" from Google, in which it plugs the various developers, groups, and companies that were instrumental in launching the OS. 




Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

After the fact
By zsejk on 10/16/2008 10:21:09 AM , Rating: 3
I like that Google is dealing with this issue "in a more sensitive manner" than Apple... of course this only after coming out with their phone months after Apple did. Not really Google's grand first-do-no-harm accomplishment, learning from Apple's mistakes. I dare say Google would've dealt with matters in exactly the same way Apple did, had they managed to come out with their phone first. And of course, they still might. After all, they're only promising "reasonable" efforts.

Just my two rant cents...

;)




RE: After the fact
By JasonMick on 10/16/2008 10:36:43 AM , Rating: 3
Eh...maybe, but the two company's are reacting to uniquely different situations.

Apple really should have no problems with viruses/malware as they extensive pre/post screen apps for problems. They're using the kill switch as a weapon in case any apps encroach to far into their territory. It may also give them a weapon to use against customers who unlock their phone to use other networks.

Google on the other hand is by all indications only using this to kill virus bearing programs.

The two situations are very different, so to say Google would react like Apple makes little sense, as they're not reacting to the same perceived threat.


RE: After the fact
By porkpie on 10/16/2008 10:45:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Google on the other hand is by all indications only using this to kill virus bearing programs
Its it bit early to make such grand pronouncements, don't you think?


RE: After the fact
By Goty on 10/16/2008 1:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Notice the qualifier "by all indications" in that sentence. It's not a "grand pronouncement", as you call it.


RE: After the fact
By zsejk on 10/16/2008 10:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm... you may be right.

Still, I find it hard to do a comparison between actions already taken by Apple, and things Google may or possible will or by all indications will or most likely will at least try to do.

It's about as sensible as my annoying "Google woulda" statement.

;)

And yet still.. who will ever know what Google would've done, had they been the first to come out with their phone... is all I was trying to say. Maybe they decided to limit their kill switch to perceived threats they can sell as legitimate threats to users, after observing Apple's dealings with kill-switching simply unwanted-by-Apple apps.

:)


RE: After the fact
By robinthakur on 10/17/2008 7:52:18 AM , Rating: 2
Mick, that's being a bit emotive really, don'tcha think? Apple using a kill switch as a weapon? Not really. Any Apps which encroach too far into the territory of their proprietary apps don't get through the vetting process of what Apple chooses to offer through its Appstore to its customers. I bet you Rockstar wishes it had a killswitch on GTA3 after the hot coffee row foamed up... Apple likewise does not allow its phone to be used across all networks or to be jailbroken and still receive updates under warranty. Its not a case that an end-user can simply unlock the phone without circumventing the firmware security like you can with most phones, as its tied in to the firmware/base band etc. Apple products do have a certain amount of control over their constituent parts by Apple including their software. These are the rules, deal with it, or don't buy it.

Google is " By all indications " using this only against virus bearing apps etc. but really that's just conjecture on your part right now as they havent used it yet.

I think you will see increasing use of kill switches in the coming years as companies take their intellectual property rights and responsibilities much more seriously.


Wow - Google's switch is even worse than Apple's
By Sunrise089 on 10/16/2008 11:10:26 AM , Rating: 1
I see above the usual "able to predict the future" crowd has pronounced that Apple will use their kill switch for evil while Google will use their switch for good. But I wonder how closely everyone has pondered this little gem:

"Google, on the other hand, says it will make 'reasonable efforts to recover the purchase price of the product ... from the original developer on your behalf.'"

So in other words Google has decided not to screen applications, but if someone downloads an app from a company that takes the money and runs, Google isn't willing to put any of their own money on the line.

Couple that with the different approaches to screening - Apple before the fact, so that only a tiny number of disallowed programs will seep through (an example I thought of would be a simple snake game that displays an adult video clip if a certain combination of things occurred...no idea if that's feasible on the iPhone though) and therefore few occasions to use the kill switch. Compare that to Google, which if they really don't pre-screen will have to kill tons of stuff. In both scenarios the same number of programs can and will be banned based on the same policy, but only in the case of Andriod is one likely to be out cash on a regular basis.

Do no evil eh? :)




By kondor999 on 10/16/2008 11:37:56 AM , Rating: 2
I love how Apple devotees will trade away their essential liberty for a little temporary security.

They deserve (and will get) neither.


RE: Wow - Google's switch is even worse than Apple's
By flydian on 10/16/2008 6:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
Essential liberty? To what?

I'm no fan of Apple, and don't like this "kill switch" idea at all. But I don't see how Apple screening apps before they sell them to me is a loss of some "essential liberty".


By Kary on 10/17/2008 11:59:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't see how Apple screening apps before they sell them to me is a loss of some "essential liberty".


I prefer to do my own screening for what apps I want to use (as opposed to taking Apples word that Apple programs are so great no one could improve on them and therefor they aren't going to allow programs that duplicate functionality).

(possibly different discussion) Are Macs also similar to this? On a PC I can pick ANY APPLICATION from ANYONE I choose (and hence there is a greater chance to get malware) and I prefer the variety to the risk.

Similarly, if I develop my own application for the gPhone, do I have to put it up on Googles page for sale and buy it before I can use it or can I load apps directly to the phone?


By geddarkstorm on 10/16/2008 12:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
How would it be Google's fault if you, on your own free will, download something bad from a third party that borks your stuff, doesn't live up to its promises, or breaks Google's EUA and has to be killed? How is it Google's responsibility to clean up your mess? It's like saying the US government should refund your money once your bank account is cleaned out for falling into one of those Nigeria e-mail scams. Sorry, if someone chooses to give their bank account information away, or chooses to download a third party app without looking into the developer and such, then the consequences are there's. That's the price of having the freedom that developers can make stuff for Android without Google watching over their shoulder, and that users can then download that stuff. The fact Google goes after the malicious developer to get your money back is a great thing - they have no real obligation to do so other than being nice.


By flydian on 10/16/2008 6:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How would it be Google's fault if you, on your own free will, download something bad from a third party that...breaks Google's EUA and has to be killed?


(quote edited for the specific point I disagree with)

Because I'm downloading it through a Google site designed for hosting apps for this Google OS. Why is it up to me to screen the apps for compliance with the Google EUA, when they're hosted on a site run by Google?

I just think its wrong for a store to sell me something, only to take it away from me later, telling me that they never should have allowed me to buy it in the first place, and that they may or may not be able to refund me even some of my money.

Dig deep into those multi-billion dollar pockets Google. I think you can find a few bucks in there to refund my money when you screw up.


By glennpratt on 10/16/2008 3:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
Apple already has killed apps that compete with them, and killed other apps that they just plain don't like.

There is absolutely no reason to believe Google will act in a similar manner. There's nothing more to it.


Mafias, Corp's & Gov'ts
By joshstrike on 10/16/2008 12:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
What's the difference between the government of China monitoring their citizens' web hits, the government of the US monitoring their citizens' phone calls, and Google monitoring their users' email, downloads, and running processes?

Not a hell of a lot. They're basically mafias.

I'm a tech lover and coder, cutting-edge user, etc. ...I own a GPS device and a cell phone. It would be insane, in my opinion, to buy a phone that includes GPS capability, where the manufacturing licensee / sole software provider has complete control over the apps long-distance, and also happens to collaborate with a government (like China's) that executes dozens of people daily in mobile death chambers for, essentially, thought-crimes.

A good question, and one that Cali-based tech scribes might mull, is how many people have been executed in the past 3-4 years in China for searching verboten material on Google, since "do no evil" caved and let the government there dictate which search terms were to be blocked.

No one should buy their phone or their stinkin' OS. There's no need for it, obviously; all the tools are already out there. It's disgusting, and until they take a moral stand for privacy above all -- and ESPECIALLY above profit motive -- they should be given no legitimate business whatsoever.




RE: Mafias, Corp's & Gov'ts
By silentdrowning on 10/16/2008 1:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
There's no privacy anymore. The difference between using consumer devices that allow you to be geolocated (is this even a word?) here and using consumer devices as a Chinese person in China is . . .one person is Chinese, in China.

The issue is not about a naive belief that we can attain individual privacy once again with consumer rights and corporate retrictions (this will NEVER HAPPEN) but about a totalitarian government versus a democratic society.

With communication comes disclosure. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

My break's over.


RE: Mafias, Corp's & Gov'ts
By joshstrike on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mafias, Corp's & Gov'ts
By silentdrowning on 10/16/2008 5:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
You have to define "corrupted" bro. Yours almost sounds like the philisophical rant of a criminal ruminating on what would be necessary, concerning communications methods, to get away with a crime.

The "common trust" between communicating parties you speak of demands not just trust in the efficacy of the communication channels but also that the channels are relatively free from 'evil' acts (eg, Google snagging an app off of your phone while you're making a 911 call, or Joe the Plumber sniping your credit card number with a cellular monitor cause he's broker)

We normally accept a good amount of bandwidth overhead, NSA randomally monitoring channels of comm or whatever, as good faith users of private communications because we in the good old USA realize that, this is the important part, only evil doers (on average by far) have anything to worry about concerning 'oppressive governments' and someone's gotta stop these guys.

Yeah, ask the guy who was busted by the DHS if he was doing anything illegal with his laptop that gained the interest of our corrupting government.

By the way, if AT&T or [your favorite profiteering tel com collaborator] owns the channels of communications you demand to be private--you're in for a big suprise. They'll provide for a socially acceptable modicum of privacy but, yeah, I highly recommend you hire Tyson Gay to run your encrypted documents to whomever in Burma if you want a high degree of privacy.



RE: Mafias, Corp's & Gov'ts
By mars777 on 10/16/2008 9:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, ask the guy who was busted by the DHS if he was doing anything illegal with his laptop that gained the interest of our corrupting government.


It is irrelevant if he was doing something illegal or not as a consequence of monitoring.

Monitoring(phone calls, mail etc.) should be illegal without a court mandate, because the court should decide if a person is breaking the law and should be taken off its right to privacy.

Monitoring itself is breaking the law (at least in my country), no matter if a person does it or the government itself.


RE: Mafias, Corp's & Gov'ts
By joshstrike on 10/17/2008 6:45:30 AM , Rating: 2
Look, casting suspicion on people who want their communications to remain private because "they must be hiding something" is the forward wedge of totalitarianism. In America, which is an allegedly free country, we expect more than a polite modicum of deference to an historical right to privacy; we have a system of law posited on innocence until proof of guilt; stops are illegal without a reasonable articulable suspicion, and searches are worthless without a warrant.
And that's what our government's allowed to do. For them, we make exceptions because we pay taxes and they work for us. A private company like Google, in complicity with the government, might eavesdrop to stop the bad guys... but to drop in on your own processes on your own hardware, purely for their own private reasons, is a quantum leap from that in terms of invasiveness. Who is actually doing the eavesdropping makes a big difference. Do I care if DHS listens to my calls? Not really. Google? Well, who at google is doing it, and why? They're people like us; they don't work for the government, they aren't bound by legal constraints, no one knows what they're doing. I know a girl who worked for Google who found out her boyfriend was talking about breaking up with her, by entering his Gmail account from work. They don't know. She still works there.

So the conclusion has to be that this hardware / software combo is a poison pill. Everyone has something to hide; it doesn't have to be illegal. We have a right to keep our dirty laundry to ourselves.


an important trait
By tastyratz on 10/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: an important trait
By Sunrise089 on 10/16/2008 11:13:31 AM , Rating: 2
"Apple obviously has it to strongarm customers, Google as a failsafe."

How the heck is this obvious? They have the same functionality and are both subject to the exact same sorts of abuses.

If Google has these noble aims to protect users and mobile providers, why not pre-screen? It isn't like they won't have to screen everything after it's released anyways if they want to catch viruses, exploits, etc.


RE: an important trait
By tastyratz on 10/16/2008 1:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
Apple has proven its about censorship and stopping competing products with their implementation. They screen everything to make sure its something they approve of (and nothing like what they offer)
they didn't communicate it to consumers either.

Google came right out and said they have an "oh S#%!" button. While both apple and google have the same capabilities history dictates google is more likely to honor its open atmosphere and image. Prescreening can be invasive. This is presented as more of a failsafe.

If someone found a way to manipulate their cell service by an open platform developed application so they were able to receive free minutes/texts/etc.
what options could the provider have?

Disable the apps or the phones.

Actively hunt down each phone hoping to nab people after they already stole services or just shut off service to all android phones?
Killing the app sounds like the better option to me. I am sure its more comforting to providers as well.


RE: an important trait
By robinthakur on 10/17/2008 8:07:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yes but would Apple retain all your unanonimised search queries to be demanded by law enforcement or the MPAA/RIAA at any point or censor what the iPhone can search for in the Chinese market?

Nah thought not. Whilst Google's declaration of the oh Sh&$* button's purpose are to be applauded, they have had a long time to watch Apple's steps into the market as well as their misteps and hopefully learn from them. MS, Google and Apple (amongst other) employees work and live in a corporate brainwashing induced haze which states that whatever the company decided is the best for its end users. None of them are particularly noble.

Apple's is a closed system apart from what the SDK for the iPhone reveals. Look at the Apps store and what's on offer and tell me that people are limited in what they can design! There's a tremendous depth and range of stuff, and what i've tried so far (about 30 apps) are decent and useful on a daily basis. They never claim to be fully open source like Linux et al. and asking Apple to stop being secretive is like asking a sane, normal american to vote McCane, i.e. not gonna happen. Don't assume that the secrecy exists for sinister reasons necessarily, it is Apple's PR stretegy.


emergency communications?
By rie on 10/16/2008 11:01:02 AM , Rating: 3
does that mean if it reboots in the middle of a 911 call,they're totally off the hook?




RE: emergency communications?
By silentdrowning on 10/16/2008 12:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
Probably, I say. Considering that FCA mandate requires 911 call ability on all phones, even those without a service plan, they're probably hard wired not to allow software to disrupt such a call. So if a 911 call is disrupted I would bet the liability would fall on the cell phone manufacturer. Who knows. . .


Closed computing is inevitable.
By reader1 on 10/16/2008 10:50:06 AM , Rating: 2
This is one more step towards closing all computing devices.

It's only a matter of time before Google realizes how stupid it is to delete apps after the damage has been done. Screening software beforehand is better.

The iPhone will outsell Android phones primarily because it's a closed system. Average people want filtered software, they want a gatekeeper.

There are no significant disadvantages to having multiple closed systems competing with each other.




By silentdrowning on 10/16/2008 1:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ah. .. closed apps can be hacked or even pass through Apple's careful screening process and then you're back to the same liability question.

Although I agree that Apple is trying to what Microsoft did back in its early days, create a propietry empire, I don't think the business model will succeed. I predict Android based phones will gain a huge market share into potential Apple customers and possible pass it up.


Did i hear anyone say..
By raghavny80 on 10/16/2008 11:35:14 AM , Rating: 2
that Microsoft is the evil Galactic empire and Steve Ballmer is a Sith lord running the evil empire.




RE: Did i hear anyone say..
By coolPC on 10/16/2008 11:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
Probably true but then apple is lord vader trying to enlist his son to the dark side so together they can overthrow the emperor and rule the galaxy father and son


New info
By theslug on 10/16/2008 6:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know if this was already posted, but the killswitch is not quite what people have made it out to be, according to this:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/152383/why_androids...




RE: New info
By flydian on 10/16/2008 7:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
Which is all fine and dandy, assuming that all of the apps that I download from the Google-run market are provided for free. I'm not interested in paying money for the kind of insecurity and uncertainty being offered here.

P.S. I like open source apps. I've donated to the makers of many that I've found myself using more than once or twice. However, I would not have paid any of them money up front, and then crossed my fingers hoping that they worked, were virus-free, were legal, or whatever.


It's just a phone.
By silentdrowning on 10/16/2008 1:36:44 PM , Rating: 1
If you buy a car from dealer X and then the manufacturer of part Z recalls the car because there's a malicious part. You return the car, essentially the part, back to the dealer so the part is extracted and returned to manufacturer. Althought the dealer doesn't compensate you for 'pain and suffering' you do get the bad system repaired for free.

That's as far as I can stretch the metaphor.

If you're some douche tits who's gonna whine because your phone's magnificently open O.S. has been hijacked by an evil application (one which your stupid ass should've guessed because it was described as "Free XXX streaming torrent porn downloading tip caculator mobile Myspace client" but you downloaded anyway) and you have to take two minutes to reset your phone and reload your addy book and another five to ten minutes to reinstall all the goofy, if legitimate, applications you had . . . then whine away.

Because you just loaded up your phone with a bunch of open source freebies. Goofball.

Apple's "secure" celly is for folks who lack discretion with application purchase and use, and are more concerned with showing the world how their safe $500 toy looks like a mug full of beer.




RE: It's just a phone.
By flydian on 10/16/2008 7:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
But this seems to me to be more like buying a car from dealer X, paying extra money to dealer X to add part Z, and then dealer X recalls the car because there's a malicious part (part Z). Then, someone from dealer X rips part Z out of the car in the middle of the night, and leaves a note on the windshield saying "We have determined that part Z that we sold you was malicious, and have removed it for you."

Sure, the bad part was "repaired" for free, but where's the money I paid for it?

But I basically agree with the rest of your post. If I bought the same part Z from some guy out of the trunk of his car and it got removed for being malicious, that's my own stupid fault.


There goes that product
By djc208 on 10/16/2008 10:14:43 AM , Rating: 2
Damn and I was in beta for my plugin to allow control of heart-lung bypass machines by cell phone. Doctor wouldn't even have to come into the building to monitor you.




Kill switch political uses
By Pragmatus on 10/16/2008 11:05:48 AM , Rating: 2
If only there were a kill switch for those annoying political ads.........

:o)
.




By Johnsreply on 10/16/2008 11:34:02 AM , Rating: 2
What seems interesting is that everybody is missing who failed and therefore who is responsible:

The terms stated that Google can remotely kill your programs, describing, "Google may discover a product that violates the developer distribution agreement ... in such an instance, Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your device at its sole discretion."

Since GOOGLE accepts the product to be sold through their store at the time of their acceptance it must meet the requirements of the distribution agreement.

We as cusotmers are relying on that fact when we spend our money.

If Google in the future determines they made a mistake and IF they choose to remove the product IN NO WAY does that mean I am willing to relinquish my rights to a full refund...

They are basically saying if we (Google) Screw up you pay for it, oh but we'll do our best to get your money back... gee thanks but no thanks.

If you screw up you pay for it Im not.




Google This...
By jahwarrior on 10/16/2008 5:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
the message from google as they proceed to erase all your apps and give you a partial refund of $.01




now i dont usually nitpick
By omnicronx on 10/18/2008 2:06:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While the G1 phone from T-Mobile does not go on sale till October 22
But till?




Please inform me
By FITCamaro on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Please inform me
By Brandon Hill on 10/16/2008 10:04:26 AM , Rating: 5
I don't know, maybe I'll just ask Joe the Plumber -- Joe knows all.


RE: Please inform me
By IceBreakerG on 10/16/2008 10:07:19 AM , Rating: 2
I think Joe the Plumber is smart enough not to be an over hyped phone with a "kill switch" as a "feature" :)


RE: Please inform me
By Souka on 10/16/2008 10:51:51 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe our hero Jack Baeur will use a T-Mobile Andriod OS phone while driving his Toyota Tundra truck?

Maybe he'll use it to replace a nuclear facility's computer after being sabatoged by terrorists?

Who knows... :)


RE: Please inform me
By cheetah2k on 10/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Please inform me
By BruceLeet on 10/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Please inform me
By xti on 10/16/2008 3:31:45 PM , Rating: 5
someone buy this man a TV!


RE: Please inform me
By Samus on 10/17/2008 1:33:43 AM , Rating: 2
lol


RE: Please inform me
By Meinolf on 10/17/2008 4:59:11 PM , Rating: 1
RE: Please inform me
By docmilo on 10/16/2008 10:06:32 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously, you've never been to a nuclear facility. They um, well, they, you know, it's like...


RE: Please inform me
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 1:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
Guess I'll have to ask my friend who DOES work in a nuclear power facility.


RE: Please inform me
By nothingtoseehere on 10/17/2008 2:10:19 AM , Rating: 2
Like a series of tubes?


RE: Please inform me
By on 10/19/2008 8:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
its serious business


RE: Please inform me
By djc208 on 10/16/2008 10:10:14 AM , Rating: 2
It's that new web interface for the control system. Now you can move control rods or change coolant flow from home on your Android Phone, no need to go to work. If you shake the phone real hard it SCRAMs the reactor. Homer Simpson eat your heart out.

Besides I think they meant that the Andoid OS isn't designed for those applications, not that the phone could be used for it.


RE: Please inform me
By Hieyeck on 10/16/2008 11:27:04 AM , Rating: 5
Try staying at a Holiday Inn Express. I hear it makes you pretty smart.


RE: Please inform me
By Johnsreply on 10/16/2008 11:30:48 AM , Rating: 5
What seems interesting is that everybody is missing who failed and therefore who is responsible:

The terms stated that Google can remotely kill your programs, describing, "Google may discover a product that violates the developer distribution agreement ... in such an instance, Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your device at its sole discretion."

Since GOOGLE accepts the product to be sold through their store at the time of their acceptance it must meet the requirements of the distribution agreement.

We as cusotmers are relying on that fact when we spend our money.

If Google in the future determines they made a mistake and IF they choose to remove the product IN NO WAY does that mean I am willing to relinquish my rights to a full refund...

They are basically saying if we (Google) Screw up you pay for it, oh but we'll do our best to get your money back... gee thanks but no thanks.

If you screw up you pay for it Im not.


RE: Please inform me
By silentdrowning on 10/16/2008 11:38:11 AM , Rating: 5
If Homer can operate a nuclear facility while constantly leaving his post to get into various shenanigans . . . Well, couldn't a cell phone?


RE: Please inform me
By ramuman on 10/16/2008 2:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
If I remember my Simpsons correctly, even a brick tied to a lever could do Homer's job. A drinking bird could also do the job, even remotely, provided it wasn't knocked over. Clearly a cell phone would be up to the task.


RE: Please inform me
By PhoenixKnight on 10/16/2008 5:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the chicken that filled in for him for a while he was in the barbershop quartet.

Homer : Hey, fellows, I'm back!
Carl : Oh, that's great. Your replacement was getting tired.
[shot of a chicken in Homer's chair, pecking the controls]
Hey, Queenie, you can go now!
Homer : I'll give her a good home.
[scene shifts back to Bart and Lisa, centered on Homer's
stomach]
And I did.


RE: Please inform me
By geddarkstorm on 10/16/2008 12:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
What, corporations aren't allowed to be facetious :P?


RE: Please inform me
By MastermindX on 10/16/2008 1:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
I remember reading the same disclaimer before.

I believe it was in Windows' EULA.

I believe it's common for commercial OSes to have that kind of disclaimer.


RE: Please inform me
By coolPC on 10/16/2008 11:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
all it has to be able to do is file paperwork. seriously, with all the piles of paperwork required to do even the smallest thing in a nukie plant, they would save money by destroying the plant an building a new one that burns paper.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay













botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki