Rich Cannings, Android security lead:
Recently, we became aware of two free applications built by a
security researcher for research purposes. These applications
intentionally misrepresented their purpose in order to encourage
user downloads, but they were not designed to be used maliciously,
and did not have permission to access private data — or system
resources beyond permission.INTERNET. As the applications were
practically useless, most users uninstalled the applications
shortly after downloading them.After the researcher voluntarily removed these applications from
Android Market, we decided, per the Android Market Terms of
Service, to exercise our remote application removal feature on the
remaining installed copies to complete the cleanup.Proof that their system works as intended. Also proof that while Android Market is significantly less regulated than Apple’s App Store, it’s not a Wild West free-for-all.
I would add that it’s also proof that Google’s garden has walls, too. If Google can and HAS literally pulled apps off people’s phones, even for legitimate reasons, what’s to stop them from pulling other apps that they deem “inappropriate”?
Again, I’ll ask, how outraged would the press be if Apple did something like this, even for the right reasons?
At the end of the day, the big difference here between Apple’s and Google’s approach is one of proactive vs. reactive protection of the user base. Apple takes great pains to prevent malicious apps from getting on your phone in the first place, while Google waits until malware has already effected people, and then jumps in to stop further damage. Which one would you rather have?
