Automatic Updates - Just whos' device is it?

[Lucio]

Ok, this morning my phone starts behaving oddly, popping up a Terms of Service agreement for "Google Play", and my first reaction is crap I must have picked up a virus. After some digging, I find that actually it's just a replacement for the Android market

However, after doing some further digging. I can't find any way to control whether my phone choses to recieve updates of services like this, and even rolling back the Market app back to factory install doean't remove this prompt and it got me thinking about why, as a consumer, am I forced to passively accept the goalposts changing? Is it right that some faceless developer thousands of miles away can force a change onto our personal property, or deny it's ability to function?

Another example is Facebook's constant stream of "improvements", major changes to the software that have consequences. As an IT literate person, I'd like some actual choice wether I need features suchas "suggest a friend" or repeated reminders to update. I resisted moving my FB app on my phone for as long as possible only to find that eventually the choice got removed from me when they blocked older versions from working.

I'm not arguing that all change is bad, but it does seem to me that we're surrendering an awful lot of choice the more technology moves on.

[MSIC]

I think you've made a very fair argument - from a practical point of view it seems easier to give in to the large corporates than to resist, else you quickly build up a pile of anger with no obvious or easy way to direct it (although using this forum is probably a reasonable way to vent something).
Still, even writing that makes me annoyed, since it isnt right.

I wonder if a part of it comes from us having a sense of ownership over something (a device, a piece of media, even a website perhaps) - feeling that it is not just familiar but also 'ours'; and that when that is challenged because somewhere in an 85 page EULA its written that we actually have no rights at all we are left feeling that something that was ours (although not really) has been taken away?

I wonder if my children's generation will feel the same?
One can't but help to think of Orwell's 1984 or its ilk.

[peterb]

The majority of users don't care about it, fewer still read or understand the eula.

[scaryjim]

Honestly? If I'd paid for an app and I was then forced to use a significantly different version of it I'd be a bit miffed, but anything I get for free? Don't care. If someone wants to give me a service free of charge, they can make whatever changes to that service they want.

Besides, you're looking at mobile apps the wrong way. A lot of them are just a content retrieval method, and the actual content you view is pulled off a web server and rendered on your device just like a web page. And in the same way that people will change their websites on a whim, they can change those apps on a whim, too. I'm pretty sure Android Market (sorry, Play Shop) is one of those - Google simply slap up some new XML & stylesheets and BAM, new Market app. But considering it's free, I don't see any problem with that as long as the basic functionality is still available.

[KeyboardDemon]

We use Android phones for work and some of our business critical processes are run through bespoke software on these phones. The issue we have with these updates is that until the software we use is available through Play Stop (or was that Play Shop?). Updating could actually break our bespoke software solution which could end up being very costly for us.

[Saracen]

.... Is it right that some faceless developer thousands of miles away can force a change onto our personal property, or deny it's ability to function?....

If I understand your situation correctly, the problem is implicit in the conflation of your "property" and the service(s) you use. And that is because of a blurring of the line between device, software, and service.

I don't use Android devices (or Market, Play Shop or whatever it's called) but if it's what I think it is, you're actually signed up to a service. It is reasonable to expect to have control over what's installed on your device, but (IMHO) not reasonable to expect external services to stay frozen is aspic, forever. Companies are going to want to improve (though it may not be seen as an improvement from your end) their service, in order to widen the market, or develop the opportunity to monetarise the customer base they already have. We've seen that time and again - what starts out as "free" ends up as a valuable business, and if they aren't charging the user, then they are selling some aspect of access to that userbase. Otherwise, how do you fund the continued existence of the free service?

Could you, therefore, simply stop using Market (or whatever it's called) entirely, and remove (0or "stop" the service running on your phone?

If so, do it. But if you don't, then it's implicit in the use of the service (and no doubt in the EULA) that it will evolve, and that means updates. So it seems to me that you have a choice - accept that a developer can amend the service and that you may have to accept updates, or stop using the service.

And that, IMHO, is the state of things today, because the line is blurring due to permanent-on broadband connections (or 3G/4G connections for mobile devices) that allow us to perceive things we use as "ours" because we access them through our devices, when in fact they're remote services.

[Saracen]

We use Android phones for work and some of our business critical processes are run through bespoke software on these phones. The issue we have with these updates is that until the software we use is available through Play Stop (or was that Play Shop?). Updating could actually break our bespoke software solution which could end up being very costly for us.

Then, without wishing to seem unsympathetic, I'd say whoever decided to put business-critical functions on those phones goofed in their decision, because they've made you a hostage to fortune with no control aspects of your business that you describe as "critical".

It's not a business-critical issue, but one of the reasons I've refused to use Steam for games is precisely this - you put your entire gaming investment in Steam's hands. And all I'd be putting at risk is access to those games.

But I've also said I will not, ever, move to a version of, for instance, MS Office, that uses a dumb terminal, software on remote servers and a browser interface. I won't be held hostage, now on in the future, in that way by either MS, my ISP or a browser. And for the same reason, I'm not putting essential business data in the "cloud". Backups (securely encrypted, by me at my end), maybe, but not the data itself. That is staying right where I can control it.

[MadduckUK]

You know, there is no formal requirement to android market - other markets are avaulable if you wish.

Worries me how people can yes their way through eula's and then think a popup is a virus...

[jim]

The most obvious example of this is the Other OS feature that Sony removed from the PS3.

It's certainly an unwelcome development, but if we demand increasing functionality of devices then I suspect we have to accept it. If we wanted to, we could revert to using a Nokia 3310 and then we wouldn't have to worry. Likewise, the PS2 doesn't need constant firmware updates.

Sooner or later it's going to affect pretty much every electronic device we own. I can't say I look forward to the day that my washing machine is downloading a patch, but I'm sure it'll happen.

[Behemoth]

Had the same issue with my new phone that I only bought yesterday, had a drunken accident on Thursday on the way home from work, could have done without that but never mind lol

[KeyboardDemon]

Then, without wishing to seem unsympathetic, I'd say whoever decided to put business-critical functions on those phones goofed in their decision, because they've made you a hostage to fortune with no control aspects of your business that you describe as "critical".

I'm not in a position to make the decision on these matters, what I can say is the company that creates the software is a service provider for us. They had a choice of three platforms, Blackberry was never in the running, they were using Windows Mobile but said that it would no longer be possible to continue beyond Windows Mobile 6.5 but they didn't say why and so we are left with Android and Galaxy S2 smart phones.

I don't know for sure that the recent updates will make any difference, but we have been warned not to agree to updates on the phone until further notice.

[mikerr]

You can choose to turn off automatic updating for apps in android,
and you don't even need to use android market/ play if you don't want.

This is android remember, not locked down zero choice apple iOS

As for changing interface & features on subsequent software releases,
Well that's an old problem with all software - its fluid, not set in stone.
So long as the data is kept separate, and in an accessible format/location e.g for backup / migration of apps.

[BobF64]

You can choose to turn off automatic updating for apps in android,
and you don't even need to use android market/ play if you don't want.

All except the android market, it always updates itself, I guess because its considered a key and vital component to the "android experience".

This is android remember, not locked down zero choice apple iOS

For the developers, not the end user. End users on android are, on average, no better or worse off than on iOS.

Google lets anyone build the OS and, technical skills permitting, install it on a device, iOS doesnt, not something most people do.

Publishing to android users is a lot easier, you arent at the whim and mercy of psychotic Apple "evaluators".

FWIW, the market update threw me too, mainly because of the name change.

[jim]

FWIW, the market update threw me too, mainly because of the name change.

Thankfully I'd read the article on HEXUS before the change hit

It really wasn't well advertised or explained by Google.