Now I understand some of the moral tone of the objection. The people who object, if I'm understanding correctly, believe that there was a violation of a social contract or even of the user's personal space (as represented by their device). Would it be different if it were a web app that you had to log into? Often, these users are banned for terms of use violations, and the app is upgraded arbitrarily.
In my view, no one has an inherent right to the application. The developer has a right to dictate the terms of use, *paid or not*. If I don't like the terms of use, I am free to use another application. If the developer of an app makes a great app but has a TOU which shuts me down for some arbitrary reason, it sucks, but I am free to uninstall it and use another app, or write my own. I definitely don't have an entitlement to use any application out there, at will, even if I paid for it, unless I'm willing to understand and submit to the app's TOU. As for the space represented by the device, the application *is designed* to communicate with the mother ship. It's *designed* to be shut down or upgraded. It's not handing control over the device to the developer, but the application itself allows remote control over its own function. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to android-discuss@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en.
