Jobs: App Store is huge; iPhone has a kill switch

Jobs: App Store is huge; iPhone has a kill switch

Summary: Apple CEO Steve Jobs says App Store users have downloaded more than 60 million software programs and confirmed that the iPhone has a kill switch so the company can nuke brand breaking software.In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Jobs noted that:Apple is selling an average of $1 million a day in applications;Jobs said App Store could "crest a half a billion" in annual sales;Apple is making enough on the App Store to cover expenses (it's all about the ecosystem and moving handsets).

SHARE:

Apple CEO Steve Jobs says App Store users have downloaded more than 60 million software programs and confirmed that the iPhone has a kill switch so the company can nuke brand breaking software.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Jobs noted that:

  • Apple is selling an average of $1 million a day in applications;
  • Jobs said App Store could "crest a half a billion" in annual sales;
  • Apple is making enough on the App Store to cover expenses (it's all about the ecosystem and moving handsets).

But the biggest nugget possibly comes in the second to last paragraph of the Journal story. Jobs confirmed that Apple can remove software from iPhones remotely. Jobs said he hopes Apple doesn't have to use that big red button, but it would be "irresponsible" not to have it. At least Jobs solved a little bit of the mystery around the kill switch, which has been debated heavily.Naturally, there were a few items Jobs didn't talk about:

  • Jobs didn't give an iPhone 3G sales figure;
  • He didn't--or wasn't asked--about the company's scaling issues with MobileMe.

Topics: iPhone, Apple, CXO, Enterprise Software, Mobility, IT Employment

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

46 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Where are real journalists when you need them?

    Mr. Jobs also glossed over the fact one of the most useful apps, if not THE most useful, was booted off the AppStore presumably to appease AT&T. Netshare, which allows you to tether your iPhone's 3G connection to a PC or notebook, is being locked out of the global marketplace over a single American company's greed.
    jeffathome
    • Apple's decision wasn't about greed,

      it was about whether or not Apple was going to be accomplice to users breaking AT&T's agreement. A legal issue. So the anger should be directed to AT&T here. If I pay for unlimited data, then it shouldn't matter what device is connected to the iPhone that is using the bandwidth. I paid for it and AT&T is wrong in prohibiting me from using it the way I want to use it.

      That said, It needs to be made much more clear to the marketplace what exactly is meant by an app that is brand breaking. That's way too vague and leaves too much room for abuse. I can see how Nullriver's product is brand breaking if it damages the relationships that were built to make the iPhone happen.
      People
      • Apple isn't being evil huh?

        What do you make of a them locking out the entire planet on account of AT&T? My provider doesn't prevent me from tethering my iPhone and from a few comments I've read, some countries actually promote the feature. What kind of a marketplace is it when the needs of one greedy corporation trump that of Apple's World wide iPhone partners?

        My home DSL often breaks down during stormy weather and it always happens when I'm day trading. Tethering my 3G connection is an indispensable feature, which is why I purchased the device when news of Netshare hit the wires.
        jeffathome
        • Here, read between the lines.

          ______________________________________
          It's AT&T's doing. Not Apple's
          ______________________________________
          I want to use Netshare as much as you do and for people outside AT&T's control they probably will be able to buy it from their App store.

          Apple has plenty of problems of their own however this is not one of them.
          People
        • One more thing.

          Companies are not evil, poeple are. Are the rocks that kill half buried women in Iran evil or those that throw them at their heads???
          People
          • In the sense that a rock

            is an inanimate concrete object, no it's not evil; however, a company is not a concrete object, but an abstract concept. Since a company is also made up of a group of people, yes it can be evil. If the purpose behind the company (or concept) is evil then the company (or concept) is evil. For example, we can say that someone has "evil intentions" or thinks "evil thoughts". Both of which are abstract concepts and not concrete objects. So, there's a big difference between a company and a rock.
            alaniane@...
          • Not exactly accurate

            I agree that a company and a rock have little in common other
            than that the company's walls may be built from rocks however
            this is where you are wrong. In addition to walls, these two
            objects also share that they both are manipulated by people and
            without them are passive just as an evil thought or idea alone is
            passive without action to back it. Evil is a uniquly human and
            cannot exist without our presence.

            So evil can come out of a company through those people
            responsibe for what it does however replace those same people
            with people who do good and it would appear that the company is
            good.

            The people of Iran, for example, are not in themselves evil
            however the leadership is. It's impossible to claim that the country
            is evil yet many will simplify it to that to make their point. It's when
            people begin to take the claim at face falue do I begin to worry.
            People
          • Who's minding the AppStore?

            Iran's leadership is evil? Says who, GW Bush and the Israel lobby? Half the planet thinks America's current leadership is evil so it's only a matter of perspective.

            Apple on the other hand is arbitrarily restricting everyone from tethering their iPhones. Apple is minding the AppStore, not AT&T.
            jeffathome
          • I say the Iranian leadership is evil.

            Please tell me why I'm wrong.
            People
          • RE: Who's minding the AppStore?

            ____________________________________________________
            The App would be there if AT&T permitted tethering.
            ____________________________________________________
            People
          • You haven't the slightest clue

            What if O2 in the UK decided email was forbidden on the iPhone? Should Apple lock the entire World out of email? That is what they are doing concerning tethering.
            jeffathome
          • You say the Iranian leadership is evil

            You say to tell you why you're wrong. Why don't you tell us why you're right?

            Iran wants to say we're here, we're strong.
            The only reason they're branded as "evil" is because the US doesn't want another nuclear power in the world. But from the Iranian's perspective, why shouldn't they be allowed to have that power as well?

            I don't want another nuclear power out there either, but saying the Iranian leadership is evil because they want power is quite moronic.

            If I were in the business of oversimplifying things to kindergarten level, I'd be more inclined to call Super Duper Dubbya evil. He's the one who has destroyed a country under false pretenses of 9/11 ties and possession of WMDs. He has singlehandedly destroyed the US's credibility for a whole generation, and some people still think he's good. That just boggles my mind.
            tikigawd
      • You're cpletely right

        Apple is just looking out for YOU, the consumer. Because they LOVE you so much!

        Apple is awesome
        tikigawd
  • RE: Jobs: App Store is huge; iPhone has a kill switch

    Can I have your job where I just regurgitate what other people say?

    Here let me try a little:

    In August 11th post Larry Dignan reported that the Wall Street Journal reported that Steve Jobs reported something. Not only did Jobs report something, but he reported multiple things. Included in the things that Larry Dignan reported about the Wall Street Journal report was the fact that Steve Job reported he did want to report about certain stuff.

    Ta Da!
    That'sHedley
    • That's how blogging works.

      Bloggers aren't journalists. They are opinionists. They take news reported by real journalists and see how many talkbacks they can get. The more talkbacks the more valuable they are to sites that sell advertising.

      Larry of course gets less talkbacks than any of the other bloggers on this site. I'm surprised he's still here.

      Create yourself a blog and you may be able to get his job.
      bjbrock
      • Re: That's how blogging works

        bjbrok: No offense, but...

        "Bloggers aren't journalists."

        He's an editor. That makes him a journalist.

        "They are opinionists."

        Where's the opinion? I don't see any. I see the equivalent of a 3rd grade book report regurgitating the Wall Street Journal article. ZDNet should create a bot to do this.

        "Create yourself a blog"

        No thanks.
        That'sHedley
        • A Question for Hedley

          You said: <i>Where's the opinion? I don't see any. I see the equivalent of a 3rd grade book report regurgitating the Wall Street Journal article.</i> *** Uh huh. Would you - or did you - in fact read the WSJ article is you hadn't seen this blog post? *** There are entire scientific journals of nothing but abstracts - summaries like this one, that alert the reader to the existence of content he might otherwise miss, and give a sufficient summary of the content to decide whether to follow up, and where to do so. *** A legitimate journalistic function, and not a matter of opinion (despite what the prevous poster said).
          fairportfan
          • Answers

            Usually, when I see it is a blog I go straight to the source as the reliability of blogs can be questionable. And the only reason why I "go to" blogs in the first place is the fact that Google News, etc. posts them as real articles.

            Yes, I am familiar with a meta-analysis and its function in scientific journals. However, regurgitating a single article with no additional content is not a meta-analysis. There is usually a compilation of data and summary of the findings. To which this "analysis" does not offer.
            That'sHedley
        • ...

          [i]Where's the opinion? I don't see any. I see the equivalent of a 3rd grade book report regurgitating the Wall Street Journal article. ZDNet should create a bot to do this.[/i]

          Then might I suggest you stop reading Larry's blog. You obviously don't care for what he posts.
          Badgered
          • Answer

            Actually I do care since I took my time to post to the original message. I was voicing my opinion that the value of his work was poor at best and perhaps he should spend more time on the content. Finally, I will stop reading his posts, but not for the reason you gave me. I will do so because he offers no content outside of the original article.
            That'sHedley