Why does the author removing them for the Market justify removing them from handsets?
Just because the developer decides that they don't want to sell (or give away) the app anymore doesn't mean that they should have the power to make that decision retroactive.
I could perhaps see doing it as a sort of nuclear-option security thing; if someone had released an app that made phones overheat or their batteries explode or routed all your phonecalls through Russian Mafia servers. But I'm fairly suspicious that just having this capability will lead to it being used for cases of 'sellers regret'. Or that it might get used if a carrier put enough legal pressure on Google to get rid of something they didn't like. (Hypothetically: something that allowed tethering without paying an additional fee, on carriers that charge extra for it. Or something that allowed VoIP, on carriers that don't allow it. Etc.) The simple fact that the capability exists means that they can be ordered to use it, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that, given how easily abused the court system is.
Still, it's better than the iPhone, if only because at least with Android you have the option of installing applications without going through the Market, which are apparently untouchable. It might make me more suspicious about getting anything through the Market that seemed like it might be controversial, though.
Just because the developer decides that they don't want to sell (or give away) the app anymore doesn't mean that they should have the power to make that decision retroactive.
I could perhaps see doing it as a sort of nuclear-option security thing; if someone had released an app that made phones overheat or their batteries explode or routed all your phonecalls through Russian Mafia servers. But I'm fairly suspicious that just having this capability will lead to it being used for cases of 'sellers regret'. Or that it might get used if a carrier put enough legal pressure on Google to get rid of something they didn't like. (Hypothetically: something that allowed tethering without paying an additional fee, on carriers that charge extra for it. Or something that allowed VoIP, on carriers that don't allow it. Etc.) The simple fact that the capability exists means that they can be ordered to use it, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that, given how easily abused the court system is.
Still, it's better than the iPhone, if only because at least with Android you have the option of installing applications without going through the Market, which are apparently untouchable. It might make me more suspicious about getting anything through the Market that seemed like it might be controversial, though.