PDA

View Full Version : Apple iPhone Apps Coming, but Limited




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jan 11, 2007, 07:45 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

A New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/technology/11cnd-apple.html?hp&ex=1168578000&en=f1aed4fed98b8686&ei=5094&partner=homepage) reveals some information about Apple's iPhone and the possibility of 3rd party application.

The article quotes Steve Jobs about why Apple does not want to allow any 3rd party developer make applications for the iPhone:

“We define everything that is on the phone. You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers.”

While saying this, Jobs does reveal that there will likely be additional applications that can be bought later and installed, but that this will be in a "controlled environment". Apple adopts a similar approach with iPod game development -- only allowing specific products to be developed and released.



gwangung
Jan 11, 2007, 07:51 PM
I await the "Steve Jobs is a control freak" comments. :D

Asar
Jan 11, 2007, 07:51 PM
awww, just let us install what we want :confused:

neptunet
Jan 11, 2007, 07:51 PM
The iPhone can kiss my iAss.

It's going to be terrible without any 3rd party apps.

dan-o-mac
Jan 11, 2007, 07:51 PM
********! Then why did he keep stressing how cool it was to have OS X on it.

Aeolius
Jan 11, 2007, 07:53 PM
Salling Clicker (http://www.salling.com/Clicker/mac/) would be a natural app for the iPhone, which would lead to iPhone control of home automation via Indigo (http://www.perceptiveautomation.com/indigo/index.html) .

thegoldenmackid
Jan 11, 2007, 07:53 PM
********! Then why did he keep stressing how cool it was to have OS X on it.

it's not going to be able to opreate like osx...only look like osx and have some familiar apps, but you arent going to have a full os....thatd be crazy....its going to be "mini-Leopard"

siurpeeman
Jan 11, 2007, 07:53 PM
i hope i won't have to pay for ichat when it's released, if it's released at all.

spyderracer393
Jan 11, 2007, 07:54 PM
...I can see it now, all apps will be purchased through the iTS. This is obvious because the iPhone is synced with iTunes for everything -- music, videos, calendars, contacts, notes, etc...same deal with iPod. Just like games there will be a section of iTunes dedicated to iPhone apps.

mduser63
Jan 11, 2007, 07:54 PM
Gotta disagree with Steve on this one. It's Apple's job to engineer the phone in such a way that simply installing other apps can't prevent the phone from functioning. As for his assertion that it's more like an iPod than a computer, why did he stress that it runs OS X, Safari, Mail, Widgets, etc? Sounds like a computer to me...

I don't care if Apple requires a certification process for apps to be made available for the phone (perhaps through iTunes), but closing it off to small developers entirely is stupid. I'm sure big companies that can negotiate deals with Apple will be able to write apps for the iPhone, but it seems like some of the very best apps for the Mac are done by small developers.

paulpet
Jan 11, 2007, 07:55 PM
Did anyone else notice this little gem in the article?

The device is not currently compatible with the faster 3G wireless data networks that are driving sharp gains in cellular revenues in the United States, although several Apple insiders said the phone could be upgraded to 3G with software if Apple later decides to do so.

Anyone know if this could be true? I was assuming different chipsets would be involved to move from EDGE to 3G.

-Paul

dizastor
Jan 11, 2007, 07:56 PM
I'm still buying one.
Is it june yet?

dan-o-mac
Jan 11, 2007, 07:56 PM
it's not going to be able to opreate like osx...only look like osx and have some familiar apps, but you arent going to have a full os....thatd be crazy....its going to be "mini-Leopard"

My point was why did he state is has OS X(I know it's not a full version) as a feature, talk about running a real web browsers, then go ahead and state it's nothing like a computer. He's full of it.

Leondunkleyc
Jan 11, 2007, 07:58 PM
.

Aeolius
Jan 11, 2007, 08:01 PM
I still can't decide if it's a "Mini Mac Mini" (Mac Eentsy Weensy?) or an "iPod Wambo". :D

Whistleway
Jan 11, 2007, 08:02 PM
I would imagine that stance means, you can kiss corporate users goodbye !

Aeolius
Jan 11, 2007, 08:05 PM
I would imagine that stance means, you can kiss corporate users goodbye !

I doubt corporate users would buy a GPS-enabled phone that you cannot take the battery out of, anyway. And I have yet to hear if the battery is removable (I hope it is).

BillyShears
Jan 11, 2007, 08:05 PM
My point was why did he state is has OS X(I know it's not a full version) as a feature, talk about running a real web browsers, then go ahead and state it's nothing like a computer. He's full of it.

I initially thought that it running "OS X" (and Core Image, etc.) was a sign of third party developers being allowed in.

I'm not sure, but maybe he mentioned those to show it's proven technology, and not a whole new OS (with the accompanying bugs).

dr_lha
Jan 11, 2007, 08:08 PM
I'm still buying one.
I'm not. Not being able to install 3rd party apps is the deal breaker for me. Even if you could just install Dashboard widgets on it that would be infinitely superior to this "closed platform" idea. Shame, I was looking forward to owning one.

coumerelli
Jan 11, 2007, 08:09 PM
My point was why did he state is has OS X(I know it's not a full version) as a feature, talk about running a real web browsers, then go ahead and state it's nothing like a computer. He's full of it.

It's simple, I think. OS X is powerful. It has a powerful graphics engine. It has a gorgeous UI. It has an intuitive UI. It's solid and 'locked down' from un-authenticated/authorized intrusion. These can all be said of the 'OS X' on the iPhone. So, in essence, it IS OS X - just not the FULL OS X we use and rely on day in and day out.

MoparShaha
Jan 11, 2007, 08:12 PM
This is really a poor decision. Part of the allure of a smartphone is that it's a PDA as well. This means 3rd party programs. I use my PocketPC all the time, and rely mainly on 3rd party apps.

I understand Steve's reasoning, in that he wants a smooth, seemless device. This is somewhat analogous to Mac's being so stable because Apple controls the hardware and software, so OS X is programmed with every possible circumstance in mind, unlike Windows which must cope with a myriad of hardware situations (I know we're only talking about software with the iPhone though). Still, I agree with a previous poster who said it's Apple's responsibility to ensure the smooth operation of the phone portion of the device, regardless of 3rd party apps.

However disappointed I am by this decision, I think we need to realize this is Apple's first go at this device (and market), so they're being overly cautious. They want to make a good first impression on the majority of consumers, and that means making a simple, efficient, and reliable device. We might see changes once Apple gets a firm foothold in this market.

harmless
Jan 11, 2007, 08:16 PM
This is one hell of a computer.

But if you want it to be just a phone, Steve, guess what. You can keep it. I'm not interested any more.

*sigh*

I mean, he has to be kidding me. No Skype, SSH, VLC, Chat, Navigation, ... ?! Come on Apple, even *you* are not able to write every piece of software that could be useful for this thing.

This is kind of a Mac with only iLife on it. Guess Steve would love it. I just don't know anyone else who would.

dan-o-mac
Jan 11, 2007, 08:19 PM
I initially thought that it running "OS X" (and Core Image, etc.) was a sign of third party developers being allowed in.

I'm not sure, but maybe he mentioned those to show it's proven technology, and not a whole new OS (with the accompanying bugs).

I'm not really concerned if the OS is full or mini version. My main concern is quotes like this, “We define everything that is on the phone". Thanks, but no thanks. What if I wanted Adium on my phone but Apple doesn't. Let the user decide what they want on the phone, let them take responsibility.

ShermDog
Jan 11, 2007, 08:20 PM
I agree with Jobs on strictly controlling what goes into the iPhone. This is definitely more of a variant of the iPod than it is a computer. Just because it runs a lighter version of OSX doesn't mean that it's meant to function like your desktop or laptop. To me, running OSX on the iPhone means rock-solid stability, a great UI and graphics, and seamlessness between the phone and my desktop/laptop.

SiliconAddict
Jan 11, 2007, 08:20 PM
it's not going to be able to opreate like osx...only look like osx and have some familiar apps, but you arent going to have a full os....thatd be crazy....its going to be "mini-Leopard"

I've got a name! Forget the iPhone....its the iCub! :D

eightball0
Jan 11, 2007, 08:20 PM
Recall that Steve Jobs wanted no expansion slots on the Apple II, and none on the Macintosh. He appears to dislike third-parties messing around with what he considers to be perfect devices.

Looks like there's no iPhone in my future, ever. He's really messing up here, and it's a shame because it's a great device. Apple's going to lose a lot of business here, and they're going to alienate the entire 3rd-party development community.

It's clear now why Apple removed 'computer' from their name: it's because they don't make computers anymore. Look for OS X to move in this direction, too.

TomSmithMacEd
Jan 11, 2007, 08:28 PM
SKYPE SKYPE!! (or some form of VOIP)

joeboy_45101
Jan 11, 2007, 08:28 PM
The widget element would be a great playground for third party developers. Most of the true Apple-supplied applications just seemed like different utilities and functional elements, except for the safari web browser. Widgets are just mini-apps, I don't see what more a developer could want to make for this phone. Widgets can read email, look up definitions, find directions, open and edit documents, find bus schedules, show what is going to be on TV tonight, and play games. That's more than people will be looking for anyway.

xenotaku
Jan 11, 2007, 08:29 PM
Who the hell cares? How many of your phones right now allow you program and install any app you want? This is a cell phone! Not a mini computer.

He stressed the inclusion of OSX because it is what drives the phone. The animations, the menus, the security. He never implied it would be a mini computer. Its a cell phone!

And how many of you have iPods? Probably 95%, and you can't install whatever you want on that either, so why complain about this.

The unrealistic expectations people are putting on this phone is insane. Go read thread #500. You all sound exactly like the people on that thread.

feffer37
Jan 11, 2007, 08:30 PM
Quote:
“We define everything that is on the phone. You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers.”

....that's why the iPhone will be so successful. Because Apple recognizes that the user experience on what the iPhone is supposed to be is the most important thing right now. Who care's if we can't download 3rd party apps right away. If I'm spending $600 plus money to break out of my current T-mobile contract, then this thing had better be damn well bullet proof. Kudos for Apple & Jobs for putting the user experience over any profits they might make by licensing 3rd party apps.

Besides, I don't know what the hell everyone is so worried about. This is Steve Jobs, people! The same guy who said that they weren't interested in bringing in a iPhone to existance to begin with!

What I'm more interested in knowing is how much of my 8 GB hard drive will be taken up by OSXmini. It would totally blow for those who bought a 4 GB iPhone to discover 500 mb devoted to the software, especially those future pesky 3rd party apps sure to come ;)

dongmin
Jan 11, 2007, 08:31 PM
This is one hell of a computer.

But if you want it to be just a phone, Steve, guess what. You can keep it. I'm not interested any more.

*sigh*

I mean, he has to be kidding me. No Skype, SSH, VLC, Chat, Navigation, ... ?! Come on Apple, even *you* are not able to write every piece of software that could be useful for this thing.

This is kind of a Mac with only iLife on it. Guess Steve would love it. I just don't know anyone else who would.You're joking right? With it's web-browsing and email alone, it's already superior to every other smart phone out there.

But I agree with some of the sentiment here. In combining three gadgets (phone, ipod, and 'internet communicator'), the iphone could suffer from an identity crisis, as in being incredibly versatile but not doing any one thing particularly well.

tkidBOSTON
Jan 11, 2007, 08:31 PM
Steve Jobs is a control freak.

That aside, I think this is a good thing for the average consumer. Apple will make available all the apps I need and keep all the crud thats going to ruin the usability of the phone off of it. Like previously said, I hope they release an IM client (iChat).

Doctor Q
Jan 11, 2007, 08:33 PM
We'd all benefit from a steady supply of new "approved, guaranteed safe" iPhone apps. The trick is to avoid throwing out the baby (new apps) with the bathwater (safety).

Two approaches come to mind:

1. If they want to carefully control iPhone app development, for the reasons stated, then they need to do a better job of it than they do for iPod games. I don't see a flood of iPod games on the market, and I think Apple didn't make the process easy enough or profitable enough to tempt developers.

2. With proper design, couldn't Mac OS X/iPhone use software techniques to limit applications to a sandbox, and avoid the dire consequences of bad software that seem to concern Apple?

bevo
Jan 11, 2007, 08:34 PM
honestly, I was all for it. But if he's not gonna open it up for 3rd party software makers he's making it really hard for someone in my position to justify purchasing one.

Thing that drives me to getting a palm or windows pda phone is the ability to run medical software on it like epocrates or the washington manual. If those aren't gonna be to run on it, why would I really need one?

CHROMEDOME
Jan 11, 2007, 08:35 PM
All I want is Adium on my iPhone, or at least iChat. If there is no IM client then I will have to think twice about buying one.

On windows mobile you can download a ton of apps...Its just a matter of time til it get hacked anyways.

joeboy_45101
Jan 11, 2007, 08:37 PM
We'd all benefit from a steady supply of new "approved, guaranteed safe" iPhone apps. The trick is to avoid throwing out the baby (new apps) with the bathwater (safety).

Two approaches come to mind:

1. If they want to carefully control iPhone app development, for the reasons stated, then they need to do a better job of it than they do for iPod games. I don't see a flood of iPod games on the market, and I think Apple didn't make the process easy enough or profitable enough to tempt developers.

2. With proper design, couldn't Mac OS X/iPhone use software techniques to limit applications to a sandbox, and avoid the dire consequences of bad software that seem to concern Apple?

Like I said above utilizing widgets for third-party development would solve this problem. The widget environment would be the perfect sandbox. Look at the thousands of widgets third-party developers have made for Tiger

voidptr
Jan 11, 2007, 08:37 PM
Who the hell cares? How many of your phones right now allow you program and install any app you want? This is a cell phone! Not a mini computer.


It's both. And I already own a cellphone. And an iPod. I'd love to replace them with an iPhone, but the RDF is fading fast on this one.

The killer app for me on the iPhone is useful widgets that use the internet (either over EDGE or WiFi) I can carry with me. If I can't write them or share them and Apple is going to the ringtone model of only what they say at inflated prices just because it runs on a phone instead, it severely lessens my personal demand for the device. I already have something that can make phone calls, convince me there's $600 worth of value in this phone I don't already have.

Steve made a big deal during the keynote that they paired up so "Cingular could be Cingular, and Apple could be Apple" and that they were pulling the cell phone industry into the next century. To turn around and adopt the Cell carrier model on this is the entire wrong direction. Apple has had an amazing comeback in the last few years, in part because of the iPod, but also because they finally made Mac appeal to a very broad base of people, including a lot of third party development. Even the iPod and iTunes has benefited a great deal from podcasting, which is really another form of third party content.

Cell phones need to adopt the "big dumb pipe" model in data and voice and drop the locked network mentality. The best promise of the iPhone was that it was going to push that new reality. The sad truth is it looks more and more like it's going to solidify the old reality instead.

retroneo
Jan 11, 2007, 08:37 PM
Did anyone else notice this little gem in the article?

phone could be upgraded to 3G with software if Apple later decides to do so.

Anyone know if this could be true? I was assuming different chipsets would be involved to move from EDGE to 3G.

-Paul

No, not possible. HSPDA requires a considerably different chipset. Plus if they are to use a dual-band HSDPA system so it can be used worldwide, it will need different antennas too!

I think the reason it is only EDGE and not HSDPA is because the product was delayed considerably. Hopefully the upcoming HSDPA iPhone Steve spoke of in the keynote will follow in Jan 2008!

Also, the current iPhone can't be released in Korea or Japan as it is, as there are no 2G GSM networks there. The only GSM networks there are HSDPA!!

jhedges3
Jan 11, 2007, 08:38 PM
I initially didn’t care much and felt that Steve’s point was reasonable enough; you can’t have everything months ahead of the initial release. And some third-party applications are better than none. I can see that messing up something fundamental would be a bad thing.

But Apple could apply that sort of rule to many other things and don’t. They could, were it possible, try to limit all applications that run on Os X to be one that’s they’ve sanctioned.

This story:
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/01/phonefix/index.php
alludes to some of the functionality that’ll be lost without allowing such development. For example, according to this story Treo users can use them to login remotely to their Mac or to display their Mac’s screens remotely. Seems clear that if Treo users can handle the power to add these sorts of applications so can iPhones users.

Then again maybe Apple and Cingular are trying to avert the deluge of support calls that would come when something goes wrong for average users and they're unable to reinstall Os X.

I doubt corporate users would buy a GPS-enabled phone that you cannot take the battery out of, anyway. And I have yet to hear if the battery is removable (I hope it is).

The battery is not removable.

suneohair
Jan 11, 2007, 08:38 PM
The apps will come folks. If you didnt read the article take a look at this:

"“These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there’s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn’t mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.”"

He just wants to control it. Which I agree with. I have a Treo and I know how adding uncertified apps can kill brick your phone. Causing you to have to reset and lose everything. I have done it.

Apple will simply have a process by which a developer has to get their application certified. Simple really and will keep the user experience at its best.

Another thing. If no one develops, what are you going to control. Assuming that everyone and their mother will make apps for this thing is silly. Besides how much crap is out there for WM5, Palm OS, RIM, etc that is pure garbage. a ton I am sure. I don't want all that junk.

I want apps that add to my productivity. iChat will be there. Adium? Who is to say they are capable of even making it he phone? Same thing with the other apps. If developers get out there and say "We want to create thing for this phone" then by all means. Apple should let them. But until then, assuming that you can't have a iphone version of an app that doesn't even exist is foolish.

VLC - no iPhone version
Skype - no iphone version

(that we know of at least) See my point. How can you whine about not having it when it doesnt even exist!!!

harmless
Jan 11, 2007, 08:38 PM
Who the hell cares?
I do.

How many of your phones right now allow you program and install any app you want?
My old Treo did. If it doesn't, why should I throw serious money at it?

Not a mini computer.
Yes it is.

And how many of you have iPods? Probably 95%, and you can't install whatever you want on that either, so why complain about this.
Because an iPod does not have the capability to act as a full purpose computer. The iPhone does.

The unrealistic expectations people are putting on this phone is insane. Go read thread #500. You all sound exactly like the people on that thread.
I disagree. There's nothing unrealistic about installing 3rd party applications on a smartphone. Heck, that's the *point* of a smartphone!

At least it is for me.

There's no room for argument here. Either I can install any 3rd party app I want, or there will be no business.

fowler.
Jan 11, 2007, 08:39 PM
Who the hell cares? How many of your phones right now allow you program and install any app you want? This is a cell phone! Not a mini computer.

He stressed the inclusion of OSX because it is what drives the phone. The animations, the menus, the security. He never implied it would be a mini computer. Its a cell phone!

And how many of you have iPods? Probably 95%, and you can't install whatever you want on that either, so why complain about this.

The unrealistic expectations people are putting on this phone is insane. Go read thread #500. You all sound exactly like the people on that thread.

Most phones can run Java apps, Treos can run apps designed for PalmOS, Nokia can run apps designed for it's os, as well as the plethora of Windows Mobile applications that run on various smart phones...

Poor argument my friend.

MattInOz
Jan 11, 2007, 08:40 PM
One question, for steve...
If no 3rd Party apps then why are there 5 blank icons on the home page?

voidptr
Jan 11, 2007, 08:41 PM
All I want is Adium on my iPhone, or at least iChat. If there is no IM client then I will have to think twice about buying one.

On windows mobile you can download a ton of apps...Its just a matter of time til it get hacked anyways.

There's one problem with that, and it's strictly Cingular's fault. Shame on Apple for playing along.

Cell phone networks have the idea that instant messaging is "special data". There's phones out there now that support AIM, and they use SMS to do it, even when there's a data network available, because 10c per line makes incredible money for the networks, and treating data as data doesn't let them do that. AOL released last year a library to support third party AIM clients, and the license for it included a prohibition on using it to develop any clients for mobile devices, because AOL's already agreed to help the networks enforce their IM == SMS idiocy.

If anything, there's two apps Cingular doesn't want on this phone, and it's likely they'll keep everything else off it to keep it that way:
* A VOIP client so I can make voice calls without the cell network when I'm in wifi range.
* An instant messanger client other than the SMS app Apple already demo'd.

jesteraver
Jan 11, 2007, 08:43 PM
Hopefully in 2008, when the iPhone with iChat AV released they will let people install certain things hopefully Microsoft Messenger (hopefully by 2008, it will let you use a cam)

harmless
Jan 11, 2007, 08:43 PM
You're joking right? With it's web-browsing and email alone, it's already superior to every other smart phone out there.

I disagree. Again.

Actually, I don't consider it a smartphone at all, if it isn't open to 3rd party developers.

Oh, and don't tell me about all those great widgets. The only ones marginally useful do include Cocoa plug-ins. The rest is just fluff.

DTphonehome
Jan 11, 2007, 08:44 PM
Who the hell cares? How many of your phones right now allow you program and install any app you want? This is a cell phone! Not a mini computer.

My Treo does...and so does any Windows Mobile device. Hell, even Blackberry has 3rd party apps. Considering Steve lambasted those devices as "not very smart", I would hope that a device which is supposed to be "smarter" would allow me to install apps which Steve and his buddies might not have time to deem acceptable (ie, my medical software).

Sean7512
Jan 11, 2007, 08:46 PM
Wow, I think that is absolutely GREAT! With Apple closely monitoring App development, we can be assured that all apps will be safe and work. Why would one want to download apps off of the web and risk viruses or anything bad?? The best way is for Apple to monitor all Apps, then release them in iTunes so they are copied automatically with no install process. Apple wants this to be EASY for people, and face it...the AVERAGE consumer WILL NEVER, EVER install other apps on it. With an open 3rd party development, it may get messy. Just because us (the "computer nerds") want it, doesn't mean anyone else does. I am VERY HAPPY with Apple's decision on limiting and closely monitoring application development. Don't worry, it sounds like apps WILL come out, but they will need Apple Approval thats all....

neven
Jan 11, 2007, 08:46 PM
"It's going to be terrible without any 3rd party apps."

Right, because if the keynote has shown us anything, it's that people other than Apple develop kickass mobile apps...

No 3rd party apps on my iPod and I couldn't be happier.

failsafe1
Jan 11, 2007, 08:47 PM
A few things come to mind.
1. I have used several pocket pc's and thought they would revolutionize my life. They didn't. I use a cell phone every day and it is just as annoying as helpful. So I don't blame Steve or Apple to control the experience. The Apple experience is what I count on. I forget that things were not always as seamless and easy as they are now on the Apple platform.
2. The other thing is I think we can look to the Apple TV and see that things can change between a product being announced and released. We went from wondering if there was a hard drive and N to Oh we have those things. So we may see drastic changes in what and what not is included or offered in the iPhone.

DTphonehome
Jan 11, 2007, 08:47 PM
You're joking right? With it's web-browsing and email alone, it's already superior to every other smart phone out there.


Is it? Really? You think Apple will ever develop ePocrates or Unbound Medicine? Those developers WOULD [develop for the iPhone], if Apple would let them. The reason the Palm was so successful was because of the huge catalog of titles available. And for the record, despite all the crap I have on my Treo, the phone works just fine. That's the way it's supposed to be designed, and that's what Apple should ensure when designing the OS for iPhone (which is no more OS X than Windows Mobile is WinXP).

BlueRevolution
Jan 11, 2007, 08:47 PM
Who the hell cares? How many of your phones right now allow you program and install any app you want? This is a cell phone! Not a mini computer.

Exactly the reason why I don't own a cell phone right now.

The unrealistic expectations people are putting on this phone is insane. Go read thread #500. You all sound exactly like the people on that thread.

If you think the future of cell phones is proprietary software, then maybe you should have another look at 500. There is no potential for expansion and development there. The company that realizes this and releases a truly open device will be releasing the iPod of phones. Pity it won't be Apple.

mi5moav
Jan 11, 2007, 08:49 PM
Apple also wants to make sure that an application isn't added to the phone that someway, somehow could actually bring down Cingulars network. Apple will be using more of Cingulars network then any other phone because it will be an enjoyable experience to actually surf the net on the phone once they get their speeds up.

paja
Jan 11, 2007, 08:50 PM
Gizmodo and Engadget are quickly coming to the concluion that the iPhone will be dead on arrival unless Apple makes a lot of changes to the phone...such as:

Removeable Battery and 3rd party applications just to name two of their complaints.

Neither of these two major blogs has really anything good to say about the iPhone.

Gizmodo is calling it the "chickphone" (just one of it's tammer nick names) and Engadget questions whether it's even running OS X at all.

jhedges3
Jan 11, 2007, 08:50 PM
Cell phone networks have the idea that instant messaging is "special data". There's phones out there now that support AIM, and they use SMS to do it, even when there's a data network available, because 10c per line makes incredible money for the networks, and treating data as data doesn't let them do that. AOL released last year a library to support third party AIM clients, and the license for it included a prohibition on using it to develop any clients for mobile devices, because AOL's already agreed to help the networks enforce their IM == SMS idiocy.

Maybe service providers should update their pricing plans to charge per email or per page or per packet. Cell providers should also charge less if the bandwidth of your conversation is smaller. Video stores should record the number of repeated viewings of a DVD, and charge per each. Beer companies should enforce a policy of one opening one gulp, or else you pay 45 cents and increasing exponentially.

Analog Kid
Jan 11, 2007, 08:50 PM
Apple isn't blocking 3rd party apps because it'll start dropping calls, they're blocking them because they'll upset the user experience Apple is trying to create.

If Apple releases this slick phone, with a slick interface, and everyone loads junky apps it kills the impact Apple is trying to make.

Another part of it might be blocking things like Skype-- which would be great for consumers but might sour the relationship with Cingular. It's not easy to break into the cellphone market, which is why we don't see new companies jumping into this "billion unit" market every day. You need friends to get started, and Apple needs Cingular.

A third might be to help protect DRM'd content if they ever go to download over the air.

Maybe we'll see some sort of application environment open up-- user uploadable widgets, or a JVM or something.

Is this really a big deal? How many people really load 3rd party apps on their phones?

ipearx
Jan 11, 2007, 08:50 PM
How exciting would macs be if they only ran the pre-installed software?

Sure mum and gran might never install anything else, but lots of people do. Surely the phone will be the same.

Apple is selling the iPhone as "running OSX", and using "a full Desktop OS" and avoiding "crippled software". Surely this is as crippled as you can get?!

14 questions about the iPhone:
http://bla.st/site/blog/40/

GodBless
Jan 11, 2007, 08:55 PM
Great! I am happy that it will work seamlessly because of delicate Application design. 3rd parties need auditing and who better to do it than Apple. :)

And who said that there won't end up being a good variety of 3rd party apps after a while? :confused:

cazlar
Jan 11, 2007, 08:55 PM
Although it's not quite the same, the MacBreak Weekly podcast brought up an interesting point, that even if it won't allow 3rd party apps, you could easily have small web-apps (possibly designed specifically for the iPhone) running through the browser portion of the phone.

AppleIntelRock
Jan 11, 2007, 08:58 PM
Who the hell cares? How many of your phones right now allow you program and install any app you want? This is a cell phone! Not a mini computer.

He stressed the inclusion of OSX because it is what drives the phone. The animations, the menus, the security. He never implied it would be a mini computer. Its a cell phone!

And how many of you have iPods? Probably 95%, and you can't install whatever you want on that either, so why complain about this.

The unrealistic expectations people are putting on this phone is insane. Go read thread #500. You all sound exactly like the people on that thread.

His $600 price tag implied it would be more then a phone! He also said it was far superior to any smart-phone on the market. I don't know what rock you've been living under, but this was announced to be similar to a mini-computer.

gwangung
Jan 11, 2007, 08:59 PM
Gizmodo is calling it the "chickphone" (just one of it's tammer nick names) and Engadget questions whether it's even running OS X at all.

No sexism from Gizmodo, eh?

Hm. I seem to recall the same kind of sexist namecalling directed at the Mac more than a few years ago.

On the other hand, the female market in America IS larger than the male market...

shompa
Jan 11, 2007, 09:00 PM
Mr Jobs:
If I want to destroy my Iphone and install program that make it not work. That is my choise. It is my Iphone.

This is one of the biggest problem with Apple. This is why so many disslikes Apple, OSX and the Apple software.

Why do not Apple licence fairplay? Apple will lose the antitrust cases in Europe.
Why do not Apple open up AppleTV for other movie formats than H264 and MPEG? How about DivX or Xvid? Apple TV will fail beacuse of this.
Why can not I do what I want in Itunes? I want my own main categories.

Apple locks up its users.

I Love Apple. I will buy the Iphone.
But, I can not deffend this big brother mentallity.

jhedges3
Jan 11, 2007, 09:00 PM
Another part of it might be blocking things like Skype-- which would be great for consumers but might sour the relationship with Cingular. It's not easy to break into the cellphone market, which is why we don't see new companies jumping into this "billion unit" market every day. You need friends to get started, and Apple needs Cingular.

Running a version of Skype would basically mean a circumvention of ‘voice minutes’?

suneohair
Jan 11, 2007, 09:01 PM
His $600 price tag implied it would be more then a phone! He also said it was far superior to any smart-phone on the market. I don't know what rock you've been living under, but this was announced to be similar to a mini-computer.

And where did he say it would not be more than a phone?

Just because everyone and their mother can't make an application does make the iPhone platform any less viable. I don't want the junk people make.

I want apps that will not crash my phone and work well. If Apple can allow quality apps while maintaining a stable platform it is a win win.

I know the pains of putting an app on my phone that kills it. This avoids that problem.

Stop misquoting and running with this as if we know all the details. It could be that they haven't hammered all this out yet.

He most assuredly did not say "There will be no 3rd party software allowed"

WWDC is right there with the iPhone release. Coincidence? I think not.

sbarton
Jan 11, 2007, 09:03 PM
Most phones, even semi-smart ones, can download and install 3rd party apps. I have done this on my Razr several times. All of the smart phones support 3rd party apps. I don't belive this is for QA because it would be very easy to setup a QA process by which developers could submit their apps for testing and they could then be made availible for download through Apple. Apple could even pass this cost along to the developer and even make a buck or two off of it and I doubt there would be many complaints.

I am a huge Apple fan and have been for 15+ years, but this is extreemly dissapointing. I hope they look at the market and change thier stance on this. Truley a deal killer for me because it changes the entire nature of the device and what I might utilize if for above phone calls and email.

harmless
Jan 11, 2007, 09:03 PM
Apple also wants to make sure that an application isn't added to the phone that someway, somehow could actually bring down Cingulars network..
That's just nonsense.

It's like saying we won't allow to install 3rd party apps on a computer because they might bring the internet down.

voidptr
Jan 11, 2007, 09:04 PM
Maybe service providers should update their pricing plans to charge per email or per page or per packet. Cell providers should also charge less if the bandwidth of your conversation is smaller. Video stores should record the number of repeated viewings of a DVD, and charge per each. Beer companies should enforce a policy of one opening one gulp, or else you pay 45 cents and increasing exponentially.

Cell phone providers do charge per email (by forcing it through SMS) and per packet (by charging assininely high rates per kb of data). Every other company you listed realized that charging sane prices for use of their product instead of nickeling and dimeing their customers to death makes a much more profitable business in the long run. Maybe cell phone companies should join the 21st century and sell a "big dumb pipe" like the wired world does now.

SMS used to be actually expensive because they crammed it into spare data blocks on limited voice channels. It was expensive to keep people from using it. Now, it goes over dedicated data channels on the cell network and then gets dumped into a TCP/IP pipe along with everything else once it hits copper at the tower.

There's no reason in the world that with EDGE and HSPDA and other high speed technologies that bring a full TCP/IP stack to the phone to make instant message rates orders of magnitude higher than any other IP data coming off the device. 15c for 160 bytes "because it's an instant message" while a web page costs 100x less than that (and is still two orders of magnitude more expensive than is really reasonable) *and goes over the same network* is stupid, but what's criminal is activily preventing innovation by prohibiting developers from pushing data over the data pipe instead of as SMS just because it's SMS and not general data.

BillyShears
Jan 11, 2007, 09:05 PM
It has, apparently, the full WebKit running on it. This should support Javascript, etc. Essentially, this should be pretty close to running widgets. So even if they don't allow people to develop widgets for the iPhone, by creating a bookmark for the "site" (widget), the apps would run just fine, wouldn't they?

The only difference I can think of is that widgets have access to certain parts of the OS that normal websites wouldn't. But I don't think access to system resources would be useful on a phone. More likely we want to check sports scores, etc.

So by hook or crook, there will be third party apps, even at launch.

jhedges3
Jan 11, 2007, 09:07 PM
No sexism from Gizmodo, eh?

Hm. I seem to recall the same kind of sexist namecalling directed at the Mac more than a few years ago.

On the other hand, the female market in America IS larger than the male market...

I'm not familiar with what was said more than a few years ago.

But now that you mention it, I have tended to think of things Mac as masculine and appealing to chicks. Maybe that notion was mostly subconscious or wishful.

I’d hate to be equated with Gizmodo with respect to sexism for this bit of absolution though.

If it helps my case I’m willing to retract whatever I just wrote and think, from her on, of all things Mac as completely gender neutral.

harmless
Jan 11, 2007, 09:07 PM
Is this really a big deal?
It's *the* deal.

How many people really load 3rd party apps on their phones?
If it's just a phone (even a sleek one) I won't pay hundreds of Euros for it. My old one does phone calls good enough, thank you.

jhedges3
Jan 11, 2007, 09:08 PM
If it's just a phone (even a sleek one) I won't pay hundreds of Euros for it. My old one does phone calls good enough, thank you.

I won't pay hundreds of Euros for it either.

digitalbiker
Jan 11, 2007, 09:09 PM
When is Arn going to rename this forum iPhoneRumors?

Here it is nearly the end of the premier Mac conference held once a year and guess what! Not one bit of interesting Mac news, updates, or new designed macs.

Instead we have dozens of lousey rumors on a vaporware phone that won't be released for 6 months. Not only that, the phone's name is in jeopardy, people are whining about the features, service plans, and 3rd party apps. Great!

People get a grip. It is just a phone and it hasn't even been made for sale yet.

Sad:( Sad:( Sad:(

Where has my "Apple Computer" gone? Where are the mac mini towers? Where are the new macbookpro designs, where is 10.5, where is the 8 core mac pro, where where where????:eek:

Please wake me when this nightmare is over!!

Silentwave
Jan 11, 2007, 09:09 PM
I have to say I can't really blame him.
my mother has had three palm Treos in the past year and a half. All of them have had serious issues with applications developed specifically for them available directly through the phone provider- often causing the phone to crash and requiring it to be reactivated.

Stella
Jan 11, 2007, 09:12 PM
SJ presented the iDud.

Sucks ass.

Apple indeed did redefine the smartphone and dumbed it down. Tragic.

What smartphone gets crippled - i.e., stops phone calls due to an bad application. I've never had such an event occur despite owning two smartphones. And they rarely crash to force a restart either.

Oh and these apps will be payware, no freeware.


Apple just grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory.

The iPhone shows SJ control freak nature.
--

Err I very much disagree that its better than any other smartphone.

Without the ability to install 3rd party apps, my smartphone automatically is better - because it can always suit my needs. I need another requirement I can find the application to suite my needs, unlike the iPhone. Oh, and it runs a webkit browser too.... just like the iPhone does... And it supports J2ME that opens a wider range of applications and games too.

Apple should remain it the iDud. Its not a smartphone, its a regular phone with a pretty interface. Non smartphone can sync too.. just like iPhone.

You're joking right? With it's web-browsing and email alone, it's already superior to every other smart phone out there.

But I agree with some of the sentiment here. In combining three gadgets (phone, ipod, and 'internet communicator'), the iphone could suffer from an identity crisis, as in being incredibly versatile but not doing any one thing particularly well.

QuarterSwede
Jan 11, 2007, 09:16 PM
But I agree with some of the sentiment here. In combining three gadgets (phone, ipod, and 'internet communicator'), the iphone could suffer from an identity crisis, as in being incredibly versatile but not doing any one thing particularly well.
By the looks of what is previewed, the iPhone seems to do everything better than anything else out there, including the iPod.

Personally I'd be glad if it doesn't support J2ME. I use that on my current SE phone and those applications suck resources, slowing the entire phone down, and generally like to crash. I welcome the iPhone simply because it looks to actually run a stable OS and looks very easy to use.

If anything, there's two apps Cingular doesn't want on this phone, and it's likely they'll keep everything else off it to keep it that way:
* A VOIP client so I can make voice calls without the cell network when I'm in wifi range.
* An instant messanger client other than the SMS app Apple already demo'd.
And those are the best reasons I've read yet on why Apple is going to control the app development, aside from maintaining the user experience.

Although, right now it's cheaper for me to just use my cellphone for all calls than to subscribe to a VOIP network on top of my cellphone bill.

DTphonehome
Jan 11, 2007, 09:17 PM
The more I think about the iPhone, the more I realize that it will never (in it's current form) replace Treos, WinMobile devices, or Blackberrys, despite Steve's assertions that the iPhone is "smarter" than they are.

However, the iPhone WILL still be a runaway success, as it will be marketed at all those people who DON'T have a smartphone, and currently use lackluster phones from Moto, Nokia, LG and others. That's a LOT more than 1% of the market (I would wager more like 80-90%!), which Apple is aiming for right now. So, even though it won't have the expandability of true smartphones, it will still have enough built-in and "Apple approved" apps to make it great for much of the phone-buying public.

twoodcc
Jan 11, 2007, 09:18 PM
The iPhone can kiss my iAss.

It's going to be terrible without any 3rd party apps.

LOL! sorry, made me laugh a little :)

but i can understand why Steve is saying this.

personally i'm getting tired of all the iPhone talk. i wish it would stop until it gets here

jhedges3
Jan 11, 2007, 09:21 PM
When is Arn going to rename this forum iPhoneRumors?

Here it is nearly the end of the premier Mac conference held once a year and guess what! Not one bit of interesting Mac news, updates, or new designed macs.

Instead we have dozens of lousey rumors on a vaporware phone that won't be released for 6 months. Not only that, the phone's name is in jeopardy, people are whining about the features, service plans, and 3rd party apps. Great!

People get a grip. It is just a phone and it hasn't even been made for sale yet.

Sad:( Sad:( Sad:(

Where has my "Apple Computer" gone? Where are the mac mini towers? Where are the new macbookpro designs, where is 10.5, where is the 8 core mac pro, where where where????:eek:

Please wake me when this nightmare is over!!

That's one way to look at it.

Another is to say that the announcement has generated an unprecedented level of excitement and discussion. People have moved past the obvious amazingness of the device and on to other, more minor, concerns, which they’re willingly going over with each other.

I feel like you’ll get your fill of towers, cores, 10s. In the mean time, you might ponder to yourself whether there is a dichotomy between nostalgia and longing for stasis or embracing change and welcoming evolution.

I, for example, do find it sad at times that we’re no longer living in caves and huts. But there is no time to lament the disappearance of these simpler living quarters and the progress that accompanied this change. I do like windows and central heating and being surrounded by rectangular patterns of dry wall...

Stella
Jan 11, 2007, 09:22 PM
You obviously haven't used many phones because EVERY SMARTPHONE OUT THERE CAN INSTALL 3RD PARTY APPS!!!!

Also a lot of non smartphones can also install 3rd party apps too - ie.., J2ME. Basically, any phone that supports J2ME can install 3rd party applications - and today, thats virtually EVERY phone.




Who the hell cares? How many of your phones right now allow you program and install any app you want? This is a cell phone! Not a mini computer.

He stressed the inclusion of OSX because it is what drives the phone. The animations, the menus, the security. He never implied it would be a mini computer. Its a cell phone!

And how many of you have iPods? Probably 95%, and you can't install whatever you want on that either, so why complain about this.

The unrealistic expectations people are putting on this phone is insane. Go read thread #500. You all sound exactly like the people on that thread.

SiliconAddict
Jan 11, 2007, 09:24 PM
You're joking right? With it's web-browsing and email alone, it's already superior to every other smart phone out there.



Not really. Windows Mobile in a PDA Phone is pretty much on par with this sans the UI and touching thing. I'm not saying that WM is superior in every category. Just in regards to app support. Also I would suggest you try out Opera on Windows mobile sometime. Its not great the BS that Jobs spouted out on stage about the first fully functional browser on a phone? BS.
To be fair to Apple though this is gen1. Get the underlying OS and core apps stable and robust then work on 3rd party support.
However they NEED to support 3rd party apps at some point or the very notion that they are a smart phone that can compete with Win Mobile or Palm that have a VERY robust set of 3rd party apps becomes a nonissue. Imagine what a Mac would be like if all you could use is iLife....ick.

massiv
Jan 11, 2007, 09:28 PM
i gotta say all this is amusing to me. there are like 3 of these things in existence and you are all freaking out about 3rd party apps and function. The apps will be there they just need to be certified. I love all the fair-weather friends in here. If you don't want to buy it, good, more chance i'll get my hands on one. But stop b**chin about something we still know little about and is obviously still in its final stages of development.

also, your opinion is just that...yours. the one thing i absolutely hate about the internet is the superiority complex it has given selfish individuals who think their needs dictate everyone else's. the same people crying 4 AAPL to release an iphone are know crying b/c its not good enough. these are the behavioral patterns of a child. i for one think this is a great step for apple and makes me proud to be a mac user. i seriously think some of us need to relax and get some sun or fresh air or something. this is not meant for everyone just those who do nothing but complain, all the time.

Analog Kid
Jan 11, 2007, 09:29 PM
I don't know what rock you've been living under, but this was announced to be similar to a mini-computer.
No, it was announced as an iPod, a phone, and an internet communications device.

An iPod, a phone, and an internet communications device.

An iPod, a phone... I think you're getting the point.

voidptr
Jan 11, 2007, 09:31 PM
Apple just grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory.

The iPhone shows SJ control freak nature.


I actually think it shows there are companies even SJ can't break, despite what he said on Tuesday. This is bad spin on the fact that they can make the best phone in the world, but Cingular still demanded concessions to let it on their network. I think most of these limitations have far more to do (at least initially) with Cingular holding onto their business model than SJ's ego trying to keep the phone "perfect".

Apple's learned the value of their developer and content communities in the last 5 years or so. Cingular can't imagine a world where they don't control everything and just become another TCP/IP provider to the internet.

DTphonehome
Jan 11, 2007, 09:31 PM
No, it was announced as an iPod, a phone, and an internet communications device.

An iPod, a phone, and an internet communications device.

An iPod, a phone... I think you're getting the point.

Then why all the talk about how it's "smarter" than current smartphones?

Stella
Jan 11, 2007, 09:31 PM
No, it was announced as an iPod, a phone, and an internet communications device.

An iPod, a phone, and an internet communications device.

An iPod, a phone... I think you're getting the point.

He also called it a smartphone.

A smartphone it most certainly is NOT.,

DTphonehome
Jan 11, 2007, 09:33 PM
I actually think it shows there are companies even SJ can't break, despite what he said on Tuesday. This is bad spin on the fact that they can make the best phone in the world, but Cingular still demanded concessions to let it on their network. I think most of these limitations have far more to do (at least initially) with Cingular holding onto their business model than SJ's ego trying to keep the phone "perfect".

Apple's learned the value of their developer and content communities in the last 5 years or so. Cingular can't imagine a world where they don't control everything and just become another TCP/IP provider to the internet.

Which is why I'm really dissapointed that Apple didn't go the MVNO route. :( Apple could have had ANYTHING they wanted on the iPhone...mobile iTunes purchasing, VOIP, etc. But they went with a major carrier, and now that have to play by their rules.

j-a-x
Jan 11, 2007, 09:33 PM
What about WIdgets? Steve talked about Widgets being able to run on this phone didn't he? I wonder if slothcam will be able to run on it, or will that be off limits to developers.

One of the thinks I like most about my Symbian based Nokia 6620 is the fact that I can install all kinds of software on it. I am running Opera on it as well as a POP mail client and a IM client and some games. If it wasn't for that I wouldn't be as excited about this phone.

...I think Opera for mobile phones is the first true cell phone web browser (not Safari, although I'd rather be running Safari).

Anyways, my point is, I think it would be a shame to lose the ability to install custom apps on the iPhone. One of the best things about OS X is all the great freeware available for it. If only we could install Adium or Vienna on the iPhone...

EDIT: It's not a 3360, I forget the model number. It's a 6620!!!!

SiliconAddict
Jan 11, 2007, 09:34 PM
You obviously haven't used many phones because EVERY SMARTPHONE OUT THERE CAN INSTALL 3RD PARTY APPS!!!!

Also a lot of non smartphones can also install 3rd party apps too - ie.., J2ME. Basically, any phone that supports J2ME can install 3rd party applications - and today, thats virtually EVERY phone.


Mine does.

http://www.t-mobile.com/images/products/tmobile_dash/370x400.jpg

This is what I ordered last week from TMobile through my company. Its no iPhone but app support alone makes this a winner. Pocket Informant Alone (http://www.pocketinformant.com/products_info.php?p_id=pi&dir=wm&tab_id=pocketpc) makes WM worth it. Don't know when it will arrive though. :\ Dang backorder.

voidptr
Jan 11, 2007, 09:34 PM
The apps will be there they just need to be certified.

Imagine a world where Apple "certified" all the apps for the Macintosh. Imagine a world where Apple "certified" all the Podcasts you could put on your iPod.

Central control of content is a dying model, and Cell phones are the last stronghold of that model. That despite comments to the contrary at the Keynote on Tuesday Apple couldn't put a bigger beachhead into breaching that model is sad, and ultimately will hurt the iPhone from achieving it's true potential.

Maybe this is a start, and maybe in 5 years it'll have been the initial shot needed to bring the cell phone world into the 21st century as promised. But it may also be the failure that dooms us to their current model for decades to come.

bigjohn
Jan 11, 2007, 09:35 PM
SlingPlayer!


I won't buy an iPhone without it...

jsw
Jan 11, 2007, 09:36 PM
The primary purpose of any phone is to be a phone. Making calls is, as SJ said, the killer app. The main weakness on many smartphones is their vulnerability to software bugs in both their internal OS, in 3rd party software, and, in particular, with the combination of many 3rd party apps. Often, such phones can crash or get hung, the result of which is a need to reboot the phone, which can take over a minute to finish.

While this is often an inconvenience, it can sometimes be dire. People must be able to depend on a phone acting as a phone at all times.

By limiting the software, Apple can best ensure that the phone will always be available and, one would hope, stable. To me, that is far more important than any 3rd party app.

Let us not also forget that, with a real browser, Java applet capabilities, SVG and Javascript support, and WiFi as well as EDGE, there is no real need to keep the apps on the phone itself.

Stella
Jan 11, 2007, 09:37 PM
I hope your happy with it. Its instantly better than the iPhone - you like installing apps - it can keep up with your needs.

Its a proper smartphone.

How can Apple be so dumb?

Mine does.

http://www.t-mobile.com/images/products/tmobile_dash/370x400.jpg

This is what I ordered last week from TMobile through my company. Its no iPhone but app support alone makes this a winner. Pocket Informant Alone (http://www.pocketinformant.com/products_info.php?p_id=pi&dir=wm&tab_id=pocketpc) makes WM worth it.

RichP
Jan 11, 2007, 09:38 PM
Arn should freeze all iPhone threads until late spring, its pointless to argue about it right now.

Apple is a control freak company. That is one of the main reasons their products work so well.

I think this thing for web-browsing and other demo'ed functions blows away whats on the market. I have had 2 smartphones; my Blackjack is a complete UI MESS. Its like a moron designed some of it. While the Blackberrys arent as cool, at least they have a decently sorted out UI that works.

I dont think Apple is going to make dumb mistakes with this phone. Ill wait till its released, then pass judgement.

And about the battery: The phone appears to have a rear cover on it, I cant imagine it has that just for the SIM card.

DTphonehome
Jan 11, 2007, 09:38 PM
What about WIdgets? Steve talked about Widgets being able to run on this phone didn't he? I wonder if slothcam will be able to run on it, or will that be off limits to developers.

Oh please...they LOOK like widgets, but they are mini apps designed for whatever stripped-down version of OS X the iPhone is running. No way the iPhone can run ANY widget that has been designed for (regular) OS X.

voidptr
Jan 11, 2007, 09:38 PM
The primary purpose of any phone is to be a phone. Making calls is, as SJ said, the killer app.

It's the app that has to work right, or it's not a phone. But I already own a phone that can make calls, and it costs a hell of a lot less that $600.

It may be the killer app, but it's not enough to sell this phone by itself.

SiliconAddict
Jan 11, 2007, 09:39 PM
I hope your happy with it. Its instantly better than the iPhone - you like installing apps - it can keep up with your needs.

Its a proper smartphone.

For now. For now. I'm 100% certain this will come to the iPhone. Eventually.

Analog Kid
Jan 11, 2007, 09:39 PM
Running a version of Skype would basically mean a circumvention of ‘voice minutes’?
It means that everyone in the office or at home who uses their cell phone would be using WiFi instead of Cingular's network. I don't know enough about the pricing to know if using VOIP as data would be cheaper than voice as voice...

QuarterSwede
Jan 11, 2007, 09:39 PM
I hope your happy with it. Its instantly better than the iPhone - you like installing apps - it can keep up with your needs.

Its a proper smartphone.

Dude, we all get your point. You don't need to quote everyone and say that IT ISN'T A SMARTPHONE!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, calm down.

dan-o-mac
Jan 11, 2007, 09:40 PM
i gotta say all this is amusing to me. there are like 3 of these things in existence and you are all freaking out about 3rd party apps and function. The apps will be there they just need to be certified. I love all the fair-weather friends in here. If you don't want to buy it, good, more chance i'll get my hands on one. But stop b**chin about something we still know little about and is obviously still in its final stages of development.

also, your opinion is just that...yours. the one thing i absolutely hate about the internet is the superiority complex it has given selfish individuals who think their needs dictate everyone else's. the same people crying 4 AAPL to release an iphone are know crying b/c its not good enough. these are the behavioral patterns of a child. i for one think this is a great step for apple and makes me proud to be a mac user. i seriously think some of us need to relax and get some sun or fresh air or something. this is not meant for everyone just those who do nothing but complain, all the time.

Isn't the point of a message board to express your opinion? :rolleyes: You take someone saying a product sucks for a specific reason as crying. I take it as a point of view of someone who's so not satisfied that he or she took the time to express it. Nothing wrong with that, right?

voidptr
Jan 11, 2007, 09:41 PM
Oh please...they LOOK like widgets, but they are mini apps designed for whatever stripped-down version of OS X the iPhone is running. No way the iPhone can run ANY widget that has been designed for (regular) OS X.

Widgets are HTML and Javascript.

First class Cocoa apps won't work without porting to the iPhone (although SJ did say it had the Cocoa framework on it.), but there's no reason they can't put a widget engine to run existing widgets on it.

DTphonehome
Jan 11, 2007, 09:41 PM
It means that everyone in the office or at home who uses their cell phone would be using WiFi instead of Cingular's network. I don't know enough about the pricing to know if using VOIP as data would be cheaper than voice as voice...

Well it would be cheaper for the consumer, because you can get unlimited data plans for not too much, but unlimited voice plans are expensive and rare.

harmless
Jan 11, 2007, 09:42 PM
However, the iPhone WILL still be a runaway success, as it will be marketed at all those people who DON'T have a smartphone, and currently use lackluster phones from Moto, Nokia, LG and others.
I'm afraid it's too expensive for that market segment.

Anyway; I'm not going to encourage anyone of my friends to get one. As it is it's just a flashy and (very) expensive toy. Need to take a look at those Treos now. *sigh*

jhedges3
Jan 11, 2007, 09:43 PM
also, your opinion is just that...yours. the one thing i absolutely hate about the internet is the superiority complex it has given selfish individuals who think their needs dictate everyone else's. the same people crying 4 AAPL to release an iphone are know crying b/c its not good enough. these are the behavioral patterns of a child. i for one think this is a great step for apple and makes me proud to be a mac user. i seriously think some of us need to relax and get some sun or fresh air or something. this is not meant for everyone just those who do nothing but complain, all the time.

I concur, mostly.

It seems clear enough that MR provides people with the opportunity to disregard economics, the mean wants and needs of consumers, and demand that products are developed and released that cater to their uses or projected uses and preferences, no matter how obscure and esoteric they may be.

But I have some reservation in saying that the complaining is bad or unhealthy; that it has anything to do with a lack of sunlight. For one thing, I learn a lot from other people’s complaints. Complaints may or may not make good points, they may remind you of something, and they may introduce you to something else.

It also seems like the complaining is, in some cases, a component of an intensive and broad analysis of a tricky optimization problem. What is the right solution given number of important factors: how much power can a device have, how big can it be, who are we making it for, how much will it cost, when will it be released, what color will it be…

Analog Kid
Jan 11, 2007, 09:43 PM
Then why all the talk about how it's "smarter" than current smartphones?
Did you watch the keynote? Apple offers a link directly to the iPhone intro, you can start with that...

DTphonehome
Jan 11, 2007, 09:43 PM
I'm afraid it's too expensive for that market segment.


Not for the upper 1% (at least) of that market. Many high-end nonsmartphones cost that much. And considering it has a full-fledged iPod built-in, it's not THAT expensive.

chubad
Jan 11, 2007, 09:44 PM
i gotta say all this is amusing to me. there are like 3 of these things in existence and you are all freaking out about 3rd party apps and function. The apps will be there they just need to be certified. I love all the fair-weather friends in here. If you don't want to buy it, good, more chance i'll get my hands on one. But stop b**chin about something we still know little about and is obviously still in its final stages of development.

also, your opinion is just that...yours. the one thing i absolutely hate about the internet is the superiority complex it has given selfish individuals who think their needs dictate everyone else's. the same people crying 4 AAPL to release an iphone are know crying b/c its not good enough. these are the behavioral patterns of a child. i for one think this is a great step for apple and makes me proud to be a mac user. i seriously think some of us need to relax and get some sun or fresh air or something. this is not meant for everyone just those who do nothing but complain, all the time.

Thank you for the one of the only intelligent comments on this thread! The rest of you may now proceed with you tantrums.:rolleyes:

imacdaddy
Jan 11, 2007, 09:44 PM
Although it's not quite the same, the MacBreak Weekly podcast brought up an interesting point, that even if it won't allow 3rd party apps, you could easily have small web-apps (possibly designed specifically for the iPhone) running through the browser portion of the phone.

Exactly what I was going to say. Who needs MS office apps when you can get Google Docs and SpreadSheet via browser. We need to start moving away from client-side apps to server-side apps going forward.

Anyway, most of the people complaining here are installing cracked 3rd party apps on thier phones anyway. The same people are complaining about Apple TV not being able to play their bit torrented pirated/ripped movies in divx. The same people playing pirated/copied games on the xbox360, ps2, DS, PSP etc...

Apple controlling 3rd party apps gives back what developers deserves...money for their creativity, time and effort! Good on Apple.

xnu
Jan 11, 2007, 09:47 PM
Controled distribution of 3rd party apps like they do with widgets through Apple's website (even with more restrictions, probably purchase through itunes) is a good thing for control quality. Slow and deliberate opening of this new platform is prudent. Many apps are needed, sound recording widget springs to mind but with release being five months away it is more important to assure a quality experience at release and the consumer's initial impression of the device at release for marketing is more important short term. Developers will want to get onboard in do time if it is a sucess. The iPhone is the best new product in years... It will change everything but it will take some time to develop its own market.

DTphonehome
Jan 11, 2007, 09:47 PM
Did you watch the keynote? Apple offers a link directly to the iPhone intro, you can start with that...

Uh, yeah, I did, and the way Steve was bashing current smartphone interfaces (and not "regular" cellphones), it was clear he was positioning the iPhone to be a competitor to smartphones. And you need to have real software expandability if you want to be considered a smartphone.

glowingstar
Jan 11, 2007, 09:48 PM
i kinda thought along these same lines.... i wouldn't want to install some shareware i thought was cool only to have the phone crash on me at a critical moment, and then i have to search high and low on the net to figure out what could be causing the crash.

however, i think it's gonna take, oh, five minutes for some hacker to figure out how to install other software onto it....

DTphonehome
Jan 11, 2007, 09:48 PM
Thank you for the one of the only intelligent comments on this thread! The rest of you may now proceed with you tantrums.:rolleyes:

These "tantrums" are the sort of thing that get Apple to fix some of these issues before June.

dan-o-mac
Jan 11, 2007, 09:50 PM
Arn should freeze all iPhone threads until late spring, its pointless to argue about it right now.

Apple is a control freak company. That is one of the main reasons their products work so well.

I think this thing for web-browsing and other demo'ed functions blows away whats on the market. I have had 2 smartphones; my Blackjack is a complete UI MESS. Its like a moron designed some of it. While the Blackberrys arent as cool, at least they have a decently sorted out UI that works.

I dont think Apple is going to make dumb mistakes with this phone. Ill wait till its released, then pass judgement.

And about the battery: The phone appears to have a rear cover on it, I cant imagine it has that just for the SIM card.

There is a slot on the top for a SIM card.

harmless
Jan 11, 2007, 09:51 PM
and you are all freaking out about 3rd party apps and function.
Because the apps are crucial for a smartphone. Just like for any computer.

The apps will be there they just need to be certified.
Not acceptable. Sounds like Microsofts wet dreams about controlling your computer.

the same people crying 4 AAPL to release an iphone are know crying b/c its not good enough.
First, I didn't want Apple to release a phone that much.
Second, the hardware is *amazing*! That's all the point! If it were a lackluster device, I wouldn't care at all. But it's a fantastic machine that will be crippled to death just because I can't run the software on it I want.

Oh, and of course this is just my opinion. Why would I post someone else's?

ipearx
Jan 11, 2007, 09:51 PM
The hypocrisy of the crippled Apple iPhone:
http://bla.st/site/blog/43/

Oh why Apple why?!

Analog Kid
Jan 11, 2007, 09:52 PM
Uh, yeah, I did, and the way Steve was bashing current smartphone interfaces (and not "regular" cellphones), it was clear he was positioning the iPhone to be a competitor to smartphones. And you need to have real software expandability if you want to be considered a smartphone.
But not if you want to compete with smartphones...

The three concepts rolled into the iPhone that he repeated over and over again are where Apple's focus is. "Smartphones" like the Treos and Blackberrys are really the only phones out there with integrated email and web access. That's what Apple is competing with.

voidptr
Jan 11, 2007, 09:52 PM
It means that everyone in the office or at home who uses their cell phone would be using WiFi instead of Cingular's network. I don't know enough about the pricing to know if using VOIP as data would be cheaper than voice as voice...

There's a business model that would work perfectly with this phone, but Cingular won't play ball. Cisco wanted in the game in return for the iPhone name:

What were the issues at the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.

Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen—it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want.

The business model is this:
Cingular provides access to the SS7 telephone network, in an access neutral manner. When you're away from home or the office, your voice and data traffic go over GSM. When you're within range of an open WiFi access point, your voice traffic goes over the Internet to a VOIP endpoint back at Cingular. Your phone registers on the appropriate network, and Cingular routes incoming calls accordingly. A bonus of this plan to the consumer is that now Cingular has coverage at your house in the sticks, even if there's not a cell phone tower for miles. Your phone works in the middle of your office building where no cell signal can reach, without any expensive premise buildout on Cingular's part.

Cisco has the technology to do this, and I think there's evidence that Cisco wanted to push Apple into collaborating in a GSM/VOIP network agnostic view of the world where cell phone companies provide what they provide best (SS7 and GSM access) while Apple provides what they provide best (an open user experience). And Cingular couldn't imagine that world, and Apple needed Cingular to launch this thing more than they needed the name from Cisco.

And it's a real shame, because Cisco and Apple have the right vision, but Apple sold out that vision to prop up Cingular's dying view of the world.

BillyShears
Jan 11, 2007, 09:54 PM
Well it would be cheaper for the consumer, because you can get unlimited data plans for not too much, but unlimited voice plans are expensive and rare.

This doesn't make sense to me.

If data rates are actually cheaper than "voice" rates, why aren't the phone companies using VoIP themselves? If it's actually cheaper, it would make sense for them to do that. Unless this is just price gouging or something.

(I am not familiar with the mobile phone industry.)

jsw
Jan 11, 2007, 09:54 PM
Widgets are HTML and Javascript.
Many include executables, although I'm not sure if any of Apple's default ones do (I suspect not). For example, my Transmit widget contains a compiled app, as do many others.

jhedges3
Jan 11, 2007, 09:56 PM
There's a business model that would work perfectly with this phone, but Cingular won't play ball. Cisco wanted in the game in return for the iPhone name:



The business model is this:
Cingular provides access to the SS7 telephone network, in an access neutral manner. When you're away from home or the office, your voice and data traffic go over GSM. When you're within range of an open WiFi access point, your voice traffic goes over the Internet to a VOIP endpoint back at Cingular. Your phone registers on the appropriate network, and Cingular routes incoming calls accordingly. A bonus of this plan to the consumer is that now Cingular has coverage at your house in the sticks, even if there's not a cell phone tower for miles. Your phone works in the middle of your office building where no cell signal can reach, without any expensive premise buildout on Cingular's part.

Cisco has the technology to do this, and I think there's evidence that Cisco wanted to push Apple into collaborating in a GSM/VOIP network agnostic view of the world where cell phone companies provide what they provide best (SS7 and GSM access) while Apple provides what they provide best (an open user experience). And Cingular couldn't imagine that world, and Apple needed Cingular to launch this thing more than they needed the name from Cisco.

And it's a real shame, because Cisco and Apple have the right vision, but Apple sold out that vision to prop up Cingular's dying view of the world.

Do you know if Cisco will work with someone else then to make the open one happen?

Stridder44
Jan 11, 2007, 09:57 PM
The apps will come folks. If you didnt read the article take a look at this:

"“These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there’s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn’t mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.”"

He just wants to control it. Which I agree with. I have a Treo and I know how adding uncertified apps can kill brick your phone. Causing you to have to reset and lose everything. I have done it.

Apple will simply have a process by which a developer has to get their application certified. Simple really and will keep the user experience at its best.

Another thing. If no one develops, what are you going to control. Assuming that everyone and their mother will make apps for this thing is silly. Besides how much crap is out there for WM5, Palm OS, RIM, etc that is pure garbage. a ton I am sure. I don't want all that junk.

I want apps that add to my productivity. iChat will be there. Adium? Who is to say they are capable of even making it he phone? Same thing with the other apps. If developers get out there and say "We want to create thing for this phone" then by all means. Apple should let them. But until then, assuming that you can't have a iphone version of an app that doesn't even exist is foolish.

VLC - no iPhone version
Skype - no iphone version

(that we know of at least) See my point. How can you whine about not having it when it doesnt even exist!!!



Thank you for being the voice of reason. Every year it amazes me the amount of whiny bitching Apple users, who usually end up being hypocrites. RTFA.

Roller
Jan 11, 2007, 09:59 PM
I'm afraid it's too expensive for that market segment.

Anyway; I'm not going to encourage anyone of my friends to get one. As it is it's just a flashy and (very) expensive toy. Need to take a look at those Treos now. *sigh*

A toy? That's what some Windows users used to say about the Mac. Just because the iPhone, which is still almost six months away from hitting the street, doesn't do what you want it to?

I agree that eventually Apple is going to have to open it up to developers, but not at the beginning. The last thing they need is to release a phone that's unstable because of some third-party app, and the best way to prevent that is to control every aspect of the device.

I've been looking at the Treos too, and I'm not happy with what I see. The screens on the WM models are too small, and the boards at TreoCentral are filled with complaints about the 700p.

The iPhone may or may not fill the bill for me, but at least I'm going to reserve judgment until I can try one for myself.

Analog Kid
Jan 11, 2007, 09:59 PM
I'm reading a lot of passion for 3rd party apps, but I'm not seeing any real examples of why Apple needs them to succeed. There's a couple of medical apps that might be important for doctors, but that's not a huge market segment anymore. Someone mentioned SlingPlayer which looks like a direct competitor to iTunes. Someone mentioned SSH and VLC which probably caters to an even smaller user segment than doctors...

Skype, I think would be great but politically tough for Apple.

Where's the need here, folks?

voidptr
Jan 11, 2007, 10:00 PM
If data rates are actually cheaper than "voice" rates, why aren't the phone companies using VoIP themselves? If it's actually cheaper, it would make sense for them to do that.

They do, internally. They don't yet have an acceptable wireless pipe to get TCP/IP out to the phone with a decent QOS to support voice. But once it hits the tower, it gets converted to VOIP and shuffled out to their central offices to get routed either down their TCP/IP network (if it's going to another subsciber) or to the SS7 network if it's going to someone else.

The voice over radio and the infrastructure required there is still the expensive part of the network, and that's really the part that reflects in the current rates. VOIP won't really cut that down much, as the tower costs don't really change.

profoundmedia
Jan 11, 2007, 10:00 PM
I remember when the Motorola RAZR V3 was $500. Now everyone and their mother has one. Razr Wikipedia Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_RAZR_V3)

I would pay $500 just for that fancy iPod interface, only if it had more storage though :(

dizastor
Jan 11, 2007, 10:01 PM
Not being able to install 3rd party apps is the deal breaker for me.

Doesn't even make me hesitate. I could care less about 3rd party apps on the iphone.

jhedges3
Jan 11, 2007, 10:04 PM
Exactly what I was going to say. Who needs MS office apps when you can get Google Docs and SpreadSheet via browser. We need to start moving away from client-side apps to server-side apps going forward.

Anyway, most of the people complaining here are installing cracked 3rd party apps on thier phones anyway. The same people are complaining about Apple TV not being able to play their bit torrented pirated/ripped movies in divx. The same people playing pirated/copied games on the xbox360, ps2, DS, PSP etc...

Apple controlling 3rd party apps gives back what developers deserves...money for their creativity, time and effort! Good on Apple.

Why is it we need to start moving towards server-side apps and why is controlling third-party applications the right way to get us there?

People should be able to install, watch and play whatever they want. If that negates your or someone else’s existing business model you (they) should find a new one.

Developers should be rewarded for their creativity, time and effort, when it leads to applications that people, all things being equal, prefer to purchase; not because Apple has artificially supported them by restricting its consumers freedom to install whatever they please.

voidptr
Jan 11, 2007, 10:05 PM
Do you know if Cisco will work with someone else then to make the open one happen?

I don't. And realistically, the only companies with that sort of subscriber base right now are the cell phone companies. You still need the cell phone component to support roaming around town. I can get a voip backhaul and a wifi voip phone today, but it doesn't do me any good if it's tied to being within range of a Wifi signal.

I don't know what it would take to crack that business. Of all the current cell phone providers, Cingular is by far the most open, and even they won't take that jump. Verizon is even more dependent on the nickel and dime philosophy than Cingular is.

Apple has the phone, Cingular has the network and SS7 links, and Cisco has the VOIP solution. It's a real shame that they couldn't make this model work, because it's really revolutionary; and I don't think I can really give the idea a full explanation. It's an amazing thing if you can see it click.

QuarterSwede
Jan 11, 2007, 10:06 PM
I think the one thing a lot of people are forgetting about the iPhone is multi-touch. That alone makes this phone better than the Treo or Blackberry for me. I have to use PDA's at work all day and I have to say I absolutely HATE the stylus. It's totally worthless and impedes my productivity. I actually just end up using my fingernail most of the time because it's 10x faster than pulling out the stylus and putting it back a thousand times.

harmless
Jan 11, 2007, 10:06 PM
If data rates are actually cheaper than "voice" rates, why aren't the phone companies using VoIP themselves?
Um. They are.

Unless this is just price gouging or something.
Exactly.

sishaw
Jan 11, 2007, 10:07 PM
Who the hell cares? How many of your phones right now allow you program and install any app you want? This is a cell phone! Not a mini computer.



You can add programs to a Treo or the T-Mobile SDA and, I think, most other smart phones. Actually, I was an early adopter of the iPod and I'm familiar with thread 500. I have put many of the negative posts about the iPhone in that short-sighted category. However, unless Apple itself produces the variety of programs people need, this lack of 3rd-party software is a real mistake in my opinion. The whole great thing about smartphones is that you can run computing tasks on them...that's what makes them so powerful.

I might prefer to keep my SDA and see if there's eventually more of a plain wide-screen iPod with a nice big hard drive and the fancy multi-touch interface. That would rock as a really great iPod, forget the phone. Depends on what's actually included when the iPhone comes out.

Rychiar
Jan 11, 2007, 10:08 PM
who cares about 3rd party apps. Apple has everything of use covered here obviously. Do u really need more than webbrowsing. ipod, photos, email, sms, etc on a phone? Its a damn good value considering my ipod photo here was $599 and is nowhere near as cool or useful. Do u expect the thing tp run photoshop or something? lol:p

jhedges3
Jan 11, 2007, 10:09 PM
I don't. And realistically, the only companies with that sort of subscriber base right now are the cell phone companies. You still need the cell phone component to support roaming around town. I can get a voip backhaul and a wifi voip phone today, but it doesn't do me any good if it's tied to being within range of a Wifi signal.

I don't know what it would take to crack that business. Of all the current cell phone providers, Cingular is by far the most open, and even they won't take that jump. Verizon is even more dependent on the nickel and dime philosophy than Cingular is.

Apple has the phone, Cingular has the network and SS7 links, and Cisco has the VOIP solution. It's a real shame that they couldn't make this model work, because it's really revolutionary; and I don't think I can really give the idea a full explanation. It's an amazing thing if you can see it click.

Would the wifi/GSM transitions be tricky? I mean how would that work?

giba
Jan 11, 2007, 10:09 PM
There is no reason why 3rd party apps would bring down iPhone if it was engineered correctly. All other smartphones never have much problem with third party apps, and I believe Apple can do better.

Apple is selfish in that it doesn't feel the pain third party developer feel when their innovation cannot be turned into reality because of some artificial barrier imposed by them.

Applications, killer apps, are what sells device. And a worldwide developer ecology is better at innovation than a single company, however innovative it is. It's been proven over and over, in PC and on PDA.

As for those who argue this is only a phone, it is not. Apple said so exactly. That it's a combination of many things into a seamless user experience. Why then would the first screen of the device be a list of 15 applications, only one of which is phone, and the other one is iPod? No, it's not just an iPod or just a phone.

And for those who's afriad 3rd party apps would complicate usage. First of all, it's only for people who need those apps. Secondly, the fact that the main menu is a simple (and gorgeous) menu of apps makes the act of finding and opening up application more intuitive than on any smartphone out there.

golfstud
Jan 11, 2007, 10:11 PM
If anything, there's two apps Cingular doesn't want on this phone, and it's likely they'll keep everything else off it to keep it that way:
* A VOIP client so I can make voice calls without the cell network when I'm in wifi range.
* An instant messanger client other than the SMS app Apple already demo'd.

Agreed. Man if this was a SKYPE, ICHAT, AIM phone also,it would be a KILLER. Your cingular plan would be very low dollar..I would use the wifi to call at home and at the office, thus only needing the cell network in the car!

Before all the negatives go overboard...the phone is still FREAKN way better than anything I've seen..I'm a Treo user and it is OK, but this think just stomps it, even with the no third party apps rule.

However, if it has a full web browser it has to have java script, flash, quicktime, etc so there might be wiggle room for web apps.

Here are my complaints, well documented elsewhere, probably not a dealbreaker yet for me.

1. NO removable battery. This needs to be fixed--even Palm fixed this in the second treo..although I have a Treo 600 and it still holds a full day charge..but then again I charge it every night..usually I get 2-3 days out of it.
2. NO VOIP client. as stated above this would be KILLER.(and Cisco would REALLY SUE!!!)
3. Bigger HD space. Has to be flash, but if this thing gets to 30 GB we are golden. I can see third party drives that use the connector and attach to the back..but battery life..ugh.
4. Camera on front to use for video chat(see no VOIP)
5. Third party widgets. I see SJ's point on this, but 3rd party widgets don't bring down my Mac now..they never have. I use a widget to calculate drive space for DVvideo..this is the kind of stuff that would be killer to have in my pocket. This would be so cool to have a FANDAGO WIDGET, NETFIX, etc. ALSO, VLC to watch vids you just don't have time to convert.
NOW having said this the damn PSP has to have 'special' video too!
6. WIRELESS BLUETOOTH SYNCING in background...this is why I almost bought a new treo for the wireless(albiet clumsy) syncing. Having to use ITUNES to sync sucks...and this is a tip to the windows market that Apple wants to chase. Reason to call the thing IPOD w PHONE.

Stridder44
Jan 11, 2007, 10:11 PM
OMG This is terrible!!!! How can they lock the phone down like this! WHat next!? Their computers!?...oh wait..

ricksbrain
Jan 11, 2007, 10:11 PM
Widgets are Apple-approved. Third party development isn't exclusionary-- it just has to be Apple certified.

Third party development isn't out of the question at all. What Apple's saying is that any old crap is not going to show up there.

Well-designed software will be given room on the iPhone-- for a fee, of course. Would you want MS to throw any old crap on the phone? Not me-- I'd rather see their little programming hands held all the way by Steve, Phil, and whatever strong-arming software goons they hide in the Apple basement.

So much grousing here. Too funny.

harmless
Jan 11, 2007, 10:12 PM
A toy?
Yes. Besides being a regular phone of course.

Just because the iPhone, [...] doesn't do what you want it to?
No. Because it only does what Apple want's it to do.

I agree that eventually Apple is going to have to open it up to developers, but not at the beginning.
Great. I'll wait for that. (Might buy some real smartphone in the meantime though ...)

The iPhone may or may not fill the bill for me, but at least I'm going to reserve judgment until I can try one for myself.
Well, as I already pointed out, not being able to install any 3rd party apps I choose, is a deal breaker for me. So no further judgement required.

imacdaddy
Jan 11, 2007, 10:13 PM
This doesn't make sense to me.

If data rates are actually cheaper than "voice" rates, why aren't the phone companies using VoIP themselves? If it's actually cheaper, it would make sense for them to do that. Unless this is just price gouging or something.

(I am not familiar with the mobile phone industry.)

Another reason is wifi range is small and if you're moving you will be out of range and connecting betwen wifi sites will drop your call. Mobile Wimax should be able to solve this. Importantly though, you can't pin point your location in wifi network...meaning they can't locate you if you make an emergency 911 call on your mobile phone.

Stella
Jan 11, 2007, 10:14 PM
who cares about 3rd party apps. Apple has everything of use covered here obviously. Do u really need more than webbrowsing. ipod, photos, email, sms, etc on a phone? Its a damn good value considering my ipod photo here was $599 and is nowhere near as cool or useful. Do u expect the thing tp run photoshop or something? lol:p

Hmmm... how about:
ICQ, Yahoo, Msn messaging client ( The web browser may not support Java to use online versions)
Extra games are always nice
DivX - to play Divx's on ( or RealPlayer for example )
Application to reject / accept calls - blacklists - whitelists ( *very* useful )
An office suite - spreadsheet, word processor etc - always useful - without the need to use online versions
Adobe PDF reader
Dictionary / Thesaurus
Zip Manager
World Mate
GPS software - connecting via a bluetooth GPS device


Just to think of a few application types you'd find on a smartphone ( Nokia's, SonyEricsons et al )

So clearly, Apple does not provide every thing a user could ever need!!

voidptr
Jan 11, 2007, 10:14 PM
Would the wifi/GSM transitions be tricky? I mean how would that work?

The same way tower handoffs work today. If you're on the cell network and the Wifi radio finds a signal, it initiates a connection back to the voip gateway and asks for a handoff. You'll probably get a momentary blip in the audio as it re-routes, but it's certainly feasible.

It's certainly tricky, but it's doable.

The important thing that makes this so much better than having Skype on there (and still profitable for the cellphone carrier) is that I have one number that I'm renting from Cingular, and it works everywhere. Nobody has to call me differently if I'm in the office. I don't have to do anything differently. It's just a phone call with absolute true number portability. And it makes their buildout costs less if they want to extend coverage into urban areas and commercial buildings. You don't need expensive cell towers and GSM radios and limited channel bandwidth. In most cases, someone else will do the buildout for you, but if you can't get that, you run a T1 line and a ruggedized access point with a firewall that only allows your voip data back. You only need cell towers in places where you can't use shorter range higher bandwidth wifi.

harmless
Jan 11, 2007, 10:16 PM
Where's the need here, folks?
Well, here in Germany it will be *very* difficult to sell a smartphone, that can not be used as a navigational device. With a GPS receiver and *3rd party software*.

And I really couldn't care less, if it's to the benefit of Apple, what I want to install on *my* machine.

golfstud
Jan 11, 2007, 10:17 PM
I'm missing something...David Pogue said the IPHONE has to be docked to sync...so why would you need bluetooth in the damn phone anyways...wireless keyboard and mice??? LOL

hmmm

adding another feature that seemed obvious...buying ITUNES on the phone and syncing back to the computer...you can blame the damn record companies for that...remember APPLE has to deal with same SAME DIMWITS that Microsoft does...big stupid companies that think like the RIAA

Stella
Jan 11, 2007, 10:19 PM
The same way tower handoffs work today. If you're on the cell network and the Wifi radio finds a signal, it initiates a connection back to the voip gateway and asks for a handoff. You'll probably get a momentary blip in the audio as it re-routes, but it's certainly feasible.

It's certainly tricky, but it's doable.

Its already been done ( for example on the Nokia E-Series ) - roaming.

It'll switch between WI-fi, 3G and regular cell phone voice network.

sbarton
Jan 11, 2007, 10:19 PM
Exactly what I was going to say. Who needs MS office apps when you can get Google Docs and SpreadSheet via browser. We need to start moving away from client-side apps to server-side apps going forward.

Anyway, most of the people complaining here are installing cracked 3rd party apps on thier phones anyway. The same people are complaining about Apple TV not being able to play their bit torrented pirated/ripped movies in divx. The same people playing pirated/copied games on the xbox360, ps2, DS, PSP etc...

Apple controlling 3rd party apps gives back what developers deserves...money for their creativity, time and effort! Good on Apple.

Ok - go try Google Docs over EDGE and report back here....wait, you'll be dead by the time it loads...

Want to experiance web browsing over edge? Go fire up that USR 56k X2 modem you have in your basement and start surfing....you'll get the idea.

I've never used EDGE, but I have used CDMA and GSM for data and even email was a pain, and forget about surfing...even WAP was a PITA....I'm hearing 56-75k on a good day for EDGE...thats much faster, but still slow..I don't see the experiance being that much better, but I'll definaltey check it out.

dan-o-mac
Jan 11, 2007, 10:28 PM
I'm reading a lot of passion for 3rd party apps, but I'm not seeing any real examples of why Apple needs them to succeed. There's a couple of medical apps that might be important for doctors, but that's not a huge market segment anymore. Someone mentioned SlingPlayer which looks like a direct competitor to iTunes. Someone mentioned SSH and VLC which probably caters to an even smaller user segment than doctors...

Skype, I think would be great but politically tough for Apple.

Where's the need here, folks?

It's not about the "need" it all about what people "want". Do you understand that people don't want Apple to dictate what they want on the phone.

imacdaddy
Jan 11, 2007, 10:29 PM
Ok - go try Google Docs over EDGE and report back here....wait, you'll be dead by the time it loads...

Want to experiance web browsing over edge? Go fire up that USR 56k X2 modem you have in your basement and start surfing....you'll get the idea.

I've never used EDGE, but I have used CDMA and GSM for data and even email was a pain, and forget about surfing...even WAP was a PITA....I'm hearing 56-75k on a good day for EDGE...thats much faster, but still slow..I don't see the experiance being that much better, but I'll definaltey check it out.

Ok you're right about the speed. I was thinking wifi and 3G all along because I live in Asia. So the iPhone version for Asia (Rev C?) will be faster than rev A iPhone to be released this June.

Anyway, I'll just sit back and watch what will become of this phone when it releases. There will be 3rd party apps but will be QC'd to death by Apple and that IS a good thing.

imacdaddy
Jan 11, 2007, 10:30 PM
Its already been done ( for example on the Nokia E-Series ) - roaming.

It'll switch between WI-fi, 3G and regular cell phone voice network.

I have the E61 and the caveat of that is battery life.

suneohair
Jan 11, 2007, 10:36 PM
It's not about the "need" it all about what people "want". Do you understand that people don't want Apple to dictate what they want on the phone.

Don't buy it?

Stella
Jan 11, 2007, 10:36 PM
I have the E61 and the caveat of that is battery life.

Yes, it sucks ass! I get about 2.5 days on my E70 with moderate non voice usage. But I love it, absolutely.

---

It strikes me here that people who have never used ( enough ) /owned a smartphone are the ones who are wondering why anyone would need more applications on their phones.

Once you do start installing more applications you can appreciate how flexible the phone becomes - just like your computer. Without this ability the thought of a smartphone ( in this case, iPhone ) that cannot install apps becomes very,very limited appeal. Nice interface, limited appeal, limited functionality. Your better off with your current, expandable phone - sans the prettier interface.

dan-o-mac
Jan 11, 2007, 10:36 PM
Ok you're right about the speed. I was thinking wifi and 3G all along because I live in Asia. So the iPhone version for Asia (Rev C?) will be faster than rev A iPhone to be released this June.

Anyway, I'll just sit back and watch what will become of this phone when it releases. There will be 3rd party apps but will be QC'd to death by Apple and that IS a good thing.

The question is will 3rd party apps be QC'd to death or just be hand picked by Apple. I'll guess we'll just have to sit back and watch like you say. ;)

crispoe
Jan 11, 2007, 10:36 PM
I think there will be well established 3rd party applications, but they will have to be approved by Apple and then published in the itunes store.

I want all the cool apps on my cell phone just like every other power user, but I have managed/used treos, palms, blackberrys, windows mobile phones, and windows mobile smart phones for my company, and all of them crash all time or need to be rebooted. They have all sorts of issues. I am sure its because of all the apps that end users install on the phones that go untested with all the other apps they have on the phone.

Phones have limited memory, and a non savvy user will install too many apps on the phone- and run out of program memory, killing the stability of the phone. I am sure apple wants to avoid this. I think Apple is doing the right thing here.

If you want to put a pre-alpha version of putty on your phone - get a Treo.

If you want a fully tested stable version of ssh for your iphone, chances are you will see it come through iTunes and run in concert with the rest of your apps on the iPhone.

I like the idea of getting applications through the itunes store. It reminds me a bit of synaptic for debian/ubuntu. It would be nice if I could install any OS X application through itunes on my Macbook/iPhone with one click.

I think we will hear more about this process at WWDC.

I hope the iphone battery is reliable enough though. :(

Data
Jan 11, 2007, 10:39 PM
I still want it, al do salling clicker hopefully will get on the iphone to
;-)

SiliconAddict
Jan 11, 2007, 10:39 PM
Not for the upper 1% (at least) of that market. Many high-end nonsmartphones cost that much. And considering it has a full-fledged iPod built-in, it's not THAT expensive.


You are making the same justifications that people who support the PS3 are making. That HAY! It’s got Blu-Ray so it’s worth $600 for a game system. That justification isn’t working out so well because people are looking to use the system as a game console first and foremost. When you spend a premium on a device, and lets be fair this is a premium. The device that I’m waiting for in the mail that I mentioned above is $350 before the instant discount of $100. When you spend a premium on a device it becomes very hard to justify buying a device if you aren’t going to use all those features. What do I mean?
Its a full-fledged 4 or 8GB iPod Nano. You need to keep this in perspective. The audio features cater to a very narrow market.
Keep in mind that until now people paying a premium for iPods were doing it to get 60+GB drives. Now all they are getting is 4-8GB and a subset of their collection with all the cool zippy features of the iPhone. Realistically the iPhone caters to three groups of people when it comes to music:

A. People who can fit all their music on 4-8GB of space.

B. People who are willing to have a subset of their music on the thing.

C. People who don’t care about the iTunes functionality at all and are simply interested in the smart phone features.

Basicly what it boils down to is this device is targeted at Phone users who have a nano and are willing to spend more then they did on the Nano. That’s a pretty narrow user base without even factoring in Cingular.
Lets be under no delusions though: Apple is going to sell several metric tons of these things right out of the gate, but I’m certain there is going to be a pretty large segment of users who are going to wait for something better because this thing because of price, by and large, is catering to a narrow market segment. Now if this thing was $299 people could overlook this set of features or that set of features. But at half a grand for the base unit? People get twitchy about that half grand mark.
But like everything the price will eventually fall, new models will come out, 3rd party support will happen, and all will be right with the world again. Just have to give it time. For now Apple will sell these things like hotcakes to people with disposable incomes, tech heads, Mac heads, and generally people who need teh new shiny now. Which is perfectly fine by me. Please beta test this stuff for us and godspeed.


I'm missing something...David Pogue said the IPHONE has to be docked to sync...so why would you need bluetooth in the damn phone anyways...wireless keyboard and mice??? LOL



BT Headsets.

voidptr
Jan 11, 2007, 10:40 PM
Anyway, I'll just sit back and watch what will become of this phone when it releases. There will be 3rd party apps but will be QC'd to death by Apple and that IS a good thing.

No, it's not. Apple QC isn't going to come cheap. It's creating another false economy with an artificial barrier to entry like the current ringtone market instead of creating an ecosystem for independent development like OS X, Cocoa, XCode, and dashboard has for the Mac.

You don't want crappy apps on your iPhone? Nobody's holding a gun to your head and making you install them. But this is stopping development on the iPhone before it begins, because alot of people who would develop (quality software or otherwise) just aren't going to bother with the hassle.

digitalbiker
Jan 11, 2007, 10:42 PM
I feel like you’ll get your fill of towers, cores, 10s. In the mean time, you might ponder to yourself whether there is a dichotomy between nostalgia and longing for stasis or embracing change and welcoming evolution.

I, for example, do find it sad at times that we’re no longer living in caves and huts. But there is no time to lament the disappearance of these simpler living quarters and the progress that accompanied this change. I do like windows and central heating and being surrounded by rectangular patterns of dry wall...

Look the iPhone is an amazing little gadget. It is truly innovative from the miniaturation and design standpoint. But it cannot be perceived as the future for computing.

I can't develop and compile multi-platform applications on an iPhone. I can't edit and create HD DVD's on the iPhone. I am not going to use an iPhone for photoshop work. People can't design and render 3D animations on an iPhone.

Sorry but many of us who make a living with computers still need an 8 core MacPro.

I think your analogy is way way off. If a Mac Pro is a grass hut or cave. I sure wouldn't call an iPhone a modern house. More like a Mac Pro would be a castle or palace and and iPhone would be a nylon pup-tent.

ksz
Jan 11, 2007, 10:43 PM
Doesn't even make me hesitate. I could care less about 3rd party apps on the iphone.
I generally agree, particularly for the first year. After that, it would be a good idea to allow third party apps as long as they meet Apple's certification requirements.

As others have mentioned, it doesn't seem likely that Apple will develop or allow a Skype or IM client. This is probably due to the bundling and control-freak strategies employed by mobile carriers. Apple is not in a position to change the tactics of mobile carriers today, but if the iPhone becomes a huge commercial success, Apple will certainly be in a position to dictate terms.

I think Apple demonstrated this with iTunes. Once the iPod and iTMS became huge commercial successes, Apple gained the enviable position of being able to strongarm the music companies. One evidence of this is the continued 99-cent price of nearly all individual tracks, despite pressure from them to raise prices.

For movies, Apple will again try to hold prices down. Apple is not in a particularly strong position with movies yet, but with the announcement of Paramount Pictures, they are beginning to get there.

So I hope that with time and with the commercial success of iPhone, Apple will be able to change the dynamics of the mobile phone industry.

dan-o-mac
Jan 11, 2007, 10:44 PM
Don't buy it?

Yeah I think that's what a few people are going to do, but the masses will more than pick up the slack. I don't doubt this thing will sell like crack. I won't be buying myself. No Cingular, and not enough money being more of the reason than 3rd party support, but that does play a part for me.

RealMcCoy
Jan 11, 2007, 10:47 PM
I wonder what apple, inc. would look like if all of those "apple should do this, apple should do that" people that are posting here, really would run the company ?

Make your own company and do better, I say !

The iPhone (in the current state it was presented by Steve Jobs) is already a great device, not only for the looks. Get one or simply don´t !

It is so easy to jump on something that is done already (involving lots of people to get it there) and then poping out of the box just to explain what they would have done to make it right ! Go ahead ... do it, why don´t you ?

The rebirth of apple was through the return of Steve Jobs. Let him do the thinking for the company cause this guy knows what he is doing ! Or is there anyone that would doubt this ?

In a perfect world, filled with perfect people and perfect people we would surely not driving stupid boxes on four wheels that are fueled with gas and my neighbor would not be a jerk ;o)

gwangung
Jan 11, 2007, 10:47 PM
I think there will be well established 3rd party applications, but they will have to be approved by Apple and then published in the itunes store.

Well, given that the article SAYS that there will be 3rd party apps, but they will have to approved by Apple, I don't think you're going out on a limb.

However, all the folks whining about the "NO" third party apps seems to have flunked basic reading comprehension 101.

AidenShaw
Jan 11, 2007, 10:50 PM
Who the hell cares? How many of your phones right now allow you program and install any app you want? This is a cell phone! Not a mini computer.

Ummm, look at http://www.handango.com/home.jsp?siteId=1 and rephrase the question....

SiliconAddict
Jan 11, 2007, 10:52 PM
No, it's not. Apple QC isn't going to come cheap. It's creating another false economy with an artificial barrier to entry like the current ringtone market instead of creating an ecosystem for independent development like OS X, Cocoa, XCode, and dashboard has for the Mac.

You don't want crappy apps on your iPhone? Nobody's holding a gun to your head and making you install them. But this is stopping development on the iPhone before it begins, because alot of people who would develop (quality software or otherwise) just aren't going to bother with the hassle.

My money is on this QC being all about memory footprint. Granted at this point we have NO idea how this thing is designed. For all we know the system is being run off a 1GB virtual disk on the storage side of things with no real system RAM in the traditional sense of the word. I really can't wait to find out how this thing works...anyways.
I'm willing to be the strict controls are all about keeping it within the working envelope of the system's RAM/ RAM drive, whatever.
Apple is notorious about shipping hardware that sits ON the edge of certain envelopes, be they thermal or systems with JUST enough RAM to function. (The RAM complaint has thankfully has changed in the last few years but does everyone remember the days of 256MB? That really wasn't all that long ago.)
Anyways I'm sure that its all about keeping these apps from going open buffet on the system's resources.
*shrugs* This is a good thing and a bad thing if its true. Granted I'm using the PIDOOMA model (http://www.dangerouslogic.com/office_lexicon.html#pidooma) to come up with this stuff so who knows. *shrugs* Wait and see guys.

Ummm, look at http://www.handango.com/home.jsp?siteId=1 and rephrase the question....

Shhhhhhhh! Didn't you know? If it isn't Apple it doesn't exist. http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/icons/posting.php_files/worried.gif

Careful. We don't want to shatter people's fragile reality.

RealMcCoy
Jan 11, 2007, 10:53 PM
As others have mentioned, it doesn't seem likely that Apple will develop or allow a Skype or IM client. This is probably due to the bundling and control-freak strategies employed by mobile carriers.

Realisticly it is due to the charakter of a profit orientated company and the rules of the market. What would be the benefit of any mobile carrier to allow a product like Skype on a product they onbviously make money by charging you for the use of there network ?

AppleIntelRock
Jan 11, 2007, 10:55 PM
A phone with access to the internet, email and text messages. A so-so 2mp camera and only 8 GB of internal memory- no upgrade options. No third party applications will be available and you'll have to purchase almost every software add-on for an unreasonable price. It doesn't even feature HSDPA. How much would you pay? $50? $100? nope. Try $600 plus activation.

ksz
Jan 11, 2007, 11:00 PM
Realisticly it is due to the charakter of a profit orientated company and the rules of the market. What would be the benefit of any mobile carrier to allow a product like Skype on a product they onbviously make money by charging you for the use of there network ?
One should be able to use Skype or IM over WiFi, not necessarily over the cellular network. We can do this even now. I have a Skype client running on my Dell Axim (which looks a lot like the iPhone). I can only make calls, obviously, when there is a WiFi network around.

But the problem here is that the iPhone is a cellular phone, not an internet phone. It could be both, but it seems to me (speculation) that Cingular would rather not give it a dual identity. They want all calls going through their cellular network. Of course this has everything to do with profit margins, and at this time Apple is not in a position to argue with them. But if the iPhone becomes a huge commercial success, Apple may be able to exert more control over what the iPhone can and cannot do.

ChrisA
Jan 11, 2007, 11:07 PM
Likely the version of Mac OS X that runs on the iPhone is so stripped down it lacks even basic features like a file system that understands ownership and permissions and maybe even there is no memory protections and process can write over each other. I would not be surprised if the OS was quite primitive.

If I'm write allowing third party software would be like allowing third part drivers, the software would have free run of the device. You can't have that if the phone is to work

RealMcCoy
Jan 11, 2007, 11:10 PM
And while we´re at to explain Steve Jobs how to run Apple, Inc. ... there you go: Steve I want this to be the next iMac o iTouch or iTouchMac or .... Now !!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NVIcGdmpp2k

slffl
Jan 11, 2007, 11:11 PM
Huge positive! I'm SO glad Apple and Jobs don't listen to half the people on these forums. I really think people who have a problem with this should be using Windows Mobile.

Fukui
Jan 11, 2007, 11:12 PM
I understand Steve's reasoning, in that he wants a smooth, seemless device. This is somewhat analogous to Mac's being so stable because Apple controls the hardware and software, so OS X is programmed with every possible circumstance in mind, unlike Windows which must cope with a myriad of hardware situation.
Perhaps, but also limiting the software options to only apple helps another potential problem... the first time I heard steve mention it runs OS X, the first thought that raced through my head was that virus writers are gonna have a field day trying to get things installed onto the iPhone. If apple locks it down, its gonna be harder to infect the things as well....

RealMcCoy
Jan 11, 2007, 11:15 PM
One should be able to use Skype or IM over WiFi, not necessarily over the cellular network. We can do this even now. I have a Skype client running on my Dell Axim (which looks a lot like the iPhone). I can only make calls, obviously, when there is a WiFi network around.

Then the Dell Axim it is ! For you ;o)

... it seems to me (speculation) that Cingular would rather not give it a dual identity. They want all calls going through their cellular network.

Sure they do want that ! Wouldn´t you, if it would be your company ?

ksz
Jan 11, 2007, 11:22 PM
Then the Dell Axim it is ! For you ;o)

Sure they do want that ! Wouldn´t you, if it would be your company ?
Are you arguing for the status quo, or are you arguing for better choices?

AppleIntelRock
Jan 11, 2007, 11:25 PM
Yeah I think that's what a few people are going to do, but the masses will more than pick up the slack. I don't doubt this thing will sell like crack. I won't be buying myself. No Cingular, and not enough money being more of the reason than 3rd party support, but that does play a part for me.

The "masses" aren't going to be spending $600 on a phone. Not now, not ever. "Sell like crack"- I doubt it. "No Cingular, and not enough money" Will be main reasons it wont "sell like crack." Not enough money being the largest of them all.

Likely the version of Mac OS X that runs on the iPhone is so stripped down it lacks even basic features like a file system that understands ownership and permissions and maybe even there is no memory protections and process can write over each other. I would not be surprised if the OS was quite primitive.

If I'm write allowing third party software would be like allowing third part drivers, the software would have free run of the device. You can't have that if the phone is to work

"stripped down... lacking basic deatures like file systems that understands ownership and permissions and maybe even there is no memory protections"

Sounds like Microsoft... not Apple.

Realisticly it is due to the charakter of a profit orientated company and the rules of the market. What would be the benefit of any mobile carrier to allow a product like Skype on a product they onbviously make money by charging you for the use of there network ?

If companies ONLY worried about profit margins, you'd never have innovation. A happy medium has to be found

voidptr
Jan 11, 2007, 11:28 PM
Sure they do want that ! Wouldn´t you, if it would be your company ?

No, I wouldn't. Go read my earlier post on why Cisco walked out of the deal.

Cell service is expensive, and cell companies used to sell cell service. And they think they still do.

But what they really sell is roaming access to the SS7 network. There's an incredible market for that with Voip becoming popular. Skype doesn't work when I'm in the middle of nowhere out of range of a Wifi hotspot. Vonage or my local telephone company doesn't work when I'm not home. Cingular doesn't work in the conference room in the middle of work, or at my house in the boonies.

Three ways to get a phone number and complete a call onto the telephone network everyone else is on. Only one has the infrastructure to work almost anywhere I am, but they don't have the infrastructure everywhere. I don't want 3 phone numbers. I don't want to deal with three different companies every month to stay connected. I want one unified network agnostic way to complete a call, whether it's over GSM when I can see a tower, or VOIP and Wifi when I've got that handy. And cell phone companies are in the best position to do that, because they have the hard part -- connecting while I'm on the road. Connecting while I'm within reach of an internet connection is easy. And when I'm near a TCP/IP connection, GSM is the worst possible way to get voice anywhere. It's expensive to deploy and maintain, and it's slow for general purpose data.

Cell phone companies are eventually going to either sell high QOS mobile voice and universal VOIP to SS7 access along with valuable mobile data, or they're going to get replaced by an upstart company who can. The question is how long it takes them to see that, or how long they're going to maintain a dying business model based on overpriced "special data" and trapping their customers in artificially inflated economies in a world where data and TCP/IP is quickly becoming a comodity item.

applecrag
Jan 11, 2007, 11:33 PM
if you want 3rd party apps/more flexibility get a palm. complain in 6 months if all isnt right. personally i think the iphone is an amazing device and we should all trust that steve knows what hes doing like he does with the ipod.

AppleIntelRock
Jan 11, 2007, 11:35 PM
if you want 3rd party apps/more flexibility get a palm. complain in 6 months if all isnt right. personally i think the iphone is an amazing device and we should all trust that steve knows what hes doing like he does with the ipod.

Now, now, we're not going to gain market-share using that attitude. The "if you don't like it, go someplace else attitude" isn't a productive one.

jhedges3
Jan 11, 2007, 11:35 PM
Maybe service providers should update their pricing plans to charge per email or per page or per packet. Cell providers should also charge less if the bandwidth of your conversation is smaller. Video stores should record the number of repeated viewings of a DVD, and charge per each. Beer companies should enforce a policy of one opening one gulp, or else you pay 45 cents and increasing exponentially.

Cell phone providers do charge per email (by forcing it through SMS) and per packet (by charging assininely high rates per kb of data). Every other company you listed realized that charging sane prices for use of their product instead of nickeling and dimeing their customers to death makes a much more profitable business in the long run. Maybe cell phone companies should join the 21st century and sell a "big dumb pipe" like the wired world does now.

I was being sarcastic. Apologies that was lost. Not that it means anything to anyone, but I am, and have been, in favor of business models that don’t try to squeeze money from consumers by needlessly charging for particular things.

The service providers I was referring to in the first sentence are Internet service providers not cell phone providers, which I was referring to in the second sentence. I did not list any companies.

ksz
Jan 11, 2007, 11:43 PM
The question is how long it takes them to see that, or how long they're going to maintain a dying business model based on overpriced "special data" and trapping their customers in artificially inflated economies in a world where data and TCP/IP is quickly becoming a comodity item.
Well said.

I'll go further and hope that all major and minor metropolitan areas in the United States and around the world get blanketed by free/public WiFi and an abundance of VOIP/Skype phones. In that case I will most certainly cancel my mobile service and just rent cellular phones for those infrequent trips through the "boonies."

Seriously, cellular rate plans are a piece of $##%!@.

RealMcCoy
Jan 11, 2007, 11:46 PM
Are you arguing for the status quo, or are you arguing for better choices?

All I am saying is:

"I" decide what product I wanna go for. If a product like the iPhone comes available and it does not fit my needs, my financal budget or my personal preferences, I will go for one that will. And in regards to the cellular companies ... they will do as they please (if I like it or not). And if to many costumers of any carrier, feel they do the wrong thing or they are not the right choice they will change and the company will disapear ...

I use a european carrier (since I spend most of the time there) and unlike the regular system in the US, I always buy my phone and then pick a carrier I wanna use.

Skype or whatever VoIP System you like is a great thing (and I use it myself aswell) but if it is not available on the iPhone, I still get one (just for all the goodies that it already has). Besides that ... it is 2007 and my iPod does not look like the iPod I got back in 2001, neither does it have "only" the features of the my first iPod. Let´s see what the future brings for the iPhone. Maybe it will sell, maybe not. This won´t really be my problem ...

But if Apple really get´s 1 % marketshare at the end of 2008 ... boy this thingy will become quickly much more popular !!! And then of course also cheaper or at least upgraded in his technical specs.

Jeonat
Jan 11, 2007, 11:49 PM
I haven't read all this thread but here is my 2p.

No 3rd party apps is a real deal breaker for me. The iPhone is a mini-computer and you expect to be able to install the programs you want. Okay so Steve might be concerned about user experience and 3rd party apps mucking up the phone and dropping calls, but other manufacturers manage to make phones that support 3rd party apps that don't crash the phone. My M600i works perfectly with the many 3rd party Symbian apps I have installed on it. Is Steve so paranoid about the stability of his "mini-OSX" that he needs apps to be controlled by him?

Which brings me on to my next point. Controlled apps. This is just Big Brother mentality, someone said earlier about a developer certification program. This will be NO good for the end user. Why? Because Apple will refuse to certify apps that do the same things (but better, with more features, or more familiarity) as it's iApps. So you can rule out VLC, Adium, Skype and stuff like that. And I also seriously doubt that apps like Skype would be approved anyway because of the ability to cut down on the carriers' voice revenue. And don't say Apple isn't interested in that - they did an exclusive deal with Cingular for goodness sake!

This is turning into a lame duck product. I love the idea, I love some of the technical concepts but I think I will stick to my Symbian phone where I can do what I want on it!

p0intblank
Jan 11, 2007, 11:51 PM
I think it's better off this way. Let Apple handle the apps/updates just like they are with the iPod. All it takes is one bad app to screw everything up, especially on a phone...

RealMcCoy
Jan 11, 2007, 11:52 PM
No, I wouldn't. Go read my earlier post on why Cisco walked out of the deal.

Cell service is expensive, and cell companies used to sell cell service. And they think they still do.

But what they really sell is roaming access to the SS7 network. There's an incredible market for that with Voip becoming popular. Skype doesn't work when I'm in the middle of nowhere out of range of a Wifi hotspot. Vonage or my local telephone company doesn't work when I'm not home. Cingular doesn't work in the conference room in the middle of work, or at my house in the boonies.

Three ways to get a phone number and complete a call onto the telephone network everyone else is on. Only one has the infrastructure to work almost anywhere I am, but they don't have the infrastructure everywhere. I don't want 3 phone numbers. I don't want to deal with three different companies every month to stay connected. I want one unified network agnostic way to complete a call, whether it's over GSM when I can see a tower, or VOIP and Wifi when I've got that handy. And cell phone companies are in the best position to do that, because they have the hard part -- connecting while I'm on the road. Connecting while I'm within reach of an internet connection is easy. And when I'm near a TCP/IP connection, GSM is the worst possible way to get voice anywhere. It's expensive to deploy and maintain, and it's slow for general purpose data.

Cell phone companies are eventually going to either sell high QOS mobile voice and universal VOIP to SS7 access along with valuable mobile data, or they're going to get replaced by an upstart company who can. The question is how long it takes them to see that, or how long they're going to maintain a dying business model based on overpriced "special data" and trapping their customers in artificially inflated economies in a world where data and TCP/IP is quickly becoming a comodity item.

Honestly ... I look forward to that (no joke) ... but I tell you already that either the "right now" existing companies or "future" profit-orientated companies will come up with something "new" that will make you fall for there services, they are charging you for ! Or let´s say ... they will use a lot of promotional tools to make you at least think that you need it ;o)

Macheath_Messer
Jan 11, 2007, 11:53 PM
Well, I guess Engadget & Gizmodo had better let Apple know about their better judgment, and prevent Apple from even bothering to bring it to market. :rolleyes:

The coming months will answer all our questions. 6 months is a very long time for things to develop for something that was an unknown certainty until Tuesday morning of this week.

Someone mentioned the fact the phone will be released about the same time as WWDC. I don't think that's a coincidence.

FWIW

profoundmedia
Jan 11, 2007, 11:55 PM
I have a feeling that most of the tech savvy people complaining here are mad because they have already bought a "smart phone". While the rest of us will wait and see what really becomes of the iPhone. Just my thoughts :)

ksz
Jan 11, 2007, 11:55 PM
I haven't read all this thread but here is my 2p.

No 3rd party apps is a real deal breaker for me. The iPhone is a mini-computer and you expect to be able to install the programs you want. Okay so Steve might be concerned about user experience and 3rd party apps mucking up the phone and dropping calls, but other manufacturers manage to make phones that support 3rd party apps that don't crash the phone. My M600i works perfectly with the many 3rd party Symbian apps I have installed on it. Is Steve so paranoid about the stability of his "mini-OSX" that he needs apps to be controlled by him?

Which brings me on to my next point. Controlled apps. This is just Big Brother mentality, someone said earlier about a developer certification program. This will be NO good for the end user. Why? Because Apple will refuse to certify apps that do the same things (but better, with more features, or more familiarity) as it's iApps. So you can rule out VLC, Adium, Skype and stuff like that. And I also seriously doubt that apps like Skype would be approved anyway because of the ability to cut down on the carriers' voice revenue. And don't say Apple isn't interested in that - they did an exclusive deal with Cingular for goodness sake!

This is turning into a lame duck product. I love the idea, I love some of the technical concepts but I think I will stick to my Symbian phone where I can do what I want on it!
Yup, I mostly agree (but I'm certainly buying one). Cingular is calling a few shots here. No VoIP on the iPhone is in the best interests of Cingular, but not in the best interests of Apple and the customer. Apple just cannot argue right now. Like RealMcCoy acknowledged, that's just the way things are. But Steve Jobs does not like the status quo in the cellular industry...there are indications he's been in a few arguments with these guys. Until the iPhone becomes a huge success, I don't think Apple will be able to negotiate different terms. But I am confident that Steve Jobs wants to change the stinking status quo.

Macheath_Messer
Jan 11, 2007, 11:57 PM
And who said that there won't end up being a good variety of 3rd party apps after a while? :confused:

Exactly how I feel about the situation right now, and I should think I'm just as qualified to hold such an opinion as the hand-wringers who have been posting. :D

FWIW

jhedges3
Jan 11, 2007, 11:59 PM
When is Arn going to rename this forum iPhoneRumors?

Here it is nearly the end of the premier Mac conference held once a year and guess what! Not one bit of interesting Mac news, updates, or new designed macs.

Instead we have dozens of lousey rumors on a vaporware phone that won't be released for 6 months. Not only that, the phone's name is in jeopardy, people are whining about the features, service plans, and 3rd party apps. Great!

People get a grip. It is just a phone and it hasn't even been made for sale yet.

Sad:( Sad:( Sad:(

Where has my "Apple Computer" gone? Where are the mac mini towers? Where are the new macbookpro designs, where is 10.5, where is the 8 core mac pro, where where where????:eek:

Please wake me when this nightmare is over!!


I can't develop and compile multi-platform applications on an iPhone. I can't edit and create HD DVD's on the iPhone. I am not going to use an iPhone for photoshop work. People can't design and render 3D animations on an iPhone.

Sorry but many of us who make a living with computers still need an 8 core MacPro.

I think your analogy is way way off. If a Mac Pro is a grass hut or cave. I sure wouldn't call an iPhone a modern house. More like a Mac Pro would be a castle or palace and and iPhone would be a nylon pup-tent.

I don’t know whether someone else did, but I never suggested you could, or would want to, do any of those things on an iPhone. But thanks for the reminder of a few of the things it wouldn’t be good for, which isn’t to say it’s bad for the things it was intended to be used for.

My impression was that you disliked that the focus of Macworld was on things that were of little importance, or use, for you. And you felt that it should remain as it was before, so that you could get your better cores and OS updates sooner rather than latter. While I don’t doubt your need for whatever you need, I don’t see why that should trump all else, and why it can’t wait a little bit more, and why Macworld can’t be the time for something new and something so many people have been waiting so long for.

Do you really feel that the hardware you need to do whatever it is you do doesn’t exist yet and you need Apple to release it now rather than later and therefore shouldn’t have focused so much on the iPhone?

I think your interpretation of my analogy is way way off. It’s not that Mac Pro is a cave or a castle and iPhone is a house or a tent. It’s whether your attitude is one that embraces change and the release of new devices, which may or may not revolutionize markets they’ve yet to get into, or whether you’d rather things stay the same, because you feel that staying the same is of greater importance or utility to you personally.

RealMcCoy
Jan 11, 2007, 11:59 PM
No one really "needs" an iPhone but the ones that think they do ! People like me ;o)

xDANx
Jan 12, 2007, 12:03 AM
There's one problem with that, and it's strictly Cingular's fault. Shame on Apple for playing along.

Cell phone networks have the idea that instant messaging is "special data". There's phones out there now that support AIM, and they use SMS to do it, even when there's a data network available, because 10c per line makes incredible money for the networks, and treating data as data doesn't let them do that. AOL released last year a library to support third party AIM clients, and the license for it included a prohibition on using it to develop any clients for mobile devices, because AOL's already agreed to help the networks enforce their IM == SMS idiocy.

If anything, there's two apps Cingular doesn't want on this phone, and it's likely they'll keep everything else off it to keep it that way:
* A VOIP client so I can make voice calls without the cell network when I'm in wifi range.
* An instant messanger client other than the SMS app Apple already demo'd.

you hit the nail on the head...we can only hope that the iphone is a runaway success in spite of cingular (and the cell phone industry in general) and that apple can leverage that to break free of them all. for some reason that sounds so incredibly far-fetched right now...(sigh).

ksz
Jan 12, 2007, 12:04 AM
No one really "needs" an iPhone but the ones that think they are ! People like me ;o)
By that token, no one really "needs" anything beyond the basics. Capitalism is driven less by need and more by "want." The purpose of Marketing is to create that wonderful sense of want.

ksz
Jan 12, 2007, 12:06 AM
for some reason that sounds so incredibly far-fetched right now...(sigh).
That is called "vision" :)

eightball0
Jan 12, 2007, 12:12 AM
I have a feeling that most of the tech savvy people complaining here are mad because they have already bought a "smart phone". While the rest of us will wait and see what really becomes of the iPhone. Just my thoughts :)

I doubt it. I have an unlocked Nokia E70 which I'd sell in a second so I could put the proceeds to an iPhone that would let me run third-party apps from independent developers.

People like me who have smartphones see them as an asset that can be exchanged for cash quickly.

Macheath_Messer
Jan 12, 2007, 12:16 AM
Now, now, we're not going to gain market-share using that attitude. The "if you don't like it, go someplace else attitude" isn't a productive one.

What about the Chicken Littles running around declaring the iPhone DOA because Apple is being cautious about initial 3rd party application support? That is taking a productive slant towards this situation? :cool:

FWIW

eightball0
Jan 12, 2007, 12:18 AM
If you want to put a pre-alpha version of putty on your phone - get a Treo.

I've used pssh on my Treo with nothing but absolute success.

I can understand Apple wanting to 'guarantee' software quality. And there's always room for improvement with software. But let's not exaggerate her: all software for smartphones doesn't make it crash. After all, there's a very substantial market for it.

Would you want Apple to lock you out of software on your Mac? No. Why would you want it on a device you pay $600 for?

silence
Jan 12, 2007, 12:28 AM
Let me ask everyone here ONE question...

Does your Mac computer have any third party apps installed??

I, for one, rely HEAVILY on 3rd party software.. anything from MS Office, Adobe CS2, and Filemaker Pro to the small yet just as critical ones such as iAlarm and VLC Player.

Would you really buy an Apple if this wasn't possible???

Apple definitely make great stuff, but they really can't cater for all the different software options that people depend on... even with computers :eek: In fact, nobody can. That's the joy of having 3rd party developers around, to take your expensive hardware to the next level.

Can you imagine how bad PS2 would be if the only games avail were made by Sony??? PS2 succeeded so well due to the massive range of games avail, even if other vendors had better hardware.

Steve has done great so far and the introduction of the Intel Mac has put Apple in the right direction. Especially with Microsoft integration the business will grow even larger, because Mac users are now getting MORE options and MORE access to third party software and hardware.

I just really can't understand the logic in this one..

dAlen
Jan 12, 2007, 12:29 AM
Its simple...they dont want you using Skype, etc. for free...

Peace

dalen

Macheath_Messer
Jan 12, 2007, 12:30 AM
I've used pssh on my Treo with nothing but absolute success.

I can understand Apple wanting to 'guarantee' software quality. And there's always room for improvement with software. But let's not exaggerate her: all software for smartphones doesn't make it crash. After all, there's a very substantial market for it.

Would you want Apple to lock you out of software on your Mac? No. Why would you want it on a device you pay $600 for?

True, not all 3rd party apps cause crashes. But Apple isn't saying there will be NO 3rd party apps.

One thing not many people have brought up is complaints about service providers who cripple phones from their full potential right out of the box. Verizon is one company I've heard many complaints about with regards to this practice. Doesn't this crippling limit or "close" what you can do with your phone?

FWIW

Macheath_Messer
Jan 12, 2007, 12:35 AM
honestly, I was all for it. But if he's not gonna open it up for 3rd party software makers he's making it really hard for someone in my position to justify purchasing one.

Thing that drives me to getting a palm or windows pda phone is the ability to run medical software on it like epocrates or the washington manual. If those aren't gonna be to run on it, why would I really need one?

I would dig being able to run a Palm emulator. I would be able to run all my 3rd party Palm apps. Might seem stupid, but it could work. :D

bretm
Jan 12, 2007, 12:42 AM
So you'll be able to get word, excel, adobe reader, skype, etc, all the essentials, but not less successful apps by less successful developers.

My view: good for consumers (stops you from messing up your brand new phone by exerting free will). Bad for developers

NO. Noone ever said anything even close to that. Perhaps.

It isn't a freakin computer people. Noone ever said it was. His OSX point was simple... that it's running their operating system and that it's not a hardwired toy like these other jokes out there. That it's run on software and upgradeable. Geez, he never eluded to anything but it being ipod, web, phone. ipod, web, phone. ipod, web phone,, etc. NO COMPUTER. Good. I want a device that works. This does what I want, how I want it. I'll buy it for that reason.

w00master
Jan 12, 2007, 12:46 AM
I sometimes think that Apple (and specifically Steve Jobs) forgets the value of third-party developers. In the two "revolutionary" products that Jobs talked about, namely the Apple II (still my all-time favorite computer) and the Macintosh, it was really the third-party developers that MADE these products sell and what they are today. Don't believe me? What sold Apple IIs originally? Was it the design? Was it the 5 1/4" disk drive? Was it the genius Woz engineering? Nope, it was a little 3rd party app called VisiCalc.

Let's move on to the Macintosh. Many don't know this, but the Mac really didn't start selling well until the release of another THIRD PARTY APP called. Wait for it... PAGEMAKER. Before the release of Pagemaker, Mac sales weren't really doing so hot. You could almost say that Pagemaker "saved the Mac" (and Apple).

Which brings me to the iPhone. I sincerely hope and pray that Apple allows and makes it easy for ANY 3rd party developer to release their apps (I'm assuming here) on iTunes to install on the iPhone. I've been reading on this board about "Apple wanting to retain the perfect experience on the iPhone." Hey, I can respect that, but remember Jobs called it a SMARTPHONE. And yes, all Smartphones right now "suck," but because people can install 3rd party applications on these smartphones there's been an expectation already set. You can't go back on this, one of the basic definition of a Smartphone is this ability to install 3rd party apps. Let's just hope this "Apple Control" allows us to experience this in some way.

Also, they have GOT to have removable batteries in future revs of the iPhone. This (in my opinion) is even more important. People here have given the excuse of sending it off to Apple to get the battery replaced. Well, this is all well and good for an iPod, but definitely not for a phone. I wouldn't even accept this for a free phone with absolutely no frills. A phone is a needed asset for most people. Most people *will not* accept a week of waiting while a battery is being replaced on a PHONE. I hope that Apple addresses this in future revs.

w00master

bretm
Jan 12, 2007, 12:51 AM
No one really "needs" an iPhone but the ones that think they are ! People like me ;o)

Well, that won't be entirely true for long. Technology drives capitalism and science forward, but it also creates a perpetual "keep up" state. If all your competitors are using a a car to deliver pizza and you're using a horse and wagon, YES you do "need" a car. At some point, you will "need" an iphone or similar device to stay competitive.

Nobody really "needed" the internet. But they do now. Kids wouldn't be able keep up. Business wouldn't be able to target markets. Etc. If the competition is utilizing the internet to be more productive and in turn charge less, you NEED the internet too.

Nobody needed cell phones. Hey, we've got phone booths, right? And people stop when your car breaks down and help you out, right? Nope. Public phones are essentially a thing of the past and since everyone is expected to have a cell phone, nobody stops to help. Stores even look at you like you're homeless if you ask to borrow their phone. Used to be a common occurence.

Macheath_Messer
Jan 12, 2007, 12:55 AM
Its simple...they dont want you using Skype, etc. for free...

Peace

dalen

"They" being Cingular. They would be the ones to lose out were there to be a Skype client.

chromos
Jan 12, 2007, 12:57 AM
Well, given that the article SAYS that there will be 3rd party apps, but they will have to approved by Apple, I don't think you're going out on a limb.

However, all the folks whining about the "NO" third party apps seems to have flunked basic reading comprehension 101.

Yes, Google Maps and Yahoo! Mail just being 2 examples. :)

Macheath_Messer
Jan 12, 2007, 12:59 AM
Imagine a world where Apple "certified" all the apps for the Macintosh. Imagine a world where Apple "certified" all the Podcasts you could put on your iPod.

Central control of content is a dying model, and Cell phones are the last stronghold of that model. That despite comments to the contrary at the Keynote on Tuesday Apple couldn't put a bigger beachhead into breaching that model is sad, and ultimately will hurt the iPhone from achieving it's true potential.

Maybe this is a start, and maybe in 5 years it'll have been the initial shot needed to bring the cell phone world into the 21st century as promised. But it may also be the failure that dooms us to their current model for decades to come.

Don't forget central control is also a model that rules the console video gaming industry. Remember the history behind its being that way, too (Atari).

FWIW, and just adding to the discussion.

age234
Jan 12, 2007, 01:14 AM
Well, given that the article SAYS that there will be 3rd party apps, but they will have to approved by Apple, I don't think you're going out on a limb.

However, all the folks whining about the "NO" third party apps seems to have flunked basic reading comprehension 101.

QFE

He never said "there will be no 3rd party apps". He said he wants more control over them. And if that means a better user experience, great. And if the apps are so great that people will simply die without them, they will overcome any certification that Apple may require, or whatever.

But all this hysteria over a product still-in-the-making is ridiculous.

sbrhwkp3
Jan 12, 2007, 01:20 AM
I want mobile slingplayer for my slingbox!


Wait, am I kidding myself? They couldn't even get a version out fast enough for regular OS X...

jhedges3
Jan 12, 2007, 01:22 AM
Don't forget central control is also a model that rules the console video gaming industry. Remember the history behind its being that way, too (Atari).

FWIW, and just adding to the discussion.

iTMS seems like a pretty serious example of the central control model as well. Wouldn't you say?

BWhaler
Jan 12, 2007, 01:22 AM
Big mistake. And jobs is full of ****.

How is this any different than a computer and not needing it to crash. (And the bringing down the Cingular network is ********.)

The truth of the matter is this all comes down to Skype.

If Apple opened the API, Skype would be the first app. And there is no way Cingular would want that.

Jobs is pullinh his punches here, and falling short of a revolution. The younger, bolder jobs would of gotten Skype built right in.

The future is an automatic switching phone between wi-fi with VOIP and cell when wi-fi is not available.

Util the iPhone does that, Jobs is simply sucking the toes of Cingular.

jhedges3
Jan 12, 2007, 01:30 AM
Jobs is pullinh his punches here, and falling short of a revolution. The younger, bolder jobs would of gotten Skype built right in.

Maybe we should tie a chain around a statue of Jobs and pull it down. Are there any statues of him?

cyberdogl2
Jan 12, 2007, 01:36 AM
there are 200 patents on this thing and it was made under the highest amount of secrecy possible. people were working on parts of software without seeing hardware, people didnt know what they were working on, etc. now it sees the light of day and is expected to work beautifully with third party software. just buckle up for the ride and quit complaining. see you all in june.

After G
Jan 12, 2007, 01:41 AM
Curious how enabling Skype on the iPhone would make Cingular suffer, as:

You have to get the phone from Cingular ($600)
You have to pay for a two year contract with Cingular (at $50 a month for 2 years = $1200),
You pay for data usage with Cingular (at $20 a month for 2 years = $480).
Early termination fee is about $200 (guessing here).


So assuming you did the worst thing and bought the phone, and canceled early, and used Skype on Wi-Fi only, you'd still pay Cingular $200 for the phone. And if you kept Cingular, you'd pay them even more.

jhedges3
Jan 12, 2007, 01:47 AM
I'll go further and hope that all major and minor metropolitan areas in the United States and around the world get blanketed by free/public WiFi and an abundance of VOIP/Skype phones. In that case I will most certainly cancel my mobile service and just rent cellular phones for those infrequent trips through the "boonies."

Yeah. Seems like that will be the driving force if it's going to happen. If there is a solution based on localized Wifi and that market expands to the point that it pressures cell providers to incorporate it into their model.

Do you think enough people will embrace the localized solution to make that happen? When?

Shagrat
Jan 12, 2007, 01:50 AM
I do.


My old Treo did. If it doesn't, why should I throw serious money at it?


Yes it is.


Because an iPod does not have the capability to act as a full purpose computer. The iPhone does.


I disagree. There's nothing unrealistic about installing 3rd party applications on a smartphone. Heck, that's the *point* of a smartphone!

At least it is for me.

There's no room for argument here. Either I can install any 3rd party app I want, or there will be no business.

Well don't bloody get one, then. Stick with your old treo, then.

Yeesh! the whining goes on and on!

quigleybc
Jan 12, 2007, 01:52 AM
dude (SJ) lies to his employees and sends duds to departments to try and trick them, I don't believe a word he says now...:p


Even still, I could care less about running 3rd party apps right now, I want it immediately

jhande
Jan 12, 2007, 01:59 AM
I haven't read all this thread but here is my 2p.

No 3rd party apps is a real deal breaker for me. The iPhone is a mini-computer and you expect to be able to install the programs you want. Okay so Steve might be concerned about user experience and 3rd party apps mucking up the phone and dropping calls, but other manufacturers manage to make phones that support 3rd party apps that don't crash the phone. My M600i works perfectly with the many 3rd party Symbian apps I have installed on it. Is Steve so paranoid about the stability of his "mini-OSX" that he needs apps to be controlled by him?

Which brings me on to my next point. Controlled apps. This is just Big Brother mentality, someone said earlier about a developer certification program. This will be NO good for the end user. Why? Because Apple will refuse to certify apps that do the same things (but better, with more features, or more familiarity) as it's iApps. So you can rule out VLC, Adium, Skype and stuff like that. And I also seriously doubt that apps like Skype would be approved anyway because of the ability to cut down on the carriers' voice revenue. And don't say Apple isn't interested in that - they did an exclusive deal with Cingular for goodness sake!

This is turning into a lame duck product. I love the idea, I love some of the technical concepts but I think I will stick to my Symbian phone where I can do what I want on it!

Exactly. Folks, look at it another way: Those of you that think this is just a phone, well...... OK, that's your right.

However some of us look at this as an entirely new platform. Just like the Apple ][/PC in the early eighties gave us a virtual machine that could be defined to do anything, this little machine gives us the same, but in the communications sphere.

Look at what happened with Palm. They came out with the platform, delivered a (then) sane API and it exploded. No one, least of all Palm, had any idea that post offices and courier companies around the world would develop their own apps so that you, the customer, would sign off on a Palm screen.

If apple cannot design a machine where the integral functions (phone, low-level communications) are behind a chinese wall, while 3rd party programs get clobbered, then this device remains a gadget.

And, wrt Apple QC.... please. Look at the top ten apps on PalmGear (http://www.palmgear.com) - no Palm in sight. Some of these guys are big now, but started as small developers. AQC will stifle that.

As someone posted earlier, if you just want to use it as a phone, fine. Don't install any other apps.

This device has the capability to define whole new paradigms of interaction, not just wrt to HCI (where it makes me drool), but also in communications.

We are a small house involved with short-range radio communications, incl. BT, and after we saw the Keynote, we had a brainstorming session to see what we could develop for this. The top three would do stuff that no other smartphone would be able to because of the mix between three radio technologies and the interface. And no, ya can't do that with widgets.

I really, really hope Apple changes its mind on this. It could define new industries.

Ugh, back to hacking vertical market PalmOS apps. :(

DMann
Jan 12, 2007, 02:03 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

A New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/technology/11cnd-apple.html?hp&ex=1168578000&en=f1aed4fed98b8686&ei=5094&partner=homepage) reveals some information about Apple's iPhone and the possibility of 3rd party application.

The article quotes Steve Jobs about why Apple does not want to allow any 3rd party developer make applications for the iPhone:



While saying this, Jobs does reveal that there will likely be additional applications that can be bought later and installed, but that this will be in a "controlled environment". Apple adopts a similar approach with iPod game development -- only allowing specific products to be developed and released.


Good look at what happens when you do not have control over 3rd
party software http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/01/11/craplets.and.vista/

"Craplets" may affect Vista experience

Microsoft is worried that unwanted software bundles could affect the success of Windows Vista, according to a senior Microsoft executive. The anonymous official says that many of the pre-installed third-party programs included with new Windows PCs which he calls "craplets" due to their small and often irritating nature, may be incompatible with Vista and could create unintentional ill will towards Microsoft through bugs or even a complete failure to run, according to Electronista. "If someone buys a Vista PC and has a problem, they're going to blame Windows," he said. Microsoft wants to control the initial experience with its own operating system but claims to be hampered by legal restrictions that prevent it from dictating the software third-party system builders can load on new PCs. Additionally, many Windows system vendors choose to pre-install third-party freeware or trial versions in exchange for pay, reducing the overall price of the system.

jacg
Jan 12, 2007, 02:16 AM
I'm not really concerned if the OS is full or mini version. My main concern is quotes like this, “We define everything that is on the phone". Thanks, but no thanks. What if I wanted Adium on my phone but Apple doesn't. Let the user decide what they want on the phone, let them take responsibility.

If Adium or Skype (or even iChat) were allowed on the phone, wouldn't Cingular be put out? Free calls via WiFi would make their bills seem pretty high.

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been said.

Edit: And it has been...

joeshell383
Jan 12, 2007, 02:22 AM
If anything, there's two apps Cingular doesn't want on this phone, and it's likely they'll keep everything else off it to keep it that way:
* A VOIP client so I can make voice calls without the cell network when I'm in wifi range.
* An instant messanger client other than the SMS app Apple already demo'd.

I completely agree.

RealMcCoy
Jan 12, 2007, 02:51 AM
Well, that won't be entirely true for long. Technology drives capitalism and science forward, but it also creates a perpetual "keep up" state. If all your competitors are using a a car to deliver pizza and you're using a horse and wagon, YES you do "need" a car. At some point, you will "need" an iphone or similar device to stay competitive.

Nobody really "needed" the internet. But they do now. Kids wouldn't be able keep up. Business wouldn't be able to target markets. Etc. If the competition is utilizing the internet to be more productive and in turn charge less, you NEED the internet too.

Nobody needed cell phones. Hey, we've got phone booths, right? And people stop when your car breaks down and help you out, right? Nope. Public phones are essentially a thing of the past and since everyone is expected to have a cell phone, nobody stops to help. Stores even look at you like you're homeless if you ask to borrow their phone. Used to be a common occurence.

No worries ... I´m all with you on that ! Let the "Need" for the iPhone begin ;o)

RealMcCoy
Jan 12, 2007, 02:53 AM
Still ... besides the iPhone ... iWant ... my new iTouchMac ....


http://youtube.com/watch?v=NVIcGdmpp2k

Machead III
Jan 12, 2007, 04:33 AM
Call me crazy, but considering this thing costs as much as a damn computer, I'd rather it actually be more like one than like an iPod which doesn't carry a 24*60 contract.

iPhone is crippled to the max.

blurtigo
Jan 12, 2007, 04:41 AM
Yeah it's Cingular and Cingular alone who have kept the iPhone crippled. No 3rd party apps purely for fear of the inevitable Skype app.

This is the killer-blow for me regarding the iPhone. Opening up the platform would have seen an explosion of content for the device. It would have been a very exciting development platform, and that would have made it stand-out from other phones/devices.

It's sad to see it being kept so restricted, and it's definitely taking a lot of the shine off the device.

dAlen
Jan 12, 2007, 04:44 AM
Curious how enabling Skype on the iPhone would make Cingular suffer, as:

You have to get the phone from Cingular ($600)
You have to pay for a two year contract with Cingular (at $50 a month for 2 years = $1200),
You pay for data usage with Cingular (at $20 a month for 2 years = $480).
Early termination fee is about $200 (guessing here).


So assuming you did the worst thing and bought the phone, and canceled early, and used Skype on Wi-Fi only, you'd still pay Cingular $200 for the phone. And if you kept Cingular, you'd pay them even more.

well, lets see...last I looke you have to pay for buckets of minutes, no unlimited usage with Cingular...so you pay $200, plus minutes, plus a fee for internet, plus a fee for texting, plus...etc., etc. You are bone broke if you go with Cingular. :D

Marx55
Jan 12, 2007, 05:04 AM
It is critical that at least the iPhone could run Keynote and PowerPoint for wireless computerless presentatations. After all, there is Mac OS X inside and that could be done!

Orge
Jan 12, 2007, 05:23 AM
The more I think about the iPhone, the more I realize that it will never (in it's current form) replace Treos, WinMobile devices, or Blackberrys, despite Steve's assertions that the iPhone is "smarter" than they are.

However, the iPhone WILL still be a runaway success, as it will be marketed at all those people who DON'T have a smartphone, and currently use lackluster phones from Moto, Nokia, LG and others. That's a LOT more than 1% of the market (I would wager more like 80-90%!), which Apple is aiming for right now. So, even though it won't have the expandability of true smartphones, it will still have enough built-in and "Apple approved" apps to make it great for much of the phone-buying public.

Right on the money there, matey.

It's rather ironic that Apple appeals massively to "nerds", who admire the rock-solid foundations of their products. However, they aren't really the target market - they're actually going for the "average" user, who wants an easy time of it.

Ultimately, which one of these consumer groups comprises the larger market share? If you were Apple/SJ, what would you do in the interests of your share holders?

Having said that, in this case, I do not really see a competition between the objectives of these two groups. Loading software onto your phone is a minority requirement and it will only be used by the minority - leaving the choice to the user, doesn't mean Gradma's going to be firing up some kernel hacks.

The truth is, it's just another Ipod-style ecosystem and Apple wants full control - and the ability to generate revenue from it. The real tragedy, is the 3rd party developers who will be locked out of this platform - be sure, some WILL be locked out. Apple's transition to OS X, over the last 6 years, would not have been as successful, without their support. Its rather disrespectful to their investment, and capabilities, to welcome them into the sandpit when they're needed, but not otherwise.

Admittedly, Apple's attitude may soften over time. The product/OS is a first stab in a new market and, at this stage, I can understand their reluctance to jepordize it's brand image. However, whilst they are innovative with their solutions, historically, Apple is VERY slow to embrace corporate change - how many years did it take to get (insert gripe here)....

I can't say whether I will buy into this phone, as I do currently use a number of 3rd party apps on my phone and I like the idea of being able to extend it's functionality. It will be interesting to see how the other players respond to this threat. Individual's outside it's target market may also benefit, in a roundabout way.

Ideally, I would have liked the opportunity to, wholeheartedly, support Apple and this product. However, they seem to be aiming for someone else.

J

blurtigo
Jan 12, 2007, 05:48 AM
It's going to be interesting to see the fall-out from all this at the WWDC this year, as I believe it's in June the same time as the iPhone's launch.

I'd like to see them roll-out some form of OS X Mobile development platform there, but I can't see it happening.

gogoman
Jan 12, 2007, 05:53 AM
Please oh please allow Sling Media to dev a Slingplayer for the iPhone.

Stella
Jan 12, 2007, 06:37 AM
For EVERY one who has a smartphone, the ability to install 3rd party applications freely only ENHANCES the user experience, not degrade.

As for a bad app crippling a phone - utter utter crap. Its never happened to me or anyone I know. If it does, you better think about a better smartphone OS.

OK, Cingular may not want users to install 3rd party apps. But u.s carriers have a infamous reputations for this. Not all carriers do this, Rogers, Fido - they don't, lots of European carriers do not.

So, if this *were* the case then why are Apple applying the cingular case to the rest of the world?

"Cingular don't want you to use Skype"... maybe not, but there are other carriers who don't care.

Apple are bowing to the carriers too much and disregarding the needs of users. Traditional Smartphones have been built to allow 3rd party applications and *encourage* 3rd party developers, Apple on the other hand, do not. Very, very, very strange.

Smartphones ARE small computers, just like the iPhone. That is the whole POINT of smartphones!!!! Some people just don't get it. If i didn't want the benefits of a smartphone I'd buy a regular phone instead of a Symbian based smartphone.

There are a lot of crap applications out there for OSX, but apple doesn't try to control 3rd party applications just in case you make your Apple computer hang. Apple are making excuses, and very lame excuses. I get the feeling they don't understand Smartphones. The iPhone is a dumbed down smartphone for very very average users. And as a result, they've just crippled an otherwise great product. Existing smartphone users will not get the full benefits they otherwise would. A shame, a great great shame.

QFE

He never said "there will be no 3rd party apps". He said he wants more control over them. And if that means a better user experience, great. And if the apps are so great that people will simply die without them, they will overcome any certification that Apple may require, or whatever.

But all this hysteria over a product still-in-the-making is ridiculous.

Zadillo
Jan 12, 2007, 07:07 AM
I have to admit this is pretty disappointing; I don't really buy that Cingular doesn't want third party apps installed (why would Cingular sell Palm OS and Windows Mobile-based smartphones then?).

Hopefully this is something that Apple changes their mind on or something.

dan-o-mac
Jan 12, 2007, 07:27 AM
The "masses" aren't going to be spending $600 on a phone. Not now, not ever. "Sell like crack"- I doubt it. "No Cingular, and not enough money" Will be main reasons it wont "sell like crack." Not enough money being the largest of them all.

You mean to tell me for every geek that's complaining the he won't buy this because of 3rd party apps, their won't be 100 consumer zombies ready to take his place. Most consumers don't even know what the term 3rd party apps mean! I know three people who want this phone, if I asked them, Does it bother you that Apple is going to filter 3rd party apps, they will look at me like I was on "crack". Yes it's expensive now, early adaptors will pay a hefty price, like somone said earlier wasn't the ipod photo $500 at one point. give it time even the ipod didn't really start blowing up till the 3rd gen.

Beligerent
Jan 12, 2007, 07:41 AM
to quote another MacRumors member: "Apple has snatched defeat right out of the jaws of victory!"

dual64bit
Jan 12, 2007, 07:58 AM
I agree that third party apps do enhance my current smart phone, and are useful. I love the ability to add an application that does something a built-in app does not do. They cannot make a smart phone that does everything that everyone wants it to do, they can only make one that does most of what a normal user would want it to do.

They will eventually allow apps.... and I doubt cingular is behind it because cingular has 15 smart phones being sold right now running Palm 5, Windows Mobile 5, and Nokia's OS that all allow for third-party apps.

RodThePlod
Jan 12, 2007, 08:18 AM
You mean to tell me for every geek that's complaining the he won't buy this because of 3rd party apps, their won't be 100 consumer zombies ready to take his place.

I agree - personally I don't think this is anything to get bent out of shape over. Yeah it might sound cool to install additional apps but just because you cant, doesn't mean that this product is doomed to failure.

Lots of people complained that third party development would ruin the chances of the iPod becoming successful - and look what happened!

Apple have always bucked the trend - and they're continuing to do so with this device. Just because the other smartphones allow the installation of third party apps doesn't necessarily mean it's the best way of doing things.

What was that term Apple used to use a while back?!? Oh yeah... "Think Different" :)

RodC

Max Payne
Jan 12, 2007, 08:19 AM
I had the XDA II (O2) and didn't think of adding 3rd party thing. I didn't like it a bit and gave it to my brother. My brother hated it and sold it. As long as the thing functions properly then I am fine. Personally, I don't need most of the functions of the iPhone and most definitely, I don't even need the 4GB memory.

Nym
Jan 12, 2007, 08:37 AM
The iPhone will only be released in JUNE! Easy people, 6 months remain.

Apple never said it will not be capable of running 3rd party apps.

You are not being FORCED to buy this phone, don't like it, don't buy it.

What seems to me is that this whole iPhone stuff is getting out of hand. All I hear is bitc*ing and people complaining about a product that is still 6 months away. If most of you use Mac's than I guess you should trust Apple and give them the benefit of the doubt, they have a lot of time to solve the quirks that are surfacing after the phone's public presentation.

And that someone who said that it's the criticism that forces Apple to improve their products has no idea of what he's talkin about.
Do you actually think that it's YOUR observations that make the company grow bigger?
Do you actually think that there aren't 500 people at Apple already thinking about these exact same problems (and even further) and a way to solve them? that's an ego...

I wish it was up to all the complainers to build the iPhone, because I most certainly believe it would be a complete and utter crap device.

I will judge when I have it in my hands, before that it's only speculation.

sigamy
Jan 12, 2007, 09:06 AM
Don't all cellphone manufacturer's and network providers lock down what can be put on a phone? Try getting any decent 3rd party apps for Verizon's BREW phones. It is impossible. I just want a simple database app for storing account numbers and passwords. There are hundreds of these for Palm devices but I found one terrible one that I could download on my wife's old verizon phone but not on my newer phone.

When I looked into this it seemed that everyone was worried about the first cell phone virus. I'm sure Apple has concerns about this too. Locking down the software on cell phones is not new. What is new is that this is more than a cell phone and we all need to wait and see what Apple does with 3rd party support.

No one can write for the iPod and that fact hasn't hurt its growth at all.

Zadillo
Jan 12, 2007, 09:13 AM
Don't all cellphone manufacturer's and network providers lock down what can be put on a phone? Try getting any decent 3rd party apps for Verizon's BREW phones. It is impossible. I just want a simple database app for storing account numbers and passwords. There are hundreds of these for Palm devices but I found one terrible one that I could download on my wife's old verizon phone but not on my newer phone.

When I looked into this it seemed that everyone was worried about the first cell phone virus. I'm sure Apple has concerns about this too. Locking down the software on cell phones is not new. What is new is that this is more than a cell phone and we all need to wait and see what Apple does with 3rd party support.

No one can write for the iPod and that fact hasn't hurt its growth at all.

That's the big question really. Compared to the typical cellphone, external control over what apps you can put on the phone is actually pretty typical. But compared to the typical smartphone, even Verizon doesn't prevent you from installing third party Palm or Windows Mobile apps, etc. It seems like maybe what Apple is shooting for here is some of the richer capabilities of a smartphone, but more like a cellphone in that the overall user experience is much more controlled.

Perhaps there is something there. I've always kind of thought that the idea of trying to push things like the Treo or Blackberry to consumers is kind of misguided, because a lot of consumers I know of don't want to deal with the hassle of installing and managing third party apps, etc. But at the same time, there is appeal to richer smartphone-style apps (not to even mention the capabilities of the iPhone's apps) that could appeal to users.

But I hope that however Apple handles third party apps, they do make it fairly painless for third parties to develop apps and have a way to get them on the iPhone. It seems like a potentially amazing platform.

-Zadillo

goosnarrggh
Jan 12, 2007, 09:30 AM
Yes, Google Maps and Yahoo! Mail just being 2 examples. :)

Strictly speaking, those are examples of using Apple's built-in apps to access online services.

What if I want to chat with by ICQ buddies? I can't.

(I hope I don't need to mention that the web browser based ICQ client is out of the question: It is available as either a Flash or a Java (NOT JScript) application, and apparently neither platform will be available. That's not surprising, since either of those platforms would open up the possibility of sending IMs without paying the cell company's SMS taxes. But they both would have provided universally-accessible programming environments, while featuring convenient "sandboxes" to satisfy Steve's apparent concerns about the interfering with the stability of the rest of the phone...)

Zadillo
Jan 12, 2007, 09:33 AM
Strictly speaking, those are examples of using Apple's built-in apps to access online services.

What if I want to chat with by ICQ buddies? I can't.

(I hope I don't need to mention that the web browser based ICQ client is out of the question: It is available as either a Flash or a Java (NOT JScript) application, and apparently neither platforms will be available. That's not surprising, since either of those platforms would open up the possibility of sending IMs without paying the cell company's SMS taxes. But they both would have provided universally-accessible programming environments, while featuring convenient "sandboxes" to satisfy Steve's apparent concerns about the interfering with the stability of the rest of the phone...)

I can't see that as the reason though, as Cingular sells Treos, etc. right now that you can install IM apps on and chat with.

PubGuy
Jan 12, 2007, 09:47 AM
I am amazed at the people here complaining about the iPhone, but are OK with the way existing cell phones are crippled by US providers.

I have a RAZR phone from Verizon. Verizon purposely cripples the bluetooth so that you can not transfer pictures or music back and forth...but this is a capability built into the design of the phone. So, if you take pictures on the phone, you have to transfer them OVER VERIZON'S NETWORK to an email account. You can not connect your USB cable to the phone and copy the photos to your computer. No, instead you have to be nickeled and dimed by the network provider for the privilege of getting your pictures off the phone. -- This is outrageous !!! ---

The iPhone on the other hand, allows all your media to be sync with your computer without going through the cell provider -- the way it should work!!! -- and it allows syncing of a whole lot more information than just pictures --- for FREE !!!

To me, this is a MAJOR shift in the capabilities of cell phones and a big boost for customers. The US cell phone companies are really squeezing people. They should worry less about squeezing us and focus on higher network reliability.

Oh, yes, BTW people, the iPhone WILL ALLOW 3RD PARTY APPS. Apple just wants to be sure the apps are certified. Seems to me, I remember Microsoft doing this for applications for Windows 3.1 and XP. As someone pointed out earlier, even now Microsoft is worried about poorly written apps taking down Vista -- go figure.

Nym
Jan 12, 2007, 09:50 AM
IMO this is a nice deal, I paid 200€ for a 2gb iPod Nano a year ago and I still haven't bought any new Phone since 2001 because nothing appeals to me as a consumer.

Now with iPhone I get a unique touch screen technology driven Phone, I get web browsing, email, widgets, calendar, Mac sync, Photo managing, video playback, music playback with twice the capacity of what I own currently. (again, 2Gb). All this for 499... I guess it's pretty fair to me.

I probably will never install a third party app into it, the standard features are quite enough for me nad yes, I have a job and active business life and still the iPhone seems quite enough for what I look for in a Phone and more...

Everyone was so eager for this to be released and now that it's been announced it's just terrible to see everyone saying it sucks without even watching it work live.

trellus
Jan 12, 2007, 09:56 AM
I think the iPhone is slick and very cool, and I really do understand the reasoning behind this. I think the stability of the iPod is what has been part of what has made it very successful, and I think this is what will help make the iPhone successful for the masses as well.

That being said, when it comes to "smart phones", there are a number of "power users" like me who use their smart phones for more than what the phone manufacturer includes in their built-in apps. On my Treo 650, for example, I have a couple of Bible readers (including several purchased modern texts) and Ultrasoft Checkbook, where I keep my check and credit registers for tracking all my transactions. These are critical to me, and the reason I bought a Treo in the first place was so that I didn't have to carry two devices -- a PDA with these apps PLUS my cell phone.

The lack of this will probably keep from buying an iPhone for myself personally, as what I need personally is in fact, a handheld computer that is also a phone.

I also noted how regularly I use my Treo one-handed with the keyboard for quick SMS messages, etc; as this will be difficult (if not impossible) with the iPhone, it will not work well for me.

Still, I think the iPhone is terribly cool, and will do very well in the
marketplace. It's just not for me. :)

I also should mention that I have an SSH client on my Treo which can be *quite* useful for administrative tasks (connecting to my Mac Mini at home as well as to servers I help administer), and this is something I also doubt will ever be available on the iPhone without more than very limited third-party application support.

Thataboy
Jan 12, 2007, 10:51 AM
The more we find out about the iPhone, the worse it sounds.

The iPhone is PRICED like a computer, not an iPod. It has functions of a computer, not just an iPod. It would open up so many developers (not just Mac developers) to the amazing underpinnings of OS X, that it might act as a trojan horse for switching.

Jobs' stability arguments are disingenuous. The exact same thing can be said of any computer. Of course third party apps can cause instability (hello, Apple apps can too!), but the risk of not being able to call Muffy about the movies is worse than the risk of losing every piece of important data, documents, and media youve ever collected? WTF?

There is no excuse. Open the platform up to developers (once it is finalized). We must demand it.

Zadillo
Jan 12, 2007, 11:02 AM
The more we find out about the iPhone, the worse it sounds.

The iPhone is PRICED like a computer, not an iPod. It has functions of a computer, not just an iPod. It would open up so many developers (not just Mac developers) to the amazing underpinnings of OS X, that it might act as a trojan horse for switching.

Jobs' stability arguments are disingenuous. The exact same thing can be said of any computer. Of course third party apps can cause instability (hello, Apple apps can too!), but the risk of not being able to call Muffy about the movies is worse than the risk of losing every piece of important data, documents, and media youve ever collected? WTF?

There is no excuse. Open the platform up to developers (once it is finalized). We must demand it.

You make it sound like devs won't be able to develop apps at all for it.

It sounds like they will, just that it will be a controlled environment, and possibly require "signed" apps or something.

Someone on the Slashdot thread posted who works for Symbian, and they pointed out that the Symbian 9.x platform is actually somewhat similar, and requires an approval process for apps, etc.

I would personally prefer that the iPhone was just like a Mac (or my Treo) and that anyone could develop whatever they want and it could be user installable without having to go through Apple, but at least for the iPhone, that perhaps might not be realistic.

Thataboy
Jan 12, 2007, 11:23 AM
You make it sound like devs won't be able to develop apps at all for it.

It sounds like they will, just that it will be a controlled environment, and possibly require "signed" apps or something.

Someone on the Slashdot thread posted who works for Symbian, and they pointed out that the Symbian 9.x platform is actually somewhat similar, and requires an approval process for apps, etc.

I would personally prefer that the iPhone was just like a Mac (or my Treo) and that anyone could develop whatever they want and it could be user installable without having to go through Apple, but at least for the iPhone, that perhaps might not be realistic.

Right but "controlled environment" = editorial control = they may not certify things that are in high demand but might annoy Cingular.

I think the 2 biggest examples are Adium and Skype. I feel like these are the 2 apps that keep getting mentioned (because IM and VOIP functionality should be a given considering the iPhone's specs). If the Adium and Skype developrs produce tight amazing and stable iPhone versions, will Apple certify them? Is it a question of stability (like Jobs claims) or politics?

I simply don't see how phone manfacturers and carriers dont mind such apps on Palm and Windows, but somehow on an OS X based phone it's all different.

Maybe I'm wrong, and Apple will allow Adium to submit a free app to download through iTunes. Why do I think this is highly unlikely though?

Stella
Jan 12, 2007, 12:04 PM
You have been mis-informed, or ,misunderstood the post.

There are plenty of Symbian 9 applications ( freeware and payware ) that are not signed. You get a warning saying that the app is unsigned upon installation, but that is as far as it goes. There is an option on the phone ( e-series at least ) to stop the user from installing any unsigned apps - this was for phone carriers mainly - who have the option.

Symbian, correctly, decided that signed 3rd party apps would damage the developer base too much and allowed unsigned applications as previously because it costs too much for the average hobbist developer. Nokia and SonyEricsson certainly have no restrictions on their phones.



( And I've installed plenty of unsigned apps on my Symbian 9 device - so I'm talking from first hand experience ).

pps or something.

Someone on the Slashdot thread posted who works for Symbian, and they pointed out that the Symbian 9.x platform is actually somewhat similar, and requires an approval process for apps, etc.

BobMcBob
Jan 12, 2007, 12:10 PM
This sux.

This could have been a revolutionary product. Instead, it's a step backwards.

If the 3rd party software is controlled by Apple in the same way they control the iPod, then there is not going to be many apps. There are only a few games for iPod. I know lots of developers that have tried to get Apple to let them develop for iPod, and they are shut out.

I was going to buy an iPhone as a PDA. I don't need it for a phone. Now that it's not a PDA, or at least not a PDA I can develop for, I'm not interested.

This is very sad. I got my hopes up that I could use "OS X" on my phone, and develop for it using "Cocoa", "Core Video", and "Core Animation", and my own "Widgets". I put those in quotes because that's what he told us. Jobs is a tease. I feel lied to.

I'm going to go cry now.

Zadillo
Jan 12, 2007, 12:28 PM
You have been mis-informed, or ,misunderstood the post.

There are plenty of Symbian 9 applications ( freeware and payware ) that are not signed. You get a warning saying that the app is unsigned upon installation, but that is as far as it goes. There is an option on the phone ( e-series at least ) to stop the user from installing any unsigned apps - this was for phone carriers mainly - who have the option.

Symbian, correctly, decided that signed 3rd party apps would damage the developer base too much and allowed unsigned applications as previously because it costs too much for the average hobbist developer. Nokia and SonyEricsson certainly have no restrictions on their phones.



( And I've installed plenty of unsigned apps on my Symbian 9 device - so I'm talking from first hand experience ).

Gotcha. Just to clarify, there are a few posts on the Slashdot forums though that gave the impression that the unsigned stuff is basically J2ME apps, but the full native Symbian apps on S60 require signing. These are the two posts in particular I'm referring to:

Actually Nokia and Symbian S60 platform is moving towards more closed environment. You CAN see all the APIs but you can't use them without signing process on a real phone. The signing process is costly and the only alternative is to abide very restrictive open source path.

In addition Nokia is currently moving from three Symbian platforms (S40, S60 & S80) towards only S60. Sorry for the lack of links, but google "symbian signed" for yuorself and see.

and


Disclaimer: I work for Symbian but everything I write is my personal opinion only.

Brilliant - mod up please. This kind of control is already present on all Symbian 9.x phones (e.g. Series 60 3rd ed) -in the form of "Platsec" or Platform Security. Apps have to be signed for the "capabilities" they use. The simple-to-understand capabilities can be granted by the phone user. The more "dangerous" capabilities have to be granted by getting an external test house, with appropriate authority, to sign the application. If you want to access deep parts of Nokia's or Sony Ericsson's GSM telephony stacks the you need to get a signature from them.

It has sparked lots of heated debates because the signing costs money but it offers protection against the kinds of problems that PCs have had with the internet. Without it, phones would be a very attractive ecosystem for malicious software.

Apple seem not to have this kind of architecture in place yet so their only option is to be more restrictive for now.

dusanv
Jan 12, 2007, 12:47 PM
You're joking right? With it's web-browsing and email alone, it's already superior to every other smart phone out there.

Web browsing? Over 2G EDGE network? That's slower than dial-up. No Flash or Java? It's nearly useless for web browsing. E-mail? Google, Yahoo and .Mac only? So no Exchange, IMAP or POP? That's not e-mail.

This thing will be next to useless in it's current iteration at that price point. No third-part apps is just the topping. I wouldn't even consider it.

There are plenty 3G smartphones with e-mail, web and third party apps that cost less.

Stella
Jan 12, 2007, 12:47 PM
Gotcha. Just to clarify, there are a few posts on the Slashdot forums though that gave the impression that the unsigned stuff is basically J2ME apps, but the full native Symbian apps on S60 require signing. These are the two posts in particular I'm referring to:



and

I was just reading them - and came back here
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216502&cid=17571238

Interesting posts. So,
"The simple-to-understand capabilities can be granted by the phone user."

"The more "dangerous" capabilities have to be granted by getting an external test house, with appropriate authority, to sign the application. If you want to access deep parts of Nokia's or Sony Ericsson's GSM telephony stacks the you need to get a signature from them."

Because iPhone lacks this security model, Apple want to make it very restrictive.

So, Symbian have catered for hobbiest / freeware developers but if you want to write an API that could potentially do damage, your out of luck - you have to pay $$$ for Symbian do sign the app for you.

Series40 was never Symbian. Its great that Nokia will have only the one platform for Symbian - since Series80 apps can't run on Series60 etc. More compatible software. Its bad enough Symbian being fragmented between Nokia ( Series60/80 ) and UIQ camps - both of which are incompatible.

fastdrive
Jan 12, 2007, 12:50 PM
So no Exchange, IMAP or POP? That's not e-mail.


Did you even see the keynote or read any transcripts? All the above were mentioned and talked about extensively.

Zadillo
Jan 12, 2007, 01:02 PM
Web browsing? Over 2G EDGE network? That's slower than dial-up. No Flash or Java? It's nearly useless for web browsing. E-mail? Google, Yahoo and .Mac only? So no Exchange, IMAP or POP? That's not e-mail.

This thing will be next to useless in it's current iteration at that price point. No third-part apps is just the topping. I wouldn't even consider it.

There are plenty 3G smartphones with e-mail, web and third party apps that cost less.

I am almost positive they did say it supported any POP or IMAP e-mail.... I think the thing with Yahoo mail was that they would be offering some sort of special e-mail for it, but I don't think they were saying it would be only those three mail providers.

Regarding the web browser, even without Flash or Java, the stuff they showed on it looks a thousand times more useful to me than the Blazer browser I put up with on my Treo (or even Opera Mini, which unfortunately crashes my Treo 650).