PDA

View Full Version : Apple's Joswiak on the iPhone, iPod Touch, 3rd Party Apps




MacRumors
Sep 11, 2007, 12:53 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

GearLog relays (http://www.gearlog.com/2007/09/apples_joswiak_we_dont_hate_ip.php) some comments by Apple’s vice president of Hardware Product Marketing, Greg Joswiak.

As has been known, Joswiak confirms that the iPod Touch and iPhone use the same software platform -- "they're both running OS X on basically the same hardware".

The iPod Touch does not have Bluetooth (despite images floating around the internet) and there are no games coming for the iPod Touch for now.

Of interest, Joswiak comments on 3rd party application development:
Apple takes a neutral stance - they're not going to stop anyone from writing apps, and they're not going to maliciously design software updates to break the native apps, but they're not going to care if their software updates accidentally break the native apps either.


Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/11/apples-joswiak-on-the-iphone-ipod-touch-3rd-party-apps/)



TheSpecialist
Sep 11, 2007, 12:56 PM
Good news for the hack/mod community!:rolleyes:

iJed
Sep 11, 2007, 01:03 PM
The comment that Apple will not intentionally break support for third party software has been the deciding vote in me buying an iPod touch or iPhone.

Now I just have to pick which one... If only the iPhone was offered pay-as-you-go...

cliffjumper68
Sep 11, 2007, 01:04 PM
I was hoping for bluetooth and a mail app on the touch. Looks like i will get one of the two in the end.

Peace
Sep 11, 2007, 01:04 PM
Looks like iToner gets a reprieve.

yayaba
Sep 11, 2007, 01:07 PM
The comment that Apple will not intentionally break support for third party software has been the deciding vote in me buying an iPod touch or iPhone.

Now I just have to pick which one... If only the iPhone was offered pay-as-you-go...

There are methods to unlock the phone only for pay as you go but I believe that only works with AT&T/Cingular sims. Otherwise you'll have to do a full unlock for other pay as you go plans on other carriers.

shoelessone
Sep 11, 2007, 01:10 PM
This really is great news, in my opinion.

Of course, Apple could always change their mind, release a new firmware update and just say, "oh, this is to fix such and such a problem".

Still, really good news :).

It doesn't make my decision between an activated (w/ no service) iPhone or Touch any easier though :(

madmaxmedia
Sep 11, 2007, 01:11 PM
This is great news for everyone.

1. If you're looking at a Touch, then this news means that installing 3rd party iPhone apps and the Apple iPhone apps should be highly likely.

2. If you are looking at either Touch or iPhone, it means that even if future updates break any hacks or 3rd party apps, it should just be a short matter of time before the hacking apps are updated to acount for the new Apple updates.

Sayer
Sep 11, 2007, 01:12 PM
Apple is blowing out 4GB iPhones for $299, very tempting since I never got the new SIM card for my RAZR I ordered. :mad:.

kyleaa
Sep 11, 2007, 01:12 PM
The comment that Apple will not intentionally break support for third party software has been the deciding vote in me buying an iPod touch or iPhone.

Now I just have to pick which one... If only the iPhone was offered pay-as-you-go...

I believe that if you fail the credit check for whatever reason, you are offered the option of using AT&Ts prepaid plan.

iJed
Sep 11, 2007, 01:14 PM
There are methods to unlock the phone only for pay as you go but I believe that only works with AT&T/Cingular sims. Otherwise you'll have to do a full unlock for other pay as you go plans on other carriers.

I'd be waiting for the UK release of the iPhone if I am going to buy that. If Apple has not announced this by the time the iPod touch hits the shops I will be going for the iPod.

Flowbee
Sep 11, 2007, 01:15 PM
Looks like iToner gets a reprieve.

iToner is not the kind of app he's talking about. He's talking about apps that are written to run natively on the iPhone.

chr1s60
Sep 11, 2007, 01:15 PM
That last little statement kinda seems like he is saying "we aren't against it, but we are gonna probably do things to break them."

cliffjumper68
Sep 11, 2007, 01:18 PM
This really is great news, in my opinion.

Of course, Apple could always change their mind, release a new firmware update and just say, "oh, this is to fix such and such a problem".

Still, really good news :).

It doesn't make my decision between an activated (w/ no service) iPhone or Touch any easier though :(

The touch not having bluetooth is a low point, it would be nice to connect to car systems, wireless headsets, and macs. Ohh well maybe the hardware is there and you just have to turn it on, like the extensions to the mac mini.

P-Worm
Sep 11, 2007, 01:24 PM
This is excellent news. I canceled my order of my iPod Touch because of the calendar app fiasco. This has me reconsidering. I am going to wait until it is actually released, follow the application circle and buy if it will meet my needs. :cool:

P-Worm

psingh01
Sep 11, 2007, 01:24 PM
That last little statement kinda seems like he is saying "we aren't against it, but we are gonna probably do things to break them."

No. He specifically said that they will not do anything to try to break them. What he is saying here is that if any future updates (for other things) happen to break these apps then too bad.

sananda
Sep 11, 2007, 01:26 PM
I believe that if you fail the credit check for whatever reason, you are offered the option of using AT&Ts prepaid plan.

no at&t in edinburgh.

theheyes
Sep 11, 2007, 01:26 PM
Hooray, calendar entries for all!

tribulation
Sep 11, 2007, 01:27 PM
So instead of making a nice stable 3rd party SDK that would work securely, since they are "so" intent on keeping the iPhone from "crashing"; they'd rather have developers just hack stuff around that may or may not break it, and be half-baked? Without a sanctioned SDK, developers are shooting in the dark and can never make things on par with what would be capable otherwise.

chr1s60
Sep 11, 2007, 01:31 PM
No. He specifically said that they will not do anything to try to break them. What he is saying here is that if any future updates (for other things) happen to break these apps then too bad.

Think about it though. Would it really be smart for him to say that Apple will do everything possible to break hacks? No, it would draw some people away from buying iPhones. It may not be their main concern or even one of their top concerns, but I think to an extent they are doing things that may prevent hacks.

unigolyn
Sep 11, 2007, 01:32 PM
Ohh well maybe the hardware is there and you just have to turn it on, like the extensions to the mac mini.

Since the iPhone and iPod touch don't use the same exact chip setup, that is nearly impossible. There's no way Apple would be attaching unused Bluetooth chips to iPod logic boards, because these chips cost money. Integrated circuits are often crippled feature-wise because it's cheaper to produce just one type of wafer and sell it at two price points. This isn't a feature, this is an extra component.

Putting Bluetooth chips in the iPod touch makes as much sense as putting two gigs of RAM in every Mac but not allowing the OS to address one gig on consumer machines.

rorschach
Sep 11, 2007, 01:34 PM
Hmm, isn't this exactly what Apple said about running Windows on Intel Macs a few months before they released Boot Camp?

http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/06/08/schiller.on.os.x.on.pcs/

As for Mac users running Windows on Intel Macs, Schiller said Apple won't intentionally stop users from doing this. However, Apple will not provide any support, let alone a method, for running Windows.

"That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will," he said

guzhogi
Sep 11, 2007, 01:38 PM
Now I just have to pick which one... If only the iPhone was offered pay-as-you-go...

You can get it pay-as-you-go. AT the activation screen when it asks for your SSN, don't put in your SSN but rather 999-99-9999 and you'll get pay-as-you-go options. Plus, it lets you have full functionality & let's you quit whenever you want. On the downside, it's still $49.95 or something/month. And Apple legal hasn't shown up yet (but probably will after reading this :p )

psingh01
Sep 11, 2007, 01:39 PM
Hmm, isn't this exactly what Apple said about running Windows on Intel Macs a few months before they released Boot Camp?

http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/06/08/schiller.on.os.x.on.pcs/

As for Mac users running Windows on Intel Macs, Schiller said Apple won't intentionally stop users from doing this. However, Apple will not provide any support, let alone a method, for running Windows.

"That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will," he said

Yep, that is their attitude because it actually helps sell their products :) It is basically their way of saying we won't offer tech support for these apps/hacks because we never said it was a feature.

I think they said the same thing about AppleTV when people hacked it to play WoW.

unigolyn
Sep 11, 2007, 01:41 PM
So instead of making a nice stable 3rd party SDK that would work securely, since they are "so" intent on keeping the iPhone from "crashing"; they'd rather have developers just hack stuff around that may or may not break it, and be half-baked? Without a sanctioned SDK, developers are shooting in the dark and can never make things on par with what would be capable otherwise.

They'll make an SDK eventually. Hacking the iPhone is something a very, very fleeting minority of iPhone users will do, and these people will have the technical wherewithal to not cry foul when something breaks. Apple knows the ubergeeks will want to play multitouch Nintendo on their iPhones, and this doesn't hurt Apple - rather, it acts as a real-world testbed to show Apple what third party apps can do and how they affect the iPhone.

What Apple does not want is a few million Joe Q. iPhones installing some POS third-party app that dilutes the "it just works" experience for the vast majority of potential customers.

They also probably can't officially sanction the most popular of all iPhone apps - multiprotocol IM clients, because AT&T wants cashy money for the SMS-based pseudo-iChat. Let's all be glad they decided not to be dicks about it.

rorschach
Sep 11, 2007, 01:49 PM
Yep, that is their attitude because it actually helps sell their products :) It is basically their way of saying we won't offer tech support for these apps/hacks because we never said it was a feature.

I think they said the same thing about AppleTV when people hacked it to play WoW.

Yep but it was just before they announced Boot Camp so let's hope an SDK is coming soon!

miketcool
Sep 11, 2007, 01:51 PM
Putting Bluetooth chips in the iPod touch makes as much sense as putting two gigs of RAM in every Mac but not allowing the OS to address one gig on consumer machines.

Im not saying that the iPod touch has bluetooth but...

Your quote only makes sense on components, not embedded components. It may be cheaper under some circumstances to print a single board, not have two setups requiring two different manufacturing processes. I am sure not including bluetooth on the iPod touch was more a consideration toward not cutting into iPhone sales, loyal 3rd party sales, and HD-radio interferences. Look at the innards of an iMac, all mobile computing parts. Why make a 3rd manufacturing line for desktop machines when you can focus all you're R&D on miniturizing mobile parts that will end up in several of your lineups.

Snowy_River
Sep 11, 2007, 01:53 PM
Think about it though. Would it really be smart for him to say that Apple will do everything possible to break hacks? No, it would draw some people away from buying iPhones. It may not be their main concern or even one of their top concerns, but I think to an extent they are doing things that may prevent hacks.

No. What they're saying is that they're not going to work with developers at this point. Right now, if an update to OS X breaks an app, the developer of the app can call Apple and get developer support to help determine what's happened and how to best address it (whether it needs to be listed as a bug in OS X or a bug in the developer's app). They're saying that they won't do that for the iPhone / iPod Touch.

If they had wanted to maintain the hard line, they could have and expressed it in a positive way that wouldn't turn any but the most ardent hacker off too much. The fact that they didn't take that hard line is very encouraging.

chr1s60
Sep 11, 2007, 01:53 PM
So instead of making a nice stable 3rd party SDK that would work securely, since they are "so" intent on keeping the iPhone from "crashing"; they'd rather have developers just hack stuff around that may or may not break it, and be half-baked? Without a sanctioned SDK, developers are shooting in the dark and can never make things on par with what would be capable otherwise.

Why would Apple care if hackers make programs that ruin an iPhone? It's not like this will fall under warranty and Apple will have to provide a new phone. Hacking is obviously something that is perform at your own risk. If people break their phone it is just likely another iPhone sold to replace the broken one.

Flowbee
Sep 11, 2007, 01:54 PM
Think about it though. Would it really be smart for him to say that Apple will do everything possible to break hacks? No, it would draw some people away from buying iPhones. It may not be their main concern or even one of their top concerns, but I think to an extent they are doing things that may prevent hacks.

That may be what you think, but there was nothing in Joswiak's comment to imply that.

guerro
Sep 11, 2007, 01:55 PM
So instead of making a nice stable 3rd party SDK that would work securely, since they are "so" intent on keeping the iPhone from "crashing"; they'd rather have developers just hack stuff around that may or may not break it, and be half-baked? Without a sanctioned SDK, developers are shooting in the dark and can never make things on par with what would be capable otherwise.

And this allows plausible deniability for Apple and a situation where Apple can always fall back on "it ain't our problem, you hacked your iPhone not us."

kzin
Sep 11, 2007, 01:58 PM
The touch not having bluetooth is a low point, it would be nice to connect to car systems, wireless headsets, and macs. Ohh well maybe the hardware is there and you just have to turn it on, like the extensions to the mac mini.

Or bluetooth thumb-keyboards.

The there are 5 things that made me decide not to buy the touch:

1) no bluetooth (thumb keyboard for ssh client)
2) no mail.app
3) no contacts/addressbook (at least, that's the impression I got from thing said on different forums, but it doesn't make sense because the other iPods DO have at least a read-only contacts area)
4) no notes application (again, other iPods have a read-only notes ability, why not the touch?)
5) no read/write calendar, addressbook, notes (the touch has so many more input possibilities than the other ipods, why is the calendar not going to allow input? and if you included the addressbook and notes abilities on other iPods, it would make sense to have those be read-write as well).

I'll look at getting an iPhone in October or November (hopefully using all 9's for the SSN will still work, as I want to do pay-as-you-go). But, as I've said elsewhere, I decided on a Nokia N800 over an iPod Touch. Got it yesterday. Like it mostly so far (the included email app doesn't do true IMAP, but I'm still looking at my options; if nothing else, I can use my mail server's webmail via the N800's included web browser (Opera)). I haven't installed ssh, or bought the bluetooth thumb keyboard, yet, though. That's when I expect to start having a lot of fun with it :-)

FoxyKaye
Sep 11, 2007, 02:02 PM
So instead of making a nice stable 3rd party SDK that would work securely, since they are "so" intent on keeping the iPhone from "crashing"; they'd rather have developers just hack stuff around that may or may not break it, and be half-baked? Without a sanctioned SDK, developers are shooting in the dark and can never make things on par with what would be capable otherwise.
Amen to that. Look what a kludge it was to get one of the Intel Macs to run Windows XP before Boot Camp. I know Apple likes to control everything, but the cell phone market is one area where people seem to enjoy a great deal of latitude - If folks start putting on 3rd party apps that aren't made with an official SDK, this seems like inviting more problems. It's one thing for us Geek types to hack and kludge, but the everyday user probably isn't too keen on considering source validity, application revisions, hacking kits, software mods and other factors when they see some cool toy they want to run on their iPhone.

Rhosfelt
Sep 11, 2007, 02:04 PM
It kind of disappoints me that the touch won't support games. Mainly because I play Texas Hold Em a lot on my video right now, and seeing how i paid $5 for it and i now have no use for it that makes me kind of sad..

However the new iPod + Safari will help me with that. Hello Java games.

LoganT
Sep 11, 2007, 02:07 PM
I think if Apple were to do create an SDK it wouldn't be open to everyone. It would be open to select companies such as Google, EA, Yahoo, Microsoft, same guys who made Delicious Library, etc. Everything would be sold through the iTunes Store.

KindredMAC
Sep 11, 2007, 02:28 PM
Apple is blowing out 4GB iPhones for $299, very tempting since I never got the new SIM card for my RAZR I ordered. :mad:.

You know that they have doing this since the iPod keynote right?

I'm actually surprised they still have stock left. Must have been A LOT of them in inventory.

I ordered mine when I got home from work that day with a $50 Apple Gift Card I've been holding onto for about 4 months.

Got my email notice that Fed Ex just tried the house but of course no one home so I'll have to go to the pick up center right after work to get it. Hopefully the truck is back to the center by then!

dicklacara
Sep 11, 2007, 02:31 PM
That last little statement kinda seems like he is saying "we aren't against it, but we are gonna probably do things to break them."

No, I don't think so! Having made a public statement stating that Apple is neutral, they could not turn around and take an "anti independent developer" stance. There would be too much negative reaction from indies, the press, share holders, and consumers-- Apple needs all of these groups on their side!

You can't unring the bell.

ghall
Sep 11, 2007, 02:42 PM
I think if Apple were to do create an SDK it wouldn't be open to everyone. It would be open to select companies such as Google, EA, Yahoo, Microsoft, same guys who made Delicious Library, etc. Everything would be sold through the iTunes Store.

I would pay for that. It would be totally worth it as long as the programs were reasonably priced.

mccldwll
Sep 11, 2007, 02:46 PM
You can get it pay-as-you-go. AT the activation screen when it asks for your SSN, don't put in your SSN but rather 999-99-9999 and you'll get pay-as-you-go options. Plus, it lets you have full functionality & let's you quit whenever you want. On the downside, it's still $49.95 or something/month. And Apple legal hasn't shown up yet (but probably will after reading this :p )

Some rumors floated that possibly could get it w/o $20 data plan, which would then be $30/month for 200 minutes. If so, no EDGE (or text?) but a lot of functionality.

farmboy
Sep 11, 2007, 02:50 PM
If (when) you load your iPhone with some crap apps, and it freezes/crashes, you'll swear at the phone. When someone asks how you like the iPhone, you'll tell them your tale of woe. They will assume it's Apple' fault and a crappy product. That's why Apple is reluctant to support third party apps on a brand new product and new market; they want to control the user experience and ensure that it's great. Some hacks and small market apps are really good, but if you're honest you'll agree that most are not, and good luck on the technical support side with all those. I make it a policy not to put crap apps on my devices, and I never have any problems. My Macs haven't hung up or crashed in 10 years (altho MS Word has on occasion--and yes, it is a pile of crap app but I need it), and my iPods work exactly the way they're supposed to. Do I miss out on some good stuff? Sure, but it's not worth the aggravation.

gadgetgirl85
Sep 11, 2007, 02:54 PM
It kind of disappoints me that the touch won't support games. Mainly because I play Texas Hold Em a lot on my video right now, and seeing how i paid $5 for it and i now have no use for it that makes me kind of sad..

However the new iPod + Safari will help me with that. Hello Java games.

Did it say somewhere that it won't support game? I must have missed that

swingerofbirch
Sep 11, 2007, 02:57 PM
FTA:

I pointed out that Apple delivers regular software updates to Macs, and that they don't break third-party software. He responded that Apple has a lot more experience with the Mac platform than they do with the iPhone platform. Also, the Mac platform being a PC, he said that consumer expectations absolutely demand third party software be available - though he looked a little wistful at that moment, as if wondering how peaceful the world would be if Apple actually controlled all the software on the Mac platform. Then he came back to reality.

I always had a feeling Apple would like having complete control of the software on the Mac. There is certainly less and less need to look outside of Apple for software. I purchase less software from companies other than Apple than I used to. With iLife, iWork, Safari and Mac OS X, a lot of the basics, and not so basics, are covered by Apple. I guess that speaks to a computer becoming more and more an all in one appliance.

If you think about a lot of other technologies, cars, TVs, etc, you don't buy a lot of stuff for them to extend their usefulness. They're mostly self contained. I think personal computers have moved in that direction.

Stella
Sep 11, 2007, 03:00 PM
It kind of disappoints me that the touch won't support games. Mainly because I play Texas Hold Em a lot on my video right now, and seeing how i paid $5 for it and i now have no use for it that makes me kind of sad..

However the new iPod + Safari will help me with that. Hello Java games.

The iPhone doesn't contain a JRE ( Java runtime ) , so I doubt whether the Touch will either. End result = No Java games for you ( unless you really mean Javascript - which is totally different ).

killmoms
Sep 11, 2007, 03:00 PM
3) no contacts/addressbook (at least, that's the impression I got from thing said on different forums, but it doesn't make sense because the other iPods DO have at least a read-only contacts area)

To be fair, there IS a contacts app on the iPod touch. All you'd have to do to know that is go to apple.com and look at it, right there on the home screen.

iZaid
Sep 11, 2007, 03:06 PM
does anyone know if the iPhone and the iPod touch will have a software update, to leopard?:confused:

DrMoray
Sep 11, 2007, 03:09 PM
This is really good news. I think it will unleash the development teams that have been in the wings waiting for the possible Apple sanctioned iPhone API.

earnjam
Sep 11, 2007, 03:16 PM
If you think about a lot of other technologies, cars, TVs, etc, you don't buy a lot of stuff for them to extend their usefulness. They're mostly self contained. I think personal computers have moved in that direction.

I agree with the idea you are saying of technology moving to an all in one device, (as seen with the iPhone) but I think you could give better examples.

TV - cable box, DVD player, VHS Player (although no one buys these now), Apple TV, PS3, XBox, Wii, etc.

Cars - Stereos, Speakers, Screens, DVD Players, GPS, Lift Kits, Bigger Tires, trailer hitch, Bike or Ski racks, etc.

All these things extend the usefulness of the orginal product.

irun5k
Sep 11, 2007, 03:20 PM
What Apple does not want is a few million Joe Q. iPhones installing some POS third-party app that dilutes the "it just works" experience for the vast majority of potential customers.


I think the OP was spot on. In a couple months the "hacking" is going to look a lot less like hacking, and Joe Q. will be installing 3rd party apps. Actually, I'm a software engineer and was against messing around with my phone in this manner just because I didn't want to waste a lot of time messing things up. But as time goes by and the quality of 3rd party apps improves, I'd be stupid to not take advantage of the stuff that is available.

Apple has made some uncharacteristic mis-steps lately. Not having an official SDK is ridiculous for such a powerful device running OS X. They should have created the SDK day one, and used it to do all the internal development for the phone.

Note: I originally defended the decision for no SDK, because it didn't seem like it would matter to me. But after owning the phone, I feel that it is being drastically under-utilized because of the decision.

varcos
Sep 11, 2007, 03:29 PM
So instead of making a nice stable 3rd party SDK that would work securely, since they are "so" intent on keeping the iPhone from "crashing"; they'd rather have developers just hack stuff around that may or may not break it, and be half-baked? Without a sanctioned SDK, developers are shooting in the dark and can never make things on par with what would be capable otherwise.

I completely agree. Sure there will be some 3rd party hackers that'll make some nice tiny (mostly worthless) apps. But what's needed is some of the big guys that are developing for the palm to start developing for the iPhone. For example, Epocrates is a drug database that my Dad & Brother use constantly on their palms and they want to switch to an iPhone so badly they can't stand it. But they can't without Epocrates and Epocrates is not going to come out for the iPhone if Apple says that some of their updates may break whatever apps you have on your phone. Epocrates is a business and businesses need SDKs to ensure that their programs will run and continue to run on the devices in question no matter what.

cmcconkey
Sep 11, 2007, 03:45 PM
I completely agree. Sure there will be some 3rd party hackers that'll make some nice tiny (mostly worthless) apps. But what's needed is some of the big guys that are developing for the palm to start developing for the iPhone. For example, Epocrates is a drug database that my Dad & Brother use constantly on their palms and they want to switch to an iPhone so badly they can't stand it. But they can't without Epocrates and Epocrates is not going to come out for the iPhone if Apple says that some of their updates may break whatever apps you have on your phone. Epocrates is a business and businesses need SDKs to ensure that their programs will run and continue to run on the devices in question no matter what.

I almost agree with you on this one. But in the interest of the Touch, because my girlfriend has Verizon and refuses to switch (AT&T sucks around here).

She is in the medical field and has been eyeing a Palm for a while but I keep telling her to hold off because of the crappy data plans that Verizon offers, which you must get if you have a smart phone. I think that the Touch would be a great device to have medical information, like you have spoke of, on. It is just a great idea, but if no SDK comes out then there won't be a version of it on what could be one of the greatest things that Apple has put their name on.


Christopher

Detlev
Sep 11, 2007, 03:46 PM
I understand nobody here has an iTouch yet, nor seen one for that matter (outside of Steve's introduction of it) but I'm at a loss as to why there is no eMail. Even though there is no eMail client can't you still access webmail accounts via Safari? I am thinking .mac, gmail, etc. Can someone enlighten me?

Can someone verify the pay as you go? Also, don't you have to be of a certain age to get an AT&T account? What might that be?

MonkeyClaw
Sep 11, 2007, 03:50 PM
Or bluetooth thumb-keyboards.

The there are 5 things that made me decide not to buy the touch:

1) no bluetooth (thumb keyboard for ssh client)
2) no mail.app
3) no contacts/addressbook (at least, that's the impression I got from thing said on different forums, but it doesn't make sense because the other iPods DO have at least a read-only contacts area)
4) no notes application (again, other iPods have a read-only notes ability, why not the touch?)
5) no read/write calendar, addressbook, notes (the touch has so many more input possibilities than the other ipods, why is the calendar not going to allow input? and if you included the addressbook and notes abilities on other iPods, it would make sense to have those be read-write as well).

I'll look at getting an iPhone in October or November (hopefully using all 9's for the SSN will still work, as I want to do pay-as-you-go). But, as I've said elsewhere, I decided on a Nokia N800 over an iPod Touch. Got it yesterday. Like it mostly so far (the included email app doesn't do true IMAP, but I'm still looking at my options; if nothing else, I can use my mail server's webmail via the N800's included web browser (Opera)). I haven't installed ssh, or bought the bluetooth thumb keyboard, yet, though. That's when I expect to start having a lot of fun with it :-)

Well it does have a read only calendar app and a read/write address book, but yea no notes as far as i know which makes me a sad panda... Still cool though!

bretm
Sep 11, 2007, 03:52 PM
Think about it though. Would it really be smart for him to say that Apple will do everything possible to break hacks? No, it would draw some people away from buying iPhones. It may not be their main concern or even one of their top concerns, but I think to an extent they are doing things that may prevent hacks.

Then why bother reading articles if you're just going to make up your mind now matter what they say? You've decided they have a stance and if they say they don't, in your mind they're just saying that for some conspiratory reason.

Stella
Sep 11, 2007, 03:53 PM
I understand nobody here has an iTouch yet, nor seen one for that matter (outside of Steve's introduction of it) but I'm at a loss as to why there is no eMail. Even though there is no eMail client can't you still access webmail accounts via Safari? I am thinking .mac, gmail, etc. Can someone enlighten me?



Sure you can use webmail with Safari on iTouch - as long as there's no flash, Java etc ( most don't ). BUT... its not nearly as convenient as using a native mail client.

Virgil-TB2
Sep 11, 2007, 03:53 PM
So instead of making a nice stable 3rd party SDK that would work securely, since they are "so" intent on keeping the iPhone from "crashing"; they'd rather have developers just hack stuff around that may or may not break it, and be half-baked? Without a sanctioned SDK, developers are shooting in the dark and can never make things on par with what would be capable otherwise.That's pretty much the point though.

They are drawing a line in the sand between "official" and "non-official" apps and letting everyone know that there is a difference between the two in terms of reliability and performance. If they provide the SDK, then no matter what, people will hold Apple to account when the poorly written game emulator they downloaded from "dodgysoftware.com" screws up their iPhone.

What's hard to understand about that?

I find it amazing how people find something to complain about in virtually every scenario proffered. Here Apple is saying they will basically turn a blind eye to the (mostly illegal) efforts of the hackers and somehow that is still spun as "bad"????

I mean Apple is directly implying here that as long as the app is well written, it will never be interfered with. That opens up a *sales* model for the hackers, in that as long as they use standard coding procedures, their app will likely work for as long as the iPhone is around. This is something to take to the bank, not something to complain about.

Sweetbike40
Sep 11, 2007, 03:59 PM
I don't think this is such great news. I'd rather hear there will be more programs in the future for both the Touch and Phone. I'd feel more comfortable using something Apple has created with support if something goes wrong. Like i really want to spend 400, install some software some hacker make only for it to freeze my ipod.:(

Can't these programs from hackers mess things up? Cause problems? I just remember years ago installing 3rd party software onto my G3 and it caused nothing but problems. Are things better now with 3rd party software?:confused:

yagrax
Sep 11, 2007, 04:08 PM
I don't think this is such great news. I'd rather hear there will be more programs in the future for both the Touch and Phone. I'd feel more comfortable using something Apple has created with support if something goes wrong. Like i really want to spend 400, install some software some hacker make only for it to freeze my ipod.:(

Can't these programs from hackers mess things up? Cause problems? I just remember years ago installing 3rd party software onto my G3 and it caused nothing but problems. Are things better now with 3rd party software?:confused:

I've been running the "hack" apps since nearly day one, no mess ups and the installer/jailbreak program iBrickr is smooth and trouble-free, the apps are good, stable, and constantly updated with new features - these guys are serious coders. The Nintendo emulator is really good now, there's an AOL IM chat program, several games including Blackjack, an eBook reader, a File System manager, Voice Notes, and a bunch of utilities. I'm personally coding a Notes and ToDo list sync-er with Outlook. You should really check them out.

Those who "read the news" a month ago on hack apps are quickly out of touch, this aspect of the iPhone is moving at light speed. Additionally, I don't see why these apps couldn't run on the iPodT either.

gadgetgirl85
Sep 11, 2007, 04:09 PM
I get this feeling, I could be wrong but I think that Apple might make their own apps that you can buy down the track

twoodcc
Sep 11, 2007, 04:13 PM
seems like good news to me (for the most part).

so there's no games for the iPod Touch, but what about iPhone games?

GravityEyes
Sep 11, 2007, 04:16 PM
The touch not having bluetooth is a low point, it would be nice to connect to car systems, wireless headsets, and macs. Ohh well maybe the hardware is there and you just have to turn it on, like the extensions to the mac mini.

Bluetooth is COMPLETELY pointless on this device. Come on people .....

GravityEyes
Sep 11, 2007, 04:18 PM
Or bluetooth thumb-keyboards.

The there are 5 things that made me decide not to buy the touch:

1 because its not an iPhone minus the phone
2) because its not an iPhone minus the phone
3) because its not an iPhone minus the phone
4) because its not an iPhone minus the phone
5) because its not an iPhone minus the phone


FIXED !

mrgreen4242
Sep 11, 2007, 04:19 PM
I can see the reasoning behind no 3rd party software on the iPhone... there's security issues to worry about, and there's also issues of people writing inefficient apps that hog wireless bandwidth (which is limited per cell tower, I think, and also hurts AT&T's bottom line on unlimited data plans), as well as the issue of bricking peoples phones with bad software which is far more of a PITA than for a non-phone device (that hardware is linked to a phone number/account, etc). There's also the idea that they are protecting revenue for their partners by making sure that some new feature is only available as a paid-for service, not a free third party app.

On the touch though, if something screws up your iPod royally you can just do a software restore and resync it, problem solved. I'm assuming that Apple will make changes that could stop 3rd party software if they uncover a security issue which they then fix (which could break any loophole that people are using to get 3rd party apps to run). However, I'm hopeful that this
means we'll see someone write both a generic installer for iPod touch apps, as well as some sort of unofficial library for XCode to help other people develop touch applications.

I also wonder if, as some other people have drawn some connections, that this is sort of a test to see what people want out of the touch without having to develop or support things that could fail. If there's lots of people who end up creating and using applications for the touch, Apple could make money selling licenses for 'approved' iPod touch software and sell it through iTMS like the do for games.

Anyways, this makes me much, much more interest in the touch, and assuming that a decent 3rd party/homebrew software community springs up I'll get one once they hit the refurb store.

pcorajr
Sep 11, 2007, 04:21 PM
Apple takes a neutral stance - they're not going to stop anyone from writing apps, and they're not going to maliciously design software updates to break the native apps, but they're not going to care if their software updates accidentally break the native apps either.

This is good to hear. Im still debating on what to get. Im tempted about buying the touch becase of the storage but the Iphone would be a great device also because it would mke me drop from 2 portable devices (1 GB nano + blackberry) to just one

Stella
Sep 11, 2007, 04:21 PM
Are you trying to say you never install 3rd party apps on your Mac?

( Or are you joking?)

Can't these programs from hackers mess things up? Cause problems? I just remember years ago installing 3rd party software onto my G3 and it caused nothing but problems. Are things better now with 3rd party software?:confused:

Bluetooth is COMPLETELY pointless on this device. Come on people .....

Syncing ( not music, media files etc - take too long ), listening with your BT headphones.

Whats pointless about that?

mrgreen4242
Sep 11, 2007, 04:22 PM
Bluetooth is COMPLETELY pointless on this device. Come on people .....

WHAT? There's a TON of great uses for BT on the Touch, more than on probably any other machine!

1) Tether it to a BT cellphone for data connection, or just to sync contacts, etc
2) BT keyboard
3) BT headphones (for music)
4) BT headset (for VoIP - this is probably the biggest use)

It's not an absolutely required feature to make it a good product, but it would open up some HUGE potentials for the touch (namely the VoIP, which is, I suspect, why it doesn't have it).

swingerofbirch
Sep 11, 2007, 04:23 PM
I agree with the idea you are saying of technology moving to an all in one device, (as seen with the iPhone) but I think you could give better examples.

TV - cable box, DVD player, VHS Player (although no one buys these now), Apple TV, PS3, XBox, Wii, etc.

Cars - Stereos, Speakers, Screens, DVD Players, GPS, Lift Kits, Bigger Tires, trailer hitch, Bike or Ski racks, etc.

All these things extend the usefulness of the orginal product.

Right, but what I meant was for example, you would never think of replacing the operating system on your television, granted the software on televisions is rudimentary. Or you wouldn't buy a car without doors and get the doors somewhere else.

I was just born when personal computers started to become mainstream, so I can't say firsthand, but what I've heard is that you would need a floppy disk to put in the computer just to make it work. Now it seems self evident that the boot-up software would be inside the computer already. I used to think that convergence didn't make sense because you'd always have a device that was a jack of all trades and a king of none, but I think Apple has proved otherwise with the Mac, and has DEFINITELY proven it with the iPhone. Before the iPhone, the idea of wanting to bother with music or video on a phone (which I have tried on my phone with VCAST) seemed ridiculous. Apple made it not ridiculous by making it even better than the previously separate solutions (an iPod and a phone) in one device. But some things take time. Like the camera on the iPhone makes sense in that you can upload instantly from the phone to the web. But it doesn't make sense for a lot of situations because the camera is of relatively poor quality. I think Apple is showing though that convergence can work and have a strong future.

GravityEyes
Sep 11, 2007, 04:27 PM
WHAT? There's a TON of great uses for BT on the Touch, more than on probably any other machine!

1) Tether it to a BT cellphone for data connection, or just to sync contacts, etc
2) BT keyboard
3) BT headphones (for music)
4) BT headset (for VoIP - this is probably the biggest use)

It's not an absolutely required feature to make it a good product, but it would open up some HUGE potentials for the touch (namely the VoIP, which is, I suspect, why it doesn't have it).

Hmmmm, but of the the things you mentioned above. Even the iPhone, with it's bluetooth, doesnt support a single one - and most likely will not. And the VOIP one - well, you already answered that :-)

lazyrighteye
Sep 11, 2007, 04:48 PM
She is in the medical field and has been eyeing a Palm for a while but I keep telling her to hold off because of the crappy data plans that Verizon offers, which you must get if you have a smart phone.

FWIW, I used a VZW Treo 650 for 2 years withOUT a data plan. I simply had them block all data - web, email, etc. They can disable all of those options. And be careful: any change to your plan and they go ahead and auto enroll you in the highest data package. Convenient, huh? They did that to me twice. To their 'credit,' they eventually refunded hundreds of dollars to my account. But they did not make it easy. And the fact they even operate in that manner is one of many reasons I left. Plus, there was no WAY I could justify an additional ~$50 for internet that was much slower than dial up. Call me crazy...

Since switching to AT&T and an iPhone, my monthly bill has gone way down (by about $40) and my functionality way, way up.

Win win. For me. So far. ;)

YRMV

sblasl
Sep 11, 2007, 04:48 PM
There is no Java.

...However the new iPod + Safari will help me with that. Hello Java games.

La Porta
Sep 11, 2007, 04:54 PM
I was just born when personal computers started to become mainstream, so I can't say firsthand, but what I've heard is that you would need a floppy disk to put in the computer just to make it work.

Dude...and I thought I would never see the day when I woulc start to think that I was old...and i'm only 23...

sblasl
Sep 11, 2007, 04:59 PM
Don't you think Apple has their own in-house SDK, surely they must.

Apple has made some uncharacteristic mis-steps lately. Not having an official SDK is ridiculous for such a powerful device running OS X. They should have created the SDK day one, and used it to do all the internal development for the phone.

Minimum age I beleive is 18 years old.

Can someone verify the pay as you go? Also, don't you have to be of a certain age to get an AT&T account? What might that be?

I'm sure that there is going to be a bunch of cat & mouse games going on with Apple's iPhone team and the 3rd party folks.

Sweetbike40
Sep 11, 2007, 05:11 PM
Are you trying to say you never install 3rd party apps on your Mac?

( Or are you joking?)




Syncing ( not music, media files etc - take too long ), listening with your BT headphones.

Whats pointless about that?

Just very careful what i install on my computer now. If Adobe is considered a 3rd party, then of course i have 3rd party software. (i'm kinda confused on what 3rd party is..... when i hear that, i think of the freeware/shareware stuff that is out there....those kinds of things, i'm not talking about big programs) If something came out for the Touch, i just wouldn't install it right away.

savar
Sep 11, 2007, 05:13 PM
Im not saying that the iPod touch has bluetooth but...

Your quote only makes sense on components, not embedded components. It may be cheaper under some circumstances to print a single board, not have two setups requiring two different manufacturing processes. I am sure not including bluetooth on the iPod touch was more a consideration toward not cutting into iPhone sales, loyal 3rd party sales, and HD-radio interferences. Look at the innards of an iMac, all mobile computing parts. Why make a 3rd manufacturing line for desktop machines when you can focus all you're R&D on miniturizing mobile parts that will end up in several of your lineups.


Your logic is sound, but it's unlikely. The iphone and ipod have different form factors (iphone is taller and thicker from what i hear), and we know that there isn't a CDMA transceiver. The two facts combined mean that the board was probably significantly rerouted anyway, so no reason to keep the bluetooth chip in there.

And even if the board wasn't rerouted at all, its possible to leave the traces intact for an IC and then not solder that IC onto the board. Unless apple is planning some big bluetooth surprise (like ipod squirting activated by firmware update), the chip is definitely not in there. Why would they include it and then not use it?

mrgreen4242
Sep 11, 2007, 05:15 PM
Just very careful what i install on my computer now. If Adobe is considered a 3rd party, then of course i have 3rd party software. (i'm kinda confused on what 3rd party is..... when i hear that, i think of the freeware/shareware stuff that is out there....those kinds of things, i'm not talking about big programs) If something came out for the Touch, i just wouldn't install it right away.

3rd party means it's made by someone other than the system manufacturer. So, in our cases, anything not made by Apple is considered 3rd party, including Adobe. However, some software gets an official "stamp of approval" when it's created by an approved/authorized Apple developer... I'm not sure Apple has a full program for this, but if they sell it from the Apple store, that's a pretty big seal of approval.

Marx55
Sep 11, 2007, 05:19 PM
Is this possible with the iPod touch?

1. Create Keynote or PowerPoint presentation on Mac or Windows.

2. Save the Keynote or PowerPoint NATIVE application on the iPod touch.

3. Use the iPod touch as the ultimate presentation remote (wired or wireless).

mrgreen4242
Sep 11, 2007, 05:22 PM
Hmmmm, but of the the things you mentioned above. Even the iPhone, with it's bluetooth, doesnt support a single one - and most likely will not. And the VOIP one - well, you already answered that :-)

The touch will be much easier to hack, simply because I'm pretty sure that AT&T/Apple will be able to force updates for the iPhone, but the touch is something that would be much easier to ignore updates if they break compatibly with unofficial software.

Even if Apple doesn't force updates on the iPhone, having BT on the touch would make it that much more useful once someone hacks up usability for these things.

Detlev
Sep 11, 2007, 05:56 PM
Is this possible with the iPod touch?

1. Create Keynote or PowerPoint presentation on Mac or Windows.

2. Save the Keynote or PowerPoint NATIVE application on the iPod touch.

3. Use the iPod touch as the ultimate presentation remote (wired or wireless).

I just asked this at the Apple store. You can load PDF documents thus the PDFs of Keynote and PowerPoint screens. There is no "official" way to run the presentation from the iPhone but we pretty much determined that if they were on the web you would be able to move through the pages (PDF or HTML). The trick will now be to get the pages or web document to display on a projector/screen. Someone will have to create that. There has to be a way to use the device as a remote.

This would be the absolute selling point for me. Being able to do a lecture without a laptop would be great. I've used an iPod Nano plugged into a laptop but believe it or not many facilities do not use Macs and their machines want to reformat the iPod. :mad:

matticus008
Sep 11, 2007, 06:01 PM
Is this possible with the iPod touch?

1. Create Keynote or PowerPoint presentation on Mac or Windows.

2. Save the Keynote or PowerPoint NATIVE application on the iPod touch.

3. Use the iPod touch as the ultimate presentation remote (wired or wireless).
Sure, it's possible to do any or all of those things with the platform. It won't do any of those things out of the box, though, and 1 and 2 have nothing to do with 3. I wouldn't count on a presentation remote app being available for the iPhone platform any time soon, but a Keynote viewer would probably go over pretty well.

It'd be far easier to use a laptop with the Apple remote, though.

yagrax
Sep 11, 2007, 06:07 PM
Hmmmm, but of the the things you mentioned above. Even the iPhone, with it's bluetooth, doesnt support a single one - and most likely will not. And the VOIP one - well, you already answered that :-)

What do you mean iPhone doesn't support Bluetooth headphones for music? Yes it does, I use the BT8010 every day with my iPhone. And it should support any Bluetooth 2.0 device and previous Bluetooth versions.

Mgkwho
Sep 11, 2007, 06:09 PM
I think an SDK will come when Apple gets some other things (like Leopard) out of the way. If Apple really is pressed for certain workers, then I'm sure they won't be prioritizing an SDK if they currently have a neutral stance anytime soon.

-=|Mgkwho

ATimson
Sep 11, 2007, 06:09 PM
This would be the absolute selling point for me. Being able to do a lecture without a laptop would be great. I've used an iPod Nano plugged into a laptop but believe it or not many facilities do not use Macs and their machines want to reformat the iPod. :mad:
If you format an iPod once on a Windows machine, so that it's FAT instead of HFS, as far as I know it should work fine on both Windows and Macintosh machines.

yagrax
Sep 11, 2007, 06:27 PM
seems like good news to me (for the most part).

so there's no games for the iPod Touch, but what about iPhone games?


iPhone and iPodT will use the same Mac OS X operating system underneath.

The question of "Can you run games on the iPhone and iPodT?", the answer is yes. Will apple make such games? Ask apple. Will hackers make such games, the answer is They already have. NES, Aquarium, Balls, Butteryfly, FiveDice, LightsOff, Mines, MusicQuiz, Sketcher, TapTapRevolution, TicTacToe, BlackJack, Flashcards, iPong, iPowerHour, and iSaber are already native iPhone apps, and I can attest that each one of them works fine.

My educated guess is that if Apple releases games for the iPodT, then they will be available for the iPhone. They would be the same code.

yagrax
Sep 11, 2007, 06:30 PM
I just asked this at the Apple store. You can load PDF documents thus the PDFs of Keynote and PowerPoint screens. There is no "official" way to run the presentation from the iPhone but we pretty much determined that if they were on the web you would be able to move through the pages (PDF or HTML). The trick will now be to get the pages or web document to display on a projector/screen. Someone will have to create that. There has to be a way to use the device as a remote.

This would be the absolute selling point for me. Being able to do a lecture without a laptop would be great. I've used an iPod Nano plugged into a laptop but believe it or not many facilities do not use Macs and their machines want to reformat the iPod. :mad:

I would assume that iPhone and iPod touch both have video out hardware, just like the old iPod30gVideo. Rumor is that Apple has not enabled this option yet.

If they do, then there how you get video out to a projector.

Moonlight
Sep 11, 2007, 06:34 PM
What do you mean iPhone doesn't support Bluetooth headphones for music? Yes it does, I use the BT8010 every day with my iPhone. And it should support any Bluetooth 2.0 device.

I am pretty sure you are only getting mono out of both ear pieces...

yagrax
Sep 11, 2007, 06:36 PM
I can see the reasoning behind no 3rd party software on the iPhone... there's security issues to worry about, and there's also issues of people writing inefficient apps that hog wireless bandwidth (which is limited per cell tower, I think, and also hurts AT&T's bottom line on unlimited data plans), as well as the issue of bricking peoples phones with bad software which is far more of a PITA than for a non-phone device (that hardware is linked to a phone number/account, etc). There's also the idea that they are protecting revenue for their partners by making sure that some new feature is only available as a paid-for service, not a free third party app.

On the touch though, if something screws up your iPod royally you can just do a software restore and resync it, problem solved. I'm assuming that Apple will make changes that could stop 3rd party software if they uncover a security issue which they then fix (which could break any loophole that people are using to get 3rd party apps to run). However, I'm hopeful that this
means we'll see someone write both a generic installer for iPod touch apps, as well as some sort of unofficial library for XCode to help other people develop touch applications.

I also wonder if, as some other people have drawn some connections, that this is sort of a test to see what people want out of the touch without having to develop or support things that could fail. If there's lots of people who end up creating and using applications for the touch, Apple could make money selling licenses for 'approved' iPod touch software and sell it through iTMS like the do for games.

Anyways, this makes me much, much more interest in the touch, and assuming that a decent 3rd party/homebrew software community springs up I'll get one once they hit the refurb store.



There's not one proven case of someone truely bricking their iPhone due to a software hack. (maybe if they hacked it for a different carrier or other super-hack like that) But for apps, the answer is no, no one's bricked an iPhone that way.

You may freeze your phone, but you can then just reset it. Holding down home or home and top right power button.


Also, iPodTouch apps and iPhone apps will be the same. There's a whole movement that's already developed several dozen apps for the iPhone and they should work on the iPodT. Same OS underneath.


Everyone should have and use an iPhone before they speculate on what it will and won't do.

onionperson654
Sep 11, 2007, 06:38 PM
Software updates to the ipod touch and iphone seem to be one of the largest unknows in the future usability of the devices. Not only basic programs but the underlying OS structure. Are there any strong reasons that the hardware on the ipod touch couldn't play flash videos or run java games.

Apple's new ipod touch/iphone releases are a leap into a new area seperate from the other ipods because the touchscreen and operating system make it a much more flexible device. If the continue to update these devices with software, then they will have created a device that will take longer to be obsolete. On the other hand, if they only include those updates in future products, then they will short change all of the early adapters (well, i guess they DO do that) who were only looking for an easy software update (like mail or adding calendar entries).

Apple just released the first truely mobile computer that you can stick in your pocket, lets just hope they realize that.

mrgreen4242
Sep 11, 2007, 06:44 PM
There's not one proven case of someone truely bricking their iPhone due to a software hack. (maybe if they hacked it for a different carrier or other super-hack like that) But for apps, the answer is no, no one's bricked an iPhone that way.

You may freeze your phone, but you can then just reset it. Holding down home or home and top right power button.


Also, iPodTouch apps and iPhone apps will be the same. There's a whole movement that's already developed several dozen apps for the iPhone and they should work on the iPodT. Same OS underneath.


Everyone should have and use an iPhone before they speculate on what it will and won't do.

My point was that since the iPhone is service dependent (it's a cell phone) AT&T and/or Apple could require an update to continue using it, and that update could break whatever hacks are being used to get 3rd party software working. The iPod touch, however, is not a service dependent product, so even if Apple releases an update that broke a hack(s), you don't have to install it, and you should be able to downgrade from it if you do.

It's nothing against the iPhone homebrew community, it's just a matter of the type of device it is. I'm sure most/all of the apps for one device will be used on the other, it's just the touch could be a bit more hacker friendly if AT&T/Apple decide to require software upgrades at some point.

OldCorpse
Sep 11, 2007, 06:47 PM
A bit OT, but what do you guys think about 3rd party apps on the nano? I like the new nano quite a bit, but I'd absolutely love it if it had a calculator - I find I need it pretty often. Any chance hacker/developers might develop apps for the new nano? I guess the apps would be a bit limited by the input (no keyboard), but I see no reason in principle why some kinds of useful apps might not be developed...

LoganT
Sep 11, 2007, 07:00 PM
A bit OT, but what do you guys think about 3rd party apps on the nano? I like the new nano quite a bit, but I'd absolutely love it if it had a calculator - I find I need it pretty often. Any chance hacker/developers might develop apps for the new nano? I guess the apps would be a bit limited by the input (no keyboard), but I see no reason in principle why some kinds of useful apps might not be developed...

No one is going to develop apps for the iPod Nano. There isn't a reason to.

7on
Sep 11, 2007, 07:10 PM
No one is going to develop apps for the iPod Nano. There isn't a reason to.


There have been though. On the older ones, install iPod linux and you get a slew of free apps. I haven't tried it though and no telling when it will be new nano compatible (video iPods are still a little iffy)

madmaxmedia
Sep 11, 2007, 07:26 PM
Is this possible with the iPod touch?

1. Create Keynote or PowerPoint presentation on Mac or Windows.

2. Save the Keynote or PowerPoint NATIVE application on the iPod touch.

3. Use the iPod touch as the ultimate presentation remote (wired or wireless).

If you just want to use iPhone (and likely Touch) as a KeyNote remote-

http://www.iospirit.com/index.php?mode=view&obj_type=infogroup&obj_id=24&o_infogroup_objcode=infogroup-23&o1_infogroup_objcode=html-141&sid=4167114G80925444a0ece9de

matticus008
Sep 11, 2007, 07:47 PM
If you just want to use iPhone (and likely Touch) as a KeyNote remote-

http://www.iospirit.com/index.php?mode=view&obj_type=infogroup&obj_id=24&o_infogroup_objcode=infogroup-23&o1_infogroup_objcode=html-141&sid=4167114G80925444a0ece9de
While that does work, paying $30 to achieve the same basic functionality as the included Apple Remote for Keynote isn't exactly a winning proposition.

OldCorpse
Sep 11, 2007, 08:05 PM
There have been though. On the older ones, install iPod linux and you get a slew of free apps. I haven't tried it though and no telling when it will be new nano compatible (video iPods are still a little iffy)

Great... there's hope then :)

Oh, and to the other poster... "need" is defined by the person who has the need. I need a calculator and some other apps on the nano, and that by definition means there is a need for them (and I doubt I'm the only one).

Maccus Aurelius
Sep 11, 2007, 08:29 PM
Heh, maybe someone could create a third party app to unlock the gimped video out function of the iPod classic. And who thought a lack of bluetooth was bad? :p

rva1
Sep 11, 2007, 08:52 PM
I am not sure exactly WHAT new application I would like for my iPhone. Maybe the ability to add any OS X widget would be great, anybody have any thoughts on the subject?

This really is great news, in my opinion.

Of course, Apple could always change their mind, release a new firmware update and just say, "oh, this is to fix such and such a problem".

Still, really good news :).

It doesn't make my decision between an activated (w/ no service) iPhone or Touch any easier though :(

Roller
Sep 11, 2007, 09:25 PM
Sure, it's possible to do any or all of those things with the platform. It won't do any of those things out of the box, though, and 1 and 2 have nothing to do with 3. I wouldn't count on a presentation remote app being available for the iPhone platform any time soon, but a Keynote viewer would probably go over pretty well.

It'd be far easier to use a laptop with the Apple remote, though.

I don't expect my iPhone to run my Keynote presentations, at least not the ones with complex transitions, builds, and other effects. Even my 3 year old Macs have trouble with them.

What I would like, though, is something that lets me see the current and upcoming slides on my iPhone, as well as control the presentation.

MattInOz
Sep 11, 2007, 09:50 PM
Your logic is sound, but it's unlikely. The iphone and ipod have different form factors (iphone is taller and thicker from what i hear), and we know that there isn't a CDMA transceiver. The two facts combined mean that the board was probably significantly rerouted anyway, so no reason to keep the bluetooth chip in there.


Didn't the teardowns of the iPhone show it had two boards stuck together?

Not sure what was each board, but i'd imagine one is the mainboard running OS x the other is treated as an personnelity card in the case of the iPhone it would be all the phone parts. Given how common Bluetooth is in phones these days you'd imagine it would be hard for apple could pick up a phone chipset that didn't integrate bluetooth.

I guess when the teardown come along for the iPod touch it will be missing the second board or the second board will just have the flash memory.

iSlicer
Sep 11, 2007, 09:53 PM
I can see why Apple wanted to keep the iPhone closed. All these hacks are coming out and I for one think it's all getting messy. Take the iToner. With the iPhone update, Apple could have done an update and known that it will work. All the happy little iPhone users would have docked and BANG, a new update and everyone would be happy. Now, we have some "usefull" 3rd party apps. That's nice and all, but what does Apple do. Do they honour the people who bought the phone, happy in the fact that it was exactly what they wanted, or does Apple now have to worry about writing updates that will not accidentally over-write the 3rd party apps code etc... Then all the people who just had to have these useless apps on a phone that you KNEW would be closed, will complain that they have to re-install the hacks, and do the new setup etc...
God, I think if these people wanted a phone to run all these little apps, they would have bought a phone that allows it. Now people will complain that Apple is doing the wrong thing again. I think it's just a little crazy. Where do they go from here? I think the phone should stay closed, let apple create the apps they want and if you don't like that, buy another phone. You are allowed to! Don't ruin it for the people who want the nice phone / ipod / internet package that it is now.

MattInOz
Sep 11, 2007, 09:56 PM
I don't expect my iPhone to run my Keynote presentations, at least not the ones with complex transitions, builds, and other effects. Even my 3 year old Macs have trouble with them.

What I would like, though, is something that lets me see the current and upcoming slides on my iPhone, as well as control the presentation.

I wonder if it would be easier to get Keynote to web publish the Presenter Screen maybe with controls then just have a mini hooked to the projector with webhosting open on wifi.

Now the cool thing here would be to have a seperate audience slide that was wifi web published as well during presentation.

Stella
Sep 11, 2007, 10:32 PM
Just very careful what i install on my computer now. If Adobe is considered a 3rd party, then of course i have 3rd party software. (i'm kinda confused on what 3rd party is..... when i hear that, i think of the freeware/shareware stuff that is out there....those kinds of things, i'm not talking about big programs) If something came out for the Touch, i just wouldn't install it right away.

No offence, but you need to be less paranoid, and know what '3rd party' means.... and yes, that means Adobe, in fact, ANYTHING that isn't Apple.


There's a lot of very good freeware / shareware applications out there.. and very little malware...

As for installing 3rd party apps on iPod Touch - very little difference between installing 3rd party apps on your Mac Vs Touch. I really don't know why you draw a distinction between the two.

wizard
Sep 11, 2007, 10:45 PM
I'm not sure I agree with their position on software. Seems like an issue of things not ready for prime time, but then again I have often considered the iPhone half done product. I think this is something that needs to be waited out. If I can't wait I can always look into alternative hardware.

Software is one issue but the point of writing this letter is to point out that they really need to get Bluetooth into a iPod variant as soon as possible. Having I/O capacity beyond the regular port is very important and can have a dramatic impact on the units viability outside the media player world. The things that come to mind that would benefit are, stereo head sets, access to printers, access to modems, access to interface adapters and probably a few more things. If Apple doesn't understand the need for a flexible I/O path on these devices then they boat has sailed and they aren't on it.

Along with the above, the units need access to a USB port for much the same reason as above. I'm not talking about the USB built into the iPod dock port but rather one that we can plug a standard USB cable into.

Yes in either case drivers will be an issue but I believe Apple can make this work. Beyond that they can leverage off of OS/Z on the big machines.

Don't get me wrong I'm not mad about the newly released unit not having Bluetooth. As long as the current Touch is targeted at the lower end it is really no big deal. If on the other hand Apple drags its feet for days on end then we have trouble. In other words I expect to see new hardware with extented capabilities soon.

Dave

pedroistheman
Sep 11, 2007, 11:17 PM
Apple is blowing out 4GB iPhones for $299, very tempting since I never got the new SIM card for my RAZR I ordered. :mad:.

Where did you hear this? I was looking online, but only the 8 gig was listed.

3.1416
Sep 12, 2007, 12:39 AM
I can see why Apple wanted to keep the iPhone closed.
So can I. I don't see why any customer would actively support that decision.

All these hacks are coming out and I for one think it's all getting messy.
So don't use them.

I think the phone should stay closed, let apple create the apps they want and if you don't like that, buy another phone. You are allowed to! Don't ruin it for the people who want the nice phone / ipod / internet package that it is now.
Um, nobody is going to steal your iPhone and forcibly install third-party apps on it. How about you don't ruin it for the people who see much more potential in it than what Apple officially supports.

Evangelion
Sep 12, 2007, 02:51 AM
Where did you hear this? I was looking online, but only the 8 gig was listed.

Bottom-right corner, under the special deals: "While supplies last. Remaining 4GB iPhone only $299"

iShak
Sep 12, 2007, 03:57 AM
http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/12/apple-backtracks-updates-will-most-likely-break-3rd-party-iph/

Apple backtracks, updates will "most likely break" 3rd party iPhone software

(sorry if this is a re-post)


wow, thats a quick kick in the nuts Apple ..

Roller
Sep 12, 2007, 06:56 AM
Um, nobody is going to steal your iPhone and forcibly install third-party apps on it. How about you don't ruin it for the people who see much more potential in it than what Apple officially supports.

I agree. Although I haven't installed any third-party apps yet, it's getting to the point where some of them add functionality that is just too good for me to pass up.

The more this happens, and the easier it gets to do third-party installs, the more pressure there will be for an Apple-sanctioned SDK for iPhone. Whether that will be sufficient for Apple to offer one will depend on their perception that lack of a kit is limiting iPhone sales or that selling one would increase sales.

Meanwhile, I'd be happy with a s/w update that addresses some of the more glaring limitations in the iPhone's existing s/w, but I'm not expecting much before Leopard rolls out next month.

gloss
Sep 12, 2007, 09:22 AM
http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/12/apple-backtracks-updates-will-most-likely-break-3rd-party-iph/

Apple backtracks, updates will "most likely break" 3rd party iPhone software

(sorry if this is a re-post)


wow, thats a quick kick in the nuts Apple ..

Seriously. gg guys. Way to alienate the fanbase.

peharri
Sep 12, 2007, 09:55 AM
Bluetooth is COMPLETELY pointless on this device. Come on people .....

And playing music too! C'mon people, why would you want a device like that to play music?

(See, I can do the "dismiss people's valid complaints with a blanket, sweeping, statement that doesn't answer their issues at all" thing too...)

woogli
Sep 12, 2007, 10:56 AM
This is excellent news. I canceled my order of my iPod Touch because of the calendar app fiasco. This has me reconsidering. I am going to wait until it is actually released, follow the application circle and buy if it will meet my needs. :cool:

P-Worm

Ditto!

MvdM
Sep 12, 2007, 11:58 AM
When shopping in the us store my Country changes to US, but I'm from the Netherlands. Is there a way to order something in the US store when you live outside the US?

cmcconkey
Sep 12, 2007, 12:48 PM
And playing music too! C'mon people, why would you want a device like that to play music?

(See, I can do the "dismiss people's valid complaints with a blanket, sweeping, statement that doesn't answer their issues at all" thing too...)

My main purpose in getting this is for what a PDA should be. I know that eventually mail will end up on this device and it will do everything that I need. It is just a secondary feature to me that it can play music and video, not the main feature.

Christopher

redgaz26
Sep 12, 2007, 03:35 PM
The comment that Apple will not intentionally break support for third party software has been the deciding vote in me buying an iPod touch or iPhone.

Now I just have to pick which one... If only the iPhone was offered pay-as-you-go...


I just hope they release the carrier and pricing soon, I cannot wait much longer.
iphone for me unless it's some ridiculous monthly charge.
I'll be happy with 249 for the phone and 30 a month, and 100 for applecare.

MattInOz
Sep 12, 2007, 06:26 PM
Seriously. gg guys. Way to alienate the fanbase.

Not sure why this is seen an attack on the fan base or the "underground" developer community?

Apple launched the device saying it was all about stabilty and experience.
It's already been noted that the system is stripped back and i guess they want to strip it back further if they can. It just seem apple want to make it clear that until they can lock down and publish API's then everything is up for grabs, code a developer is hooked in to may just disappear, to fix a bug or because apple don't need it after all, it save conflict to get rid of it.

It's no different to the numerous un-documented functions in the main OS.
"You can use them but don't blame us if they change/break/disappear, and your customers start calling you angry"

wizard
Sep 12, 2007, 09:08 PM
The touch not having bluetooth is a low point, it would be nice to connect to car systems, wireless headsets, and macs. Ohh well maybe the hardware is there and you just have to turn it on, like the extensions to the mac mini.
Yep I consider that a big omission. There are so many uses for Bluetooth on a hand held unit that it is silly not to have it there. While I can understand having one model without, I do hope that this facility gets moved into a unit that does work. Apple has a really incredible opportunity here I hope they don't blow it.

I just hope that Apple doesn't get to manipulative of the market. I know they like to get their jollies but at least the could take into account customer needs Further Touch is a platform that will draw the masses to the store and get them to open their wallets..
dave

roblevi
Sep 12, 2007, 09:53 PM
Bluetooth is huge. The common image of an iPod user is some youngster in silouette jumping around to the music. Then there's other's looking at videos, photos, et al- all doing fun things requiring nano seconds of attention at a time. But this thing is a computer. The Wi-Fi link means you will access the Internet, and for many, that means heavy E-mail use; reading all manner of documents; checking newspapers and periodicals online; and not the least, responding, by typing in text on a portable bluetooth keyboard. And I mean typing a lot, getting things done. (Try typing this post with the touch screen keyboard on the device, or inputting it with handwriting recognition software.) People will be using this thing to access documents, and they'll inevitably want that to include text or word processing and spreadsheets. And they'll want to do more than read them- they'll want to edit or originate them on the road. So you need the keyboard. There's also wireless connectivity to other devices. (Okay, even I might want to listen to music using the wireless connection.) But when I looked at the iPod screen on the Apple website video, I see a whole icon devoted to... Starbucks? I don't want to be a snob about this, but how about letting people load the desktop they want for each unit and let people really use this device, the way they do with the Nokia N800 tablet. From what I've seen about the iPod, if the touch screen works as well as the iPhone's, this will be a powerful device for accessing and reading web pages- which may be more important in the end than jumping around while your blowing out your ear drums. This from an old fart, so cut me some slack. No harm intended.

pamon
Sep 13, 2007, 01:01 AM
i personally think it'll be interesting with the iphone update to see what happens with 3rd party apps. Will they increase or decrease? Will an SDK kit be released or just safari apps from now on?

starkruzr
Sep 15, 2007, 08:34 PM
I can see why Apple wanted to keep the iPhone closed. All these hacks are coming out and I for one think it's all getting messy. Take the iToner. With the iPhone update, Apple could have done an update and known that it will work. All the happy little iPhone users would have docked and BANG, a new update and everyone would be happy. Now, we have some "usefull" 3rd party apps. That's nice and all, but what does Apple do. Do they honour the people who bought the phone, happy in the fact that it was exactly what they wanted, or does Apple now have to worry about writing updates that will not accidentally over-write the 3rd party apps code etc... Then all the people who just had to have these useless apps on a phone that you KNEW would be closed, will complain that they have to re-install the hacks, and do the new setup etc...
God, I think if these people wanted a phone to run all these little apps, they would have bought a phone that allows it. Now people will complain that Apple is doing the wrong thing again. I think it's just a little crazy. Where do they go from here? I think the phone should stay closed, let apple create the apps they want and if you don't like that, buy another phone. You are allowed to! Don't ruin it for the people who want the nice phone / ipod / internet package that it is now.

What ARE you talking about?

Do they honour the people who bought the phone, happy in the fact that it was exactly what they wanted

Yes.

or does Apple now have to worry about writing updates that will not accidentally over-write the 3rd party apps code etc...

No.

Were you not listening to what they said? Joswiak explicitly stated that Apple will neither intentionally break, nor encourage, nor support third-party applications on the iPhone. This means that it's caveat emptor when it comes to third-party binaries. This is ENTIRELY ACCEPTABLE to the third-party dev community, because support was never promised and we created the third-party app environment practically ex nihilo.

Then all the people who just had to have these useless apps on a phone that you KNEW would be closed, will complain that they have to re-install the hacks, and do the new setup etc.

There are plenty of extremely useful applications available for the iPhone. How about a to-do list? AIM client? RSS reader? IRC client? SSH client -- and practically every other useful utility in the BSD userland? File manager? Financial record keeper? Umpteen games? Text editor? Flickr poster? The list goes on and on and on. Perhaps you have no need for these things. If that's the case, you must not be much of a geek. Nobody's perfect, I guess ;)

As for complaining, no one in their right mind will complain. Everyone knows and is explicitly told when they install Installer.app that a software update will "dump and remix" their iPhone and they'll have to reinstall their applications. Pretty sure it hoses /var/root too -- so what? This is not a difficult or complicated process.

God, I think if these people wanted a phone to run all these little apps, they would have bought a phone that allows it.

God, there ISN'T a phone that runs all of these applications and doesn't SUCK horribly. The reason why geeks want iPhones is not because they want to be locked into whatever Apple tells them they can use. It's because the iPhone's OS and interface is the most simultaneously advanced and easy-to-use of any smartphone available. Have you even LOOKED at the Mobile OS X API? It's freaking AWESOME. It's enabled the development of all kinds of great stuff in a tiny fraction of time.

Where do they go from here?

Precisely where they're going, which is to allow but not support 3rd-party development and proceed with allowing the iPhone to mature as a device and a platform. There is also every indication that an Apple-supported SDK will be released sometime after Leopard comes out (probably WWDC '08). If it isn't, there will be rioting in the streets. There are a LOT of big dev houses that are chomping at the bit to get their hands on that API, but can't develop apps for the machine because they can't sell applications that might be broken with a software update. This will change after the SDK is released (look at Objective C 2.0, which has built-in garbage collection and plenty of other mobile-friendly awesomeness).

I think the phone should stay closed, let apple create the apps they want and if you don't like that, buy another phone.

I think you're wrong, and there ISN'T another phone anything like the iPhone. Windows Mobile is garbage. Palm is garbage. There is no Linux-based PDA or smartphone of any note out there -- certainly nothing that encourages both Free Software and commercial software development like the iPhone does. I think it is quite clear that Apple knows what they have here and are prepared to milk it for all it's worth. If YOU don't like the extra applications, don't install them and they won't destabilize or hurt your experience with the iPhone.

Don't ruin it for the people who want the nice phone / ipod / internet package that it is now.

Nice false syllogism.

ncsmith4
Sep 15, 2007, 08:48 PM
My thoughts, since Im bored.

You bought the iPhone. Not any other phone. You bought what Apple sold. Why try to mod/hack/eff it up? If you dont like the phone or *cant live* without some other feature that the iPhone doesnt have... buy a different phone that has those features.

TurboSC
Sep 15, 2007, 11:35 PM
My thoughts, since Im bored.

You bought the iPhone. Not any other phone. You bought what Apple sold. Why try to mod/hack/eff it up? If you dont like the phone or *cant live* without some other feature that the iPhone doesnt have... buy a different phone that has those features.

While most people are content with the settings and features given to them, other's like to add functionality and character to their electronics.

The same analogy can be said about cars... some people are fine with the looks / performance, others enjoy modding it :)

starkruzr
Sep 16, 2007, 01:39 AM
My thoughts, since Im bored.

You bought the iPhone. Not any other phone. You bought what Apple sold. Why try to mod/hack/eff it up? If you dont like the phone or *cant live* without some other feature that the iPhone doesnt have... buy a different phone that has those features.

Why try to mod/hack/eff it up?

To make it better?

Maybe we're just talking past each other here. Do you simply not understand the hacker ethic?

There is no other phone with the features iPhone hackers require, because none of those other phones are iPhones. It's like saying "go find another blue sky if you want to fly in this one; this one wasn't designed to be flown in." There are no other phones that have Cocoa programming interfaces.

Do you remember the original promotion material for the iPhone? They went out of their way to say it "has Cocoa." Much was made of the fact that the device ran OS X and could be programmed in Objective-C.

Then what happened? Apple realized that they spoke too soon, the API was not stable and would likely mutate quite a bit after release, and so Steve decided to yank the Cocoa promotion and instead go for the "sweet solution" talk (which really offended a lot of developers at this years WWDC, but what can you do?). Why? Because the iPhone's programming interfaces ARE Leopard's. Several developers have made note of this fact. Heck, take a look at this:

jtd@Carina:~$ ssh root@pyxis
root@pyxis's password:
Last login: Sun Sep 16 02:24:26 2007 from 192.168.1.146
# uname -a
Darwin Pyxis 9.0.0d1 Darwin Kernel Version 9.0.0d1: Fri Jun 22 00:38:56 PDT 2007; root:xnu-933.0.1.178.obj~1/RELEASE_ARM_S5L8900XRB iPhone1,1 Darwin
#


See that? Darwin Kernel Version 9. That's Leopard. This is the reason we will not be seeing an iPhone SDK until probably after 10.5.1 on the desktop at least.

If you dont like the phone or *cant live* without some other feature that the iPhone doesnt have... buy a different phone that has those features.

It puzzles me that you think you have the right, or perhaps the mandate? to tell hackers what they "should" do or not do.

What are you going to do when Apple releases the SDK? Tell them to take it down so that you won't be affected ... by other people ... putting applications on THEIR machines?

Apple has created the next generation of portable, extensible, incredibly easy to use, ridiculously powerful devices. Get used to it.

ncsmith4
Sep 16, 2007, 04:58 AM
Valid points. To that I would only say to not complain. That's kinda my main thing. People complaining about what isnt on the phone despite knowing about it before their purchase.