PDA

View Full Version : iPhone "SDK" To Receive Improvements, Remain Web-based




MacRumors
Oct 3, 2007, 12:22 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple's iPhone "SDK" will remain web-based for the foreseeable future (http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/10/03/source-iphone-sdk-will-remain-web-based-for-the-foreseeable-future), according to an Arstechnica source. However, the source elaborated to say that Apple is actively working to expand the capabilities given in the web-based SDK.

Improvements are said to be forthcoming to Safari to allow off-line storage capabilities which would gain the ability to run 3rd party web-based code without accessing the internet. Other possible improvements include deeper access to iPhone functions via JavaScript and home screen icon placement.

"The entire purpose of all this work is to make the iPhone 'SDK' (WebKit) more usable," our source told us.

The targeted release date of such improvements is January 2008, most likely Macworld San Francisco.

Poll: Before iPhone 1.1.1, did you install 3rd party applications on your iPhone? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=560)

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/03/iphone-sdk-to-receive-improvements-remain-web-based/)



Project
Oct 3, 2007, 12:25 PM
Offline capabilities akin to Google Gears = cool as hell.

shadowfax
Oct 3, 2007, 12:28 PM
I hope that "for the foreseeable future" is just blowing smoke. We've seen real, awesome 3rd-party apps. Apple's "Web 2.0 Application" BS isn't fooling anyone.

Home Screen placement and offline access is nice, but it does nothing to address the significant speed issues.

CJD2112
Oct 3, 2007, 12:30 PM
Steve Jobs cough*OCD*cough*cough

This controlling bs on iPhone's platform is silly. enough already. :rolleyes:

burrito
Oct 3, 2007, 12:32 PM
i'm having trouble understanding the pull of running 3rd party apps off the iphone. to anyone that has done it, what kinds of apps did you install, and what did you use them for?

Glenny2lappies
Oct 3, 2007, 12:34 PM
I guess security's their biggest concern.

Pity it can't use a sandbox and something akin to Java.

It'll be wonderful to see the phone being expanded to allow all sorts of applications to be installed.

johnee
Oct 3, 2007, 12:34 PM
Steve Jobs cough*OCD*cough*cough

This controlling bs on iPhone's platform is silly. enough already. :rolleyes:

really, apple is getting as bad as microsoft in the depth of their control

Squonk
Oct 3, 2007, 12:34 PM
More development capabilities is a good thing. I wish you weren't restricted to the web as such, but I'll take anything they are giving.

MORE :apple: MORE!!!

TitoC
Oct 3, 2007, 12:35 PM
Why can't there just be a "controlled" system, sort of like Apple's Widgets? Got a cool App? Get it reviewed and approved by Apple and you can download it via iTunes! This way Apple gets the control it wants and innovative apps get to the people. What's the problem with that? C'mon Apple.

CoreWeb
Oct 3, 2007, 12:37 PM
I hope that "for the foreseeable future" is just blowing smoke. We've seen real, awesome 3rd-party apps. Apple's "Web 2.0 Application" BS isn't fooling anyone.

Home Screen placement and offline access is nice, but it does nothing to address the significant speed issues.

I somewhat disagree - with several modifications, Webkit apps could possibly maybe come close to matching full-blown applications. But it would need several modifications. The problems include: the address bar, difference between scrolling and drag-and-drop, handling of gestures, amongst many others. If Apple could somehow add events for these...

Perhaps all of the options in the iPhone UI would be exposed as some kind of HTML elements - those on/off switches, the lists of items, etc. They could possibly make app development for iPhone a bit like developing apps in Cocoa but using Javascript as the controlling language. Thus the applications are completely sandboxed, but look and behave exactly like other iPhone applications.

The performance issues with Javascript would still somewhat be a problem, unless Apple can speed up their Javascript engine (unlikely). But (and I'm not sure I like this idea), Apple might be able to make JS accelerators for things like drag-and-drop. An element would be set to draggable, and then Safari would handle the dragging.

HornetOSX
Oct 3, 2007, 12:38 PM
Give me offline storage and icon on homepage capabilities..........




I'll upgrade past 1.0.2 in a heartbeat


I'm sure with more system hooks from safari to the phone should help some app devs ( tho I fail to see how this will make the phone more secure )

TitoC
Oct 3, 2007, 12:42 PM
i'm having trouble understanding the pull of running 3rd party apps off the iphone. to anyone that has done it, what kinds of apps did you install, and what did you use them for?

Let's see:

(1) Voice Notes (vNotes) to record notes, comments, etc. Great way to have a voice recorder right on the iPhone.

(2) Apollo. REAL IM capabilities (no WEB mess, just a good IM App right on the iPhone.

(3) Tons of games (NES, Blackjack, Tetris, Yahtzee, etc.).

(4) Terminal App for us that love to control and run all kinds of mini apps right on your phone (great for testing as well).

(5) SendPic, SendSong and SendFile for TRUE content sending. Send pictures, any song OR any file from your iPhone.

(6) WeDICT. All kinds of dictionaries right on your device.

Plus much more that comes out every other day.

P.S. And yes I still have them on my iPhone. No updating for me, yet . . . .

xnu
Oct 3, 2007, 12:43 PM
Does concentrating application development on web based only applications allow Apple to remain flexible on processor choice? Do they not want to open the iPhone because of planned future changes to the architecture?

I know security is one reason to limit third party apps, but if they do plan to switch chips to intel from samsung, are they just trying to get momentum behind web base applications so that they can build a library of titles that do not have to be recompiled and rewritten when new hardware comes out, similar to the games on the iPod problem they have now?

Obviously they are concerned about future architecture with battery life and 3g, the technology is just maturing now, maybe they are hedging their position to remain neutral so they can be nimble with the hardware.

GTiPhone
Oct 3, 2007, 12:46 PM
This is VERY good news actually. Not the fact that it will remain web-based, but the fact that web-based will be substaintially improved.

Home Screen Icon Placement? That's all I needed to hear. :D

This will be excellent. With more access to the iPhone functions, some great web apps can be developed that really do look and feel and function like native apps.

mainstreetmark
Oct 3, 2007, 12:47 PM
I weep.

Even if web apps are "offline", it's still cumbersome to run them all through Safari, while at the same time, having to constantly ignore the useless "stocks" and "weather" apps. (Have you guys seen Weather Underground's iPhone page? It's great!)

At a minimum, if all we get is web2, then Safari app should function more like "finder". For example, clicking on Safari brings up another screen, similar to iPhones home, but with all your bookmarks, icon'd by favicon. So, when you want to go to wiki, all you do is click safar, click wiki, and off you go. Now, you have to stop the page load, bring up bookmarks, scroll to find, etc..etc..

I gotta hope that Leopard will reveal some new stuff. "Notes", for example, is an OS-level feature of Leopard, so perhaps there's some magic in Leopard that will allow native iPhone apps to be written. It seems unusual for a company who's known for user interface to leave three open spots on the home screen of the iPhone.

TimTheEnchanter
Oct 3, 2007, 12:48 PM
If Apple is concerned about security, I'd like to see them open a channel for 3rd party developers where apps are offered via the iTunes Store. (I know, grumble about Apple just making another revenue stream but...) Apps could be offered for $5-10 each and have Apple's seal of approval. Sure they'd make a chunk off the sale but who cares. The fact is the developers would make money, we'd get apps without risk, everybody wins. Much better than the web-based bandage.

bruk201ib
Oct 3, 2007, 12:49 PM
Why can't there just be a "controlled" system, sort of like Apple's Widgets? Got a cool App? Get it reviewed and approved by Apple and you can download it via iTunes! This way Apple gets the control it wants and innovative apps get to the people. What's the problem with that? C'mon Apple.

I couldn't agree more!!! I understand the unlocking issue = lost of money for Apple and ATT, but the refusal to allow 3rd party applications id just dumb. Developers didn't charge a dime for their iPhone applications so far, it's not like their are making money instead of Apple. Instead they are using the iPhone to expand its possibilities.

Apple needs to make a new function in iTunes that is called iPhone Widgets, where it will store all the applications written so far once approved, and the user will choose which one to download (for free of course), rate them, comment them and so long....

IS THAT TOO HARD TO DO????:mad:

JPyre
Oct 3, 2007, 12:50 PM
Does concentrating application development on web based only applications allow Apple to remain flexible on processor choice? Do they not want to open the iPhone because of planned future changes to the architecture?


^ Very good point, but why not just release a real sdk that uses universal binaries, even if the chips aren't out yet? I'm not a programmer so I don't know the implications of that or if its possible to be pre-universal. Either way they could have rosetta on the intel chips running arm code ;) I'm sure the new Intels could handle it.

/dev/toaster
Oct 3, 2007, 12:51 PM
I don't see how Apple thinks that this will solve the problem. Its only adding fuel to the fire. That whole "web 2.0" demo that was giving was a last minute joke put in place.

We need a real SDK, otherwise the iPhone platform *WILL* fail. Apple pushed the bar up and competitors are starting to respond. Pretty soon, you won't see those silly Blazer browsers ... phones with full browsers are starting to pop up, some even with Flash and Java. (Although, I would rather not have Java)

Same thing interface wise, phones coming out are starting to copy Apple on simplicity and the "fluidness".

Now Nokia and other platforms are going to start to promote very hard that they have an open platform. That is very bad news for Apple.

How does Apple respond ? With a "web 2.0 SDK" ... come on, that has to be a joke. Apple is going to be left in the dust with this.

People laughed at Apple coming into the cell market. They did a damn good job ... now, people are laughing at them for closing the platform off.

Rot'nApple
Oct 3, 2007, 12:52 PM
Offline capabilities akin to Google Gears = cool as hell.

Not being familiar with Goodle Gears and not going to Google to try and figure it out, maybe someone who has knowledge and experienced it's capabilities give a layman explanation, thanks.

Maccus Aurelius
Oct 3, 2007, 12:53 PM
This stuff about security aside, a pretty good point was already made regarding third party development. Apple already has lots of demo and freeware available for the Mac on its site. They could very well distribute applications right on that same page for the iPhone. People can get the freeware, and pay for more premium applications to the developers. I'd like to love the iPhone, and it's such a fantastic device, but I think that it's time that Apple started to step back and look at WHY people have been stuffing their phones with third party applications, why people have been individualizing their devices and why many *SENSIBLE* people are not installing firmware updates after heavily modifying their phones.

If Apple were to release a real SDK for the phone, the iPhone would be a lot more fun, because there's a much larger development community than Windows users think there are for Macs.

mainstreetmark
Oct 3, 2007, 12:53 PM
Let's see:

(1) Voice Notes (vNotes) to record notes, comments, etc. Great way to have a voice recorder right on the iPhone.

(2) Apollo. REAL IM capabilities (no WEB mess, just a good IM App right on the iPhone.

(3) Tons of games (NES, Blackjack, Tetris, Yahtzee, etc.).

(4) Terminal App for us that love to control and run all kinds of mini apps right on your phone (great for testing as well).

(5) SendPic, SendSong and SendFile for TRUE content sending. Send pictures, any song OR any file from your iPhone.

(6) WeDICT. All kinds of dictionaries right on your device.

Plus much more that comes out every other day.

P.S. And yes I still have them on my iPhone. No updating for me, yet . . . .

(7) an improved e-mail app

(8) an iPod that works in the traditional iPod manner

(9) an app that accesses the accelerometer, so you could do silly stuff like have pics of girlies so when you shook the iPhone their breasts bounced

(10) Sketch

(11) A useful weather widget that goes beyond "it's 80 degrees!"

(12) A wifi-finder/wifi-grapher

(13) A money manager

(14) A screensaver

notsofatjames
Oct 3, 2007, 12:56 PM
(SNIP)
I gotta hope that Leopard will reveal some new stuff. "Notes", for example, is an OS-level feature of Leopard, so perhaps there's some magic in Leopard that will allow native iPhone apps to be written. It seems unusual for a company who's known for user interface to leave three open spots on the home screen of the iPhone.

We know that Apple took some people from the leopard development team to help with the iPhone. And the fact that the iPhone runs a version of OSX. We also know that leopard with have system notes and to-do's, and an updated mail application. So i hope with leopard release, auto syncing of notes, todos and mail (actual mail, not just accounts) are implemented. It will suck if it only works with 10.5 though, but never mind.

I think web apps that can be added to the iPhone home page would be a good idea. Sort of shortens the bridge between the phone and the applications.

Fast Shadow
Oct 3, 2007, 12:57 PM
Would it be too much to be able to add the ability to save save attachments (images, at least) as well as save images from web pages?

maverick808
Oct 3, 2007, 01:00 PM
I don't see how any customer could be against having the iPhone open for third party development. What Apple are doing in closing up the platform benefits nobody but themselves. For the sake of making a few extra bucks Apple is absolutely crippling the iPhone.

Honestly, I already own an iPhone and had been recommending it to all my friends, but since Apple locked up the device I can no longer recommend it to anyone. In fact, I'm telling everyone to stay well away from the iPhone unless Apple get their head out their ass and open up the platform.

iSee
Oct 3, 2007, 01:00 PM
Does concentrating application development on web based only applications allow Apple to remain flexible on processor choice? Do they not want to open the iPhone because of planned future changes to the architecture?

I know security is one reason to limit third party apps, but if they do plan to switch chips to intel from samsung, are they just trying to get momentum behind web base applications so that they can build a library of titles that do not have to be recompiled and rewritten when new hardware comes out, similar to the games on the iPod problem they have now?

Obviously they are concerned about future architecture with battery life and 3g, the technology is just maturing now, maybe they are hedging their position to remain neutral so they can be nimble with the hardware.

Yes, the web apps would be platform neutral.

With the addition of offline caching of app code, resources and data, along with some access to iPhone features (main menu placement is just one), this could be pretty decent for a lot of things.

Still, there are drawbacks.

Javascript is really, really slow on an iPhone.

The web graphics capabilities are also pretty slow. A canvas tag opens up a lot of graphical capabilities, but it's too slow to use much.

Also, it is very unlikely that Apple will expose all the functionality of the iPhone to the Javascript engine. Webkit apps will likely remain second class citizens in many, many respects.

burrito
Oct 3, 2007, 01:01 PM
big thing to consider-- since apple did borrow leopard developers to work on iphone, maybe they're setting iphone development aside until leopard ships. new apps/3rd party development may very well be on the to-do list, they just haven't had time or resources to properly implement it.

Edmar
Oct 3, 2007, 01:02 PM
Why can't there just be a "controlled" system, sort of like Apple's Widgets? Got a cool App? Get it reviewed and approved by Apple and you can download it via iTunes! This way Apple gets the control it wants and innovative apps get to the people. What's the problem with that? C'mon Apple.

I totally agree with this, I think this the only way to address this problem. Btw I don't fee bad for those who ended up with
brick phones after unlocking, apple has an obligation to protect their relationship with ATT.

arkmannj
Oct 3, 2007, 01:04 PM
Safari has enough of a job being my web browser believe me.

but if that's the route they are taking, then they also need to more fully implement support for Java, Flash and Quicktime.

* Java - we have no support, but support on some decent level would go a long way.

* Flash - I don't think I need to say a whole lot here.

* Quicktime - Ok so iPhone has some quicktime functionality, but it is pretty limited compared to what quicktime is actually capable of. We are missing Quicktime VR support (I think the finger motions lend itself to Quicktime VR almost perfectly) and we are missing basically everything that has t do with interactive quicktime support.

* Copy+Paste

* Save images from emails into Photo's

* Small storage area [disk mode space] for downloads from email, internet, etc.

If Apple insists that there will be no "true" third party native iPhone Apps, then I would sure hope that they will make the web path as robust and versatile as possible.

TurboSC
Oct 3, 2007, 01:07 PM
would be nice if Apple designed a sort of "container" storage on the iPhone where the programs were underneath so that they could be removed etc if they messed up your iPhone, or have a temporary home on the iPhone.

Fast Shadow
Oct 3, 2007, 01:08 PM
Oh and for God's sake - let me drag and drop individual songs and videos to my iPhone when connected to iTunes. I loathe playlist sync.

Maccus Aurelius
Oct 3, 2007, 01:08 PM
I don't see how any customer could be against having the iPhone open for third party development. What Apple are doing in closing up the platform benefits nobody but themselves. For the sake of making a few extra bucks Apple is absolutely crippling the iPhone.

Honestly, I already own an iPhone and had been recommending it to all my friends, but since Apple locked up the device I can no longer recommend it to anyone. In fact, I'm telling everyone to stay well away from the iPhone unless Apple get their head out their ass and open up the platform.

While power users would be more concerned about third party applications, you really should consider what kind of user each person is. I'm willing to bet that most people do not care about putting third party applications in their phone.

plumbingandtech
Oct 3, 2007, 01:08 PM
OMG. I just checked out the poll on the front page and even on macrumors (which should have a much much much higher percentage of people "hacking" their phone) and the majority of people do NOT hack their phone.

Loud, loud subset of people in the grand scheme of things.

JPark
Oct 3, 2007, 01:09 PM
I don't see how any customer could be against having the iPhone open for third party development. What Apple are doing in closing up the platform benefits nobody but themselves. For the sake of making a few extra bucks Apple is absolutely crippling the iPhone.

Honestly, I already own an iPhone and had been recommending it to all my friends, but since Apple locked up the device I can no longer recommend it to anyone. In fact, I'm telling everyone to stay well away from the iPhone unless Apple get their head out their ass and open up the platform.

I hear you. The week 1.1.1 came out I was planning on buying one. Now not only did I skip the phone, but I'm selling my stock. I'm just not as proud of being a shareholder as I once was.

madmaxmedia
Oct 3, 2007, 01:09 PM
Offline capabilities akin to Google Gears = cool as hell.

Or maybe they are working closely with Google to get Google Gears working on the iPhone/Touch. That would be a plus for everyone- Google, Apple, devs who are already experimenting with Gears, and endusers.

Although I understand the broader functionality of native apps, good offline web based apps (Google Docs, etc.) would suffice for me, and ease the pain if breaking 1.1.1 takes a long time.

Apple also needs to rev its native apps, in order to provide the improvements/enhancements that would otherwise be taken care of by 3rd-parties.

I prefer Jailbreak but would actually be happy with the above scenario on my Touch (offline web apps, improvement of Apple native apps)

EDIT- One problem with Web apps is that the Safari cache doesn't seem to be very large. So if you want to provide offline access, I don't know how to get around that. Even if you load a Web 2.0 app with offline access, you might watch a video or something and inadvertantly flush the app out of the cache.

RidleyGriff
Oct 3, 2007, 01:10 PM
I think the ultimate truth here comes down to a couple simple points:

1. Apple believes that a rock-solid consistent experience is their key selling point compared to most phones, and will continue to be.

2. Apple believes the best way to ensure that they will be able to keep delivering this is to keep the platform closed. In a sense, I understand where they're coming from; I know countless people that think Macs are crash machines, because their only experiences were back in college labs in the 90s, machines overloaded with 3rd-party extensions and the like that caused all kinds of stability issues. This is a stigma that exists in the world of the casual user much more than we realize, and is only now, slowly, being overcome.

3. Apple ultimately believes the future of the iPhone is not in selling to us, the users that would hack a phone, or to those that like to dig under the hood. It is to to the people that have no interest in dealing with the technical know-how of their devices, and simply want them to work as well and as consistently as their toasters. Because there are a whole lot more of them than there is of us. They are the ones that have made iPods so successful.

I can't say I disagree with Apple on this last point, either. If Apple is able to listen to their users and integrate new features as the actual users want them, I don't see Apple being challenged in this space anytime soon. Ringtones will be something they need to address eventually, as that is a feature people want, and is a common-sense feature, and I'm sure we'll see them develop along the way, but as for the rest... Nokia can spend as much money as it wants promoting how open its platform is -- the customers that care about that are not Apple's target, and haven't been from day one.

JPark
Oct 3, 2007, 01:12 PM
OMG. I just checked out the poll on the front page and even on macrumors (which should have a much much much higher percentage of people "hacking" their phone) and the majority of people do NOT hack their phone.

Loud, loud subset of people in the grand scheme of things.

Plus there are others (myself included) who decided not to buy one because of Apple's stance on 3rd party development.

Doctor Q
Oct 3, 2007, 01:13 PM
Who needs freedom to innovate? Let Apple limit 3rd party developers all they like, since every good application has already been invented, and nobody needs any feature that isn't already on the iPhone.



:rolleyes:

iJed
Oct 3, 2007, 01:15 PM
This is in no way a substitute for native applications!

How are you supposed to write native looking GUIs, fast graphics code or make an application of reasonable complexity? Web based applications do much of their processing on the server rather than the client and JavaScript has never been a nice solution for well anything really.

It would be much better if Apple released a native Java VM with bindings to the UIKit. At least then we'd get similar functionality to the many J2ME phones out there.

JPark
Oct 3, 2007, 01:16 PM
...
3. Apple ultimately believes the future of the iPhone is not in selling to us, the users that would hack a phone, or to those that like to dig under the hood. It is to to the people that have no interest in dealing with the technical know-how of their devices, and simply want them to work as well and as consistently as their toasters. Because there are a whole lot more of them than there is of us. They are the ones that have made iPods so successful.


When (for a short time) Apple killed Linux on the iPod, there was a small murmur of complaint. When they killed 3rd party apps on the iPhone, there was a tumultuous uproar. Maybe it's just because most existing iPhone owners are early adopters and more inclined to care about stuff like that. Who knows. It's probably too early to tell, but this just seems to be a much bigger issue this time around.

Maccus Aurelius
Oct 3, 2007, 01:18 PM
I hear you. The week 1.1.1 came out I was planning on buying one. Now not only did I skip the phone, but I'm selling my stock. I'm just not as proud of being a shareholder as I once was.

I think people are overreacting a tad over a phone.

Stridder44
Oct 3, 2007, 01:19 PM
I don't see how any customer could be against having the iPhone open for third party development. What Apple are doing in closing up the platform benefits nobody but themselves. For the sake of making a few extra bucks Apple is absolutely crippling the iPhone.

Honestly, I already own an iPhone and had been recommending it to all my friends, but since Apple locked up the device I can no longer recommend it to anyone. In fact, I'm telling everyone to stay well away from the iPhone unless Apple get their head out their ass and open up the platform.


Thank you. This is the exact reason I'm not getting one.

grappler
Oct 3, 2007, 01:19 PM
I'm really curious about the application that added a sort of pseudo-GPS capability. Can someone who is familiar with it explain how it works?

plumbingandtech
Oct 3, 2007, 01:19 PM
Plus there are others (myself included) who decided not to buy one because of Apple's stance on 3rd party development.

True. And there are most people (that don't really care about hacks) (like 2 of my friends in the last week) that want a phone, and ipod, mail and a web browser and the iphone fills the bill better then anyother phone they have used in the past.

tuartboy
Oct 3, 2007, 01:21 PM
Don't care, don't care, don't care.

I develop web apps for a living and even I want native apps on the phone. There is so much power in this phone and you shouldn't have to use javascript to exploit it. Tap Tap Revolution would be a complete pain to even attempt in JS and would likely run the battery dry. Out of curiosity I've run top over ssh while testing apps and heavy JS code tends to run really hot while native apps (save the NES emulator) are usually quite efficient.

Really, why are they spending dev time on this weak safari API when they could be working on a true API? An OS API makes business sense and is the responsible thing to do for their shareholders as it would increase visibility in the community and improve the product capabilities overall. I have already recommended to 2 of my friends serious about getting an iphone to hold off until all this is sorted out. They are both taking my advice. That's ~$3,000 (w/ contract) they are missing out on right now just because of 1 customer. How many more people are holding off?

Unspeaked
Oct 3, 2007, 01:22 PM
Oh and for God's sake - let me drag and drop individual songs and videos to my iPhone when connected to iTunes. I loathe playlist sync.

The iPhone doesn't let you do this?!

bignumbers
Oct 3, 2007, 01:23 PM
Offline capabilities akin to Google Gears = cool as hell.

Yep, they've been talking Google Gears and WhatWG implementation for a while.

Problem is, they need to announce this publicly, in a huge way. Especially right now in the midst of this PR disaster. Even if they said "wait six months and it'll be ready" that would be better than silently killing all third-party efforts.

Now this isn't the same as a "real" OS-level SDK, but it would provide the capabilities to do many (not most) of the things I'm interested in. Development would also be simpler - probably a hyped up version of Dashcode.

I believe they ALSO need an OS-level SDK. Again I'm fine if they say it'll take a while (to stabilize the OS, finalize API's, etc.). But they're dead silent, which I don't like.

And I'm still on 1.0.2 just for ringtones - using songs I wrote myself, and am essentially sticking with the old version out of silent protest.

Unspeaked
Oct 3, 2007, 01:24 PM
OMG. I just checked out the poll on the front page and even on macrumors (which should have a much much much higher percentage of people "hacking" their phone) and the majority of people do NOT hack their phone.

Loud, loud subset of people in the grand scheme of things.


Uh, yeah, because 49% of iPhone owners is a huge minority...

plumbingandtech
Oct 3, 2007, 01:24 PM
when they could be working on a true API?

How do we know they are not working on both?

Even after a true API, web apps will be important.

How many more people are holding off?

Judging by sales since the price drop... not many.

tuartboy
Oct 3, 2007, 01:25 PM
I think people are overreacting a tad over a phone.

I don't think it's about the phone. This whole situation reeks heavily of what most of us hate so much about other computer/technology companies. Apple was different, but that difference is starting to disappear and this is the first time in the almost 3 years that I have been a customer that I have been really questioning my relationship with Apple as a company.

plumbingandtech
Oct 3, 2007, 01:29 PM
Uh, yeah, because 49% of iPhone owners is a huge minority...


Did you see the stats?

1880 people hacked their phone.

Out of a million + iPhones.

So yah, a minority.

and yes more people will vote and some people hacked their phone but have not been here today for the poll but that number is not going to get to 500K thats for sure.

shadowfax
Oct 3, 2007, 01:29 PM
I don't think it's about the phone. This whole situation reeks heavily of what most of us hate so much about other computer/technology companies. Apple was different, but that difference is starting to disappear and this is the first time in the almost 3 years that I have been a customer that I have been really questioning my relationship with Apple as a company.

what was the other time?

rjwill246
Oct 3, 2007, 01:30 PM
I don't see how any customer could be against having the iPhone open for third party development. What Apple are doing in closing up the platform benefits nobody but themselves. For the sake of making a few extra bucks Apple is absolutely crippling the iPhone.

Honestly, I already own an iPhone and had been recommending it to all my friends, but since Apple locked up the device I can no longer recommend it to anyone. In fact, I'm telling everyone to stay well away from the iPhone unless Apple get their head out their ass and open up the platform.

So another person jumps on his sword. I agree that it would be nice of Apple to open up. But let's look at Apple... for the last few years, many people had the same opinion as you about the iMac, the iPod and now the iPhone. It would seem, if you look for a second, that none of the complaints bore fruit and Apple has been incredibly successful on these items.

Now, does anyone really believe that SJ is going to let this phone just fade into the black beyond??? C'mon... Now, I can't speak for him but let us at least accept that this venture is MORE than dear to his heart. He didn't want to get into the phone business a few years ago because he knew the world would stack up against Apple and that is certainly the tone of all the noises that were made by the competitors just a few short months ago.

SJ is NEVER going to let this fail. It would be a dismal failure for him, personally. So what is all the posturing about? Getting the most out of the market by having apps developed that Apple will make money off. That will not last-- it's untenable. Then, as the competitors strike, Apple will open things up, I assume with some great stuff that it will have noted was wanted and used just a few short days ago. Yep, rip off the hardworking 3rd party developers-- but it's Apple and that is what any company would want to get away with. It's their right even if not ethical, IMHO.

The iPhone will not be eclipsed by anyone. SJ and Apple Inc will never, ever let that come to pass.

SJ has put more than his chin out --and the other anatomical "feature" is not going to get chopped-- well, again!

tuartboy
Oct 3, 2007, 01:33 PM
How do we know they are not working on both?

Even after a true API, web apps will be important.



Judging by sales since the price drop... not many.

If it's truly safari running under there, why not just get dojo's offline mode running and bang, there you go.

And I bought my phone days after the price drop. I doubt I would have bought one otherwise. The update is only a week old. The only way we will know by looking at numbers is to wait a few weeks to a month and then look. Statistically, that still proves nothing. I think anecdotally you will find that the negative buzz in popular media (NPR even had something about it) and on the web will at least make most savvy buyers think twice.

tmiw
Oct 3, 2007, 01:33 PM
What if Apple's onto something even bigger than we think? The fact of the matter is, most people really shouldn't be developing any sort of compiled application--C isn't a safe language, no matter what anyone wants to think. Could Apple be forcing the software community to finally realize that Web applications are superior in security and usability? And unless native applications are blocked, AT&T has no motivation or excuse to improve the EDGE/3G networks even further. I imagine speed improvements on the Safari end will come to OSX with future updates.

Hmm, I just realized I kinda argued for Apple-approved native apps (it is possible to write good code in a compiled language if you know what you're doing)...anyways, I'd prefer an open SDK, if at all possible, but I doubt this is going to happen anytime soon. :(

nagromme
Oct 3, 2007, 01:34 PM
"off-line storage capabilities which would gain the ability to run 3rd party web-based code without accessing the internet."

And suddenly I am modding my own phone just like making a Dashboard widget, in a controversy-free manner :) Now get that Flash support done!

shadowfax
Oct 3, 2007, 01:34 PM
Did you see the stats?

1880 people hacked their phone.

Out of a million + iPhones.

So yah, a minority.

and yes more people will vote and some people hacked their phone but have not been here today for the poll but that number is not going to get to 500K thats for sure.

I think it takes a special kind of dumb to take the number from the poll (1880) and compare it to the total number of sales. I mean, let's be honest. the poll is inaccurate. Obviously, 2/3 of people are not iPhone owners, and of those 2/3, 1/2 are not hacking their phones. The Poll is pretty utterly meaningless unless you are curious about MacRumors Forum demographics.

But the number of "hackers", or rather "3rd-party software installers" is certainly significant. It could be as high as 7%. I believe there have been like 80,000 downloads of AppTapp from distinct IP addresses.

joeshell383
Oct 3, 2007, 01:36 PM
I couldn't agree more!!! I understand the unlocking issue = lost of money for Apple and ATT, but the refusal to allow 3rd party applications id just dumb. Developers didn't charge a dime for their iPhone applications so far, it's not like their are making money instead of Apple. Instead they are using the iPhone to expand its possibilities.


Yeah, I forgot that Skype and VOIP services don't hurt AT&T's bottom line. Oh, I also forgot that IM doesn't take away from AT&T's text messaging revenue. I can't recall that free ringtones take away money for the record companies, and that most other services charge $2.50 and don't let you choose the snippet or keep the actual song. It escaped my mind that MMS is outdated and Apple is abandoning it like many other technologies (Floppy, Modem) to push e-mail as the preferred way of multimedia messaging.

My memory is absolutely horrible.

Marx55
Oct 3, 2007, 01:37 PM
A true SDK is what is needed for iPhone and iPod touch. Or else --yet much better-- a brand new handheld computer based on the revolutionary Intel Silverthorne (the full Mac OS X on your hand).

guzhogi
Oct 3, 2007, 01:38 PM
I guess security's their biggest concern.

Pity it can't use a sandbox and something akin to Java.

It'll be wonderful to see the phone being expanded to allow all sorts of applications to be installed.

Very true. However, there are a lot of really good, competent 3rd party developers out there and look at all the good apps that were created that didn't crash (as far as I know)!

Let's see:

(1) Voice Notes (vNotes) to record notes, comments, etc. Great way to have a voice recorder right on the iPhone.

(2) Apollo. REAL IM capabilities (no WEB mess, just a good IM App right on the iPhone.

(3) Tons of games (NES, Blackjack, Tetris, Yahtzee, etc.).

(4) Terminal App for us that love to control and run all kinds of mini apps right on your phone (great for testing as well).

(5) SendPic, SendSong and SendFile for TRUE content sending. Send pictures, any song OR any file from your iPhone.

(6) WeDICT. All kinds of dictionaries right on your device.

Plus much more that comes out every other day.

P.S. And yes I still have them on my iPhone. No updating for me, yet . . . .

(7) an improved e-mail app

(8) an iPod that works in the traditional iPod manner

(9) an app that accesses the accelerometer, so you could do silly stuff like have pics of girlies so when you shook the iPhone their breasts bounced

(10) Sketch

(11) A useful weather widget that goes beyond "it's 80 degrees!"

(12) A wifi-finder/wifi-grapher

(13) A money manager

(14) A screensaver

These are all good apps. While having Apple test the apps themselves to make sure they don't do anything to mess up anything else is a good idea, it would be a pain is the rear. At least make a REAL SDK & documentation so everything plays nice together. Apple's & SJ's control freak thing is awful. Great products, but not being used to their full potential. I like #9, but kinda inappropriate. But accelerometer-aware apps are awesome! Anyone use MacSaber on their MacBook (Pros)? Total waste of time, but AWESOME! Ah, what great apps can be developed if only Apple let them.

cecemf
Oct 3, 2007, 01:41 PM
I guess security's their biggest concern.

Pity it can't use a sandbox and something akin to Java.

It'll be wonderful to see the phone being expanded to allow all sorts of applications to be installed.

What security ??

Sebian, Palm, Windows mobile are open for 3rd party and don't have any problem.

What are they scared off ????

arkmannj
Oct 3, 2007, 01:42 PM
I just had a thought,
ya know, I can (to a point) understand Apple's desire to be sure the phone is stable, secure, etc.

Couldn't Apple implement a process similar to game consoles, where any programs that are going to run need to be digitally signed by Apple themselves, 3rd party apps would need to be tested and certified for the iPhone. But, then Apple could still hold the reins, and 3rd parties could still develop Apps. win-win right ?

guzhogi
Oct 3, 2007, 01:43 PM
So another person jumps on his sword. I agree that it would be nice of Apple to open up. But let's look at Apple... for the last few years, many people had the same opinion as you about the iMac, the iPod and now the iPhone. It would seem, if you look for a second, that none of the complaints bore fruit and Apple has been incredibly successful on these items.

Now, does anyone really believe that SJ is going to let this phone just fade into the black beyond??? C'mon... Now, I can't speak for him but let us at least accept that this venture is MORE than dear to his heart. He didn't want to get into the phone business a few years ago because he knew the world would stack up against Apple and that is certainly the tone of all the noises that were made by the competitors just a few short months ago.

SJ is NEVER going to let this fail. It would be a dismal failure for him, personally. So what is all the posturing about? Getting the most out of the market by having apps developed that Apple will make money off. That will not last-- it's untenable. Then, as the competitors strike, Apple will open things up, I assume with some great stuff that it will have noted was wanted and used just a few short days ago. Yep, rip off the hardworking 3rd party developers-- but it's Apple and that is what any company would want to get away with. It's their right even if not ethical, IMHO.

The iPhone will not be eclipsed by anyone. SJ and Apple Inc will never, ever let that come to pass.

SJ has put more than his chin out --and the other anatomical "feature" is not going to get chopped-- well, again!

Very true. However, people shouldn't become apathetic and just be like "Oh, they'll never change. Might as well get what I can." If enough people speak up in the right way, Apple & Steve Jobs would take notice and do something about it. I'll admit, I don't know how we can do this, but we should at least try. If the people in the US were this apathetic 230 years ago, they'd still be under the control of England.

psychofreak
Oct 3, 2007, 01:43 PM
What security ??

Sebian, Palm, Windows mobile are open for 3rd party and don't have any problem.

What are they scared off ????
Badly coded apps can be unstable, and ruin the user experience...

iJed
Oct 3, 2007, 01:43 PM
What if Apple's onto something even bigger than we think? The fact of the matter is, most people really shouldn't be developing any sort of compiled application--C isn't a safe language, no matter what anyone wants to think. Could Apple be forcing the software community to finally realize that Web applications are superior in security and usability? And unless native applications are blocked, AT&T has no motivation or excuse to improve the EDGE/3G networks even further. I imagine speed improvements on the Safari end will come to OSX with future updates.

C may not be a "safe" language as you put it but it is around 500 times faster than JavaScript. This is especially bad in the confines of an embedded device like the iPhone where a JIT compiler will use up more resources than it is worth. This is one reason why web apps will never have better usability than native apps.

I'd take a sandboxed JVM or an implementation of the MS CLR any day over JavaScript. Even MS Silverlight would be better than this crap!

guzhogi
Oct 3, 2007, 01:44 PM
I just had a thought,
ya know, I can (to a point) understand Apple's desire to be sure the phone is stable, secure, etc.

Couldn't Apple implement a process similar to game consoles, where any programs that are going to run need to be digitally signed by Apple themselves, 3rd party apps would need to be tested and certified for the iPhone. But, then Apple could still hold the reins, and 3rd parties could still develop Apps. win-win right ?

Possible, but a pain the rear if there's a lot of people writing apps.

Unspeaked
Oct 3, 2007, 01:47 PM
Did you see the stats?

1880 people hacked their phone.

Out of a million + iPhones.

So yah, a minority.

and yes more people will vote and some people hacked their phone but have not been here today for the poll but that number is not going to get to 500K thats for sure.

Let me explain how polls work:

You see, you get a sample of folks to answer a question. Based on that sample, you can draw some conclusions.

In the poll you quote, half the people that owned iPhones hacked them.

Now, you brought up a valid point that the average MacRumors iPhone owner is more likely to hack their phone than the average customer on the street, but still - we're looking at the number of people who answers as a part of the test group, not as a part of the entire iPhone owning population!

Geez, I don't think there's a million members of MacRumors - you expect everyone to have an iPhone to sign up for an account and vote in the poll?

All we know is 4032 iPhone owners voted in the poll and 1971 of them hacked their phones - that's a pretty large number....




I think it takes a special kind of dumb to take the number from the poll (1880) and compare it to the total number of sales. I mean, let's be honest. the poll is inaccurate. Obviously, 2/3 of people are not iPhone owners, and of those 2/3, 1/2 are not hacking their phones. The Poll is pretty utterly meaningless unless you are curious about MacRumors Forum demographics.

Thank you!

Roy Hobbs
Oct 3, 2007, 01:47 PM
I think it takes a special kind of dumb to take the number from the poll (1880) and compare it to the total number of sales. I mean, let's be honest. the poll is inaccurate. Obviously, 2/3 of people are not iPhone owners, and of those 2/3, 1/2 are not hacking their phones. The Poll is pretty utterly meaningless unless you are curious about MacRumors Forum demographics.

But the number of "hackers", or rather "3rd-party software installers" is certainly significant. It could be as high as 7%. I believe there have been like 80,000 downloads of AppTapp from distinct IP addresses.

Last time I checked 7% is still much less that 93% thus making it the minority.
7% of a million iPhone users is far from significant.

Telp
Oct 3, 2007, 01:48 PM
offline storage is beast! I can't wait for that capability. Does that mean like bring able to download apps and pictures and stuff like that?

guzhogi
Oct 3, 2007, 01:50 PM
C may not be a "safe" language as you put it but it is around 500 times faster than JavaScript. This is especially bad in the confines of an embedded device like the iPhone where a JIT compiler will use up more resources than it is worth. This is one reason why web apps will never have better usability than native apps.

I'd take a sandboxed JVM or an implementation of the MS CLR any day over JavaScript. Even MS Silverlight would be better than this crap!

I agree. Even then, there are still no truly , absolutely, 100% safe languages. There will always be someone who finds a way to do bad stuff w/ any language. As some people have said, maybe Apple can digitally sign apps so that only signed apps can run. Pain in the rear for them, but safe and the apps would be fairly fast. If not signed, maybe a real SDK & documentation. For these, add a "Use at your own risk" thing. Of course, people will still complain b/c they don't want to be held responsible. Unfortunately, this is one of those things that doesn't have an easy solution everyone can agree on.

psychofreak
Oct 3, 2007, 01:51 PM
Geez, I don't think there's a million members of MacRumors - you expect everyone to have an iPhone to sign up for an account and vote in the poll?

All we know is 4032 iPhone owners voted in the poll and 1971 of them hacked their phones - that's a pretty large number....
A lot of people would like 3rd party apps too, but don't want to hack their phones...

Last time I checked 7% is still much less that 93% thus making it the minority.
7% of a million iPhone users is far from significant.

I guess less than 7% use the stocks widget but that didn't stop Apple...

w00master
Oct 3, 2007, 01:51 PM
Yeah, I forgot that Skype and VOIP services don't hurt AT&T's bottom line. Oh, I also forgot that IM doesn't take away from AT&T's text messaging revenue. I can't recall that free ringtones take away money for the record companies, and that most other services charge $2.50 and don't let you choose the snippet or keep the actual song. It escaped my mind that MMS is outdated and Apple is abandoning it like many other technologies (Floppy, Modem) to push e-mail as the preferred way of multimedia messaging.

My memory is absolutely horrible.

So why does AT&T allow their other smartphones to do this then? Hmmm?

I highly doubt the lack of 3rd party apps have ANYTHING to do with AT&T. I really think this is all Apple.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: AT&T has phones that have and do allow 3rd party apps.

w00master

shadowfax
Oct 3, 2007, 01:52 PM
Last time I checked 7% is still much less that 93% thus making it the minority.
It's funny to hear a Mac-user dismiss "7%" like it's not worth anything. Is that what you think of yourself as a mac user in a PC-world? 7% share of the computer world Apple does not have, so why should anyone waste their time with it?

macUser2007
Oct 3, 2007, 01:52 PM
... The iPhone will not be eclipsed by anyone....

Ah, just like the Mac?

Back then it was also was light-years ahead in UI, now it garners 3% of PC sales worldwide....

The iPod is a different story: first, people buy these to play music, kind of like the Walkman before it. Nothing else. Add the iTunes store, which is pretty much the best one out there. And last, but not least: the iPod is EASILY hacked, both to strip DRM and to copy music to and fro.

The iPhone is different. Many buy it for the UI and don't really use the iPod function on it. Most I know rarely listen to music on it. They kind of think of it as a cool smart-phone.

But people are starting to expect certain things from a smart phone, including some customization. The web-based apps are lame and just not it. The UI can go a long way to mitigate some of the more glaring shortcomings of the iPhone, but all the bad publicity about 1.1.1 is the first chink in the armor.

Apple is incurring a tremendous amount of ill-will from many, who just a week ago were the iPhone's biggest supporters. Right before the European launch.

Let's see how it goes. But even though I didn't get bricked, for the foreseeable future I am disappointed enough, not to be in a mood to recommend an iPhone to anyone.

iJed
Oct 3, 2007, 01:53 PM
In my 20 years as a Mac user I do not think that I have ever seen such a backlash against Apple as the banning of iPhone third party applications.

Apple behaving like this is beginning to make Microsoft look reasonable. I have never known them to cripple any of their own software or devices in such an evil way!

tuartboy
Oct 3, 2007, 01:54 PM
I believe there have been like 80,000 downloads of AppTapp from distinct IP addresses.

I believe that statistic is not for apptapp, but actually Navizon. So just that 1 app had over 80,000 downloads.

Yeah, I forgot that Skype and VOIP services don't hurt AT&T's bottom line.
They make the same money off my plan no matter what. And they can set their plans to compensate if they have to.
Oh, I also forgot that IM doesn't take away from AT&T's text messaging revenue.
Well, they sure don't for me. I have IM on my phone and I still do over 1,000 txts a month.
I can't recall that free ringtones take away money for the record companies, and that most other services charge $2.50 and don't let you choose the snippet or keep the actual song.
Well, you already bought the song anyway. You are allowed to play it in any form, including your phone (it's probably already on there), so there is nothing legally wrong with ringtones. So, no, no money is being "taken from" the record companies because they never deserved it in the first place. If anything they are charging for the convenience. BTW, more than 50% of the people I have talked to that have tried it hate the fact they have to choose their own sections. Not everybody is an audio editor or likes to do it.
It escaped my mind that MMS is outdated and Apple is abandoning it like many other technologies (Floppy, Modem) to push e-mail as the preferred way of multimedia messaging.
MMS is nowhere near outdated as it is a standard across nearly every phone out there. My other cell phone can't receive emails on it, just MMS.

My memory is absolutely horrible.

No need to be sarcastic. That type of dialogue leads nowhere.

CJD2112
Oct 3, 2007, 01:54 PM
I don't see how any customer could be against having the iPhone open for third party development. What Apple are doing in closing up the platform benefits nobody but themselves. For the sake of making a few extra bucks Apple is absolutely crippling the iPhone.

Honestly, I already own an iPhone and had been recommending it to all my friends, but since Apple locked up the device I can no longer recommend it to anyone. In fact, I'm telling everyone to stay well away from the iPhone unless Apple get their head out their ass and open up the platform.

Agreed (but be careful, the kool-aid fan boys might flame you for those remarks). It's funny, I work at Apple, but even I have been disappointed in how the company has handled this fiasco.

I'm just waiting til they start selling applications via iTunes, you know it's going to happen.

Unspeaked
Oct 3, 2007, 01:56 PM
It's funny to hear a Mac-user dismiss "7%" like it's not worth anything. Is that what you think of yourself as a mac user in a PC-world? 7% share of the computer world Apple does not have, so why should anyone waste their time with it?

Exactly.

I don't think anyone is arguing the the majority of iPhone owners have hacked their phone - that would be ridiculous!

But the number seems to be between 5 and 10 percent, based on all anecdotal evidence, and that's still a whole lot of people.

I mean, how many Macs out there have (non-pirated) copies of Adobe Photoshop on them?

10% 20% at the most? And you don't see anyone ignoring them...

With that attitude, we're lucky we're not running everything in emulation on the Mac, since no one would bother writing anything for it - why waste their time on 4% of computer owners?

Roy Hobbs
Oct 3, 2007, 01:57 PM
It's funny to hear a Mac-user dismiss "7%" like it's not worth anything. Is that what you think of yourself as a mac user in a PC-world? 7% share of the computer world Apple does not have, so why should anyone waste their time with it?

Many software/hardware companies could care less about the small percentage of Mac users.

tuartboy
Oct 3, 2007, 01:58 PM
It's funny to hear a Mac-user dismiss "7%" like it's not worth anything. Is that what you think of yourself as a mac user in a PC-world? 7% share of the computer world Apple does not have, so why should anyone waste their time with it?

The problem is that the 7% in question are the most passionate users and could really create problems for Apple. I have gotten Apple at least 1 iPhone, 3 iPods, and probably 10+ macs sold in the last 3 years due to my evangelizing. They lose me and the rest of that 7% and they lose something more powerful than their marketing department could ever come up with.

grappler
Oct 3, 2007, 02:00 PM
I don't think it's about the phone. This whole situation reeks heavily of what most of us hate so much about other computer/technology companies. Apple was different, but that difference is starting to disappear and this is the first time in the almost 3 years that I have been a customer that I have been really questioning my relationship with Apple as a company.

Exactly. That is exactly it. Customers do not like to be told what to do, or locked into various schemes.

Take Google. They give you email, calendar, documents, blogs, web albums, etc. All kinds of data you have, they'll host on their servers. And you can get it back out any time you like, using standards-compliant formats and protocols. I like keeping my data with them precisely because they respect that it's my data and I can get it back out.

Take myspace. I don't really like the site, but look how well they did by simply letting people customize their own little personal page with whatever awful background they like.

Take Facebook. They gave their platform a big boost by opening it to 3rd party apps. Now if you want to write a social networking application, you can try to convince people to go to your site and enter their info yet again, or you can just build off of what Facebook already has by using their api.

Now take Microsoft. Sure, their stock did great in the 90s, but it has never regained the ground it lost when the first .com bubble burst. I'm sure a lot of the reason is they're already huge and can't keep up that pace of growth, but part of it surely must be their practice of ignoring interoperability standards and customer freedom, and the tremendous ill will those practices generated toward them.

Unspeaked
Oct 3, 2007, 02:02 PM
The problem is that the 7% in question are the most passionate users and could really create problems for Apple. I have gotten Apple at least 1 iPhone, 3 iPods, and probably 10+ macs sold in the last 3 years due to my evangelizing. They lose me and the rest of that 7% and they lose something more powerful than their marketing department could ever come up with.

Yeah - the sad thing is, you're right. Those 7% *are* the most passionate.

And like me, there's not much imaginable that Apple could do that would make me give up on their computers.

Maybe I'd stop using an iPod, maybe I'd find work-arounds to iLife, but as far as using a Mac and OS X, Steve Jobs would have to come to my house personally, trample on my flowers, kill my kitten, eat all my food and urinate on my front door on the way out while giving me the finger for me to even consider switching to Linux or Windows.

And I'd probably just go back when I saw Leopard!

(Though I'd have a very popular YouTube video to show for it...)

:)

tuartboy
Oct 3, 2007, 02:03 PM
I'm sure a lot of the reason is they're already huge and can't keep up that pace of growth, but part of it surely must be their practice of ignoring interoperability standards and customer freedom, and the tremendous ill will those practices generated toward them.

That is precisely why I tossed my top-of-the-line AMD Barton +2500 years ago and downgraded to a more expensive 1.5Ghz Powerbook. Great post.

shk718
Oct 3, 2007, 02:04 PM
really, apple is getting as bad as microsoft in the depth of their control


APPLESOFT

tuartboy
Oct 3, 2007, 02:09 PM
Yeah - the sad thing is, you're right. Those 7% *are* the most passionate.

And like me, there's not much imaginable that Apple could do that would make me give up on their computers.

Maybe I'd stop using an iPod, maybe I'd find work-arounds to iLife, but as far as using a Mac and OS X, Steve Jobs would have to come to my house personally, trample on my flowers, kill my kitten, eat all my food and urinate on my front door on the way out while giving me the finger for me to even consider switching to Linux or Windows.

And I'd probably just go back when I saw Leopard!

(Though I'd have a very popular YouTube video to show for it...)

:)


And that is what is so scary. I rely on so many apps that I just can't find in linux. For years I have been installing ubuntu distros as they come out just to see the status of the linux desktop. I have a BS in computer science and I am very comfortable in *nix environments, but I still don't see it as a polished alternative yet. Maybe in a few years. Maybe they will get at least 1 person who is a good UI designer...

donlphi
Oct 3, 2007, 02:09 PM
What is the big deal with the 3rd party apps? Let's be honest, many of us on here like Steve Jobs for a reason, he represents the way most of us think... control freaks. If we weren't control freaks, none of us would complain about not having 3rd party apps. We would all just let Apple do what Apple does, which is control everything.

I understand we liked having the Nintendo Emulators and the ability to use the disk space to save things, but some of the apps were just ridiculous and gimmicky more than anything. Is it necessary to have a dock on an iPhone? No, but it looks cool. If you want it "Your Way Right Away", go to Burger King. If you want an iPhone, buy one, but from day one, Apple said they wouldn't support those 3rd party apps.

I think I'll live without my 3rd party apps for now, but for those that can't will hold off on the update. I personally wish I had waited a bit longer for the update, but I started worrying about the "BRICK FACTOR". What is the point of no return?

grappler
Oct 3, 2007, 02:11 PM
To me, this is the crux of the matter: Apple wants me to think of the iPhone as a phone. But I don't.

My old Razr was a phone. On the other hand, two out of the three main functions of the iPhone (media player, web browser) are more computer than phone. Two of the main things I do on computers (email, web browsing) I can now do on the iPhone.

I spend way less time in the 'phone' part of the iPhone than the other parts. With my Razr, the phone part of it was the only part of it I used.

Apple can call it a phone, but it is a mobile computer. That's why I bought it. Because I want a mobile computer that also happens to be a phone. My old phone worked just fine.

And one thing I expect when I buy a computer is to be able to install and write programs for it. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that they were in a hurry and just haven't yet gotten around to putting out a good SDK. I hope I'm not wrong.

arkmannj
Oct 3, 2007, 02:12 PM
It will all be better when leopard is released..
Apple is just holding the iPhone back because there's features we can't even dream of yet included so they don't want to pull the curtain off

Apple wants to have a killer Leopard release, and make every possible news they can by releasing 10.5, iPhone updates, Apple TV updates etc. all at the same time.

... yes folks someone was trying to tell me this a little while ago.
(Paraphrased, I wish you could have seen their face though.)

Billy Boo Bob
Oct 3, 2007, 02:16 PM
The iPhone doesn't let you do this?!

Not at the moment... You can drag and drop tunes into a playlist that gets synced to the phone, bit I agree, it would be nice to plug in the USB cable, expand the iPhone listing, and drag/drop fresh tunes into the phone, with easy delete (same as just deleting out of a playlist). Same goes with any video.

Leave the sync options in the way they are... I'm sure some people rely on the "sync most recent", and "sync oldest 5 unwatched" and all that, but I don't... I do manual syncing through checkboxes at the moment. Mainly because some of the items I've already watched on the computer or TV and don't need them synced, but iTunes would see them as unwatched.

rlreif
Oct 3, 2007, 02:19 PM
really, apple is getting as bad as microsoft in the depth of their control

worse...
MS allows me to put whatever i want on a winmo phone

arkmannj
Oct 3, 2007, 02:19 PM
Not at the moment... You can drag and drop tunes into a playlist that gets synced to the phone, bit I agree, it would be nice to plug in the USB cable, expand the iPhone listing, and drag/drop fresh tunes into the phone, with easy delete (same as just deleting out of a playlist). Same goes with any video.

Leave the sync options in the way they are... I'm sure some people rely on the "sync most recent", and "sync oldest 5 unwatched" and all that, but I don't... I do manual syncing through checkboxes at the moment. Mainly because some of the items I've already watched on the computer or TV and don't need them synced, but iTunes would see them as unwatched.

would be nice to do this, and be able to do this on multiple computers
(for songs + computers that are of course authorized on m own iTunes account) between My laptop, My Wifes, 2 Desktops, a mac mini (trying to get everthing sync'd to the mini as a server/focla point but work in progress), an older powerbook that's still kicking around it can be a bit confusing to try and get all of "My music" sync'd onto one machine lol

blybug
Oct 3, 2007, 02:19 PM
Oh and for God's sake - let me drag and drop individual songs and videos to my iPhone when connected to iTunes. I loathe playlist sync.

I see this complaint come up in all sorts of contexts and just don't get it.

Make a playlist called "iPhone" and drag whatever you want in there to your heart's content. You can even modify the playlist when your iPhone isn't attached. Set the iPhone to sync only with that playlist...volia! When you dock your iPhone it syncs, or just click the sync button if you're already docked.

How is this so much harder or more inconvenient than dragging and dropping "directly" to the iPhone? I'm always for more choices, it would be nice if you could do it both ways, but if you use playlists correctly, it's just not any more difficult the way it's presently implemented. :confused:

twoodcc
Oct 3, 2007, 02:22 PM
well i guess that's an improvement. i still want to just see apptapp for 1.1.1

cdarlington1
Oct 3, 2007, 02:23 PM
d

peharri
Oct 3, 2007, 02:23 PM
There's absolutely no issue with the SDK being Javascript and WebKit based. That's a solid, proven, platform that developers already have some familiarity with, and that can easily be sandboxed.

The issues right now have to do with the fact that the SDK is tied to a web browser and the Internet. As long as applications can be downloaded that do not need to access the web to run, and have APIs to access the iPhone's more interesting features, then it should work very well and "native" applications should be very possible.

It would be nice to see Java as an option too, preferably with a custom UI API rather than SWING/AWT/whatever J2ME offers, but Webkit isn't a bad idea - as long as the "tying to a web browser" thing is dealt with.

Unspeaked
Oct 3, 2007, 02:23 PM
I see this complaint come up in all sorts of contexts and just don't get it.

Make a playlist called "iPhone" and drag whatever you want in there to your heart's content. You can even modify the playlist when your iPhone isn't attached. Set the iPhone to sync only with that playlist...volia! When you dock your iPhone it syncs, or just click the sync button if you're already docked.

How is this so much harder or more inconvenient than dragging and dropping "directly" to the iPhone? I'm always for more choices, it would be nice if you could do it both ways, but if you use playlists correctly, it's just not any more difficult the way it's presently implemented. :confused:

Syncing may work for you, but not all of us have the same setup.

If the poster you're replying to is anything like me, they keep their music scattered across several sources that aren't always live on their Mac.

If I had to auto-sync my iPod, I'd constantly get errors about songs missing. I can't even imagine...

Unspeaked
Oct 3, 2007, 02:25 PM
don't like your iphone or apple's stance...sell it and buy something else...

Wow, it's about time you showed up!

That never occured to me or anyone else who'd like third party apps on the iPhone.

Now we can close all these silly threads and go drink cola from a hilltop...!

Doctor Q
Oct 3, 2007, 02:26 PM
To me, this is the crux of the matter: Apple wants me to think of the iPhone as a phone. But I don't.That's a very interesting point, grappler. It's a reverse-bait-and-switch. Apple wants to sell us the iPhone for what it can do now, while we all know it is capable of much more.

arkmannj
Oct 3, 2007, 02:26 PM
don't like your iphone or apple's stance...sell it and buy something else... d



I don't think people are saying they don't like the iPhone, they're just frustrated at what it has the potential to do and how it's being held back from its true potential

cdarlington1
Oct 3, 2007, 02:29 PM
Wow, it's about time you showed up!

That never occured to me or anyone else who'd like third party apps on the iPhone.

Now we can close all these silly threads and go drink cola from a hilltop...!

Perfect...see you there.

cazlar
Oct 3, 2007, 02:30 PM
To me, this is the crux of the matter: Apple wants me to think of the iPhone as a phone. But I don't.

Bingo, that's exactly the same for me. Actually, I hardly use the phone functionality at all. It's just a cool tiny computer to me.

For example, this morning I installed lighttpd onto it, and can now view pdfs that I transfer to it offline without emailing everything to myself. Sure, Apple might be able to add this ability to the phone later on with this new webkit "SDK", but I have it today. Apple might be good at predicting people's needs, but it is great having 3rd parties to fill in all the parts they miss.

rlreif
Oct 3, 2007, 02:31 PM
Did you see the stats?

1880 people hacked their phone.

Out of a million + iPhones.

So yah, a minority.

and yes more people will vote and some people hacked their phone but have not been here today for the poll but that number is not going to get to 500K thats for sure.

wow....
great post
are you serious??!!

kingtj
Oct 3, 2007, 02:33 PM
Oh, wow.... Do you have AC power in that cave of yours?

Seriously, the 3rd. party apps I'm using on my iPhone are mostly *excellent* additions to the phone.

For starters, I installed a book reader package - so my iPhone now doubles as one of those hand-held electronic book reader units, complete with user-selectable font and font-size while reading e-books.

I also have a VNC client, which lets me remote control the desktop of any of our servers at work, in case I need to remotely reboot one or do some basic maintenance on it. No need to carry around a notebook computer or sit down at someone's desktop PC to do it anymore.

Beyond that, there's an application that lets me email someone a full-size photo. (The iPhone will automatically scale down any photo you try to email using its built-in mail program. That's nice in many cases, but not ALWAYS what you want to do.) There's a really nice dictionary/thesaurus app that accepts one of *many* downloadable dictionary databases. (You can grab ones for everything from "law" to "jargon" to concise version of the encyclopedia Brittanica to carry around with you on your phone.)

And the 15-day free trial of Navizon was slick too. (Not sure I'm willing to pay for it yet - but thinking about it.) It finds your location and then brings it up using Google Maps. Even though the iPhone has no GPS capabilities, it manages to accomplish the task using the strength and location of whatever cellphone tower you're currently on, plus any location data it has based on wi-fi access points you might be picking up at the time.)

There's also a port of "ncftp" - a fully-featured ftp client, and a tool that lets you email individual songs from your music library on the phone.

None of these even touches on the "fun but not necessary" apps people wrote, like the "Tap Tap Revolution" game (a little bit like "Guitar Hero" on game consoles), or the Tetris clone, or the Super Nintendo game system emulator.


i'm having trouble understanding the pull of running 3rd party apps off the iphone. to anyone that has done it, what kinds of apps did you install, and what did you use them for?

mdntcallr
Oct 3, 2007, 02:48 PM
this may be a bit of too little too late for apple.

They are getting the reputation of being a hard company to deal with.

Lets examine recent news:
1- NBC / Universal states they cannot work with Apple on licensing/sales terms
2- Fox said it would be difficult to negotiate with Apple, but they would do it and keep content up
3- Valve Software head states Apple occasionally talks about games, but really does not do anything to support it. (something I agree with, they don't have imac or midsized towers with great graphics cards as an option which user can upgrade)
4- iPod and iPhone are locked to iTunes in a manner which outside companies can't get in there to work
5- iphone cannot work with most if not all ipod accessories. even car kits for charging and audio playback even with the same.
6- Record companies have stated they want to work with apple on DRM to allow them to copy protect content, yet allow it to be easy for consumers. Hell this could have been an opportunity for Apple to create an open source DRM standard that would play well with consumers


Well... i could go on but time and time again it looks like Apple is really becoming more and more like Microsoft used to be.

you tell me ... i want a kinder and gentler Apple who plays well with others.

CJD2112
Oct 3, 2007, 03:03 PM
this may be a bit of too little too late for apple.

They are getting the reputation of being a hard company to deal with.

Lets examine recent news:
1- NBC / Universal states they cannot work with Apple on licensing/sales terms
2- Fox said it would be difficult to negotiate with Apple, but they would do it and keep content up
3- Valve Software head states Apple occasionally talks about games, but really does not do anything to support it. (something I agree with, they don't have imac or midsized towers with great graphics cards as an option which user can upgrade)
4- iPod and iPhone are locked to iTunes in a manner which outside companies can't get in there to work
5- iphone cannot work with most if not all ipod accessories. even car kits for charging and audio playback even with the same.
6- Record companies have stated they want to work with apple on DRM to allow them to copy protect content, yet allow it to be easy for consumers. Hell this could have been an opportunity for Apple to create an open source DRM standard that would play well with consumers


Well... i could go on but time and time again it looks like Apple is really becoming more and more like Microsoft used to be.

you tell me ... i want a kinder and gentler Apple who plays well with others.

Couldn't agree more. For a company that prides itself on being "different", I find their actions to be highly ironic.

flieschut
Oct 3, 2007, 03:07 PM
I don't think it's about the phone. This whole situation reeks heavily of what most of us hate so much about other computer/technology companies. Apple was different, but that difference is starting to disappear and this is the first time in the almost 3 years that I have been a customer that I have been really questioning my relationship with Apple as a company.



me too.

sjobs@apple.com
Oct 3, 2007, 03:12 PM
Did you see the stats?

1880 people hacked their phone.

Out of a million + iPhones.

So yah, a minority.

and yes more people will vote and some people hacked their phone but have not been here today for the poll but that number is not going to get to 500K thats for sure.

Thats not 1880 out of a million its 1880 out of the sample of everyone who voted

Hopstretch
Oct 3, 2007, 03:12 PM
Look! A consensus! ;)

Billy Boo Bob
Oct 3, 2007, 03:13 PM
Couldn't agree more. For a company that prides itself on being "different", I find their actions to be highly ironic.

Heh. You failed your word for the day... Ironic is mis-used, although I didn't know that, and would have totally agreed until I saw this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApJLOVlkd0U) on YouTube.

Just had to throw that in there. :)

grappler
Oct 3, 2007, 03:14 PM
this may be a bit of too little too late for apple.

They are getting the reputation of being a hard company to deal with.

Lets examine recent news:
1- NBC / Universal states they cannot work with Apple on licensing/sales terms
2- Fox said it would be difficult to negotiate with Apple, but they would do it and keep content up
3- Valve Software head states Apple occasionally talks about games, but really does not do anything to support it. (something I agree with, they don't have imac or midsized towers with great graphics cards as an option which user can upgrade)
4- iPod and iPhone are locked to iTunes in a manner which outside companies can't get in there to work
5- iphone cannot work with most if not all ipod accessories. even car kits for charging and audio playback even with the same.
6- Record companies have stated they want to work with apple on DRM to allow them to copy protect content, yet allow it to be easy for consumers. Hell this could have been an opportunity for Apple to create an open source DRM standard that would play well with consumers


Well... i could go on but time and time again it looks like Apple is really becoming more and more like Microsoft used to be.

you tell me ... i want a kinder and gentler Apple who plays well with others.

Definitely.

In my case, I have been trying in vain to find a car solution I like. My ipod-aware Alpine stereo falls short in many respects.

I walked into Car Toys just a few days ago, iPhone in hand, and simply said to them, "I want this iPhone to work with my car stereo. I want it to play music through the stereo, and I want the stereo to handle phone calls hands-free."

They had no good solutions to this simple, obvious problem. No stereo does it. Not through a dock connector and not with a bluetooth pairing. You can 'kinda' do it with some add on devices that add a couple hundred extra to the total price tag, but these carry extra annoyances and nothing close to a simple, polished "just works" user experience.

Why has apple not partnered with a stereo manufacturer to do this? It's like none of the manufacturers got started on it before the phone was in stores.

ps
Things I hate about my Alpine car stereo:
o It takes over the controls of ipods and iphones, so you have to use the awful controls on the stereo's head unit.
o Most labels are too long to read on the stereo's screen.
o Buttons are confusing, and the same function might be on two different buttons depending on what screen you're looking at.
o Podcasts are really hard to navigate, and it doesn't show you those marks that indicate a new, un-listened-to episode.
o Inexplicably, every time I connect an ipod or iphone, it decides to turn on the device's 'repeat' mode.
o The nano doesn't stop or pause when the car is turned off. If you don't stop it yourself, it will play on until its battery dies.
o When the nano is disconnected, the apline logo is still there on the screen, keeping the ipod's controls locked and unusable. I have to reset it every time I disconnect it from the stereo.

I could go on...

dagrouch
Oct 3, 2007, 03:14 PM
I highly recommend reading this Wired article:

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2007/10/cultofmac_1003

Basically, it may not be open for development because v1 of the iPhone software was a hack to begin with. They may not have had the time to build 3rd party interfaces.

sishaw
Oct 3, 2007, 03:15 PM
I think the ultimate truth here comes down to a couple simple points:

1. Apple believes that a rock-solid consistent experience is their key selling point compared to most phones, and will continue to be.

2. Apple believes the best way to ensure that they will be able to keep delivering this is to keep the platform closed. In a sense, I understand where they're coming from; I know countless people that think Macs are crash machines, because their only experiences were back in college labs in the 90s, machines overloaded with 3rd-party extensions and the like that caused all kinds of stability issues. This is a stigma that exists in the world of the casual user much more than we realize, and is only now, slowly, being overcome.

3. Apple ultimately believes the future of the iPhone is not in selling to us, the users that would hack a phone, or to those that like to dig under the hood. It is to to the people that have no interest in dealing with the technical know-how of their devices, and simply want them to work as well and as consistently as their toasters. Because there are a whole lot more of them than there is of us. They are the ones that have made iPods so successful.

I can't say I disagree with Apple on this last point, either. If Apple is able to listen to their users and integrate new features as the actual users want them, I don't see Apple being challenged in this space anytime soon. Ringtones will be something they need to address eventually, as that is a feature people want, and is a common-sense feature, and I'm sure we'll see them develop along the way, but as for the rest... Nokia can spend as much money as it wants promoting how open its platform is -- the customers that care about that are not Apple's target, and haven't been from day one.

Even casual users want an IM application. And even if what you say is correct, no one is going to force these users to install a bunch of third-party apps, so why not at least make the option available to the rest of us?

Virgil-TB2
Oct 3, 2007, 03:19 PM
... Seriously, the 3rd. party apps I'm using on my iPhone are mostly *excellent* additions to the phone.

For starters, I installed a book reader package ...

I also have a VNC client, ...

Beyond that, there's an application that lets me email someone a full-size photo. ...

And the 15-day free trial of Navizon was slick too. ...

There's also a port of "ncftp" ...

None of these even touches on the "fun but not necessary" apps people wrote, like the "Tap Tap Revolution" game (a little bit like "Guitar Hero" on game consoles), or the Tetris clone, or the Super Nintendo game system emulator.I can't argue with you since you are just stating your opinion, but you must also see how *not* like the average user you are here. :)

The whole point is (as you yourself intimate), what is necessary, and the things that are necessary to you are not necessary for most other people. The apps that make it onto the phone should be the apps that people need to perform the things they want/need to do with the iPhone. You must see that almost no user wants to do the things you do, and that the things you need to do are "techie" things.

The book-reader is something that most people could use, but every other thing you name falls directly into the "interesting but not necessary" category for almost all users.

The perfect example is Navizon. The purpose of the app is presumably to find out (accurately) where you are so the iPhone can give you directions to where you want to go. But the iPhone already does that, and it works great. Sure Navizon is a performance jump on that behaviour, but for most people an unnecessary one. There is no army of users out there saying "Gee, I wish the iPhone could give me more accurate directions, it fails all the time." How would Navizon even market this thing when there is no "problem" it addresses (at least in the minds of consumers). The real purpose of "Navizon" is that it's basically just a technology demonstration. Again, something that would basically only appeal to a techie like yourself.

Island Dog
Oct 3, 2007, 03:24 PM
Don't worry, I'm sure we are going to see a bunch of new apps in the next update.

:)

locovaca
Oct 3, 2007, 03:24 PM
Apple = Hypocrite.

"Other possible improvements include deeper access to iPhone functions via JavaScript and home screen icon placement."

So Microsoft creates their own extensions to Javascript and people burn them at the stake for deviating from standards. But hey, it's an iPhone, so it's ok for Apple to do the same.

grappler
Oct 3, 2007, 03:31 PM
The perfect example is Navizon. The purpose of the app is presumably to find out (accurately) where you are so the iPhone can give you directions to where you want to go. But the iPhone already does that, and it works great. Sure Navizon is a performance jump on that behaviour, but for most people an unnecessary one. There is no army of users out there saying "Gee, I wish the iPhone could give me more accurate directions, it fails all the time." How would Navizon even market this thing when there is no "problem" it addresses (at least in the minds of consumers). The real purpose of "Navizon" is that it's basically just a technology demonstration. Again, something that would basically only appeal to a techie like yourself.

I disagree. If I want directions to a spot using the iPhone map, I need to input two locations: where I am, and where I'm going. It defaults to the last place I looked at, which is not necessarily where I am now.

With something like Navizon, I can cut that in half. I just tell it where I'm going, and it can do the rest.

Billy Boo Bob
Oct 3, 2007, 03:33 PM
With the iPhone's OS set the way it is, all apps run as root user. This has some to do with their reluctance to open to 3rd party devs, I'm sure. But, this is something they could fix. Add a second, non-admin user for 3rd party apps to run as. Granted this would prevent some of the current 3rd party apps from running, but most of them would run just fine as a non-admin user. Then they could restrict root access apps to those "approved" by Apple and distributed through iTunes.

Once an API is documented, you'll see these developers produce much better, much more powerful apps. As it is right now, they're very limited on knowing how to use the new frameworks. Most of them are going to be the same as OS X for Mac, but right now they're just guessing (with much more trial-and-error than trial-and-success) at things like:

Celestial.framework, CFNetwork.framework, CoreTelephony.framework
(although they may want to have devs leave these alone)

CoreSurface.framework, DeviceLink.framework, IAP.framework, ITSync.framework, LayerKit.framework, MobileBluetooth.framework (can anyone say BT GPS Integration?), and a few others.

Not everybody that wants to run apps want the deep, deep, under-the-hood apps (although I still would) that dig into the unix core, like Terminals and on-board Apache and PERL and such, so a "sandbox user" approach should work just fine.

grappler
Oct 3, 2007, 03:35 PM
Apple = Hypocrite.

"Other possible improvements include deeper access to iPhone functions via JavaScript and home screen icon placement."

So Microsoft creates their own extensions to Javascript and people burn them at the stake for deviating from standards. But hey, it's an iPhone, so it's ok for Apple to do the same.

I think if you have a new device with new capabillites (eg "Read Gesture event", "Make phone call"), it should be ok to add extensions in a generic way so that other devices with analogous features would also be able to take advantage of the same extensions.

It should fit well with the philosophy of what has been designed already, of course. Apple has been good about this with the iPhone's web browser so far. For example, they recommend CSS that checks the screen size, not CSS that checks for some "iphone=true" property.

locovaca
Oct 3, 2007, 03:41 PM
I think if you have a new device with new capabillites (eg "Read Gesture event", "Make phone call"), it should be ok to add extensions in a generic way so that other devices with analogous features would also be able to take advantage of the same extensions.

It should fit well with the philosophy of what has been designed already, of course. Apple has been good about this with the iPhone's web browser so far. For example, they recommend CSS that checks the screen size, not CSS that checks for some "iphone=true" property.

..,.Except that Javascript is a standard. In order to take the high road Apple would need to get their new objects, whatever, added to the ECMAScript standard and not as proprietary extensions supported only by Safari.

How many ActiveX objects can Safari use? Why add more proprietary pollution to web?

Billy Boo Bob
Oct 3, 2007, 03:55 PM
How many ActiveX objects can Safari use? Why add more proprietary pollution to web?

But, ActiveX is not designed for any one specific hand-held device. It's meant to be broad-spectrum (although still limited to Windows, I guess)...

iPhone specific JS calls are a different beast... These things will not be "designed for any and all web browsers on any and all platforms". They'll be limited to iPhone/iPod Touch. Who cares if it doesn't work on FireFox? It's not meant to run on a desktop computer. Make a real app for that.

Sure, you might want to check things out on a computer during development, but they could certainly release an "iPhone Developer's WebKit" browser/app for developers to test stuff out before porting to phone status.

grappler
Oct 3, 2007, 03:55 PM
..,.Except that Javascript is a standard. In order to take the high road Apple would need to get their new objects, whatever, added to the ECMAScript standard and not as proprietary extensions supported only by Safari.

How many ActiveX objects can Safari use? Why add more proprietary pollution to web?

For some new capability you want to add that a current standard can't support, the alternatives would seem to be extending the standard, waiting for a (potentially very slow) standards process, and not supporting the new capability at all. None of those are ideal, really.

Mr. Zorg
Oct 3, 2007, 03:57 PM
Now we're talking. This is what it should have been in the first place. I guess they didn't get it done in time. Sounds like souped up Widgets.

locovaca
Oct 3, 2007, 04:00 PM
iPhone specific JS calls are a different beast... These things will not be "designed for any and all web browsers on any and all platforms". They'll be limited to iPhone/iPod Touch. Who cares if it doesn't work on FireFox? It's not meant to run on a desktop computer. Make a real app for that.

So, it's ok for companies to write applications that are tied to Internet Explorer and IE only?

Maccus Aurelius
Oct 3, 2007, 04:03 PM
I reassure myself that Jobs is only as stubborn as success allows, and if he knows what's good for him and Apple, Inc., he won't let the company spiral into the toilet for the sake of integration. I doubt this is a case of too little too late. I'm pretty sure Michael Dell thought the same thing in the 90's, and he couldn't say that now.

Billy Boo Bob
Oct 3, 2007, 04:14 PM
So, it's ok for companies to write applications that are tied to Internet Explorer and IE only?

If MS were to put a "special version" of IE on the Zune, for instance, and they made additions to JS for THAT version of IE, and that version only, then sure, that's ok. Assuming "that special version" of IE was intended to be used for custom apps designed for Zune.

I'm agreeing that ActiveX for the Internet-At-Large is bad. Some Web Site developers (not looking at app developers) are using ActiveX and either don't know better or don't care that their site won't work outside of IE on Windows. That's not good. I agree with you that ActiveX in that mode is "Web pollution".

But, we're talking about Apps here for iPhone, not Web Sites.

Don't get me wrong here... I want native apps as much as anyone else. But the example of iPhone specific JS being as bad as ActiveX is not a fair comparison... With an ActiveX web site you don't know where a user is coming from (what platform / browser)... With an iPhone WebKit app you know where they're coming from... the touch screen of an iPhone or iPod Touch.

BTW
Oct 3, 2007, 04:25 PM
really, apple is getting as bad as microsoft in the depth of their control

You really mean the opposite. Apple has always been controlling. Just ask the Mac clone makers. ;)

apachie2k
Oct 3, 2007, 04:26 PM
we should be reminded that "Apple" is intended to be an "all-in-one" package for the most part, in all there products. Obviously we use 3rd party apps, becuase apple can't produce everything! I can understand why apple would want to keep it closed, security, blah blah... if they do allow anyone to do anything on it, 1) they are not responsible (when i think, from a political standpoint they really want to be responsible - helping out the innocent customer) and 2) they run the risk of being seen as a slow developer (because everyone that would need anything would find it on a 3rd party app and not an apple app).... the downside ofcourse is having a underperforming machine with your name on it, especially one with a lot of potential. So in the end, ofcourse there are a lot of things wrong with the iphone, the first being it is locked, but this will evolve as competition has improved (you don't want to go tooo far out ahead of the competition, do you?)

FoxyKaye
Oct 3, 2007, 04:27 PM
Whatever.

Just, whatever.

I've been fairly anti-iPhone all along, and have mostly perceived it as one of the bigger corporate tangents Apple could take. But, when folks started doing all the stuff on their iPhones that I've only dreamed about with my Motorolas and Verizon, I thought, "well, maybe this is worth reconsidering. Maybe this really is something I should look at. This is neat, and has the grace and stability of OS X behind it. OK, maybe I will check this out, especially if there's going to be a growing constellation of applications that use OS X in the palm of my hand."

But I've got to say, since the last firmware update that took away the very thing that interested me in the iPhone (its potential for growth and expansion) and in return Apple offers this BS Safari-based Webkit pseudo-SDK thingy, I'm back to where I started in my opinion of it.

Though not for everyone, for a great many people the ability to add on custom native applications to their Palm, Windows Mobile or other portable device is a huge consideration. I've got a cell phone and PDA, and when I re-up my cellular contract, the iPhone was a contender to replace both of these with a single device. What Apple's doing with the iPhone is very akin to what M$ does with Windows and Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player. Except, Apple doesn't have a virtual monopoly to bully people around with.

So, as other phone manufacturers respond to the iPhone, I've now got a choice with my next purchase: Buy the iPhone and be completely slaved to Apple to let me add applications similar to, say, Pocket Quicken, or even add my own damn ringtones free of charge; or, check out the competition. And if the competition has caught up to the iPhone, they'll probably be the ones who get my money.

When the iPhone goes the way of the Newton, Apple will hopefully have ample opportunity to reflect and wonder why they chose this course of action.

PBz
Oct 3, 2007, 04:36 PM
Whatever.

Just, whatever.

I've been fairly anti-iPhone all along, and have mostly perceived it as one of the bigger corporate tangents Apple could take. But, when folks started doing all the stuff on their iPhones that I've only dreamed about with my Motorolas and Verizon, I thought, "well, maybe this is worth reconsidering. Maybe this really is something I should look at. This is neat, and has the grace and stability of OS X behind it. OK, maybe I will check this out, especially if there's going to be a growing constellation of applications that use OS X in the palm of my hand."

But I've got to say, since the last firmware update that took away the very thing that interested me in the iPhone (its potential for growth and expansion) and in return Apple offers this BS Safari-based Webkit pseudo-SDK thingy, I'm back to where I started in my opinion of it.

Though not for everyone, for a great many people the ability to add on custom native applications to their Palm, Windows Mobile or other portable device is a huge consideration. I've got a cell phone and PDA, and when I re-up my cellular contract, the iPhone was a contender to replace both of these with a single device. What Apple's doing with the iPhone is very akin to what M$ does with Windows and Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player. Except, Apple doesn't have a virtual monopoly to bully people around with.

So, as other phone manufacturers respond to the iPhone, I've now got a choice with my next purchase: Buy the iPhone and be completely slaved to Apple to let me add applications similar to, say, Pocket Quicken, or even add my own damn ringtones free of charge; or, check out the competition. And if the competition has caught up to the iPhone, they'll probably be the ones who get my money.

When the iPhone goes the way of the Newton, Apple will hopefully have ample opportunity to reflect and wonder why they chose this course of action.

Absofrigginlutely.

The market Apple wants is not all the Mac cult folks who will (and DID) buy the iPhone already. They want real market share and the real market share of average Joe and Jane could care less or even understand these 3P apps. Their wants and needs are much more simple and the iPhone will suit them quite well.

The clock on my iPhone is ticking.....

SiliconAddict
Oct 3, 2007, 04:53 PM
The title should have been iPhone SDK to received improvements. Still useless. :rolleyes:

CJD2112
Oct 3, 2007, 05:01 PM
Heh. You failed your word for the day... Ironic is mis-used, although I didn't know that, and would have totally agreed until I saw this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApJLOVlkd0U) on YouTube.

Just had to throw that in there. :)

No, it still makes sense. The company says they support being different, when (based on the video's explanation), Apple is lying by omission or by concealment of true intent, in this case they know they are not being different, but use that marketing campaign to conceal their true intent of being the same. The irony is their false advertising. :)

cliffjumper68
Oct 3, 2007, 05:05 PM
After hearing Apple's response to buy a new phone if yours was bricked; a new sdk does not seem that important. This sounds like a product to stay away from.

Telp
Oct 3, 2007, 05:11 PM
After hearing Apple's response to buy a new phone if yours was bricked; a new sdk does not seem that important. This sounds like a product to stay away from.


You shouldnt have hacked the phone then, or you shouldnt have updated. Apple has every right to cllose down there platform if they want to. Its not up to you how they should react.

QCassidy352
Oct 3, 2007, 05:12 PM
as long as it gains offline capabilities, I'm cool with that. No need for stand-alone apps, just apps that work where the internet isn't available.

Telp
Oct 3, 2007, 05:17 PM
as long as it gains offline capabilities, I'm cool with that. No need for stand-alone apps, just apps that work where the internet isn't available.

I agree, that is all i really want, apps that arent internet oriented. I would also like to be able to download pictures and movies from the internet and save them to the ipod or picture viewing app thing.

Virgil-TB2
Oct 3, 2007, 05:27 PM
Or maybe they are working closely with Google to get Google Gears working on the iPhone/Touch. That would be a plus for everyone- Google, Apple, devs who are already experimenting with Gears, and endusers.... EDIT- One problem with Web apps is that the Safari cache doesn't seem to be very large. So if you want to provide offline access, I don't know how to get around that. Even if you load a Web 2.0 app with offline access, you might watch a video or something and inadvertantly flush the app out of the cache.As far as I understand the Google Gears thing....

It provides for a client based relational database for storing data. This database automatically syncs with the server version of the same thing. If that's the case, then providing a parameter that iPhone users can set as to how big they want this database to get will be the answer and it will operate outside of the cache.

This might even accommodate "Disc mode" in that this database could store anything at all really. A simple web-based utility that acts like FTP for this user-accessible storage space would work well for that. In this case, not only the apps, but the users files would be sand-boxed.

ipman
Oct 3, 2007, 05:29 PM
Sounds to me like Apple just said they're going to allow only widget development for the iPhone. That might not be so bad in the context of specialised apps.

In addition, I'm predicting down the track Apple might make mac and iphone widgets interchangable - ta da! gesture based screen input on your mac! And a whole dev community used to it in a small way before it starts to Take Over The World(tm)

Billy Boo Bob
Oct 3, 2007, 05:31 PM
No, it still makes sense. The company says they support being different, when (based on the video's explanation), Apple is lying by omission or by concealment of true intent, in this case they know they are not being different, but use that marketing campaign to conceal their true intent of being the same. The irony is their false advertising. :)

Given that explanation, then yes, I'm back to agreeing with you. I guess I just sort of stepped through your OP while concentrating on my other posts.

Hopefully we're in for a surprise when Leopard comes out and they'll announce a true SDK at that time, with the explanation that working with it alongside Tiger either just wouldn't work or would have been severely crippled for some reason.

But, I'm not holding my breath on that thought. Just wishing.

grappler
Oct 3, 2007, 05:34 PM
As far as I understand the Google Gears thing....

It provides for a client based relational database for storing data. This database automatically syncs with the server version of the same thing. If that's the case, then providing a parameter that iPhone users can set as to how big they want this database to get will be the answer and it will operate outside of the cache.

This might even accommodate "Disc mode" in that this database could store anything at all really. A simple web-based utility that acts like FTP for this user-accessible storage space would work well for that. In this case, not only the apps, but the users files would be sand-boxed.

I would love to see this. Then you'd have anything javascript with a database can do, whether you're connected to a network or not. At that point the remaining issues are the speed of executing Javascript and the features of the phone exposed to the Javascript interpreter (multitouch? network connectivity? camera? audio in/out? bluetooth? etc)

ivnds
Oct 3, 2007, 05:37 PM
Why can't there just be a "controlled" system, sort of like Apple's Widgets? Got a cool App? Get it reviewed and approved by Apple and you can download it via iTunes! This way Apple gets the control it wants and innovative apps get to the people. What's the problem with that? C'mon Apple.

This would be by far the best way to do it, i think.

rjwill246
Oct 3, 2007, 06:05 PM
I don't think it's about the phone. This whole situation reeks heavily of what most of us hate so much about other computer/technology companies. Apple was different, but that difference is starting to disappear and this is the first time in the almost 3 years that I have been a customer that I have been really questioning my relationship with Apple as a company.

Companies do what they have to do- make products and sell at a profit and gain market share. Apple is doing all these things.
Your company would do what?

Actually, lots of posters here have this thing about Apple being this anti-MS, anti big business, pro the little guy company and get pissed off when the company is perceived to be what it is--- realistically NEVER the above. It has been about consistency, integration, user-friendliness, excellence, innovation and "thinking different." If that imparts a hint of "greeness" fine: but Apple is a company answerable to its share-holders and so it can't be a bleeding heart.

SJ needs to ease up a bit and listen to the public debate. Not all criticism about him is right or wrong but when the hornets get stirred up its time for evasive action or else get stung.

For those willing to never buy an Apple product because it is seen as a controlling force, keeping your mitts out of its innards-- well you have issue with father figures and need counseling. Your rants are therefore as hollow as a cream puff-- with all the substance as well.

The way to make Apple pay attention is to work with it-- write emails galore. Avoid MacWorld if all else fails.

Woochifer
Oct 3, 2007, 06:05 PM
I highly recommend reading this Wired article:

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2007/10/cultofmac_1003

Basically, it may not be open for development because v1 of the iPhone software was a hack to begin with. They may not have had the time to build 3rd party interfaces.

This makes a lot more sense than the more conspiratorial conjecture that seems to dominate discussions on the iPhone firmware. If Apple was diverting resources away from Leopard to get the iPhone to market in time for the June launch, obviously there was a big last minute push just to get the iPhone out in the first place, and a lot corners got cut just to get a reasonably functional and stable product out by the release date. (OS X was certainly far from a finished product in its 10.0 version) It might simply be the case that v1.1.1 is closer to what Apple would prefer to have released from the outset. That blog link seems to indicate that v1.1.1 is still a work-in-progress that needs a lot of work, even though the firmware was already a rewrite.

Stella
Oct 3, 2007, 06:05 PM
Badly coded apps can be unstable, and ruin the user experience...

Just like a badly coded app on OSX, Windows ... any other platform.

If an Application is unstable then the user can freely uninstall.

MacMan93
Oct 3, 2007, 06:13 PM
The iTunes App Store is actually a pretty good Idea. And I believe Apple could even make it to were it is profitable for them.(Companies exist to make money, right?) Possibly like a one time charge for each app and you get a "Page" on the iTunes store that you design(mini website). So even if you are giving the App away for free....there are the perks of getting an Official iTunes Description page. If you know what I mean?

megfilmworks
Oct 3, 2007, 06:13 PM
At work we all use web and/or server based apps that run better outside our computer and have very large database access.
A lot of people think this is the future. If you have a very fast interface (like your laptop or iPone) to new server and web based apps (not the little crippled web 2.0) then you have a small supercomputer without the hassle of native data storage, ram limitations, etc. Maybe this is the Think Different that we all are missing while we whine about the lack of silly little 3rd party native apps. IMHO

slffl
Oct 3, 2007, 06:19 PM
Awesome! I can't wait.

Stella
Oct 3, 2007, 06:20 PM
You shouldnt have hacked the phone then, or you shouldnt have updated. Apple has every right to cllose down there platform if they want to. Its not up to you how they should react.

Some people who didn't hack their phone also had their phones bricked due to firmware v1.1.1.

megfilmworks
Oct 3, 2007, 06:25 PM
Some people who didn't hack their phone also had their phones bricked due to firmware v1.1.1.
My gf's iPhone glitched on the update (2 weeks old, never hacked) and I had to try several times (restarting etc.) to get it to restore. I thought it was bricked, but it finally restored.
My iPhone, which I lightly hacked (iphoneringonemaker, iphonetastic)
had no problems at all. Updated without a restore and works better and faster than ever now.

grappler
Oct 3, 2007, 06:30 PM
At work we all use web and/or server based apps that run better outside our computer and have very large database access.
A lot of people think this is the future. If you have a very fast interface (like your laptop or iPone) to new server and web based apps (not the little crippled web 2.0) then you have a small supercomputer without the hassle of native data storage, ram limitations, etc. Maybe this is the Think Different that we all are missing while we whine about the lack of silly little 3rd party native apps. IMHO

Hmmm, I like it.

This does seem to be a unique opportunity for apple to push forward the state of the art on network applications beyond the Javascript headaches of today, if they really land on a good design.

This could finally be what Java was hyped to be 10 years ago - software pushed over the network to little devices without the need to compile on a device's particular processor.

If we get that, with a good language (as opposed to, say, Javascript) and a good design that can be extended to devices of all kinds of sizes and capabilities - the kind of forward-thinking design that adheres to the spirit of the web - then I say it will have been worth the wait.

pale9
Oct 3, 2007, 06:59 PM
web based application is like the kiddie pool, the beginners slope...
apple, cut the CR**, give us real apps or we will continue with app.tap and you can stick all updates after 1.02 you know where....!

Random Ping
Oct 3, 2007, 07:02 PM
I, like many people, am very frustrated by Apple's decision to lock the iPhone and iPod Touch away from 3rd party developers. But I cling (perhaps desperately) to the following conspiracy theory:

(1) Apple will have both web-based apps and native apps eventually.

(2) Right now, Apple wants to force developers to develop the skills for and experience with building web-based applications and web pages tuned for the iPhone. There is a reasonable argument for having some apps of this form, so Apple is forcing developers to this format (albeit, kicking and screaming). This is like Apple shipping the first Mac keyboard without arrow keys to force developers to build applications that use the mouse.

(3) Apple will reveal the native iPhone SDK at WWDC 08, because without it, Apple doesn't have much to draw people to the event this year since Leopard has been the focus of the last two, and Apple will probably not have the next OS ready for even previewing yet.

(4) Apple is generally very secretive about not tipping their hats on products that aren't going to be shipping in the very near future. So the lack of admission by Apple about a native SDK is not surprising.

(5) There were some very subtle hints in the latest iPhone Human Interface Guideline that Apple is at least considering a native SDK. In particular:
Note: Currently, developers create web applications for iPhone, not native applications.
Furthermore, when showing examples of a particular design, Apple often used native iPhone applications and not web-based applications as examples.

So... I continue to hope.

A Pittarelli
Oct 3, 2007, 07:31 PM
eventually access will be opened enough to be useful, im sure apple is writing some killer apps for the touch/iphone

robbyx
Oct 3, 2007, 07:59 PM
I'm tired of all this whining about the iPhone being a closed platform. It's been that way from day one. Deal with it.

There are very good reasons to keep it closed, as many have pointed out. Just today I read that all iPhone apps run with root privileges. If this is true, that's one VERY good reason to not open it up.

Another is processing power. Forget security, etc. How many apps have you installed on your Mac, only to watch the new one conflict with an existing favorite in some way or another? How many apps have revved up your processor and sent your fans into overdrive? Sure, they may not crash the system, but they do affect performance. Now imagine the resource drain poorly written code might inflict upon the iPhone's hardware. It's not a DuoCore, after all!

Need we mention battery life? As some bug in a new app you installed sends your processor into overdrive and drains your battery, other iPhone functions probably wouldn't work as well. I can think of a few occasions when some misbehaving app essentially ground my system to a halt, taking forever to switch between apps, much less bring up the Force Quit panel. Is this really the experience we want on the iPhone? Battery life would go down the toilet.

The iPhone is a CE device. Period. Yes, it shares a lot with our beloved Macs, but it's NOT a Mac. It's an iPhone. And the rules are different - and for very good reason. I'm excited to hear about off-line storage. That's huge. I've been very impressed by many of the web-based apps I've seen for the iPhone. Sure, they have their limits, but keeping third party development WebKit-based is smart. There's a lot developers can do to improve upon the phone's features from within the sandbox. I think it's a good comprise.

Telp
Oct 3, 2007, 08:01 PM
I'm tired of all this whining about the iPhone being a closed platform. It's been that way from day one. Deal with it.

There are very good reasons to keep it closed, as many have pointed out. Just today I read that all iPhone apps run with root privileges. If this is true, that's one VERY good reason to not open it up.

Another is processing power. Forget security, etc. How many apps have you installed on your Mac, only to watch the new one conflict with an existing favorite in some way or another? How many apps have revved up your processor and sent your fans into overdrive? Sure, they may not crash the system, but they do affect performance. Now imagine the resource drain poorly written code might inflict upon the iPhone's hardware. It's not a DuoCore, after all!

Need we mention battery life? As some bug in a new app you installed sends your processor into overdrive and drains your battery, other iPhone functions probably wouldn't work as well. I can think of a few occasions when some misbehaving app essentially ground my system to a halt, taking forever to switch between apps, much less bring up the Force Quit panel. Is this really the experience we want on the iPhone? Battery life would go down the toilet.

The iPhone is a CE device. Period. Yes, it shares a lot with our beloved Macs, but it's NOT a Mac. It's an iPhone. And the rules are different - and for very good reason. I'm excited to hear about off-line storage. That's huge. I've been very impressed by many of the web-based apps I've seen for the iPhone. Sure, they have their limits, but keeping third party development WebKit-based is smart. There's a lot developers can do to improve upon the phone's features from within the sandbox. I think it's a good comprise.

I agree 100% and i think its important that someone has finally put something like that down on...well...ePaper to get the point across.

Phormic
Oct 3, 2007, 08:26 PM
I discovered that Volkswagen deliberately and with malice, refuse to allow developers to tinker with the software on the car's in built computer and engine management system.

I think this is disgusting. I will return the car as I refuse to drive a closed system any longer. I can't believe the arrogance of Volkswagen. They are worse than Microsoft.

/joke.

ggbrown
Oct 3, 2007, 08:28 PM
Everyone is quick to criticize Steve Jobs/Apple for the decision to shut down the ability to install custom apps, and how it's the end of a successful product and possibly the end of Apple itself.

I think it should be considered that Jobs has quite successfully pulled Apple from the brink of extinction to what is now a fairly successful and diverse technology company through some radical and aggressive business decisions. While we might not understand or appreciate the current decisions of the company, I strongly suspect there is a much more complex plan they are following which simply isn't clear to the general public. Apple is riding a wave of success, and somehow....I can't see them let that slip away.

Do they know how this is affecting the iPhone/iPod Touch user community? I'm certain they do. I've personally had encounters with Apple employees (developers actually) in forums and chat rooms who were basically lurking to see the feedback on recently released products and services.

panamajack
Oct 3, 2007, 08:31 PM
Baby steps, baby steps ....

Web based apps, especially with seamless wifi/Edge and eventually 3G access will decrease the need somewhat for offline apps ... that said, I desperately want a real SDK so my favourite developer of Chinese dict software (Pleco, for the Palm andPPC) can branch out to the multitouch OS.

This IS good news, and spells out future openness for the platform.

That said, I think geeks like us overestimate the importance of 3rd party apps for future adopters of smartphones. What percentage of smartphone owners even add apps ? Most Blackberry owners that I've talked to barely even use the apps built it to the device .... let alone want to add more.

I predicted from the start that an SDK will arrive at WWDC '08, I still think we're on target for that.

Rustus Maximus
Oct 3, 2007, 09:02 PM
I discovered that Volkswagen deliberately and with malice, refuse to allow developers to tinker with the software on the car's in built computer and engine management system.

I think this is disgusting. I will return the car as I refuse to drive a closed system any longer. I can't believe the arrogance of Volkswagen. They are worse than Microsoft.

/joke.

Phormic wins...please close the thread. :D

blackcrayon
Oct 3, 2007, 09:12 PM
I'm tired of all this whining about the iPhone being a closed platform. It's been that way from day one. Deal with it.

[snip]

Need we mention battery life? As some bug in a new app you installed sends your processor into overdrive and drains your battery, other iPhone functions probably wouldn't work as well. I can think of a few occasions when some misbehaving app essentially ground my system to a halt, taking forever to switch between apps, much less bring up the Force Quit panel. Is this really the experience we want on the iPhone? Battery life would go down the toilet.

The iPhone is a CE device. Period. Yes, it shares a lot with our beloved Macs, but it's NOT a Mac. It's an iPhone. And the rules are different - and for very good reason. I'm excited to hear about off-line storage. That's huge. I've been very impressed by many of the web-based apps I've seen for the iPhone. Sure, they have their limits, but keeping third party development WebKit-based is smart. There's a lot developers can do to improve upon the phone's features from within the sandbox. I think it's a good comprise.

Wouldn't a poorly written WEB app be a resource/processor drain? I've had my processor(s) on my Macs pegged by Safari loading a "poorly written" web page at least as often as any other type of app.

I just did a completely unscientific test, but it illustrates a point... I ran 2 different web tetris apps on the iphone.. Just letting the bricks fall took 20-30% of cpu on one web app, around 7-10% on the other. The 3rd party native tetris takes 2-3% of cpu doing the same thing. So in that case, the web apps were the "bigger battery drain" while the native app was barely noticed by the iphone's processor.

Also, I'm sure someone mentioned the cpu behavior of most of the apps on the iPhone. They pause when you return to the main screen- so you just don't have a stockpile of processes competing for cpu time (which generally works for something like a phone, where there is less need for multitasking of "gui" apps)

We have dozens of apps that are proof that third party apps, even in ALPHA form, with absolutely no SDK or help from apple whatsoever, do not cause these supposed performance issues, or at least are not beyond 15 seconds to uninstall the package, which is EXTREMELY easy to do with apptapp.

huntercr
Oct 3, 2007, 09:30 PM
Steve Jobs cough*OCD*cough*cough

This controlling bs on iPhone's platform is silly. enough already. :rolleyes:

Why don't you take off your geek hat for a second and put on a quality of service hat. Everything on the iphone runs as root... therefore everything has the ability to A) crash the system B) hog resources and cause other programs to perform poorly C) cause users to have to worry about buffer overflows and other security issues that Apple has no control over.

ALL of the above would cause *apple* to look bad, not those 3rd party companies. The average consumer will not understand that it was the 3rd party app they downlaoded that caused their phone to be unstable. They will simply start thinking iPhone sucks.

Doing what Apple did for the SDK is pure solid genius. I think the only area where they were cruel and unusual was not allowing local storage, and not having hooks into the existing Apps... phonebook, maps, etc. There are extremely valuabe tie ins there.

yes there are no killer web 2.0 apps for the iphone... but *gasp* the iPhone *is* the killer app.

What do you *need* that the iPhone doesnt have, that a 3rd party could give you? The only thing I can think of is instant messaging, but that will never happen with the current agreement terms with AT&T.

robbyx
Oct 3, 2007, 09:51 PM
What do you *need* that the iPhone doesnt have, that a 3rd party could give you? The only thing I can think of is instant messaging, but that will never happen with the current agreement terms with AT&T.

JiveTalk works quite well for IM. There are several good web-based IM apps. Skype - and other VOIP apps - would be nice.

I want to see Tasks that sync with iCal. The fact that Apple didn't include this feature NATIVELY is nothing short of insane. How many people out there want to keep To Do lists, grocery lists, whatever lists on their iPod - and have them sync back. Nuts, nuts, nuts!

winterspan
Oct 3, 2007, 10:00 PM
I guess security's their biggest concern.

Pity it can't use a sandbox and something akin to Java.

It'll be wonderful to see the phone being expanded to allow all sorts of applications to be installed.

Apple has PLENTY of software experts that are deeply knowledgeable with the platform. The fact is they absolutely COULD write a "safe" SDK.
If they don't want devs to have full system level access, Why won't they even allow a decent compromise that uses a secure sandbox aka Java or .NET-like CLR. Even the ARM processor that runs the iphone can NATIVELY RUN JAVA BYTECODE. They could even add a dynamic code layer that runs a C-based Java/Python/Ruby runtime or for god sakes, javascript. Something similar to the Adobe javascript "AIR" runtime.

And NO ONE should be calling the ability of Safari to use AJAX webpages an SDK. PERIOD. Apple is NOT fooling anyone with that nonsense.
It's insulting to ALL developers everywhere, Windows and Mac.

I am so angry at Apple's latest move. I really wanted to get an Iphone, but I write and run many custom apps and I'm NOT giving that up.

To all of you questioning the utility/draw of third party applications, I would suggest to you to find someone willing to make a decent youtube video showing the progress dev's have made with the iPhone. If you realize how well Palm devices especially Treo's have held up with their ancient OS and outdated hardware, you can imagine the scale of the success iPhone devices would have if allowed open to 3rd party developers.

Babasyzygy
Oct 3, 2007, 10:09 PM
The thing that mystifies me is, how can Apple expect us to take the idea of using the web for applications when they themselves don't? How stupid do they think we are?

I mean - look at what they do, not what they say. Stocks and Weather are applications that consist of nothing but putting a simple (if pretty) frame around pure internet-supplied, simple data. Hell, the Calculator is so simple that it would be nearly trivial to do it in Javascript... but since you might want to use that when you have no network, let's just keep it to Stocks and Weather, which are useless without net.

Stocks and Weather are applications that are pure naturals for web pages if any ever were - and Apple ships them as native applications, taking 2 out of only 16(*) buttons - a full 12.5% - on the very highest level of the device.

[ (*) OK, 17 buttons if you've updated. I haven't even though I haven't hacked mine in any way.]

It simply doesn't ring true. If Apple isn't content using Safari for such trivial front ends, why in the hell should anybody else be? It's clearly an inadequate approach for applications, and Apple isn't even eating their own dog food on this.

Telp
Oct 3, 2007, 10:13 PM
The thing that mystifies me is, how can Apple expect us to take the idea of using the web for applications when they themselves don't? How stupid do they think we are?

I mean - look at what they do, not what they say. Stocks and Weather are applications that consist of nothing but putting a simple (if pretty) frame around pure internet-supplied, simple data. Hell, the Calculator is so simple that it would be nearly trivial to do it in Javascript... but since you might want to use that when you have no network, let's just keep it to Stocks and Weather, which are useless without net.

Stocks and Weather are applications that are pure naturals for web pages if any ever were - and Apple ships them as native applications, taking 2 out of only 16(*) buttons - a full 12.5% - on the very highest level of the device.

[ (*) OK, 17 buttons if you've updated. I haven't even though I haven't hacked mine in any way.]

It simply doesn't ring true. If Apple isn't content using Safari for such trivial front ends, why in the hell should anybody else be? It's clearly an inadequate approach for applications, and Apple isn't even eating their own dog food on this.

I fail to see your point...

winterspan
Oct 3, 2007, 10:19 PM
Does concentrating application development on web based only applications allow Apple to remain flexible on processor choice? Do they not want to open the iPhone because of planned future changes to the architecture?

I know security is one reason to limit third party apps, but if they do plan to switch chips to intel from samsung, are they just trying to get momentum behind web base applications so that they can build a library of titles that do not have to be recompiled and rewritten when new hardware comes out, similar to the games on the iPod problem they have now?

Obviously they are concerned about future architecture with battery life and 3g, the technology is just maturing now, maybe they are hedging their position to remain neutral so they can be nimble with the hardware.

If you do some more research into Intels upcoming hardware, you'll realize the iphone will NOT RUN x86 for at least 3-4 years and probably Never. The only way that will work is if they had some type of hybrid solution because even an Intel 45nm silverthorne sucks battery like CRAZY compared to an ARM architecture chip. A Silverthorne in an iPhone with a similar size battery as it has now would NOT last more than 8-11 hours standby and 2-3 hours talktime on a charge. They would have to have some type of ARM running the phone radio and then the x86 (well x64 :) ) running OSX. Go speak to any expert in embedded development and they will tell you the same thing.

Besides, even if it was a though for the future, that is no excuse to completely stifling *REAL* software development on the iPhone. "Web 2.0 Apps" are a complete joke on such a powerful phone. CASE IN POINT, why did Apple not use WebKit for any of THEIR applications, especially google maps?
Oh, right because Javascript/HTML "apps" are SLOW, Have crap interfaces, Can't use accelerated graphics, etc etc etc.

To the guy who says he's going to make Ajax apps that are close to native apps, I say SHOW ME. If you are talking about a form-based To-Do list or a Flickr viewer... fine. Anything more complex is NOT going to happen. Have you tried to write/debug/maintain a large javascript/html application?

This is VERY good news actually. ... the fact that web-based will be substaintially improved...

With more access to the iPhone functions, some great web apps can be developed that really do look and feel and function like native apps.

The ability to have a phone number on a web page dialed or added to a contact is so far removed from "developing apps that look and feel like native" it's not even funny. Again, if someone is making a cookbook or a Todo list, an AJAX web app will indeed look like it's native equivalent, minus the accelerated graphical interface. Anything more complex than an interactive form will be NOTHING like a native application. You lose the fast performance, responsive interface, graphics rendering, cool transitions, speaker and microphone access and most importantly the ability to manipulate the incredible multitouch interface. These features I have listed are WHAT MAKES THE iPHONE an iPHONE. Without them you are left with uninspiring, unresponsive and sluggish javascript based applications without use of an accelerated graphical interface. In other words, you are left with the equivalent of an old PALM OS platform. YUCK!

If everyone would stop being an Apple apologist and DEMAND them to open the platform, it WILL happen. They will have no choice. Otherwise, no sales.

Would it be too much to be able to add the ability to save save attachments (images, at least) as well as save images from web pages?

u can't save attachments or pics from the web? are you kidding?

Safari has enough of a job being my web browser believe me.

but if that's the route they are taking, then they also need to more fully implement support for Java, Flash and Quicktime.

* Java - we have no support, but support on some decent level would go a long way.

* Flash - I don't think I need to say a whole lot here.

* Quicktime - Ok so iPhone has some quicktime functionality, but it is pretty limited compared to what quicktime is actually capable of. We are missing Quicktime VR support (I think the finger motions lend itself to Quicktime VR almost perfectly) and we are missing basically everything that has t do with interactive quicktime support.

* Copy+Paste

* Save images from emails into Photo's

* Small storage area [disk mode space] for downloads from email, internet, etc.

If Apple insists that there will be no "true" third party native iPhone Apps, then I would sure hope that they will make the web path as robust and versatile as possible.


If apple supported Java in safari, then obviously they could easily support fully-java based 3rd party apps. One other thing to mention is that the iphone ARM processor natively supports Java bytecode without having to JIT. (I believe at least)

would be nice if Apple designed a sort of "container" storage on the iPhone where the programs were underneath so that they could be removed etc if they messed up your iPhone, or have a temporary home on the iPhone.

its called a sandbox, and yes they could easily implement it.

While power users would be more concerned about third party applications, you really should consider what kind of user each person is. I'm willing to bet that most people do not care about putting third party applications in their phone.

Most people? are you kidding. Go like at Palm OS, Symbian, and Windows mobile users. A large minority at LEAST uses 3rd party applications. And for the ones who don't run them now, it's only only because they are ignorant of the possibilities. If you show them what is possible, and then take it away, they would be furious. Thats like saying your average Windows user doesn't care to run Mac OSX. However, if they tried it, they'd love it and never go back.

OMG. I just checked out the poll on the front page and even on macrumors (which should have a much much much higher percentage of people "hacking" their phone) and the majority of people do NOT hack their phone.

Loud, loud subset of people in the grand scheme of things.
WTF? I just looked at it, and when you remove the people who don't have an iphone, its EASILY over 50%. .

And actually, it should not have a "much much much" higher percentage as I personally know more "non-techie" people that have installed 3rd party applications than those that are technical. Its gotten to the point of a nice-looking GUI with a button to transfer apps. Its no longer some obscure, highly-technical, command line process.

I think the ultimate truth here comes down to a couple simple points:
So you are the authority for "ultimate truth" now? puhhhlease...


1. Apple believes that a rock-solid consistent experience is their key selling point compared to most phones, and will continue to be.

Indeed, why they should still maintain *SOME* control of their platform and not let it be a free-for-all. They could sell approved applications (from any registered 3rd party developer) that are quality-checked through Itunes and everyone wins. This would allow them to keep crap off the device, allow the Devs to write innovative apps, Allow customers to extend the functionality of their device, and introduce hesitant people to the great wonders of open development in an easy, no hassle, apple mediated way.
There is just no way to dispute this. It's entirely feasible and is a win-win-win.

2. Apple believes the best way to ensure that they will be able to keep delivering this is to keep the platform closed. In a sense, I understand where they're coming from; I know countless people that think Macs are crash machines, because their only experiences were back in college labs in the 90s, machines overloaded with 3rd-party extensions and the like that caused all kinds of stability issues. This is a stigma that exists in the world of the casual user much more than we realize, and is only now, slowly, being overcome.

I don't know how old you are, but I am 24 and have no idea what you are talking about. At least in my generation, I think there is MUCH MORE of an "Macs are great and stable -- window's is terrible and buggy" attitude. I am not a mac evangelist as i don't even own one right now. Every lay I talk to always say "so and so my friend/aunt/coworker/etc has a mac and I just love them. They are so nice looking and seem easy to use."

3. Apple ultimately believes the future of the iPhone is not in selling to us, the users that would hack a phone, or to those that like to dig under the hood. It is to to the people that have no interest in dealing with the technical know-how of their devices, and simply want them to work as well and as consistently as their toasters. Because there are a whole lot more of them than there is of us. They are the ones that have made iPods so successful.
I would agree if they were selling the iPhone for $99 or $149 with a contract. At $400 or $500 with a 2-year contact, no way in hell are they attracting the "I just want a phone" people. Look at the Ipods, the main sellers are the Nano and shuffle AJA the cheap price points. Even with the success of the Ipod, Apple needs the loyal enthusiasts to sell the products to the masses.


I can't say I disagree with Apple on this last point, either. If Apple is able to listen to their users and integrate new features as the actual users want them, I don't see Apple being challenged in this space anytime soon. Ringtones will be something they need to address eventually, as that is a feature people want, and is a common-sense feature, and I'm sure we'll see them develop along the way, but as for the rest... Nokia can spend as much money as it wants promoting how open its platform is -- the customers that care about that are not Apple's target, and haven't been from day one.

Just remember how fast the cell phone market moves. Although I think the iPhone is a superior device to any HTC, Samsung, or Nokia, Not everyone, ESPECIALLY the mass market type people feel that way, and those companies are going to start closing in on Apple fast. Again, I Love the multitouch and especially the mobile browser experience. But for the majority of people who don't need to be online all the time, they will be much more interested in picture messaging their friends, adding ringtones, customizing their background and theme, etc etc etc.
Apple seems to be so schizophrenic in their target demographic. On one hand they aim at the tech/smartphone enthusiasts, but lock the platform and don't offer essential features. They tout it as an incredible internet and messaging device, but then they don't offer enterprise wifi security or corporate email synching. You say they are targeting the mass market 16 year old. But then why the focus on high technology and not on MMS, video recording, interchangable backgrounds and themes, screensavers, record-your-own ringtone etc etc.

If Apple doesn't get out of their own way on this and open the platform, it's going to be an unprecedented situation of shooting yourself in the foot.

SheriffParker
Oct 3, 2007, 10:42 PM
(9) an app that accesses the accelerometer, so you could do silly stuff like have pics of girlies so when you shook the iPhone their breasts bounced


LOL! If that's possible, then there could be all kinds of cool apps. Think Warioware or wii-similar motion sensing and the touchscreen combined... Super Monkey Ball on iPhone!

iJed
Oct 3, 2007, 10:56 PM
I'm tired of all this whining about the iPhone being a closed platform. It's been that way from day one. Deal with it.


I'm tired of the Apple apologists blindly defending Apple no matter how stupid or anti-consumer they are being at the time.

The bigger we make the backlash for this act of madness the more likely we are to get an SDK.

Buschmaster
Oct 3, 2007, 11:22 PM
I'm the only one in the world who likes that there is no native support.

It forces devlopers to make web apps and web apps don't take up any of my iPhone's precious space. Granted, I have a bit of room on mine fora few apps, but there are soooooooo many web apps out there that we take for granted. I use facebook and an IM client many many times a day. It's nice to have those not take up any room on my phone.

winterspan
Oct 3, 2007, 11:29 PM
I don't think it's about the phone. This whole situation reeks heavily of what most of us hate so much about other computer/technology companies. Apple was different, but that difference is starting to disappear and this is the first time in the almost 3 years that I have been a customer that I have been really questioning my relationship with Apple as a company.

exactly... Ive spoken to alot of people in different parts of the country that feel the same way, including myself. There is a paradigm shift going on here in Apple's respect of their loyal community, the one thing that kept them in business for so many years. The fanboys on here can either recognize it and admit it and stop commenting. I've been an apple fan for 10+ years now and have NEVER i say NEVER felt the way I do now. Things have changed over the last 10 years and people in the tech community are really starting to embrace open source, openness, flexibility, customization, etc. That is what makes this really hard to stomach. Apple is swimming against the current -- like they usually do -- but this time in the wrong direction.

I am holding off on buying an Iphone. I have advised many others to do the same.

Did you see the stats?

1880 people hacked their phone.

Out of a million + iPhones.

So yah, a minority.

and yes more people will vote and some people hacked their phone but have not been here today for the poll but that number is not going to get to 500K thats for sure.

Are you trying to mislead people with your flawed logic or are you just being ignorant?
You can't fool a third grader with your ill-conceived comment of 1880 "out of a million iphones. "
That 1880 people .. well btw its now up to 3344 ... is out of 6500 TOTAL THAT 1) TOOK THE POLL AND 2) OWN AN IPHONE. Or said another way, just over 51%. and YES, that is a simple MAJORITY

CoreWeb
Oct 3, 2007, 11:37 PM
exactly... Ive spoken to alot of people in different parts of the country that feel the same way, including myself. There is a paradigm shift going on here in Apple's respect of their loyal community, the one thing that kept them in business for so many years. The fanboys on here can either recognize it and admit it and stop commenting. I've been an apple fan for 10+ years now and have NEVER i say NEVER felt the way I do now. Things have changed over the last 10 years and people in the tech community are really starting to embrace open source, openness, flexibility, customization, etc. That is what makes this really hard to stomach. Apple is swimming against the current -- like they usually do -- but this time in the wrong direction.

I am holding off on buying an Iphone. I have advised many others to do the same.

I agree to some extent in that Apple is having trouble keeping up. Software will, I believe, eventually all be open-source. Hardware, on the other hand...

However, I do think Apple will eventually release a real SDK.

In addition, I think Web 2.0 apps could come extremely close to matching full apps -if there are several improvements to the WebKit engine in the iPhone to improve performance and add more full-app like features.

winterspan
Oct 3, 2007, 11:46 PM
But let's look at Apple... for the last few years, many people had the same opinion as you about the iMac, the iPod and now the iPhone. It would seem, if you look for a second, that none of the complaints bore fruit and Apple has been incredibly successful on these items.


What are talking about? Your argument doesn't hold any water. How does one's opinion that Apple needs to open up the Iphone platform apply to an iMac or to an iPod? I would love for you to identify these "many people" who were complaining that the iMac and the iPod aren't open to 3rd party development?

Rot'nApple
Oct 3, 2007, 11:48 PM
Heh. You failed your word for the day... Ironic is mis-used, although I didn't know that, and would have totally agreed until I saw this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApJLOVlkd0U) on YouTube.

Just had to throw that in there. :)

Talk about "Hot for Teacher!";)

So, according to "Hot for Words" YouTube lesson, Apple's tagline "Think Different" is ironic because they (Apple), according to a lot of posts, is like MS or control freaks, etc., when instead, Apple just fooled the masses with that phrase. Oh, the irony... no wait, that's not what irony means, no, no yes it is, I mean... let me review that "Hot for Words" lesson again, because I need to increase my education, but I could care less about the beautiful woman. That's ironic! Congratulations - I passed!:cool:

arkmannj
Oct 3, 2007, 11:50 PM
u can't save attachments or pics from the web? are you kidding?

nope he's not kiddin'

winterspan
Oct 3, 2007, 11:57 PM
What if Apple's onto something even bigger than we think? The fact of the matter is, most people really shouldn't be developing any sort of compiled application--C isn't a safe language, no matter what anyone wants to think. Could Apple be forcing the software community to finally realize that Web applications are superior in security and usability?


Most people shouldn't be developing compiled applications? WHAAAAT?
That is just ridiculous. Even abiding by that ridiculous comment, then use a Java/Python/Ruby Virtual machine/sandbox.

Web applications superior in usability? ... YOU DID NOT JUST SAY THAT
you mean other than having to be on the internet all the time WITHOUT being able to receive a phone call? You mean other than the slow as molasses iphone javascript engine, other than the inability to use the incredible graphics hardware on the iphone, the inability to utilize and save files to the file system, the inability to capture multi-touch control input, the inability to use user interface concepts other than HTML forms, etc, etc.

I think it takes a special kind of dumb to take the number from the poll (1880) and compare it to the total number of sales.

"takes a special kind of dumb.." -- thats the funniest thing I've heard in awhile. Literally laughing out loud right now...

about the numbers, see my earlier comment. Right now, when you remove people who do not own iphones, the split is about 50/50 with 51% using 3rd party apps who answered the poll....

Rot'nApple
Oct 4, 2007, 12:04 AM
The way to make Apple pay attention is to work with it-- write emails galore. Avoid MacWorld if all else fails.

Great Post! I couldn't agree more with everything you said.

I quoted only the last sentence of your post because it is the most important thought Apple's employees browsing this message board and other like it need to know about and report back to the higher ups.

So to all the hackers, unlockers, 3rd party app developers, 3rd party apps users, keep fanning the flames - it's the only way you are going to get that fire (under :apple:'s arse) started!

BillyShears
Oct 4, 2007, 12:06 AM
Are you trying to mislead people with your flawed logic or are you just being ignorant?
You can't fool a third grader with your ill-conceived comment of 1880 "out of a million iphones. "
That 1880 people .. well btw its now up to 3344 ... is out of 6500 TOTAL THAT 1) TOOK THE POLL AND 2) OWN AN IPHONE. Or said another way, just over 51%. and YES, that is a simple MAJORITY

I would think the sort of people who find such a poll and take the time to vote on it would probably be biased in favour of modifying their iPhones.

winterspan
Oct 4, 2007, 12:10 AM
Yeah, I forgot that Skype and VOIP services don't hurt AT&T's bottom line. Oh, I also forgot that IM doesn't take away from AT&T's text messaging revenue. I can't recall that free ringtones take away money for the record companies, and that most other services charge $2.50 and don't let you choose the snippet or keep the actual song. It escaped my mind that MMS is outdated and Apple is abandoning it like many other technologies (Floppy, Modem) to push e-mail as the preferred way of multimedia messaging.
My memory is absolutely horrible.

Skype and Voip hurting At&t's bottom line? IM taking away from TXT message revenue? God you really just drink up the coolaid, huh? You talk like a Verizon executive. Where did you get the concept that you weren't entitled to run whatever application you want on your PURCHASED device?
I just find it incredible that you would be proud of yourself taking this stance and calling out the other guy you responded to.

I am all about Apple's products and I like the company, but
There is no other company's/product's fanboy ON THIS PLANET that would agree with the perspective of an American Telecommunications CEO.



btw, MMS outdated? Are you kidding? How many people do you know that email pictures from their cellphone to other peoples phone's email address ?
Go look up the facts. There are tens of billions of MMS sent each year world wide. Talk about apple apologists...

Badly coded apps can be unstable, and ruin the user experience...

hence the concept of Apple writing a good sandboxed platform SDK and pre-approving applications for quality and selling them on Itunes.

Win-Win-Win

macaron1
Oct 4, 2007, 12:14 AM
Guys -- Not that you should, but you got to chill out.

Don't you feel the freakin' native-app SDK is going to come out soon? It's in the air. It almost seems AAPL needs this build-up of furor (which started to make it into mainstream news) to release the thing to public funfare and attention.

HiRez
Oct 4, 2007, 12:20 AM
Oh and for God's sake - let me drag and drop individual songs and videos to my iPhone when connected to iTunes. I loathe playlist sync.How is dragging songs into a playlist any more cumbersome than dragging them into the iPhone directly? OK, so you have to hit the Sync button when you're done, but big deal. I'm not seeing the problem.

Rot'nApple
Oct 4, 2007, 12:24 AM
"takes a special kind of dumb.." -- thats the funniest thing I've heard in awhile. Literally laughing out loud right now...

about the numbers, see my earlier comment. Right now, when you remove people who do not own iphones, the split is about 50/50 with 51% using 3rd party apps who answered the poll....

Ah the power of polls, where you can give a slighted worded question and several options but never the option the one answering the poll wants, so you have to go with the next best selection.

Hey, let's fire all the politicians and govern by polls! Who should write the poll questions and answers? We can make that our first 'Poll Question'!:D

With that in mind, my selection would not have been "do not own an iPhone" but would have been, waiting for a higher capacity iPhone (like iPod Touch 16GB) and personally, do not care about third party apps or that it is exclusive to AT&T - if apps or other carriers are available that's great, if not, I still would purchase the iPhone, that is, when it has bigger storage available. However, since that wasn't an available selection, I had to choose (semi-correct) the choice of "do not own an iPhone" (yet), which is just too vague and statistically, can lead to an inappropriate reading of the poll's results because I answered the poll question but it wasn't my answer - if that makes any sense.:rolleyes:

winterspan
Oct 4, 2007, 12:33 AM
The problem is that the 7% in question are the most passionate users and could really create problems for Apple. I have gotten Apple at least 1 iPhone, 3 iPods, and probably 10+ macs sold in the last 3 years due to my evangelizing. They lose me and the rest of that 7% and they lose something more powerful than their marketing department could ever come up with.

Precisely. They lose the Apple "evangelical" 10% and that is a HUGE blow. That loyal passionate 10% is what KEPT APPLE AFLOAT for years. It's easy to understand. Why do you think they always say the LARGEST form of marketing is word of mouth. Especially from your loyal base. business 101.

and I don't believe it is 7% based upon a few things, one being all the lay people I know with iPhones that have figured out how to run AppTap or whatever. ( I dont have an Iphone... I refuse to buy one for now)
The 7% is based upon one application's download volume. Based upon my personal experience, the other stats I have seen, and how simple it had become to upload apps, I'd say its 12-15%.

So say we have 12-15%. Now how many of the others with an iphone WOULD LOVE 3rd party applications, but don't want to risk "hacking" it or already have 1.1.1? I'd say we'd take that 12-15% up to % 30-35 at least.
The others? I bet if you show them the possibilities of 3rd party applications on an iPhone, the MAJORITY of them would love the idea.

Now when are in the 2/3rds majority range at least.... Like someone else said, WHAT CUSTOMER WOULDN'T want 3rd party applications if given the choice? Especially fast, stable, quality applications approved by apple sold via Itunes. Simple and easy.

What is the big deal with the 3rd party apps? Let's be honest, many of us on here like Steve Jobs for a reason, he represents the way most of us think... control freaks. If we weren't control freaks, none of us would complain about not having 3rd party apps. We would all just let Apple do what Apple does, which is control everything.

Um... no. The argument that only a control freak would be upset that another control freak is controlling everything is totally false. EVERY *NORMAL* PERSON does not want someone to control everything.


I understand we liked having the Nintendo Emulators and the ability to use the disk space to save things, but some of the apps were just ridiculous and gimmicky more than anything. Is it necessary to have a dock on an iPhone? No, but it looks cool.


Yes, every single person who installed an application to their iphone is a 16 year old geek playing nintendo on an emulator??? I would use "we" with much more discretion from now on. Besides, the fact that you find some 3rd party application ridiculous, as I do a game emulator, is entirely irrelevant to the argument of why Apple needs to allow open development.


If you want it "Your Way Right Away", go to Burger King. If you want an iPhone, buy one, but from day one, Apple said they wouldn't support those 3rd party apps.

<annoying voice> "but apple said they wouldn't allow them..." </annoying voice>
This has been rehashed in these forums so many times that my eye balls are going to be sucked back into my frontal lobe until my skull collapses...

Mike Teezie
Oct 4, 2007, 01:18 AM
I have a non hacked iPhone running 1.1.1, and think it's bloody amazing.

That said, I'd love to see an SDK for developing native apps, for two reasons:

1. So people will shut up about it, possibly giving them the opportunity to find a sense of perspective in their lives.
2. I'd like to see what people come up with, so Apple can steal it, and make it better. That was a joke, whiners - contain yourselves.

For all the people yammering on and on about IM, if you have to have WiFi or Edge anyway, what't the problem with something like BeeJive IM? I'm legitimately asking. I never tried a native IM app, but I'm using Beejive now, and think it roxx soxx.

winterspan
Oct 4, 2007, 01:20 AM
You shouldnt have hacked the phone then, or you shouldnt have updated. Apple has every right to cllose down there platform if they want to. Its not up to you how they should react.

keep sucking the kool aid. Seriously, did you have to use a generic Steve Jobs quote in your signature... at least you COULD try to hide your ultra ridiculous fanboy status...

CJD2112
Oct 4, 2007, 01:25 AM
Given that explanation, then yes, I'm back to agreeing with you. I guess I just sort of stepped through your OP while concentrating on my other posts.

Hopefully we're in for a surprise when Leopard comes out and they'll announce a true SDK at that time, with the explanation that working with it alongside Tiger either just wouldn't work or would have been severely crippled for some reason.

But, I'm not holding my breath on that thought. Just wishing.

Although to be honest, I thought my knowledge of "irony" was correct (and that video taught me a lot, but I was able to dig myself out of that hole LOL). ;)

winterspan
Oct 4, 2007, 01:26 AM
I would love to see this. Then you'd have anything javascript with a database can do, whether you're connected to a network or not. At that point the remaining issues are the speed of executing Javascript and the features of the phone exposed to the Javascript interpreter (multitouch? network connectivity? camera? audio in/out? bluetooth? etc)

When apple says Javascript "integration with the phone", they DO NOT mean rewriting the whole dang language and engine to be able to interface with multitouch, camera, audio in/out, bluetooth. Thats just ridiculous. If thats what you are expecting, you are going to be in for a big disappointment.
Precisely why exactly the things you quoted are the major problem with using javascript/html as a platform, other than the painful execution speed, inability to use the excellent graphics hardwares, multitouch, etc.

The javascript -> phone "integration" is more along the lines of custom protocol handlers like the "click on a number" and call it or click on an address and it opens google maps.

CJD2112
Oct 4, 2007, 01:26 AM
Why don't you take off your geek hat for a second and put on a quality of service hat.

Ugh. Seriously. Big :rolleyes:. When you start addressing people with sentences like that, I don't even both reading the rest of your argument.

What fascinates me is that those who state that Apple is wrong in its manner of addressing third party applications, etc. seem to generally have taken the time in thinking the issue through and writing logical and convincing arguments, while those who disagree seem to take personal slams and use rhetoric that lacks any thought. Very interesting...

winterspan
Oct 4, 2007, 01:47 AM
At work we all use web and/or server based apps that run better outside our computer and have very large database access.
A lot of people think this is the future. If you have a very fast interface (like your laptop or iPone) to new server and web based apps (not the little crippled web 2.0) then you have a small supercomputer without the hassle of native data storage, ram limitations, etc. Maybe this is the Think Different that we all are missing while we whine about the lack of silly little 3rd party native apps. IMHO

You are missing a few GLARING problems here.

First of all, If you are talking about web-based applications that do most of their processing on a fast server with a large database, then the client device doesn't really matter, only the latency of your connection. A fast cable modem takes about 50-80ms to and from your computer. An Iphone over EDGE has a TERRIBLE LATENCY, taking between 600-800ms. In laymen's terms, you click a button and wait forever for something to happen. Talk about unresponsive. Even on my fast 3G WinMo phone, latency/responsiveness is a major issue.
Couple this with the painful execution speed of the javascript engine, and slow interface from webKit not being graphic accelerated and you have an unresponsive MESS.
That type of unresponsiveness on a phone which has the most responsive native interface of anything out there? Now that would be Ironic.

Secondly, I've gone into this too much already on this same thread, but remember your great "web apps" running on the server and written in javascript on the client don't have ANY access to all the things that make the iphone the iphone. No access to the excellent graphics hardware for cool graphics and transistions, No access to the Speaker or Microphone, No access to the awesome multi-touch interface, no access to the camera, etc etc.

Finally, EVERYONE here is ignoring the fact that you CANNOT use a web application and receive a phone call at the same time. If you are on the internet, it will go to VOICEMAIL.

aaronh3
Oct 4, 2007, 02:00 AM
How many more people are holding off?

I suspect there is a few:)

THE JUICEMAN
Oct 4, 2007, 02:02 AM
Maybe this is just wishful thinking but Apple listened to our complaints about the $200 price cut and did something about it. Hopefully in time they will also listen to our complaints about 3rd party apps and do something about it........at least this is a step in the right direction. I would be happy with anything i can get right now......

winterspan
Oct 4, 2007, 02:07 AM
IThere are very good reasons to keep it closed, as many have pointed out. Just today I read that all iPhone apps run with root privileges. If this is true, that's one VERY good reason to not open it up.

Oh, come on --- give me a break. APPLE ITSELF MADE THE APP'S RUN ROOT.
That could easily be changed.


Another is processing power. Forget security, etc. How many apps have you installed on your Mac, only to watch the new one conflict with an existing favorite in some way or another? How many apps have revved up your processor and sent your fans into overdrive? Sure, they may not crash the system, but they do affect performance. Now imagine the resource drain poorly written code might inflict upon the iPhone's hardware. It's not a DuoCore, after all!

First of all, the iPhone has an incredible amount of power compared to most of the crap that runs PALM OS, Windows Mobile, and Symbian.. and THEY ALL RUN 3RD PARTY APPLICATIONS!....
Now about sloppy code.. Thats why Apple should have an approval process for quality applications and then make them easily installable from iTunes.
Besides, keep them sandboxed with a simple uninstall process and if they do something you don't like, DELETE THEM for god sakes



Need we mention battery life? As some bug in a new app you installed sends your processor into overdrive and drains your battery, other iPhone functions probably wouldn't work as well. I can think of a few occasions when some misbehaving app essentially ground my system to a halt, taking forever to switch between apps, much less bring up the Force Quit panel. Is this really the experience we want on the iPhone? Battery life would go down the toilet.


Again, Precisely why apple has a secure sandbox to run applications in and All of them have to be digitally signed by Apple to run after going through an approval process and sold via Itunes. You can't tell me thats not a good solution.

besides... if for some reason, even a approved application starts having problems, are you going sit there and go "oh shoot this app keeps ****** everything up. I should keep it on my phone indefinitely."
UNINSTALL THE APPLICATION!


The iPhone is a CE device. Period. Yes, it shares a lot with our beloved Macs, but it's NOT a Mac. It's an iPhone. And the rules are different - and for very good reason.

Keep drinking the kool-aid... It has a fast processor, RAM, Video Acceleration, onboard Storage, a screen, touchscreen input, a speaker...
Most people call that a computer.

I discovered that Volkswagen deliberately and with malice, refuse to allow developers to tinker with the software on the car's in built computer and engine management system.

I think this is disgusting. I will return the car as I refuse to drive a closed system any longer. I can't believe the arrogance of Volkswagen. They are worse than Microsoft.
/joke.
Yes, because engine management systems and a mobile phone OS are in the same class.

irun5k
Oct 4, 2007, 02:08 AM
I'm not sure why Apple didn't just include Java on the phone as use that as the platform for 3rd party development. The way the virtual machine is designed, it would insulate the phone from most of the things that Apple is concerned about.

A while back, Steve made a comment that nobody uses Java anymore. That was a pretty stupid and inaccurate comment. It showed arrogance and the fact that he is somewhat out of touch with reality in Apple Land. His stance also had the side effect of alienating a lot of Java developers who had switched to Macbooks. Most people didn't give much thought to that comment Steve made but for me it was the first red flag. Obviously we've had a lot more red flags lately.

winmacguy
Oct 4, 2007, 02:17 AM
This might have something to do with it

Apple may eventually abandon its custom-designed Samsung system on chip (SoC) found at the heart of the iPhone for one developed by Intel, according to a new report.
Citing OEM channel sources, DigiTimes claims that Apple has been looking closely at Intel's Moorestown mobile Internet device (MID) platform processor introduced at the Intel Developer Forum last month.
Although not expected until 2009, Moorestown chips will be based on Intel's 45-nanometer manufacturing process and therefore promise to be ten times more power-efficent than today's embedded mobile chips, enabling longer battery life in smaller form factors.
Similar to the Samsung SoC that Apple uses in its existing iPhone design, Moorestown will combine the CPU, graphics, video and memory controller onto a single chip. Based on Intel's "Menlow" MID design due out a year earlier, it will also incorporate wireless technologies such as Wi-Fi, 3G and WiMAX.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/03/apple_considering_intel_chip_for_future_iphone.html


"Suddenly, Apple's apparent downer on third-party iPhone software development becomes much clearer. Taiwanese moles claim the company is considering founding future iPhones on the next generation of Intel's Ultra Mobile Platform," Tony Smith reports for The Register.

"Today's iPhones are based on ARM processor technology. Intel abandoned its ARM chip line in practice last year, but focused its efforts on its own x86 processor platform in spirit back in 2005. Since the two are incompatible, moving to x86-based iPhones would by necessity render all existing iPhone apps unusable on the new platform," Smith reports.

winterspan
Oct 4, 2007, 02:20 AM
Why don't you take off your geek hat for a second and put on a quality of service hat. Everything on the iphone runs as root... therefore everything has the ability to A) crash the system B) hog resources and cause other programs to perform poorly C) cause users to have to worry about buffer overflows and other security issues that Apple has no control over.

Why don't you take off your ultra-fanboy HAT for a second and put on a customer hat. APPLE MADE THE OS AS SUCH TO RUN THEIR APPLICATIONS AS ROOT. Obviously, this could easily be changed and limit system access to 3rd party apps, not to mention they would probably build a separate sandbox anyways.



Doing what Apple did for the SDK is pure solid genius. I think the only area where they were cruel and unusual was not allowing local storage, and not having hooks into the existing Apps... phonebook, maps, etc. There are extremely valuabe tie ins there.

pure solid genius, eh? Is that why there is such an incredible backlash against the company?



yes there are no killer web 2.0 apps for the iphone... but *gasp* the iPhone *is* the killer app.

COME ON NOW.. thats so just reaching for the stars....


What do you *need* that the iPhone doesnt have, that a 3rd party could give you? The only thing I can think of is instant messaging, but that will never happen with the current agreement terms with AT&T.

I knew THAT ARGUMENT was going to come out.. "what do you need that Apple won't give you". That's just pathetic. Unless you TRULY can't COMPREHEND what could come out of 25,000 developers having access to a revolutionary-in-capability high-speed graphics-accelerated Multitouch device?
You can't think of ANYTHING you might want? just off the top of my head..

- Voice Recorder (college lectures)
- Ebook reader
- Instant messenger
- picture / file transfer
- dictionary / thesaurus
- enhanced email program
- sketch / drawing
- Wi-Fi stumbler
- money manager/quicken pocket
- medical diagnostics for physicians
- DNA sequence / BLAST database
- Corporate applications


[/B]

The thing that mystifies me is, how can Apple expect us to take the idea of using the web for applications when they themselves don't? How stupid do they think we are?

I mean - look at what they do, not what they say. Stocks and Weather are applications that consist of nothing but putting a simple (if pretty) frame around pure internet-supplied, simple data. Hell, the Calculator is so simple that it would be nearly trivial to do it in Javascript... but since you might want to use that when you have no network, let's just keep it to Stocks and Weather, which are useless without net.

Stocks and Weather are applications that are pure naturals for web pages if any ever were - and Apple ships them as native applications, taking 2 out of only 16(*) buttons - a full 12.5% - on the very highest level of the device.

[ (*) OK, 17 buttons if you've updated. I haven't even though I haven't hacked mine in any way.]

It simply doesn't ring true. If Apple isn't content using Safari for such trivial front ends, why in the hell should anybody else be? It's clearly an inadequate approach for applications, and Apple isn't even eating their own dog food on this.

GREAT POINT...

I fail to see your point...

are you serious? is that sarcasm?

I'm the only one in the world who likes that there is no native support.

It forces devlopers to make web apps and web apps don't take up any of my iPhone's precious space. Granted, I have a bit of room on mine fora few apps, but there are soooooooo many web apps out there that we take for granted. I use facebook and an IM client many many times a day. It's nice to have those not take up any room on my phone.

Besides all the shortcomings of webapps... the point here is CHOICE. I don't give a rip what you like or the fact you think little iPhone apps are going fill your 8GB HDD? Just the same, you are not me and want you want, not what I want.
The beauty of choice......


In addition, I think Web 2.0 apps could come extremely close to matching full apps -if there are several improvements to the WebKit engine in the iPhone to improve performance and add more full-app like features.

I am not going to rewrite everything, but look back at my posts on page 5 -7, and you'll see why web apps will never "COME EXTREMELY CLOSE" to matching native apps.

painfully slow javascript execution, no access to the awesome hardware accelerated graphics to make a sweet GUI interface, no access to the camera, no access to the microphone, no access to the speaker, no access to the bluetooth, most importantly NO ACCESS TO MULITOUCH! you take away all these things and whats left? html/javascript interace with a "onclick" event.

What fascinates me is that those who state that Apple is wrong in its manner of addressing third party applications, etc. seem to generally have taken the time in thinking the issue through and writing logical and convincing arguments, while those who disagree seem to take personal slams and use rhetoric that lacks any thought. Very interesting...

Haha.. great post

This might have something to do with it
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/03/apple_considering_intel_chip_for_future_iphone.html

If you do some more research into Intels upcoming hardware, you'll realize the iphone will run ARM and NOT x86 for at least 3-4 years. And only then the only way that will work is if they had some type of hybrid solution because even an Intel 45nm silverthorne sucks battery like CRAZY compared to an ARM architecture chip. A Silverthorne in an iPhone with a similar size battery as it has now would NOT last more than 7-9 hours standby and 2-3 hours talktime on a charge, if that. They would have to have some type of ARM running the phone radio and then the x86 (well actually it would be x64) running OSX. Go speak to any expert in embedded development and they will tell you the same thing.

Besides, even if it was a thought for the future, that is no excuse to completely stifling *REAL* software development on the iPhone. "Web 2.0 Apps" are a complete joke on such a powerful phone. CASE IN POINT, why did Apple not use WebKit for any of THEIR applications, especially weather, stocks, and google maps?
Oh, right because Javascript/HTML "apps" are SLOW, Have crap interfaces, Can't use accelerated graphics, Can't utilize multi-touch etc etc.

To the guy who says he's going to make Ajax apps that are close to native apps, I say SHOW ME. If you are talking about a form-based To-Do list or a Flickr viewer... fine. Anything more complex is NOT going to happen. Have you tried to write/debug/maintain a large javascript/html application?

Stella
Oct 4, 2007, 06:32 AM
Couldn't agree more. You look at the specs of the iPhone and its going to waste.

All Apple excuses for not having third party applications is pathetic. There are actually some people who buy into SJ explanation that 3rd party apps may actually bring down an entire cell network.

Neither do I buy the reason that iPhone will be moving to another platform in several years time. Thats more than enough time for this generation of iPhone.

You under estimate the power of other phones. For example, the iPhone isn't the first smartphone to have Video Acceleration.


Keep drinking the kool-aid... It has a fast processor, RAM, Video Acceleration, onboard Storage, a screen, touchscreen input, a speaker...
Most people call that a computer.

First of all, the iPhone has an incredible amount of power compared to most of the crap that runs PALM OS, Windows Mobile, and Symbian.. and THEY ALL RUN 3RD PARTY APPLICATIONS!....



I hear the same old rhetoric from people who dislike 3rd party apps. Some of those reasons are pathetic. The other camp is no better.

What fascinates me is that those who state that Apple is wrong in its manner of addressing third party applications, etc. seem to generally have taken the time in thinking the issue through and writing logical and convincing arguments, while those who disagree seem to take personal slams and use rhetoric that lacks any thought. Very interesting...

blackcrayon
Oct 4, 2007, 07:01 AM
Winterspan-

If Apple had opened the phone from the start... If they had said "We don't have an SDK yet- but we know our customers are clever, people will figure out a way to add applications... But we have an open stance on the iPhone and will be there to guide developers when we're ready. For now, have fun with it!!"

Do you think the same people that are against the idea of 3rd party apps would be blasting Apple for having the phone open? :) I could see it now, thread after thread of people condemning the iPhone because 3rd party applications are allowed on it... Thousands of emails to Steve Jobs asking him, for god's sake, please close up the iPhone and don't allow anything more than web 2.0 apps. "Look how 3rd party apps destroyed every other 'smartphone' on the market until Apple locked them out and saved the universe" :rolleyes:

aristobrat
Oct 4, 2007, 07:06 AM
All Apple excuses for not having third party applications is pathetic.
How about the one from someone outside of Apple that's done extensive work with the iPhones?

Erica Sadun (from TUAW) seems to be saying that some areas of the iPhone OS are a complete hack, apparently done to get the iPhone out the door.

Stella
Oct 4, 2007, 07:13 AM
How about the one from someone outside of Apple that's done extensive work with the iPhones?

Erica Sadun (from TUAW) seems to be saying that some areas of the iPhone OS are a complete hack, apparently done to get the iPhone out the door.

Saying an iPhone 3rd party application can bring down a cell network is laughable. Its like saying a rough 3rd party app for windows, Linux, OSX etc etc can bring down the internet!

Its not going to happen, regardless of mobile OSX being a hack, as your saying.

Mitthrawnuruodo
Oct 4, 2007, 07:19 AM
Saying an iPhone 3rd party application can bring down a cell network is laughable. Its like saying a rough 3rd party app for windows, Linux, OSX etc etc can bring down the internet!*cough* slammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_slammer_%28computer_worm%29) *cough*

Stella
Oct 4, 2007, 07:22 AM
*cough* slammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_slammer_%28computer_worm%29) *cough*

Thanks!

However
"The SQL slammer worm is a computer worm that caused a denial of service on some Internet hosts and dramatically slowed down general Internet traffic, starting at 05:30 UTC on January 25, 2003."

Though, please note *some internet hosts*. It didn't bring down the entire internet, but merely just slowed it down for a few - which is quite impressive in itself.

You wouldn't get that sort of application coming out of a cell phone - it wasn't one 3rd party application doing all of that on a single machine - it was a boat load of infected machines. That distinction must be clear.

blackcrayon
Oct 4, 2007, 07:24 AM
Saying an iPhone 3rd party application can bring down a cell network is laughable. Its like saying a rough 3rd party app for windows, Linux, OSX etc etc can bring down the internet!

Its not going to happen, regardless of mobile OSX being a hack, as your saying.

What's the argument for locking 3rd party apps out of the iPod Touch? Because they might bring down a wireless access point somewhere right? ;)

aristobrat
Oct 4, 2007, 08:06 AM
Saying an iPhone 3rd party application can bring down a cell network is laughable. Its like saying a rough 3rd party app for windows, Linux, OSX etc etc can bring down the internet!

Its not going to happen, regardless of mobile OSX being a hack, as your saying.
Sorry, I didn't mean to include the part about bringing AT&T's network down. I agree -- that comment is FUD.

I read your comment as "Apple doesn't have a good reason for not having released a SDK yet". If that's not what you meant, I apologize. :)

BillHarrison
Oct 4, 2007, 08:12 AM
^ Very good point, but why not just release a real sdk that uses universal binaries, even if the chips aren't out yet? I'm not a programmer so I don't know the implications of that or if its possible to be pre-universal. Either way they could have rosetta on the intel chips running arm code ;) I'm sure the new Intels could handle it.

My understanding is that apple is using arm compatible processors, which means that they are code compatible. My smartphone runs the same software on its motorola processor as my friends pocket pc runs using the intel processor, IE they are code compatible, there are not different binaries for different processors because they are the same to the programs.

Meaning changing processors should require little or no change in the actual software.

Stella
Oct 4, 2007, 08:30 AM
Sorry, I didn't mean to include the part about bringing AT&T's network down. I agree -- that comment is FUD.

I read your comment as "Apple doesn't have a good reason for not having released a SDK yet". If that's not what you meant, I apologize. :)

No worries! :)

Its early in the morning!

grappler
Oct 4, 2007, 08:36 AM
That said, I think geeks like us overestimate the importance of 3rd party apps for future adopters of smartphones. What percentage of smartphone owners even add apps ? Most Blackberry owners that I've talked to barely even use the apps built it to the device .... let alone want to add more.

I think the main reason for that is ease of use. With a touchscreen like that on the iphone, ease of use will improve dramatically. With much simpler learning curves, people will be more willing to try new apps.

princigalli
Oct 4, 2007, 09:05 AM
Tired of the Iphone stories and problems. No open platform, no UTMS, forced 2 years contracts with specific carrires, and they are not even out here in Germany. So I ended up ordering a Sony P1 today, which is in every aspect better than the Iphone except for design.

Maybe the next IPhones will be better and more consumer friendly. But for now, I will start looking at all my Apple products and see if they are really the best choice out there. What if my Mac computers were rip offs just like the IPhone is?

emotion
Oct 4, 2007, 09:50 AM
Tired of the Iphone stories and problems. No open platform, no UTMS, forced 2 years contracts with specific carrires, and they are not even out here in Germany. So I ended up ordering a Sony P1 today, which is in every aspect better than the Iphone except for design.

...and most importantly user interface.

The p1 is just standard 3G too not HSDPA. Old tech :)

aristobrat
Oct 4, 2007, 10:15 AM
But for now, I will start looking at all my Apple products and see if they are really the best choice out there. What if my Mac computers were rip offs just like the IPhone is?
Start looking? Hopefully you've always looked to make sure what you buy is the best choice for you! One size does not fit all! :eek:

JonHimself
Oct 4, 2007, 10:33 AM
Most people? are you kidding. Go like at Palm OS, Symbian, and Windows mobile users. A large minority at LEAST uses 3rd party applications. And for the ones who don't run them now, it's only only because they are ignorant of the possibilities. If you show them what is possible, and then take it away, they would be furious. Thats like saying your average Windows user doesn't care to run Mac OSX. However, if they tried it, they'd love it and never go back.

WTF? I just looked at it, and when you remove the people who don't have an iphone, its EASILY over 50%. .

And actually, it should not have a "much much much" higher percentage as I personally know more "non-techie" people that have installed 3rd party applications than those that are technical. Its gotten to the point of a nice-looking GUI with a button to transfer apps. Its no longer some obscure, highly-technical, command line process.

I only quoted two of your post but read most of (I think) the rest. I think that you're failing to realize that just because the people you talk to (or even just because people on the forum) all feel the same way does not mean that everyone else does. Vice versa, just because myself (I feel I am tech savy) and several of my other friends (also tech savy) do not have any 3rd party apps on our blackberrys, that does not mean that everyone else feels the same way.
I don't care what your opinion is, you're free to feel however you want, but it's nonesense to knock someone else for doing exactly what you've done. Others have said that "I don't know anyone that has 3rd party apps, therefore no one has 3rd party apps" then you've returned with "Well I do and all my friends do, therefore having 3rd party apps is a huge deal for everyone"

rydewnd2
Oct 4, 2007, 10:37 AM
So why does AT&T allow their other smartphones to do this then? Hmmm?

I highly doubt the lack of 3rd party apps have ANYTHING to do with AT&T. I really think this is all Apple.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: AT&T has phones that have and do allow 3rd party apps.

w00master

But the part that you are missing out is that this is by far ATT's most hyped and newsworthy product. If somebody develops a voip app for a treo it won't make the news. But the media is hypersensitive to all things iPhone right now so say skype appears on iPhone it's in the news, and hundreds of thousands of people will hear about it. Now with their other phones (which some actually do have voip apps) att has more to gain than lose by being able to pitch the fact that you can install 3rd party apps as a feature of an otherwise tired product. The main point being the iPhone already has enough selling points (including cool factor) that ATT and Apple don't really have to make concessions to get them out of the door.

grappler
Oct 4, 2007, 10:43 AM
Finally, EVERYONE here is ignoring the fact that you CANNOT use a web application and receive a phone call at the same time. If you are on the internet, it will go to VOICEMAIL.

When I read this I thought, "Surely not..."

I know you can't do both simultaneously, but I figured the phone would at least ring and give you the opportunity to answer a call and switch from web browsing to talking on the phone.

Nope, winterspan is correct. I just picked up my iphone, opened safari and started loading a page. Then I picked up my office phone and called my iphone. Not a peep from the iphone. A few seconds later, the iphone vibrated and gave a beep. Turns out that was a new email notification. The phone didn't ring, and in fact the missed call hasn't even shown up in the "Recents" list.

wtf Apple?

gizmonic
Oct 4, 2007, 10:49 AM
Apple's 1.1.1 update pretty much sealed the deal for me. I love my MacBook, and I love my iPod, but as for their phone, I personally no longer have any interest, new SDK or not. I'm not going to buy a phone I have to worry about bricking with every update, or losing all my 3rd party apps or ringtones. Web based is all fine well and good, except, there are times where having an app on the phone that's NOT web based is preferable, since I, at least, travel to places where I have no connection sometimes.

I was holding out on getting one partly cause a) Apple has a history of problematic first production run stuff, and b) I wanted to see how the third party app thing would play out.

Guess I'll be getting that Blackberry Curve after all. At least the 8310 has built in GPS. :p

Sorry Apple, I was really waiting for that iPhone, and I was a future customer, but you can put out all the SDK's you want, it won't help. You lost me at 1.1.1.

gloss
Oct 4, 2007, 10:51 AM
9to5Mac (http://www.9to5mac.com/apple-adopts-sidekick-application-distribution-model-234545623) is suggesting that Apple is still looking into a full 3rd party SDK, although the software to be released would still be tightly controlled.

JonHimself
Oct 4, 2007, 11:00 AM
When I read this I thought, "Surely not..."

I know you can't do both simultaneously, but I figured the phone would at least ring and give you the opportunity to answer a call and switch from web browsing to talking on the phone.

Nope, winterspan is correct. I just picked up my iphone, opened safari and started loading a page. Then I picked up my office phone and called my iphone. Not a peep from the iphone. A few seconds later, the iphone vibrated and gave a beep. Turns out that was a new email notification. The phone didn't ring, and in fact the missed call hasn't even shown up in the "Recents" list.

wtf Apple?

That's not Apple, that's EDGE. Same thing happens on my blackberry unfortunately. Sometimes the page finishes loading before the call goes to voicemail and I am able to answer it

Consultant
Oct 4, 2007, 11:05 AM
just off the top of my head..

- Ebook reader
Yes, available via AppTapp. OSX has PDF printer built in. Leopard's preview would let you format your PDF files to whatever compitable. Also, http://manybooks.net/help/

- Instant messenger
Yes, available via AppTapp. Compatible with AIM, etc. Looks exactly like iChat.

- picture / file transfer
You can email pictures to and from iPhone. Also available via AppTapp. It's called SFTP.

- dictionary / thesaurus
iPhone has a dictionary. As to Thesaurus, are you trying to compose a novel on your iPhone?

- enhanced email program
Not sure what you want. It beats email programs on other mobile phones.

- sketch / drawing
Yes, available via AppTapp. You can sketch on top of photos you took with the iPhone too.

- Wi-Fi stumbler
Yeah that'll be cool. Someone will figure it out, but a laptop is the better solution.

- medical diagnostics for physicians
http://www.intomobile.com/2007/07/22/heart-imaging-technologies-announces-medical-images-delivered-to-apple-iphone.html
http://www.heartit.com/

Just because you 'don't know' somethings are possible doesn't mean it does not exist.

princigalli
Oct 4, 2007, 11:08 AM
Start looking? Hopefully you've always looked to make sure what you buy is the best choice for you! One size does not fit all! :eek:

You're right :) But I've been buying Apple products automatically. Just because they're Apple I always assumed they were the once I wanted or needed. Ipod, Apple Ipod Speakers, Macbook, Macbook Pro, Cinema display, even Apple router and Apple TV...

The Iphone disappointment opened my eyes a little and reminded me of what you said. I think I will get the Ipod touch because I want something small and comfortable for browsing the internet on the couch, but maybe the Palm Tungsten is fine too.

You´re right. Company loyalty is not clever, and on the long run it hurts the company too.

Random Ping
Oct 4, 2007, 11:12 AM
Erica Sadun (from TUAW) seems to be saying that some areas of the iPhone OS are a complete hack, apparently done to get the iPhone out the door.

Yes, I think the latest version of iPhone software is the true 1.0 version. The previous versions of the OS were just beta software.

I think Apple is really s t r e t c h e d thin right now. They managed to ship the iPhone in the very last hour of the very last day of the month that they promised to ship it, and they only managed that by pulling lots of developers off of Leopard and delaying that by at least a third of a year.

Then the iPhone software was still somewhat squirrelly and was missing obvious applications like buying songs online and setting songs as ringtones, and it took 3 more months to get those problems corrected.

Shipping an SDK and APIs are somewhat of a challenge, since the APIs are effectively a contract that Apple makes with its developers and it will have to live with it for years to come.

princigalli
Oct 4, 2007, 11:14 AM
...and most importantly user interface.

The p1 is just standard 3G too not HSDPA. Old tech :)

3G is old tech. But then what is Apple's EDGE? Pre-digital age technology.

The Samsung has a nice new HSPDA smartphone it even looks good. But I am not ready to use Windows Mobile yet.

They announced a new phone that looks very good, maybe beating the IPhone in most areas, including design. The Samsung F700 would probably be on top of my favorites list, but it's not out yet.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/samsung-outdoes-itself-with-ultra-smart-f700/

grappler
Oct 4, 2007, 11:16 AM
Why don't you take off your ultra-fanboy HAT for a second and put on a customer hat. APPLE MADE THE OS AS SUCH TO RUN THEIR APPLICATIONS AS ROOT. Obviously, this could easily be changed and limit system access to 3rd party apps, not to mention they would probably build a separate sandbox anyways.



pure solid genius, eh? Is that why there is such an incredible backlash against the company?



COME ON NOW.. thats so just reaching for the stars....


I knew THAT ARGUMENT was going to come out.. "what do you need that Apple won't give you". That's just pathetic. Unless you TRULY can't COMPREHEND what could come out of 25,000 developers having access to a revolutionary-in-capability high-speed graphics-accelerated Multitouch device?
You can't think of ANYTHING you might want? just off the top of my head..

- Voice Recorder (college lectures)
- Ebook reader
- Instant messenger
- picture / file transfer
- dictionary / thesaurus
- enhanced email program
- sketch / drawing
- Wi-Fi stumbler
- money manager/quicken pocket
- medical diagnostics for physicians
- DNA sequence / BLAST database
- Corporate applications


[/B]

Totally agree. And I'll add a few more specific ones:

Visual voicemail from GrandCentral.
Voicemail accessible from the web and not tied to any physical phone. You could do away with AT&T's voicemail and go two better - just have your single free GrandCentral number ring all your phones, and then access voicemails from the web - or your phone - just like you do email. Messages can be sorted in to bins, marked as spam, etc. Other smartphones ALREADY have native apps that access GrandCentral voicemail. The iPhone can't even use their web app, because it doesn't do flash.

Novel new forms of text input
Check this out: http://forwordinput.com/Home.html

Random Ping
Oct 4, 2007, 11:23 AM
9to5Mac (http://www.9to5mac.com/apple-adopts-sidekick-application-distribution-model-234545623) is suggesting that Apple is still looking into a full 3rd party SDK, although the software to be released would still be tightly controlled.

While I am not entirely convinced of the 9to5 hypothesis, it does make a certain amount of sense. It reminds me of the console games market where, before you can release a game for say the XBox 360, you have to jump through a lot of hoops and then give over a certain amount of the revenue to Microsoft.

In this model, anyone can make a free, web-based application for the iPhone (which might be enhanced by local storage, off-line capability, and the ability to put an icon on the home screen), but to make a commercial, native application, you have to come to Apple and be blessed.

grappler
Oct 4, 2007, 11:31 AM
But the part that you are missing out is that this is by far ATT's most hyped and newsworthy product. If somebody develops a voip app for a treo it won't make the news. But the media is hypersensitive to all things iPhone right now so say skype appears on iPhone it's in the news, and hundreds of thousands of people will hear about it. Now with their other phones (which some actually do have voip apps) att has more to gain than lose by being able to pitch the fact that you can install 3rd party apps as a feature of an otherwise tired product. The main point being the iPhone already has enough selling points (including cool factor) that ATT and Apple don't really have to make concessions to get them out of the door.

I don't get what the big deal about adding Skype or some other voip would be anyway. The quality of service would be very poor on EDGE, so if you stray from your wifi hotspot while talking, beware.

And it's only free if you're talking to a skype user on the other end.

And you're still paying $60/month for the service plan (unless you manage to hack it and only use wifi).

So they're still making money from the customer, and people will still mostly talk on the phone network. Skype is not a threat to ATT's business.

Random Ping
Oct 4, 2007, 11:32 AM
Interesting comment from AppleInsider regarding a major announcement by Apple at the end of the month:Sources have yet to rule out the possibility that Leopard would be accompanied by additional announcements from the Cupertino-based company. (link (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/04/apple_announcements_brewing_for_late_october.html))

Consultant
Oct 4, 2007, 11:41 AM
The Samsung has a nice new HSPDA smartphone it even looks good. But I am not ready to use Windows Mobile yet.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/samsung-outdoes-itself-with-ultra-smart-f700/

It's "announced" one month after the iPhone was announced and it's still not out yet. Specs are still NOT available. i.e no built in internal storage. PRICING IS STILL NOT AVAILABLE.

Look at the poor attention to details of their design / rendering team. Look at the image in engadget. Backspace and the Enter key are the same key. LOL!

Screen size is only 80% diagonal size of iPhone, but looks like it's quite a bit thicker than iPhone. Thickness: http://www.engadget.com/photos/hands-on-with-samsungs-slick-sliding-glory-the-f700/187041/

Look at the craftsmanship (or lack of) of the samsung phone, especially the central button.
http://www.engadget.com/photos/hands-on-with-samsungs-slick-sliding-glory-the-f700/187043/

By the way, my samsung phone i got from work loves to crash, sometimes in the middle of the conversation. And it takes over a minute for it to reboot.

CJD2112
Oct 4, 2007, 11:44 AM
I hear the same old rhetoric from people who dislike 3rd party apps. Some of those reasons are pathetic. The other camp is no better.

Both camps need to take a deeeeep breath and realize, it's just a phone. There's a war in Iraq, I think a little perspective is needed in these forums sometime.

It seems people are missing an interesting point in all this: Apple wants to sell those third party app's you were getting for free. Why do you think they are so tight on control? It's all about selling through iTunes baby, and the more they can control the more they can sell. Pretty simply economics.

JonHimself
Oct 4, 2007, 12:13 PM
Both camps need to take a deeeeep breath and realize, it's just a phone. There's a war in Iraq, I think a little perspective is needed in these forums sometime.

It seems people are missing an interesting point in all this: Apple wants to sell those third party app's you were getting for free. Why do you think they are so tight on control? It's all about selling through iTunes baby, and the more they can control the more they can sell. Pretty simply economics.

Absolutely. Neither side can really prove anything other than what they want or what their immediate group of friends want but yet continue to make claims of "everyone".
I always assumed that real apps would come later through iTunes like they sell games and I'm completely ok with it. I'm sure there will be free apps as well but I would not be surprised or upset at the fact that they sell some as well.

Tara Davis
Oct 4, 2007, 12:59 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the phone is the LEAST important thing about the iPhone.

I want a hand-held OS X gizmo which can run homebrew apps.

I want it to replace my 80 GB iPod, and allow me to leave my MacBook at home most of the time.

If I can *also* use it to make calls, cool.

Until Apple (or SOMEBODY) comes out with a gadget like that, I'll pass.

Absolutely. Neither side can really prove anything other than what they want or what their immediate group of friends want but yet continue to make claims of "everyone".
I always assumed that real apps would come later through iTunes like they sell games and I'm completely ok with it. I'm sure there will be free apps as well but I would not be surprised or upset at the fact that they sell some as well.

If that's the philosophy, why not lock down OS X so you can't install MS Office on your Mac, and must download iWork via iTMS?

Oh yeah, because no general computer user would EVER put up with that kind of crap. It seems strange to me that so many phone users are content to do so.

After all, the iPhone is just a modern-age Newton with a phone bolted to it. I'm not buying one until the platform is opened up, and I continue to marvel at how many people are snapping them up anyway. I think it says a lot about just how abysmal the cell phone market really is that people see the iPhone as a big step forward.

grappler
Oct 4, 2007, 01:19 PM
I love how people keep pointing out that the original mac didn't have expansion slots, as though that proves apple has been acting this way and locking things down from day one.

To those people, riddle me this: what past Apple computer was locked down to keep out 3rd party *software*?

winterspan
Oct 4, 2007, 02:20 PM
- Ebook reader
Yes, available via AppTapp. OSX has PDF printer built in. Leopard's preview would let you format your PDF files to whatever compitable. Also, http://manybooks.net/help/

- Instant messenger
Yes, available via AppTapp. Compatible with AIM, etc. Looks exactly like iChat.

- picture / file transfer
You can email pictures to and from iPhone. Also available via AppTapp. It's called SFTP.

- dictionary / thesaurus
iPhone has a dictionary. As to Thesaurus, are you trying to compose a novel on your iPhone?

- enhanced email program
Not sure what you want. It beats email programs on other mobile phones.

- sketch / drawing
Yes, available via AppTapp. You can sketch on top of photos you took with the iPhone too.

- Wi-Fi stumbler
Yeah that'll be cool. Someone will figure it out, but a laptop is the better solution.

- medical diagnostics for physicians
http://www.intomobile.com/2007/07/22/heart-imaging-technologies-announces-medical-images-delivered-to-apple-iphone.html
http://www.heartit.com/

Just because you 'don't know' somethings are possible doesn't mean it does not exist.

Who said I didn't know these things existed? I was merely pointing out some possibilities to the guy who said "what could you possibly want that Apple doesn't have".

blackcrayon
Oct 4, 2007, 02:51 PM
Absolutely. Neither side can really prove anything other than what they want or what their immediate group of friends want but yet continue to make claims of "everyone".
I always assumed that real apps would come later through iTunes like they sell games and I'm completely ok with it. I'm sure there will be free apps as well but I would not be surprised or upset at the fact that they sell some as well.

The side that wants 3rd party apps can "prove" that third party apps have already added a lot of value (capability, fun, etc) to the iPhone for a lot of people. It would be a little different if this were before the release of the iPhone and people were speculating about what would or wouldn't be capable using them. But since we have 3rd party apps which are useful even in their early stages, it's all the more annoying for Apple to "take them away", especially when a lot of them represent things that aren't likely to be done with a web 2.0 based app.

I hope you're right that Apple both sells apps, and there are a source of free native apps- even if they have to implement some kind of signing that gives a stern warning the first couple of times an unsanctioned app is launched.

JonHimself
Oct 4, 2007, 04:29 PM
The side that wants 3rd party apps can "prove" that third party apps have already added a lot of value (capability, fun, etc) to the iPhone for a lot of people. It would be a little different if this were before the release of the iPhone and people were speculating about what would or wouldn't be capable using them. But since we have 3rd party apps which are useful even in their early stages, it's all the more annoying for Apple to "take them away", especially when a lot of them represent things that aren't likely to be done with a web 2.0 based app.

I hope you're right that Apple both sells apps, and there are a source of free native apps- even if they have to implement some kind of signing that gives a stern warning the first couple of times an unsanctioned app is launched.

No I understand that you can prove that you've lost something that was of value, I agree with that. My complaint is about people saying that just because they feel one way, or some people they know feel the same as them that it means that "most" or "everyone" or "a ton" of people all feel the same way and therefore their argument is valid when in fact it's really just an opinion and doesn't prove their point in the grand scheme things, only on a small scale.
And I'm assuming that by putting "take them away" you are aknowledging that Apple never gave them in the first place and people went behind Apple's back, so to speak, to install them.

3.1416
Oct 4, 2007, 05:09 PM
Oh yeah, because no general computer user would EVER put up with that kind of crap. It seems strange to me that so many phone users are content to do so.
Completely agreed. Maybe it made some amount of sense when phones had limited capabilities so you weren't actually missing much, but an iPhone really is a handheld Unix touchscreen computer that also makes phone calls. Apple's engineers have made a fantastic product; it's a shame that the marketing and business guys feel compelled to cripple it.