PDA

View Full Version : Apple's 3rd Party iPhone Application Plan?




MacRumors
Oct 4, 2007, 11:51 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

9to5mac suggests (http://9to5mac.com/apple-adopts-sidekick-application-distribution-model-234545623) that Apple has already lined up specific development partners for 3rd party applications on the iPhone. EA is reportedly porting their existing iPod games over to the iPhone, with "other big developers" also on board.

9to5mac expects Apple to adopt an application model from T-Mobile's Sidekick, in which developers submit applications for review and approval.
If Tmobile/Danger feel the application is stable, won't interfere with other applications and would be of interest to their customers, they make it available for download and install through an integrated payment system. The cost of application is added to the customer's monthly bill. The Danger team actively works with the developers to insure compatibility and stability in applications through SidekickOS updates.

The site also suggests that Apple will continue to thwart efforts for user-installation of 3rd party apps to reduce piracy concerns.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/04/apples-3rd-party-iphone-application-plan/)



pkoch1
Oct 4, 2007, 11:54 AM
Thats what I think they should do.

Who agrees?

amac4me
Oct 4, 2007, 11:54 AM
This would be good news

DotComCTO
Oct 4, 2007, 11:54 AM
That model makes some sense to me. At least there's a certification process to insure that apps are stable. It seems to me that Apple has always stated they want to insure a smooth and consistent operating environment. Nothing worse than having a phone crash on you when you're trying to make a phone call. I've had that happen many times when I had my Windows Mobile and Palm-based phones.

--DotComCTO

Much Ado
Oct 4, 2007, 11:55 AM
Specific partners is at least the first step.

mmzplanet
Oct 4, 2007, 11:55 AM
iTunes Application store for iPhone.... not bad

Although that is beginning to clutter iTunes a bit...

Music
Movies
TV Shows
Games
Ringtones
now maybe... Apps

kbrain2929
Oct 4, 2007, 11:57 AM
Ok... between this and the Leopard rumors... October seems to be a GREAT month for us Apple Junkies! :apple:

mmzplanet
Oct 4, 2007, 11:58 AM
Ok... between this and the Leopard rumors... October seems to be a GREAT month for us Apple Junkies! :apple:

Forget Leopard Rumors..... Leopard is about here!!!!

Project
Oct 4, 2007, 11:58 AM
This is the way I always thought Apple would do it. Essentially its the same as the games console model. Absolutely fine IMO and would find the right balance between control and open.

happydude
Oct 4, 2007, 12:00 PM
a good way to control quality toward the iphone given apple's insistence on quality. still, kinda not liking purposely going after non-licensed 3rd party software just on principle . . .

asphalt-proof
Oct 4, 2007, 12:00 PM
As someone who has had numerous PDAs and Smartphones I can vouch for the fact that 99% of thrid-party ware is crap. They tend to put their hooks into parts of the architecture that were not meant to be played with and inevitably would crash either programs or the whole PDA. At the least, the 3rd party programs would make the PDA unstable. I think the only programs I ever downloaded for my PDA's/ smartphones that worked like they should were games.
I think that Apple is wise to adopt this strategy. Make the publishers send in the code to Apple for vetting then sell them through iTunes.

ibanana
Oct 4, 2007, 12:01 PM
"The cost of application is added to the customer's monthly bill."

here we go...not a so good news

sanford
Oct 4, 2007, 12:02 PM
Thats what I think they should do.

Who agrees?

You know I don't know what to do. I'm supposed to hate Apple for walling off the iPhone platform and demanding certification for native applications, but bear-hug T-Mobile for being a stateside GSM network on which people could use unlocked iPhones. But now should I hate T-Mo for demanding like Apple certification for native apps on one of the mobile communications phones?

I'm so confused. Makes me want to go back to a rotary-dial Bakelite model plugged into the wall.

Project
Oct 4, 2007, 12:02 PM
"The cost of application is added to the customer's monthly bill."

here we go...not a so good news


Erm, why?

rjwill246
Oct 4, 2007, 12:02 PM
-- a plan. SJ is nobody's fool.

I am happy with 3rd party apps that MUST come from Apple thru iTMS, for example, rather than being able to buy anyone's app and install yourself. Apps that have to have Apple's blessings, will work and will not crash the system. Also means ATT and Apple won't have to deal with "my phone doesn't work anymore" issues, thus wasting their time and resources. Let's hope it's something like this. Of course, there will be many who still won't like it and that's just a case of the iPhone is not for them. For now....

Mackan
Oct 4, 2007, 12:04 PM
And what are the chances that this will come to the iPod touch as well...? Somehow I feel the iPod touch owners will be left out in the cold, since Apple doesn't want it to compete with the iPhone.

Random Ping
Oct 4, 2007, 12:05 PM
Thats what I think they should do.
Who agrees?

I agree and disagree. I don't mind the model with the one exception is that I write a lot of Xcode/Cocoa applications for my own personal use. I would love to be able to put these on my own iPhone even if I didn't offer it to the world.

asphalt-proof
Oct 4, 2007, 12:10 PM
This rumor makes me wonder if Apple forstalled third-party apps because of changes the iPhone software will undergo because of the Leopard release. Nobody wants to buy an app and then have it become useless because Apple updated the iphone software to sync with Leopard.
Maybe there is an update to the iPhone OSX coming with the release of Leopard that will allow third-party apps.

CWallace
Oct 4, 2007, 12:12 PM
I'm all for Apple "vetting" third-party applications for the iPhone (ala the "Certified for Windows" program MS Labs runs), but I would not be in favor of Apple refusing to vet third-party applications that pass all the necessary requirements, yet compete with their own stuff (such as ringtone installers).

overcast
Oct 4, 2007, 12:13 PM
I agree and disagree. I don't mind the model with the one exception is that I write a lot of Xcode/Cocoa applications for my own personal use. I would love to be able to put these on my own iPhone even if I didn't offer it to the world.
Thus undermining the entire point of this whole article/discussion.

AquaVita
Oct 4, 2007, 12:13 PM
As a sidekick 3 owner and huge Mac fan, i'm going to warn you all...you will regret the day that apple made this decision.

As a sidekick 3 owner, there were lots of 'wonderful' apps in our catalog. Let's take a quick look.

Excel viewer- Oh great, now i can look at excel files but not touch them in any way. Awesome.

Dating Boot camp- An ebook that tells me how to get women.

MPTAG- A program for editing id3 tags

PhotoTwist- a zany and totally crazy app that lets you add hilariously awesome effects to your pictures! Oh great!

Time traveler- A freaking alarm clock. That's right, we had to pay for something that should have been there in the first place.

The Cycle- An app that tells you when you shouldn't bust inside your girlfriend, when she's most fertile. Wow thanks guys.

AudioLab- let's me record 10 seconds of audio wihch i can then add lots of zany effects to. Hooray.

Showcase- Slide show creator for 6 dollars.

File manager- Want to access the file system on your sd card? Buy this for 10 dollars!


I'm warning you apple users, you will absolutely hate this arrangement. You will get a ton of useless apps, all in the name of stability, and nothing of what you actually want. Do bear in mind all of the above terrible apps usually cost around 4-10 dollars. Useless.

slughead
Oct 4, 2007, 12:13 PM
That model makes some sense to me. At least there's a certification process to insure that apps are stable.

I love the apologist attitude. Apple's screening apps to make sure they don't provide functionality that Apple can profit on themselves. First and foremost, there's no way there will EVER be a native instant messaging client. This is because Apple and AT&T make profit on SMS messaging.

It has NOTHING to do with App stability or compatibility. I'm glad they don't 'screen' our apps for us on OS X, M$ office would never get through!

It's nice that they're allowing 3rd party development, but it's bad that they're restricting it. People pay a lot for these phones and even more for the service, they should be able to install whatever apps they want on THEIR phone. But, Apple has the right to attempt to stop them.

Stella
Oct 4, 2007, 12:14 PM
So, Apple really want 3rd party native applications to be a revenue stream for them? No doubt they'll get a small commission on sales.

Why everything apple does have to be a revenue stream -
* Want ring tones on your iPhone - pay
* Want 3rd party native apps - pay

Apple are kicking themselves in the feet - no Freeware applications.

People got upset with Verizon for disabling BT file transfer so they had to use a data connection - so customers had to pay for the data usage. There is little difference between this and Apple's strategy.

Greed, Greed and more Greed.

Allowing 3rd party native apps is a step in the right direction, but this is flawed.

DaveGee
Oct 4, 2007, 12:15 PM
So, Apple has final say as to what software is worthy enough to be considered an iPhone application and what software isn't?! Gee how freakin special is **that**

I guess this 3rd party plan would be of no value to open-source projects (where Apple can't make a dollar per download) and or niche products (such as home automation interfaces)... Not to mention Apple having the ability to weed out (axe) any software that it feels might get in the way of their plans (and/or the plans of a 'favorite son' 3rd party developer)....

Yea I could see Jobs really sinking his teeth into this idea... :(

D

kainjow
Oct 4, 2007, 12:17 PM
I'm warning you apple users, you will absolutely hate this arrangement. You will get a ton of useless apps, all in the name of stability, and nothing of what you actually want. Do bear in mind all of the above terrible apps usually cost around 4-10 dollars. Useless.

Also realize that Apple won't just let any app be available. They will only work with a few companies, and expect only high quality software.

Random Ping
Oct 4, 2007, 12:17 PM
"The cost of application is added to the customer's monthly bill."

here we go...not a so good news

Some developers may actually like this model because it reduces the piracy of their applications. If they could sell a $4.99 version of their application, not have to worry about distribution, not have to worry about taking care of the billing, etc., it would be kind of nice.

Considering what customers are paying for their monthly AT&T bills, an occasional $4.99 bill thrown in for a nice, shiny new application for your iPhone probably won't be so bad.

Dragonmaster Lo
Oct 4, 2007, 12:18 PM
I can more or less deal with this, provider there is also a "Freeware" section on iTunes or whatever Apple uses to distribute iPhone apps and that Apple does provide the SDK they do to the big boys to small-time developers and freeware developers. Apple also cannot be allowed to ban apps based on what "type" of app it is, either. The only restriction should be whether or not the app fudges up the phone in some manner.

Of course, I have little faith in Apple actually allowing a freeware section and not censoring app selection given the way they handled the iPhone's 1.1.1 update.

DaveGee
Oct 4, 2007, 12:18 PM
Greed, Greed and more Greed.

Yep...

Apple Pro Keyboard is now FREE!! but you will incur a .05 charge for each use of the letters S & J to be billed directly to your iTunes account. :p :D

shadowfax
Oct 4, 2007, 12:25 PM
even if they did this, I would probably still want to hack my phone. Finder? rSBT? IM? Most of the stuff I want on my iPhone apple will probably consider to be "unstable," either system hacks to customize the interface, or applications that compete with apple--imagine Adium on the iPhone, it already kicks iChat to the floor, cuts it into tiny pieces, and hides it in a freezer in the basement on OS X--or utilities like Finder that let you find stuff and would allow users to do awesome stuff like download documents from the internet that might not be readable by the phone itself (like .lisp files in e-mails, which, while they can't be run, could be read as text if only Apple would let us...). Or how about an application that runs natd over bluetooth/USB to give a computer EDGE data access? Apple is not going to "let us" do the cool things we want to.

On the other hand, if they develop a framework, I would venture to guess it will be easier to hack.

jonnylink
Oct 4, 2007, 12:28 PM
it seems like every iPhone rumor makes things like the OpenMoko more appealing

artalliance
Oct 4, 2007, 12:30 PM
So, Apple really want 3rd party native applications to be a revenue stream for them? No doubt they'll get a small commission on sales.

Why everything apple does have to be a revenue stream -
* Want ring tones on your iPhone - pay
* Want 3rd party native apps - pay

Apple are kicking themselves in the feet - no Freeware applications.

People got upset with Verizon for disabling BT file transfer so they had to use a data connection - so customers had to pay for the data usage. There is little difference between this and Apple's strategy.

Greed, Greed and more Greed.

Allowing 3rd party native apps is a step in the right direction, but this is flawed.

Who says that they won't offer "free" application, in addition to the "pay" ones.
There is hope! :p

TitoC
Oct 4, 2007, 12:31 PM
Posted 10/02/07

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.

Hmmmm . . . . where have I heard this before . . . .

Seriously though, this is something that a lot of people have been asking for since the beginning. Want it to be secure and safe? Want to make sure it works and won't crash the phone? Want to make sure it lives up to Apple's standards? Yes, yes, and ummm . . . yes. All of these things can be done with a certified and accepted method (via itunes and/or Software update). I think though that Jobs wanted to hold on to this baby for as long as he could before "letting go!" It's time to let go Steve . . . it's time to let go.

Random Ping
Oct 4, 2007, 12:31 PM
As a sidekick 3 owner and huge Mac fan, i'm going to warn you all...you will regret the day that apple made this decision. ... Do bear in mind all of the above terrible apps usually cost around 4-10 dollars. Useless.

One thing iPhone has going for it is OS X. If Apple can bring the power of Xcode and Cocoa to the development process, individuals and very small teams can bring very powerful applications to the iPhone.

I think to really make this approach work, however, Apple needs to sell a developer key (e.g., maybe part of the Select ADC membership) that would allow ADC members to develop and install iPhone applications on their own phones (but not for general distribution). Once they get it something truly useful, then they can take it to Apple for the vetting and placement on iTunes.

A good model for this might be Microsoft's Creator Club (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/xna/bb219592.aspx) for XNA (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/xna/default.aspx) for the 360.

SirOmega
Oct 4, 2007, 12:32 PM
Meh. I dont like it at all, but I can understand from a liability standpoint. Imagine Apple having to unbrick tons of iPhones from bad app installs. How much time and money is wasted because of bad coders.

Dragonmaster Lo
Oct 4, 2007, 12:34 PM
it seems like every iPhone rumor makes things like the OpenMoko more appealing

Indeed. Apple seems to be losing the warm fuzzy feeling it had back when I got my first Mac 6 years ago or so. Back then it seemed like the perfect balance -- open source back end, free development tools (also open source derived), awesome GUI, real useful apps, etc. Basically, a computer both a hacker and a non-hacker could love. While OS X (so far) doesn't seem to be falling down this trap, Apple's iPhone handling is concerning me that OS X and the Mac lineup may be heading this way.

It's getting to the point where I'm not even sure I'll get a Mac for my next computer when the time comes to retire my PowerMac G4 867. I'll probably still get one of the midrange Macs or a laptop for my wife (she needs Creative Suite and friends for her job), but I'll probably just use Linux for my desktop with a small Windows partition for gaming (much like what I would've done with an Intel Mac anyway). Hell, I use Linux daily at work without a problem (it's come a long way in the 6 years since I got my G4), and it seems like most of the apps I run on my Mac these days are ports of Linux apps anyway.

nickbates
Oct 4, 2007, 12:34 PM
God you people are just never happy... :rolleyes:

Stella
Oct 4, 2007, 12:35 PM
Who says that they won't offer "free" application, in addition to the "pay" ones.
There is hope! :p


Like someone else said, maybe they'll be a freeware section.

milo
Oct 4, 2007, 12:37 PM
No surprise there, this is what I expected all along.

People will bash apple no matter what they do. If they allowed open development, people would be installing buggy apps and complaining about crashes. As long as apple actually approves a decent number of apps, I'm fine with this.

And no, there's no way in hell they'll allow a third party app that loads ringtones. Let it go already, you might as well ask for an iPhone app that removes DRM from iTunes songs and hosts them on a torrent.

TitoC
Oct 4, 2007, 12:39 PM
So, Apple really want 3rd party native applications to be a revenue stream for them? No doubt they'll get a small commission on sales.

Why everything apple does have to be a revenue stream -
* Want ring tones on your iPhone - pay
* Want 3rd party native apps - pay

Apple are kicking themselves in the feet - no Freeware applications.

People got upset with Verizon for disabling BT file transfer so they had to use a data connection - so customers had to pay for the data usage. There is little difference between this and Apple's strategy.

Greed, Greed and more Greed.

Allowing 3rd party native apps is a step in the right direction, but this is flawed.


Who says that they won't offer "free" application, in addition to the "pay" ones.
There is hope! :p

I agree. This could be handled and come out just like OS X Widgets. While some cost money, the majority of them out there (somewhere around 89% I believe) are free. And they should be handled as such. Want an App, download it. Don't need it anymore, disable it or delete it.

Just like App.Installer . . . oops!

slughead
Oct 4, 2007, 12:39 PM
God you people are just never happy... :rolleyes:

Well this update is like: Hey, last week we deleted all your freeware apps because we're jerks. Now, we're going to allow you to buy maybe 1% of those apps ... from us ... for a fee...

Oh, and they're not allowed to compete with any of the services that we offer.. did we mention that? yeah, you paid $500 (plus service fee :D ) to be our bitch.

You're not happy? Think Different!

AppleSJ511606
Oct 4, 2007, 12:40 PM
i am both very sad and kind of happy.

Sad because it sounds like we're going to be forced to buy apps and freeware apps wont even be offered.

Happy because it looks like a new port for hackers to exploit, yay!!!!

compuguy1088
Oct 4, 2007, 12:41 PM
i am both very sad and kind of happy.

Sad because it sounds like we're going to be forced to buy apps and freeware apps wont even be offered.

Happy because it looks like a new port for hackers to exploit, yay!!!!

Well...it is just a rumor, which means anything could change with this.....

FoxyKaye
Oct 4, 2007, 12:42 PM
So, Apple really want 3rd party native applications to be a revenue stream for them? No doubt they'll get a small commission on sales.

Why everything apple does have to be a revenue stream -
* Want ring tones on your iPhone - pay
* Want 3rd party native apps - pay

Apple are kicking themselves in the feet - no Freeware applications.

People got upset with Verizon for disabling BT file transfer so they had to use a data connection - so customers had to pay for the data usage. There is little difference between this and Apple's strategy.

Greed, Greed and more Greed.

Allowing 3rd party native apps is a step in the right direction, but this is flawed.
This is exactly why I can't stand Verizon, even though they are my current provider. If AT&T/Apple are moving in the same direction, then forget it, I'll stick with the devil I know (and which has much better coverage).

None of this solves the double-charge just to have a custom ringtone, either. When did Apple get so ugly? They're behaving like they own the market, and they don't. Or is this the 2007 version of Steve saying, "We've got better stuff" ?

artalliance
Oct 4, 2007, 12:42 PM
Well this update is like: Hey, last week we deleted all your freeware apps because we're jerks. Now, we're going to allow you to buy maybe 1% of those apps ... from us ... for a fee...



Pure speculation on your part.
How about we wait and see - and then we can complain. ;)

THE JUICEMAN
Oct 4, 2007, 12:42 PM
ok good news.....but why do we always have to pay for something else?? but i guess thats the world we live in :(

arkmannj
Oct 4, 2007, 12:43 PM
For folks that have a problem with the certification process idea, keep in mind that this is not an uncommon method in use already. The most obvious one that comes to mind is game consoles. The only question I really have is what kind of rules will Apple dictate. Will basically only games get approved, or will utility type tools (maybe like ssh, vnc client, etc) be allowed ?

Dragonmaster Lo
Oct 4, 2007, 12:45 PM
No surprise there, this is what I expected all along.

People will bash apple no matter what they do. If they allowed open development, people would be installing buggy apps and complaining about crashes. As long as apple actually approves a decent number of apps, I'm fine with this.

And no, there's no way in hell they'll allow a third party app that loads ringtones. Let it go already, you might as well ask for an iPhone app that removes DRM from iTunes songs and hosts them on a torrent.

First of all, given that the iPhone runs OS X, buggy apps should not be able to take down the entire iPhone unless it's doing something really sketchy, like mucking around with the hardware directly. If ti's just something like an IM application, an eBook reader, etc., then only said app would crash. This would mean that people would bitch about the 3rd party app being a piece of crap, not the iPhone itself being a piece of crap. That is assuming that the OS X in the iPhone isn't so neutered that it loses one of it's greatest strengths: inter-application memory/crash protection.

Second, I could install J-random mp3 (or even MIDI!) ring tone on my old Nokia (not even a smart phone -- just a basic Bluetooth phone) without a problem. Why shouldn't I be able to do this on my iPhone? The only reason is for Apple to make more money by charging double for iTunes songs and ring tones.

Don't get me wrong, I do love my iPhone overall, but there are some glaring feature gaps that make it seem in some ways like a worse phone than the phone it replaced.

DotComCTO
Oct 4, 2007, 12:45 PM
I love the apologist attitude. Apple's screening apps to make sure they don't provide functionality that Apple can profit on themselves.

I would hardly call myself an Apple apologist. I said that the approach makes sense to me. Apple has said they want to insure a smooth experience on the iPhone. This is a reasonable approach. It's one thing for an app on your computer to crash. It's another thing when an app crashes your phone. I've had it happen numerous times on my old Windows Mobile and Palm-based phones. It sucks when you can barely use the phone part of the device to make a call. I've had everything from slow dialing performance to having a phone app hang/freeze the system to having my phone reboot itself. It's frustrating..

First and foremost, there's no way there will EVER be a native instant messaging client. This is because Apple and AT&T make profit on SMS messaging.

Nonsense. Just because we don't have it this second doesn't mean we'll never get it. Other phones on AT&T's network have a native instant messaging client. Your argument sounds good on the surface, but doesn't hold water.

--DotComCTO

P.S. Nice guitar in your profile image. :p

Syme
Oct 4, 2007, 12:47 PM
This puts the Apple customer in the role of Oliver Twist, and Steve Jobs as the curmudgeon.

Apple made the best decision they could when they decided to go to an open source BSD base for Mac OS and then better yet, provided the tools to support a fairly large sized open source development community. Heck, you can download apps from Apple's own website.

So, why is this model great for Macs and not the iPhone? Why are they concerned with "stability" on the phone but not their computers?

Rocksaurus
Oct 4, 2007, 12:48 PM
I for one trust the "hacking" community WAY more than EA when it comes to developing software that doesn't slow down/screw up my computer or phone...

CWallace
Oct 4, 2007, 12:49 PM
I'm certainly not against paying for apps for my iPhone. Development is not cheap and I'd be a little bit more comfortable with an application that wasn't just a "labor of love" that didn't have a solid test program behind it running on my iPhone.

Do remember that many (but certainly not all) of the applications that worked under 1.0.2 did so by exploiting a security hole in the iPhone's OS, after all.

However, I do echo the concerns of those who feel Apple will only allow a small subset of applications with minimal functionality and value-add. Notice the IE plug-ins world compared to FireFox's. :(

If paying tribute to Caesar, er Steve, is what it takes to get quality third-party applications on my iPhone, tell me where to send the gold. :D

slughead
Oct 4, 2007, 12:52 PM
For folks that have a problem with the certification process idea, keep in mind that this is not an uncommon method in use already. The most obvious one that comes to mind is game consoles. The only question I really have is what kind of rules will Apple dictate. Will basically only games get approved, or will utility type tools (maybe like ssh, vnc client, etc) be allowed ?

The difference is: Consoles are loss leaders. The Sony PS3 and M$ Xbox360 lost tons of money for those companies. Apple makes plenty of money directly off iphone sales.

Not to mention that game consoles are toys, iPhones are supposed to be tools.

I think there's a serious distinction.

Moreover, console companies charge for each 'app' (game). Is apple going to do the same? That changes things too.

Just because console companies do something doesn't mean we should expect it from all our products. Yeah, it's a way of doing business, another way is for them to not be jerks.

whickey
Oct 4, 2007, 12:54 PM
i seriously do not give a **** about greed / apples pockets...att's pockets

can someone just ****ing release ichat for the phone already. ffs, it shouldn't be that hard.

Merlyn3D
Oct 4, 2007, 12:55 PM
If this is going to be the only way and they continue to thwart 3rd party efforts, then I'm sorry, I'll move back to my treo 750.

It's been a good run, and a shame really to let such a platform go to waste (assuming this rumor has any merit).

sanford
Oct 4, 2007, 12:58 PM
i seriously do not give a **** about greed / apples pockets...att's pockets

can someone just ****ing release ichat for the phone already. ffs, it shouldn't be that hard.

iChat would be better, but meebo.com is really good. Give it a shot while you wait.

CJD2112
Oct 4, 2007, 01:00 PM
And what have I been saying all along? That Apple has wanted to stifle third party application development to sell them on iTunes. It all makes sense...

and frankly, I believe Apple had a lot of things in store for the iPhone, such as iChat, but AT&T may have stifled those plans. Does any one know the track record of IM programs on AT&T phones? Does AT&T allow them? I know that IM programs take away money from text messaging (or does each IM sent via a third party chat program count as a text message sent?). I believe Apple had to shelve a few ideas for the iPhone in order for AT&T to agree to their terms.

riverfreak
Oct 4, 2007, 01:03 PM
As a sidekick 3 owner and huge Mac fan, i'm going to warn you all...you will regret the day that apple made this decision.



Agreed. I was a Sidekick 2 owner for years. I hardly remember them releasing any applications. Oh, but they did manage to pump out crappy tones.

ibwb
Oct 4, 2007, 01:07 PM
The difference is: Consoles are loss leaders. The Sony PS3 and M$ Xbox360 lost tons of money for those companies.

Clarification: only some consoles are loss leaders, and usually for only a short period of time. All recent Nintendo consoles have been sold at a profit, and the PS2 has been sold at a profit for years. The PS3 and XBox 360 will probably be making a profit by next year (unless Microsoft continues to have quality problems).

Virgil-TB2
Oct 4, 2007, 01:16 PM
... Apple has already lined up specific development partners for 3rd party applications on the iPhone. EA is reportedly porting their existing iPod games over to the iPhone, along with "other big developers" also on board. ... expects Apple to adopt a application model from T-Mobile's Sidekick, in which developers submit applications for review and approval ... also suggests that Apple will continue to thwart efforts for user-installation of 3rd party apps to reduce piracy concerns.
I think this sounds reasonable and a good approach but it's been covered before by several places, most notably "Roughly Drafted" about two or three months ago.

While I like the idea I don't know as I would put any trust on anything this particular site (9to5mac), has "discovered." In particular, they state that the main reason for this move is not to make sure the applications are safe and vetted, but so Apple can take "2/3rds" of the profits. :confused:

Even though this is positioned as the main reason for the move, the statement is tossed in to the article as an un-sourced and unfounded "guestimate."

Since this (IMO speculative and unrealistic), "guess" is pretty much the only new material in the article, it makes me suspicious of the article in general.
:)

QCassidy352
Oct 4, 2007, 01:16 PM
I think this sounds like a good compromise.

iJed
Oct 4, 2007, 01:16 PM
I am getting more and more disgusted by the behaviour of Apple every time a new iPhone lock down story appears. :mad: In all my time as a Mac user, from Plus to MacBook, I have never been been more annoyed at Apple. The iPhone and iPod touch are great products so don't have them end up marginalised like the Mac. Open them up to all third party developers!

objc
Oct 4, 2007, 01:17 PM
And what have I been saying all along? That Apple has wanted to stifle third party application development to sell them on iTunes. It all makes sense...

It sure does. I don't much care for this idea. I have Verizon Wireless phone service right now and this is exactly what Verizon does. I'm sure the fanatics will come out and attack me over this, saying well it's not bad when Apple does it -- kind of similar to how the neocons will tell you fascism is good when they do it. But really, the Verizon locked phones suck. If you want apps or ring tones or whatever on your phone, you must pay Verizon for the privilege. And you pay every month -- it's a rental. (And I refuse to pay it, and I won't pay Apple either -- Apple's not special) I'm sure the app developer gets something, but Verizon likely takes a big cut. I can't remember how much money they're making off this, but it's a boatload of cash -- I think it was close to a billion$ last year. Apple's intent is to do the same thing. They want to make money on the phone, the cell service, AND the third-party apps. The latter two are pure profit.

There are most certainly many good, free, open-source software apps out there. One neat one I saw for the iphone was Apollo IM. Do you really think Apple would allow people to run that on their phones? Do you think Apple would certify it if ATT didn't like it because it was cutting down on SMS money?

It's nice to be able to have 3rd party apps, but I don't like the idea that users will have to pay for what the developers want to be free, or that Apple gets to decide what programs we can put on a phone we paid for.

Developers will likely have to pony up some cash to get the SDK too.

AquaVita
Oct 4, 2007, 01:21 PM
Agreed. I was a Sidekick 2 owner for years. I hardly remember them releasing any applications. Oh, but they did manage to pump out crappy tones.

People here won't listen, but i'm trying to warn them, this will be a disaster for them. You will get low quality apps first of all, and second of all you won't get any apps that might conflict with ATT or Apples interests. No IM, no ringtones, before you know it, they'll start selling you wallpapers and screensavers and won't let you use your own. Think it won't happen? Just wait, there are so many examples already.

twoodcc
Oct 4, 2007, 01:23 PM
well this is good news! finally games for the iPhone. any hopefully more than just games

macintologist
Oct 4, 2007, 01:24 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1C28 Safari/419.3)

They won't allow an IM app

sanford
Oct 4, 2007, 01:24 PM
I am getting more and more disgusted by the behaviour of Apple every time a new iPhone lock down story appears. :mad: In all my time as a Mac user, from Plus to MacBook, I have never been been more annoyed at Apple. The iPhone and iPod touch are great products so don't have them end up marginalised like the Mac. Open them up to all third party developers!

Yeah, my Mac Plus was totally open software and hardware architecture, extensible, expandable, user-upgradeable. Not locked down a bit. Nope. Not at all. Hey! Has anyone seen that case-opening wedge and the soldering iron?

EagerDragon
Oct 4, 2007, 01:33 PM
And what are the chances that this will come to the iPod touch as well...? Somehow I feel the iPod touch owners will be left out in the cold, since Apple doesn't want it to compete with the iPhone.

If they implement it for the iPod Touch, it will be games only. The rest of the functionality is reserved for the phone.

Rot'nApple
Oct 4, 2007, 01:37 PM
9to5mac... "The cost of application is added to the customer's monthly bill. The Danger team actively works with the developers to insure compatibility and stability in applications through SidekickOS updates."


Please tell me I'm reading this wrong... the cost of application is a one time cost and added to your billing statement to pay. Not, cost of application is added to monthly bill and you pay over and over again!:eek:

EagerDragon
Oct 4, 2007, 01:42 PM
As a sidekick 3 owner and huge Mac fan, i'm going to warn you all...you will regret the day that apple made this decision.

As a sidekick 3 owner, I have lots of 'wonderful' apps in our catalog. Let's take a quick look.

Excel viewer- Oh great, now i can look at excel files but not touch them in any way. Awesome.

Dating Boot camp- An ebook that tells me how to get women.

MPTAG- A program for editing id3 tags

PhotoTwist- a zany and totally crazy app that lets you add hilariously awesome effects to your pictures! Oh great!

Time traveler- A freaking alarm clock. That's right, we had to pay for something that should have been there in the first place.

The Cycle- An app that tells you when you shouldn't bust inside your girlfriend, when she's most fertile. Wow thanks guys.

AudioLab- let's me record 10 seconds of audio wihch i can then add lots of zany effects to. Hooray.

Showcase- Slide show creator for 6 dollars.

File manager- Want to access the file system on your sd card? Buy this for 10 dollars!


I'm warning you apple users, you will absolutely hate this arrangement. You will get a ton of useless apps, all in the name of stability, and nothing of what you actually want. Do bear in mind all of the above terrible apps usually cost around 4-10 dollars. Useless.

A useless app for one person is a God send for another. If the apps suck, people wont buy them, is very simple. Good applications will sell a lot and encourage others to create good usefull applications.

First we reach to hold on to the furniture, then while holding take a few steps, after a while briefly let go of the furniture, take first step, with a little practice, run like the road runner.

One step at a time.

mikeinternet
Oct 4, 2007, 01:46 PM
they will need to come up with something pretty great in order to get me to switch from the old firmware with apptap.

i'm to use to a native aim, and free games to pay now, and everything else.

my vote is for widget-like ditribution

...it is sad that whatever they come with will probably not be as good as apptap already did and without apple's help or charging a dime.

-being able to download over edge and install right on the phone

Dragonmaster Lo
Oct 4, 2007, 01:50 PM
and frankly, I believe Apple had a lot of things in store for the iPhone, such as iChat, but AT&T may have stifled those plans. Does any one know the track record of IM programs on AT&T phones? Does AT&T allow them? I know that IM programs take away money from text messaging (or does each IM sent via a third party chat program count as a text message sent?). I believe Apple had to shelve a few ideas for the iPhone in order for AT&T to agree to their terms.

My old Nokia (Which, granted, I got when it was still Cingular, but still) had AIM on it...

Fast Shadow
Oct 4, 2007, 01:57 PM
Expect the Mac to also go to this model within 5 years.

CJD2112
Oct 4, 2007, 01:57 PM
It sure does. I don't much care for this idea. I have Verizon Wireless phone service right now and this is exactly what Verizon does. I'm sure the fanatics will come out and attack me over this, saying well it's not bad when Apple does it -- kind of similar to how the neocons will tell you fascism is good when they do it. But really, the Verizon locked phones suck. If you want apps or ring tones or whatever on your phone, you must pay Verizon for the privilege. And you pay every month -- it's a rental. (And I refuse to pay it, and I won't pay Apple either -- Apple's not special) I'm sure the app developer gets something, but Verizon likely takes a big cut. I can't remember how much money they're making off this, but it's a boatload of cash -- I think it was close to a billion$ last year. Apple's intent is to do the same thing. They want to make money on the phone, the cell service, AND the third-party apps. The latter two are pure profit.

There are most certainly many good, free, open-source software apps out there. One neat one I saw for the iphone was Apollo IM. Do you really think Apple would allow people to run that on their phones? Do you think Apple would certify it if ATT didn't like it because it was cutting down on SMS money?

It's nice to be able to have 3rd party apps, but I don't like the idea that users will have to pay for what the developers want to be free, or that Apple gets to decide what programs we can put on a phone we paid for.

Developers will likely have to pony up some cash to get the SDK too.

Exactly. Remember Verizon getting sued in 2005 over the Motorola v710 cause they crippled the Bluetooth ObEx (file exchange on the phone) in order to force customers to use their pay service "Get It Now"? They lost HUGE, and their initial court stance was that bluetooth was not secure enough and crippling it was for the security of the user (sound familiar, like Apple's stance?). Then they admitted it was a business tactic in order to promote their "user friendly" "Get it Now" service and charge per pic and ringtone transfer. When I had the my RAZR with Verizon, I flashed the firmware back to the very first one as they failed to cripple some of the phones so I was able to make and download my own ringtones and pictures. But after they started bricking phones with it I left (for many other reasons) and went to Cingular as Cingular did not cripple any of their phones' bluetooth features. I was able to use my RAZR fully. I believe this is still the same with AT&T after they bought out Cingular, but only the iPhone is a closed platform. Makes you wonder why other phones are open on AT&T but not the iPhone. So who is behind this? Doesn't seem to be AT&T as others have claimed (and a NYTimes article with AT&T employees was published recently that claimed Apple is pulling the strings on all this hoopla, and not AT&T or the RIAA). Interesting eh. Money talks and b.s. walks, even in Apple.

Jetson
Oct 4, 2007, 01:59 PM
This is a step in the right direction.

I hope Apple plays this up because they need some good publicity for a change. This iPhone bricking thing has tarnished their reputation a bit in the eye of the general public as well as with some of its best customers.

By the way, a dead iPhone is much too thin to be called a brick - it's more like a tile :)

joeconvert
Oct 4, 2007, 02:01 PM
Thus undermining the entire point of this whole article/discussion.

Not really they should allow code signing for use with a single iPhone. This is similar to the method individuals use to write J2ME stuff for Blackberries and other phones. It allows them to access protected fucntions, but only on the single phone.

Mike Teezie
Oct 4, 2007, 02:07 PM
This model sounds like a very realistic compromise to me.

I asked in another thread, but didn't get a reply - what's the problem with the online IM clients you can use on the iPhone? I never had a native IM app on my iPhone - the online clients like Beejive seem pretty great to me.

grappler
Oct 4, 2007, 02:15 PM
So let me get this straight. If I want to write my own app, can I put it on my own phone? If I submit it to an approval program, can it be available for free download? Or is apple going to charge everybody who wants to download MY application?

nimbuscloud
Oct 4, 2007, 02:23 PM
So let me get this straight. If I want to write my own app, can I put it on my own phone? If I submit it to an approval program, can it be available for free download? Or is apple going to charge everybody who wants to download MY application?

Will you calm the heck down?

Apple lets people download free software on their website, I'm sure they would do the same...that is if your software is of quality.

:apple:

irun5k
Oct 4, 2007, 02:25 PM
Some developers may actually like this model because it reduces the piracy of their applications. If they could sell a $4.99 version of their application, not have to worry about distribution, not have to worry about taking care of the billing, etc., it would be kind of nice.


Except for the fact that Apple will take a big cut for handing the distribution, billing, certification, etc. I can see a scenario where the original developer only makes a buck on each $5 app. Trust me, as a shareware author myself, I really do not think that is far off.

devilot
Oct 4, 2007, 02:29 PM
Mod note: Please keep this thread ON topic, thanks.


I'm excited for games. :o I'm silly like that. I mean, Bejeweled over the web is barely tolerable when on wifi, so I'd be more than willing to pay a little to have a native app.

And another thing-- Apple's semi-stance of disallowing 3rd party apps ('til now), that does NOT include web apps, correct? It only excludes 3rd party apps that would be installed on a given phone, right?

The General
Oct 4, 2007, 02:31 PM
Pay for apps and continue the struggle with hackers?

Hello, Nokia.

I give Apple til the end of the year to open the iPhone up as much as Windows Mobile and provide an SDK. If they don't do it by January 1st, 2008 ... I'm getting a different phone.

winterspan
Oct 4, 2007, 02:39 PM
As someone who has had numerous PDAs and Smartphones I can vouch for the fact that 99% of thrid-party ware is crap. They tend to put their hooks into parts of the architecture that were not meant to be played with and inevitably would crash either programs or the whole PDA. At the least, the 3rd party programs would make the PDA unstable. I think the only programs I ever downloaded for my PDA's/ smartphones that worked like they should were games.
I think that Apple is wise to adopt this strategy. Make the publishers send in the code to Apple for vetting then sell them through iTunes.

99%? Give me a break. There are many people (like myself) who don't go to google and type in "free winmo/palmOS apps" and then download everything off the page. If you are a discerning customer (or developer) and don't mind paying a little bit of cash, there are alot of great little apps you can find given the limitations of most PalmOS devices/smartphones. I've been holding off on the Iphone, and for the meantime I am using a WinMo 5.0 smartphone and I run about 5 or 6 3rd party apps that are great. No frequent crashes/resetting.
I was even able to write a quick program for the mobile .NET CLR which checks an error log on a server I run and it works great!

Now given the hardware and OS of the iPhone, do I think it would be 100x better? absolutely. Selling/Downloading apps through iTunes is obviously a good idea, but I would MUCH RATHER have a policy where developers pay a small yearly fee or something to join a group and have access to submitting applications to Apple for review. If they lock out everyone but only a couple of large corporate partners, it will REALLY STIFLE innovative development on the iPhone. I mean EA making stupid little games? WTF? I want REAL 3rd party apps from creative sources, not some half-buggy crap that some corporation spits out.

winterspan
Oct 4, 2007, 02:42 PM
And what are the chances that this will come to the iPod touch as well...? Somehow I feel the iPod touch owners will be left out in the cold, since Apple doesn't want it to compete with the iPhone.

If they leave out the Touch it will be so stupid. However, I don't think they will since they are selling like crazy and represent a good chunk of app revenue

desimus
Oct 4, 2007, 02:43 PM
Thank you for not allowing every Tom & Charlie to put up applications up on our phones without some sort of screening policy. Thank you for keeping us safe from crummy applications that cause our phone to crash. Thank you for not listening to the loud vocal minority that always gripe and complain because "it's not open". There are those of us that are very happy with the product you've put out and will be even more happy as you continue to develop it.

Oh and another note...for all the whiners out there that continue to gripe about ringtones.... Apple is not making a bunch of cash off of this. They are required to do this because of their iTunes contracts with the record companies (did you actually read the user license or did you just click "yes I agree" and go on about your daily lives only to realize you didn't realize you don't agree with it...if that's the case then use a different media player and quite griping about it. Bottom line is you can't LEGALLY use your music for ringtones. It's the law. PERIOD) Wanna gripe about corporate greed? Then look at the record companies. Apple is just playing by the rules. If you have a problem with it then go buy the phone that allows you to download any file as a ringtone.

lookmark
Oct 4, 2007, 02:53 PM
The Sidekick model sounds fine to me, except for Apple taking 2/3 of profit - that's insane.

If Apple takes a *much* more modest cut (1/3 or less) from developers - that's more like it.

fastbite
Oct 4, 2007, 02:53 PM
I need another beer --but regardless, from an outside POV this is what I think: Apple doesn't give a **** about the tsunami of nerds and lovers and me wanting to have a shower app in their iPhones so they can wash their armpits. They know what they are doing. they will get all the apps and games and any other crap we want -- we'll pay for it, smile and be happy. But we will get them THEIR WAY! That's apple to the core. so let's stop frigging moaning. If the platform is a turkey, well, then stuff it! If not... wait, and enjoy the ride (but then again moaning may speed things up)

Unspeaked
Oct 4, 2007, 02:55 PM
This is typical Apple '07...

::sigh::

It's nice to see they want to follow in the footsteps of Sidekick's great third party application development, because as has been pointed out, *that's* been such a huge hit.

(Show me ANYONE, ANYWHERE on a Sidekick using ANYTHING other than the stock application set...!)

Thank you for not allowing every Tom & Charlie to put up applications up on our phones without some sort of screening policy. Thank you for keeping us safe from crummy applications that cause our phone to crash. Thank you for not listening to the loud vocal minority that always gripe and complain because "it's not open". There are those of us that are very happy with the product you've put out and will be even more happy as you continue to develop it.

Oh and another note...for all the whiners out there that continue to gripe about ringtones.... Apple is not making a bunch of cash off of this. They are required to do this because of their iTunes contracts with the record companies (did you actually read the user license or did you just click "yes I agree" and go on about your daily lives only to realize you didn't realize you don't agree with it...if that's the case then use a different media player and quite griping about it. Bottom line is you can't LEGALLY use your music for ringtones. It's the law. PERIOD) Wanna gripe about corporate greed? Then look at the record companies. Apple is just playing by the rules. If you have a problem with it then go buy the phone that allows you to download any file as a ringtone.

So why don't you write a nice letter to Steve & Co. asking them to disallow application installs on the Mac that aren't done via iTunes' new software download store?

That way we can get rid of all these third party freeware and shareware titles (and a few commercial products) that cause all the problems you read about in the Help forum here and in places like MacFixIt - heaven knows there's plenty of buggy applications.

Apple can screen these and let me know which applications I'm allowed to use on my iMac and which are taboo. Sounds like a plan to me!

sblasl
Oct 4, 2007, 02:59 PM
I don't understand that everytime there is discussion about the iPhone, there is always some "noob" that thinks in some strange way that it should be applicable to the iPod touch as well. Go play in your own sandbox.

And what are the chances that this will come to the iPod touch as well...? Somehow I feel the iPod touch owners will be left out in the cold, since Apple doesn't want it to compete with the iPhone.

This would be my greatest concern as well. Specifically speaking about Ambrosia who has been a longtime developer of Mac applications. There would be another firestorm if Apple starts these kind of shenanigans.


I'm all for Apple "vetting" third-party applications for the iPhone (ala the "Certified for Windows" program MS Labs runs), but I would not be in favor of Apple refusing to vet third-party applications that pass all the necessary requirements, yet compete with their own stuff (such as ringtone installers).

jhande
Oct 4, 2007, 03:01 PM
Not really they should allow code signing for use with a single iPhone. This is similar to the method individuals use to write J2ME stuff for Blackberries and other phones. It allows them to access protected fucntions, but only on the single phone.

Exactly!! Why is that so difficult for people to get?? The only thing I'd add, would be a developer connection a la Palm, and we'd have a functioning model.

I've been using the Palm since the V days, and they almost got it right. The only bit they missed was the code-signing aspect.

I hope we'll end up with this model.

sblasl
Oct 4, 2007, 03:02 PM
Anyone that has an application called "Dating Boot Camp" looses all credibility immediately in my opinion. You have bigger problems than worrying about 3rd party apps.:rolleyes:

As a sidekick 3 owner and huge Mac fan, i'm going to warn you all...you will regret the day that apple made this decision.

As a sidekick 3 owner, I have lots of 'wonderful' apps in our catalog. Let's take a quick look.

Excel viewer- Oh great, now i can look at excel files but not touch them in any way. Awesome.

Dating Boot camp- An ebook that tells me how to get women.

MPTAG- A program for editing id3 tags

PhotoTwist- a zany and totally crazy app that lets you add hilariously awesome effects to your pictures! Oh great!

Time traveler- A freaking alarm clock. That's right, we had to pay for something that should have been there in the first place.

The Cycle- An app that tells you when you shouldn't bust inside your girlfriend, when she's most fertile. Wow thanks guys.

AudioLab- let's me record 10 seconds of audio wihch i can then add lots of zany effects to. Hooray.

Showcase- Slide show creator for 6 dollars.

File manager- Want to access the file system on your sd card? Buy this for 10 dollars!


I'm warning you apple users, you will absolutely hate this arrangement. You will get a ton of useless apps, all in the name of stability, and nothing of what you actually want. Do bear in mind all of the above terrible apps usually cost around 4-10 dollars. Useless.

The General
Oct 4, 2007, 03:03 PM
Thank you for not allowing every Tom & Charlie to put up applications up on our phones without some sort of screening policy. Thank you for keeping us safe from crummy applications that cause our phone to crash. Thank you for not listening to the loud vocal minority that always gripe and complain because "it's not open". There are those of us that are very happy with the product you've put out and will be even more happy as you continue to develop it.

You act like the programs just show up on your phone and mess them up. Are you aware that you have to perform the installation yourself ...

Oh and another note...for all the whiners out there that continue to gripe about ringtones.... Apple is not making a bunch of cash off of this. They are required to do this because of their iTunes contracts with the record companies (did you actually read the user license or did you just click "yes I agree" and go on about your daily lives only to realize you didn't realize you don't agree with it...if that's the case then use a different media player and quite griping about it. Bottom line is you can't LEGALLY use your music for ringtones. It's the law. PERIOD) Wanna gripe about corporate greed? Then look at the record companies. Apple is just playing by the rules. If you have a problem with it then go buy the phone that allows you to download any file as a ringtone.

I don't even really know where to start ... if I buy a CD, I should be able to use songs on it as ringtones. I can play the music through the speaker using the iPod application. It is no different to have it play through the speaker when there's an incoming phone call.

You act like these "laws" that exists are because of the record industry. This is grossly inaccurate.

The RIAA wanted to be able to distribute ringtones of its artists without having to pay them big money to do so. It won a decision last year before the Copyright Office saying that ringtones weren't derivative works, meaning they didn't infringe on the copyright of the songwriter.

The reason they try to make it seem illegal is to scare people like you, gullible people, into paying twice for a song just to make 30 seconds of it play during an incoming call.

It is not illegal to make my own ringtones, don't even try to say it is.

PBz
Oct 4, 2007, 03:04 PM
To the person who said this is a great start, I totally agree.

To the folks talking about how bad the Sidekick apps are, I say give Apple a chance to get it right.

I am actually excited. I don't need endless apps that I use less than 5% of the time cluttering my phone and this is partially why I have not bothered to hack my iPHone.

I WILL pay a fair price for good, stable software. For example, if anyone here has used Jive Talk by BeeJive you know what I mean. This app is ROCK SOLID for the BB and may be the best IM app I have ever used. I got to beta test for it before it went truly live and the dev team was VERY interested in getting it right and making continuous improvements. Luckily, JT will be free for me if it comes native to the iPhone as I have a lifetime license.

A good sign this is IMO.

Unspeaked
Oct 4, 2007, 03:08 PM
I am actually excited. I don't need endless apps that I use less than 5% of the time cluttering my phone and this is partially why I have not bothered to hack my iPHone.

What's your point?

If you don't want the applications, then don't hack your iPhone - as you clearly aren't.

But why not allow other people if they'd like to?

nbs2
Oct 4, 2007, 03:13 PM
Anyone that has an application called "Dating Boot Camp" looses all credibility immediately in my opinion. You have bigger problems than worrying about 3rd party apps.:rolleyes:

I don't think there was an insinuation by the poster that he has purchased all those apps. Just highlighting some of the bigger losers in the catalog.

In the end, it's up to Apple to decide if they will limit apps to major players to maximize the percentage of "quality" apps or open the field to everybody and risk a bit of a rise in the number of poor apps. I don't see why a free system like the widget system isn't possible, but, I'm not privy to the inner-accounting at Apple.

Marx55
Oct 4, 2007, 03:26 PM
iPhone and iPod touch open to any third party applications is a must. And not limited to Web 2, but also for the full OS X.

Or better yet, a brand new handheld computer based on Intel Silverthorne with a full Mac OS X 10.5 inside!

sanford
Oct 4, 2007, 03:28 PM
Devilot,

Correct. There is a little alpha application, Telekinesis, that runs an Apache server on your Mac that, among others things, let's you take snaps with your Mac's iSight, stream audio and video (even FairPlay if the iPhone is associated with that Mac), view iPhone-compatible files, like Word documents, on your iPhone while they are stored on your Mac. It's really supposed to be an extensible framework for developing new uses more than end of itself.

You access your Mac running this software application via Safari on the iPhone. Nothing, besides perhaps allowed Safari web cache, is stored on the iPhone. It is 100% compliant with Apple iPhone development standards; and it proves you can do some pretty robust things under those strict standards.

And games aren't silly, game are big business. And "mini-games" for mobile devices, especially for mobile devices not dedicated to games, are the fastest growing segment of the games industry right now.

Mod note: Please keep this thread ON topic, thanks.


I'm excited for games. :o I'm silly like that. I mean, Bejeweled over the web is barely tolerable when on wifi, so I'd be more than willing to pay a little to have a native app.

And another thing-- Apple's semi-stance of disallowing 3rd party apps ('til now), that does NOT include web apps, correct? It only excludes 3rd party apps that would be installed on a given phone, right?

sblasl
Oct 4, 2007, 03:28 PM
It is NOT Apple's role to be the ringtone police. There are 100's of free ringtones available as well as those folks who have the talent to create ringtones that they give away. Any iPhone owner who wants to put a ringtone of their choice on THEIR phone should have no restriction placed upon them by Apple, Inc.

Oh and another note...for all the whiners out there that continue to gripe about ringtones.... Apple is not making a bunch of cash off of this. They are required to do this because of their iTunes contracts with the record companies (did you actually read the user license or did you just click "yes I agree" and go on about your daily lives only to realize you didn't realize you don't agree with it...if that's the case then use a different media player and quite griping about it. Bottom line is you can't LEGALLY use your music for ringtones. It's the law. PERIOD) Wanna gripe about corporate greed? Then look at the record companies. Apple is just playing by the rules. If you have a problem with it then go buy the phone that allows you to download any file as a ringtone.

sishaw
Oct 4, 2007, 03:36 PM
So, Apple has final say as to what software is worthy enough to be considered an iPhone application and what software isn't?! Gee how freakin special is **that**

D

Well, it's their product. The marketplace will ultimately decide whether it is a good decision.

thedarkhorse
Oct 4, 2007, 03:38 PM
this sounds perfect to me. As long as they also support the touch with these apps. I probably wont buy tons of apps but if there are a couple useful or fun looking ones i won't mind dropping $5 per, i mean i already payed $500 for the iPod, what's $5 if it can add more functionality? Especially since this will gaurentee that they work and will be officially supported

grappler
Oct 4, 2007, 03:38 PM
What Would Woz Do?

Random Ping
Oct 4, 2007, 03:38 PM
Thus undermining the entire point of this whole article/discussion.

No. I mentioned somewhere else that Microsoft already does this with their XBox 360. I can write my own applications for the 360 using XNA and put it on my own XBox but I cannot sell it to the wider community.

I would be extremely happy if Apple could do something similar to this.

Manatee
Oct 4, 2007, 03:40 PM
I like the idea. Allow 3rd party apps, but they are vetted and possibly distributed by Apple. That maintains a high standard for the quality of the apps and their ability to interact properly with the iPhone.

I'm wary, though, of the deal that Apple might force on small software developers who offer great niche products for other PDA/Organizer/Phone devices. I can see Apple making it impossible for some of these small and humble developers to distribute their products with a reasonable profit for the developer. We'll see. I'm hoping for the best.

Peter

mainstreetmark
Oct 4, 2007, 03:40 PM
The Mac is a completely open platform. Look how well it does. Look how rarely it crashes. Look how many quality apps there are. Look how well it handles poorly written apps.

What OS does that Mac thing run? What OS does that iPhone thing run?

The MARKET will demand high quality apps. The crappy ones disappear. Apple's primary motivation isn't "quality" but "revenue". Who blames Apple for crappy third party software?

thedarkhorse
Oct 4, 2007, 03:46 PM
this sounds perfect to me. As long as they also support the touch with these apps. I probably wont buy tons of apps but if there are a couple useful or fun looking ones i won't mind dropping $5 per, i mean i already payed $500 for the iPod, what's $5 if it can add more functionality? Especially since this will gaurentee that they work and will be officially supported

NewSc2
Oct 4, 2007, 03:51 PM
This model sounds like a very realistic compromise to me.

I asked in another thread, but didn't get a reply - what's the problem with the online IM clients you can use on the iPhone? I never had a native IM app on my iPhone - the online clients like Beejive seem pretty great to me.

Those require you to be on Safari the whole time. It'd be great if there was a separate app that would notify you every time you'd get an IM, without needing to go through Safari, kind of like the Text client there is right now.

Random Ping
Oct 4, 2007, 03:57 PM
So let me get this straight. If I want to write my own app, can I put it on my own phone? If I submit it to an approval program, can it be available for free download? Or is apple going to charge everybody who wants to download MY application?

The important point is that virtually everything on this discussion thread is pure speculation. Apple has said nothing, and they may not have even made up their own mind on what they want to do. However there are different models that we can look at to get an idea of what might be possible.

One model is the Microsoft's XNA and their Creator Club for the XBox 360. In this model:

You can write your own application and install in you your own system.
You can share your application with other registered developers (you send them the source code which they compile and install on their systems).
If you really like your software, there is an upgrade path to share it with a wider audience.

Hopstretch
Oct 4, 2007, 04:00 PM
Thank you for not allowing every Tom & Charlie to put up applications up on our phones without some sort of screening policy.
This is what I don't understand about the knee-jerk Apple defenders on this particular issue. No matter what, no one is going to force you to put anything on your phone. If you want to keep it pure as the driven snow, unsullied by any grubby 3rd-party software, that's entirely up to you. But I honestly fail to see why you are so keen to force that choice on all the rest of us?

ghall
Oct 4, 2007, 04:01 PM
This isn't what I was hoping for, but it's good enough.

grappler
Oct 4, 2007, 04:03 PM
Indeed. Apple seems to be losing the warm fuzzy feeling it had back when I got my first Mac 6 years ago or so. Back then it seemed like the perfect balance -- open source back end, free development tools (also open source derived), awesome GUI, real useful apps, etc. Basically, a computer both a hacker and a non-hacker could love. While OS X (so far) doesn't seem to be falling down this trap, Apple's iPhone handling is concerning me that OS X and the Mac lineup may be heading this way.

It's getting to the point where I'm not even sure I'll get a Mac for my next computer when the time comes to retire my PowerMac G4 867. I'll probably still get one of the midrange Macs or a laptop for my wife (she needs Creative Suite and friends for her job), but I'll probably just use Linux for my desktop with a small Windows partition for gaming (much like what I would've done with an Intel Mac anyway). Hell, I use Linux daily at work without a problem (it's come a long way in the 6 years since I got my G4), and it seems like most of the apps I run on my Mac these days are ports of Linux apps anyway.

Agreed. And there are valuable lessons from tech history here.

Check out this comparison of AAPL and MSFT:
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=aapl+msft

Look at the 10 year view. Apple has been absolutely wiping the floor with Microsoft, from the point of view of the investor. And what has been happening for those 10 years? It's just as you said - Apple had an OS (and hardware) that both a hacker and a non-hacker could love. Sums it up perfectly.

Now switch to the 23 year view. The picture is quite the opposite, up until the end of the 90's. Microsoft chewed up apple and spat it out. Why?

The main reason, I would argue, is that Microsoft welcomed developers and Apple did not. Lots of developers. Big and small developers. Not just IBM and other "preferred developers". An ecosystem was born, and the rest is history.

This is Apple's chance to screw it alll up again.

mikeinternet
Oct 4, 2007, 04:05 PM
...I probably wont buy tons of apps but if there are a couple useful or fun looking ones i won't mind dropping $5 per, i mean i already payed $500 for the iPod, what's $5 if it can add more functionality? Especially since this will gaurentee that they work and will be officially supported

This is why they shouldn't sell these apps as products. It is not worth it for apple to have to back them. (unless they are soo selective that it is no fun)

When apple helps distribute free widgets they don't back there quality.

i'd rather not pay and have more selection even if you have to go through a couple apps before you find ones you like and actually get use out of.

rydewnd2
Oct 4, 2007, 04:13 PM
I love the apologist attitude. Apple's screening apps to make sure they don't provide functionality that Apple can profit on themselves. First and foremost, there's no way there will EVER be a native instant messaging client. This is because Apple and AT&T make profit on SMS messaging.

It has NOTHING to do with App stability or compatibility. I'm glad they don't 'screen' our apps for us on OS X, M$ office would never get through!

It's nice that they're allowing 3rd party development, but it's bad that they're restricting it. People pay a lot for these phones and even more for the service, they should be able to install whatever apps they want on THEIR phone. But, Apple has the right to attempt to stop them.

Maybe it's just me but i use instant messaging and texting for completely different purposes. Not enough of my friends are always on instant messaging to make it a viable means to organize meetings or coordinate events (which is what i mainly use texting for). I don't think one would really kill the use of the other as people keep suggesting.

farmboy
Oct 4, 2007, 04:13 PM
It's just a rumor. But it appears that to some of the juveniles who populate this forum Apple is the devil incarnate, based on a completely speculative *rumor* (I know, all rumors are speculative...still, what twits).

Stella: Your signature (68030) indicates you should be old enough to know better than to call every single charge you *might* have to pay "Greed, greed, greed". The record industry requires that Apple collect individually for each ring tone, and surely you post often enough to have seen that assertion before. Bitch to the record labels, not Apple. Or maybe they should have some sort of Kumbaya moment and just give everything away because the universe wants them to...

Second, why should everything be free? Do you have a job? Do you collect a salary for your work? Are *you* being greedy then, getting compensation for your services? OR do you receive what is fair for what you provide? If Apple has to vet every application not only interacting with the Apple software/hardware but also for playing nice with every other vetted application, and handle the hosting, billing and distribution, and carry the load of warranty service on wrecked phones, why are they not entitled to compensation of a few dollars? Get real.

Rocksaurus
Oct 4, 2007, 04:18 PM
This is what I don't understand about the knee-jerk Apple defenders on this particular issue. No matter what, no one is going to force you to put anything on your phone. If you want to keep it pure as the driven snow, unsullied by any grubby 3rd-party software, that's entirely up to you. But I honestly fail to see why you are so keen to force that choice on all the rest of us?

Best iPhone related post this year. Everyone please read and reread it.

ejrizo
Oct 4, 2007, 04:21 PM
if they are billing you through your phone bill... they are smart bastards!...lol

they are weeding out people that have unlocked their phones and are not on AT&T.

Steve Jobs you smart son of a bitch... :D

i went through this with my sidekick and it was an ok thing... not as great as being able to install your own apps... but was cool to have the choice... but the Sidekick was complete crap besides messaging... nothing else was that great about the device

mugwump
Oct 4, 2007, 04:38 PM
This is what I don't understand about the knee-jerk Apple defenders on this particular issue. No matter what, no one is going to force you to put anything on your phone. If you want to keep it pure as the driven snow, unsullied by any grubby 3rd-party software, that's entirely up to you. But I honestly fail to see why you are so keen to force that choice on all the rest of us?

Personally, I don't want it to become the swiss cheese gaping hole security malestrom like Windows has become because then I am affected. I mean, who really wants to run virus and rootkit scanners with every email attachment that arrives on a phone?

No thanks, let's close this baby up and uphold the rock-solid security.

nimbuscloud
Oct 4, 2007, 04:41 PM
Agreed. And there are valuable lessons from tech history here.

Check out this comparison of AAPL and MSFT:
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=aapl+msft

Look at the 10 year view. Apple has been absolutely wiping the floor with Microsoft, from the point of view of the investor. And what has been happening for those 10 years? It's just as you said - Apple had an OS (and hardware) that both a hacker and a non-hacker could love. Sums it up perfectly.

Now switch to the 23 year view. The picture is quite the opposite, up until the end of the 90's. Microsoft chewed up apple and spat it out. Why?

The main reason, I would argue, is that Microsoft welcomed developers and Apple did not. Lots of developers. Big and small developers. Not just IBM and other "preferred developers". An ecosystem was born, and the rest is history.

This is Apple's chance to screw it alll up again.


Dude...

IT'S A PHONE!!!!!

One minute people are pissed that Apple makes ANYTHING outside of computers, now you're trying to dictate how they do business? You're on the outside looking in with nothing but rumors and speculation to go by.

Calm down; the sky ain't fallin'.

:apple:

snchpnz
Oct 4, 2007, 04:44 PM
Dear Apple,

Please stop controlling what I can and can not add to my phone. I bought it from you and that should be enough. Stop trying to milk me. I am not a cow!

Thank You.

With the way things are going I am waiting for Apple to announce that you will only be able to add songs bought through iTunes into you iPod. :rolleyes:

jnasato
Oct 4, 2007, 04:49 PM
Now switch to the 23 year view. The picture is quite the opposite, up until the end of the 90's. Microsoft chewed up apple and spat it out. Why?

The main reason, I would argue, is that Microsoft welcomed developers and Apple did not. Lots of developers. Big and small developers. Not just IBM and other "preferred developers". An ecosystem was born, and the rest is history.

This is Apple's chance to screw it alll up again.

Apple went down in the 90's, because they didn't have a strong vision. Their hardware lineup was in-cohesive and cluttered, and the Mac clones were much better than what Apple was releasing.

After Steve Jobs returned to Apple, the iMac revolutionized personal computing style (and industrial design, in general) and started an Apple trend of forward thinking (though, at the cost of frustrating users), with no floppy disk drive and USB ports. Since then, the Apple product line has been slimlined, and everything is clear-cut and cohesive, which all results in a very strong brand image.

Apple went down in the 90's, due to Gil Amelio's bad management, and Steve Jobs' vision is what saved Apple and has brought it to the level of efficiency that it's been at in recent history.

rockosmodurnlif
Oct 4, 2007, 04:50 PM
iTunes Application store for iPhone.... not bad

Although that is beginning to clutter iTunes a bit...

Music
Movies
TV Shows
Games
Ringtones
now maybe... Apps

Beginning he says, beginning.

3.1416
Oct 4, 2007, 04:56 PM
Personally, I don't want it to become the swiss cheese gaping hole security malestrom like Windows has become because then I am affected. I mean, who really wants to run virus and rootkit scanners with every email attachment that arrives on a phone?
Banning third-party apps does nothing to protect you against Safari or Mail exploits.

No thanks, let's close this baby up and uphold the rock-solid security.First, that's a false dichotomy. Second, would you apply this logic to Macs as well?

grappler
Oct 4, 2007, 05:03 PM
Apple went down in the 90's, because they didn't have a strong vision. Their hardware lineup was in-cohesive and cluttered, and the Mac clones were much better than what Apple was releasing.

After Steve Jobs returned to Apple, the iMac revolutionized personal computing style (and industrial design, in general) and started an Apple trend of forward thinking (though, at the cost of frustrating users), with no floppy disk drive and USB ports. Since then, the Apple product line has been slimlined, and everything is clear-cut and cohesive, which all results in a very strong brand image.

Apple went down in the 90's, due to Gil Amelio's bad management, and Steve Jobs' vision is what saved Apple and has brought it to the level of efficiency that it's been at in recent history.

By the time there were mac clones, Apple was already marginalized in comparison to windows. Everything you wrote is true, but I'm talking about events that transpired years earlier.

Ovs
Oct 4, 2007, 05:05 PM
I canít believe some of the comments on this thread. Apple no longer needs snivelling PR people, because it seems consumers do the job for them.

I do not need or want Apple to vet applications for MacOSX on my computer, so why so would I need them to vet apps for my phone? A simple question. Any answers?

There is some fantastic freeware available on MacOSX, and there could also be fantastic freeware for the iPhone - if only Apple werenít so greedy in their control. It has nothing to do with security issues, or stability. It has everything to do with MONEY.

Please, fellow consumers, stop making excuses for Apple. They have a good product in the iPhone - lets hope they see sense and make it a truly great one.

donlphi
Oct 4, 2007, 05:05 PM
So when they say, "WON'T INTERFERE WITH OTHER APPS", they mean, "WON'T TAKE AWAY SALES OF MUSIC OR MOVIES" and, "WON'T HURT PROFITS FROM THE ACTUAL PHONE SERVICE"

I am predicting some weak casual games and absolutely no useful "apps"

3 third party products that need to come out for the iPhone, but probably won't...

1. Slingplayer - gotta have it for the iPhone
2. iChat - no video support necessary, but voice would be awesome
3. Flash Support

stoneii
Oct 4, 2007, 05:06 PM
if they are billing you through your phone bill... they are smart bastards!...lol

they are weeding out people that have unlocked their phones and are not on AT&T.



well now we know why they went so NUTS about bricking unlocks and 3rd party apps on the last update.

The malicious intent by Apple with that update was crazy nuts and yet there were people justifying why they had the right to be mean....the right to BE MEAN....we live in a crazy world.

After going through that this option looks a whole lot better then if we hadn't seen that dark side of Apple...I guess that was Apple's way of pre conditioning us to accept this offer??

Although this offer still wreaks of Steve's parentalism at least he gave us an option...for 3rd party apps

weg
Oct 4, 2007, 05:12 PM
Personally, I don't want it to become the swiss cheese gaping hole security malestrom like Windows has become because then I am affected. I mean, who really wants to run virus and rootkit scanners with every email attachment that arrives on a phone?

No thanks, let's close this baby up and uphold the rock-solid security.

Not allowing 3rd party developers to provide applications for the iPhone doesn't make it more secure. In fact, people who exploit security holes know exactly how to deal with the lack of an API documentation or Apple's feeble attempts to lock the iPhone. Apple is only scaring off people who develop commercial software, and that makes the iPhone a less interesting platform for users. For example, there won't be Skype (or fring) for the iPhone, an application that I don't want to miss (it's running perfectly fine on my "swiss cheese gaping hole security malestrom" Windows Mobile phone).

donlphi
Oct 4, 2007, 05:16 PM
Agreed. And there are valuable lessons from tech history here.

Check out this comparison of AAPL and MSFT:
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=aapl+msft

Look at the 10 year view. Apple has been absolutely wiping the floor with Microsoft, from the point of view of the investor. And what has been happening for those 10 years? It's just as you said - Apple had an OS (and hardware) that both a hacker and a non-hacker could love. Sums it up perfectly.

Now switch to the 23 year view. The picture is quite the opposite, up until the end of the 90's. Microsoft chewed up apple and spat it out. Why?

The main reason, I would argue, is that Microsoft welcomed developers and Apple did not. Lots of developers. Big and small developers. Not just IBM and other "preferred developers". An ecosystem was born, and the rest is history.

This is Apple's chance to screw it alll up again.

They didn't stop selling computers... they just started making phones. I would also like to mention that when Apple released the iPhone, Steve Jobs never called it a smart phone. He just questioned why other phones were called smart.

There are a lot of phones that you can't put squat on without purchasing. I had sprint with many a phone (smart and dumb) and they don't even compare. I don't care how much stuff you put on the phone.

Plus 23 years ago, the government didn't know anything about technology or the monopoly Microsoft was creating. Technology was run like the wild west. If all of the things that happened back 20+ years ago, happened today. A company like Microsoft wouldn't even exist.

donlphi
Oct 4, 2007, 05:22 PM
Not allowing 3rd party developers to provide applications for the iPhone doesn't make it more secure. In fact, people who exploit security holes know exactly how to deal with the lack of an API documentation or Apple's feeble attempts to lock the iPhone. Apple is only scaring off people who develop commercial software, and that makes the iPhone a less interesting platform for users. For example, there won't be Skype (or fring) for the iPhone, an application that I don't want to miss (it's running perfectly fine on my "swiss cheese gaping hole security malestrom" Windows Mobile phone).

Adding 3rd Party Apps increases security? If 3rd party apps can be made by anybody, how could you say that they are more or less secure. You don't even know what the app is or what it is supposed to do. You must just assume everybody is living in a "happy hacker" world contributing to society. Couldn't somebody create a malicious 3rd Party App? If it can be done over the internet, I would think a 3rd party app could really wreak havoc.

I'm not saying 3rd party apps are a bad thing. I'm just saying they aren't the answer to every problem... if there is a problem.

EagerDragon
Oct 4, 2007, 05:48 PM
Not allowing 3rd party developers to provide applications for the iPhone doesn't make it more secure. In fact, people who exploit security holes know exactly how to deal with the lack of an API documentation or Apple's feeble attempts to lock the iPhone. Apple is only scaring off people who develop commercial software, and that makes the iPhone a less interesting platform for users. For example, there won't be Skype (or fring) for the iPhone, an application that I don't want to miss (it's running perfectly fine on my "swiss cheese gaping hole security malestrom" Windows Mobile phone).

The ability to unlock the iPhone and that allowed the 3rd party applications was caused by a security hole. This hole has been closed, making it impossible to use that avenue. Now they have to find a new one in order to break in again. How long that will take is hard to say, but Apple must be in full alert using the same tricks to locate other possible avanues and pluging them before the hackers find them.

Apple did not from the start intended on having a security hole that would allow people to break in.

I seen people in this site stating that is unfair that apple allowed and looked away at the begining therefore promoting for people to create more and interesting apps that now no longer work.

Even with no bricked phones, the changed was designed to close all known security issues, therefore preventing good and malicious codes from running on the iPhone.

The phone was meant to be closed to both applications and unlocking from the begining. Pleople found a crack in a glass window and punched it in to get inside. Apple kicked the intruders and replaced the window pane with a steel plate making it much harder.

I do not see anything wrong.

BTW, most people are not interested in hacking their phone, it is just the loud minority making all the fuzz.

Most people are happy with the apps that come on the phone and they are very smart ..... they vote with their wallets. Apparently they don't mind the restrictions since iPhones are flying out the store at records never seen before.

plumbingandtech
Oct 4, 2007, 06:02 PM
Thats what I think they should do.

Who agrees?

ME!

YAYAYAYAYAYYYYAAAA!!

(of course there will still be whiners, but hey. Nothing perfect. )

P.S.

Look for an enterprise version of this program in 6-9 months I betcha! For companies that want to install custom CRM apps etc. On their empolyees phones (and to standardize on the iphone.)

megfilmworks
Oct 4, 2007, 06:11 PM
I totally agree with this direction. While the complainers complain, Apple is getting down to business. I want 3rd party apps, but only the best, vetted and approved.

Chip NoVaMac
Oct 4, 2007, 06:15 PM
I am happy with 3rd party apps that MUST come from Apple thru iTMS, for example, rather than being able to buy anyone's app and install yourself. Apps that have to have Apple's blessings, will work and will not crash the system. Also means ATT and Apple won't have to deal with "my phone doesn't work anymore" issues, thus wasting their time and resources. Let's hope it's something like this. Of course, there will be many who still won't like it and that's just a case of the iPhone is not for them. For now....

I tend to agree with you. Apple seems to be a ready target for anyone with a lawyer. Given that a growing number of consumers have a cell phone as their only phone, myself included, it does make sense for Apple to want to make sure the phone portion is always available. Imagine the cry and lawsuits if a rouge app caused a 911 call not to go through....

The problem is who pays for the testing of the app? In particular for a programmer that just wants to provide a app for free, because it is helpful?

I still think that Apple is using the first iPhone as a testbed to gauge need and desires for the rumored PDA which could morph in to a more full featured iPhone - leaving the original iPhone as what it was intended to be, an iPod with phone and internet capabilities.

Random Ping
Oct 4, 2007, 06:26 PM
Apple's feeble attempts to lock the iPhone.

I think this last attempt is less feeble.

Hopstretch
Oct 4, 2007, 06:33 PM
I want 3rd party apps, but only the best, vetted and approved.
Sadly, you're unlikely to get everything you want, then. As the people on this thread who actually have Sidekicks (remember, that's where we started this whole cat fight) have noted several times, the "gatekeeper" model of application development hasn't been very successful in actually producing useful software for that platform.

A simple analogy here is the free market (with the usual provisos) versus the classic centrally-planned economy. Forward the glorious five-year plan to bring further useful functionality to the iPhone! Develop wider the mighty Stakhanovite device! All bow to the wisdom of the Central Committee!

megfilmworks
Oct 4, 2007, 07:02 PM
I would be happy with iwork apps. I don't need anything else. It's a phone. I own a laptop. Otherwise I liked your post.

elmimmo
Oct 4, 2007, 07:27 PM
The site also suggests that Apple will continue to thwart efforts for user-installation of 3rd party apps to reduce piracy concerns.

Duh! What is this crap? To avoid piracy of applications, we do not allow having applications to start withÖ

And what about this gem from the article Apple, learning about the devastating effects of pirating from its first hand experience in the music and film industry and their own OS/applications, does not want this to happen. Yes, and that's why they decided to dump DRM (to an extent). And Apple certainly seems to be suffering from devastating effects of all its soulless Mac users who only want to keep installing apps in their computers (some people even pay for themÖ).

Stella
Oct 4, 2007, 07:35 PM
There's been enough posts on the subject of ringtones, but to reiterate, why can't the user upload ringtones freely under the following conditions:
1. The user has previously paid for ringtones ( used on their previous phone)
2. The user is a musician and has created their own rington
3. Free ringtones ( not ripped, but really, free given away by the author )

Apple sales of iPhone is minute compared to the likes of SE, Nokia, Motorola et al. You don't see RIAA preventing these other companies from shipping ring tone editors, stopping the uploading of ringtones on their phones. Why should it be any different to Apple? Answer: Its not, as purely an Apple revenue stream.

Free software... You can do better than that.

Why not? Do you not understand the concept of opensource or even free software? If people want to develop applications for iPhone, why should they not be allowed to? Apple are shooting themselves in the foot by being so controlling, every smartphone OS ( and we'll call mobile - OSX a smartphone OS, just for now ) thrive on 3rd party development and encouraged. The benefits of 3rd party devs is very well known and appreciated.. Oh, apart from Apple.

Why should Apple stop them Applications do not have to be vetted? This is a sure sign of the complete and utter weakness of mobile OSX.

Where would Apple be without the opensource community? We wouldn't be using OSX as we see it today, neither the iPhone, Safari etc etc.

If people don't want 3rd party applications, they don't have to load them on their iPhone.

Apple is using the iPhone to squeeze as much $$ out of its customers as possible.. by charging for absolutely everything.

If microsoft had released the iPhone with the same conditions, this forum would be screaming bloody murder.


Stella: Your signature (68030) indicates you should be old enough to know better than to call every single charge you *might* have to pay "Greed, greed, greed". The record industry requires that Apple collect individually for each ring tone, and surely you post often enough to have seen that assertion before. Bitch to the record labels, not Apple. Or maybe they should have some sort of Kumbaya moment and just give everything away because the universe wants them to...

Second, why should everything be free? Do you have a job? Do you collect a salary for your work? Are *you* being greedy then, getting compensation for your services? OR do you receive what is fair for what you provide? If Apple has to vet every application not only interacting with the Apple software/hardware but also for playing nice with every other vetted application, and handle the hosting, billing and distribution, and carry the load of warranty service on wrecked phones, why are they not entitled to compensation of a few dollars? Get real.

Stella
Oct 4, 2007, 07:50 PM
If this is the case, then why aren't Symbian, RIM, Palm et al worried about this situation and prevent 3rd party apps on their OSes?

EDIT: Maybe Apple should be also worried that a 911 call may fail because iPhone switches off due to a faulty battery...

Imagine the cry and lawsuits if a rouge app caused a 911 call not to go through....


Your probably spot on, on this point.


I still think that Apple is using the first iPhone as a testbed to gauge need and desires for the rumored PDA which could morph in to a more full featured iPhone - leaving the original iPhone as what it was intended to be, an iPod with phone and internet capabilities.

donlphi
Oct 4, 2007, 08:12 PM
There's been enough posts on the subject of ringtones, but to reiterate, why can't the user upload ringtones freely under the following conditions:
1. The user has previously paid for ringtones ( used on their previous phone)
2. The user is a musician and has created their own rington
3. Free ringtones ( not ripped, but really, free given away by the author )


I agree 100% with this, but unfortunately if you allow garageband to make ringtones, you could drop an mp3 into the program and export it as a ringtone. I'm still convinced the free ringtone work around isn't dead yet.

I think it's ridiculous that iTunes charges ME to make a ringtone. I understand that they are giving me the choice to put my favorite part of the song in it, but that isn't right. Charge me for something YOU make and distribute, not something I have to sit over and edit.

That would be like Apple charging you to cut and paste in Safari from websites with copyrighted materials like quotes or poetry.

megfilmworks
Oct 4, 2007, 08:29 PM
I don't think Apple believes you do not have the right to use your own songs and recordings as ringtones, it just will take time (if it can be done) to figure a way to do it that would not allow some users to exploit it for their own gain. Again the masses suffer because of a small group of hackers.

zorinlynx
Oct 4, 2007, 08:32 PM
I wonder if they'd let an SSH client through.

An SSH client is one of the big dealbreakers for me. I love being able to SSH from my Treo to various systems I run. From there I can IRC, MU*, and do basic system administration. It really does rock.

The downside is an SSH client doesn't sound like something that'd be "mainstream" enough for Apple to make available like this.

Sigh...

/dev/toaster
Oct 4, 2007, 08:40 PM
The ringtone issue is another reason I can NOT upgrade to 1.1.1 The sound they used for SMS messages is FAR too low and there is no way to change what it is. I do an oncall rotation, and monthly I am expected to respond to SMS alerts from our monitors. (24/7 during that week)

Beyond that, the way Apple is dealing with ringtones in general is very silly and really angers me.

Due to 1.1.1 ... its only a question of time before I am royally screwed by Apple. God forbid I have a problem with my phone, and its replaced with a 1.1.1 phone ... Apple then puts my job in jeopardy since I can't change the SMS ring tone. The other big fear is if they force 1.1.1 on people.

Apple has done a great job with their computers, OS X (I love Leopard), the AppleTV, iPods, etc. But, I am really embarrassed now to be an iPhone user / owner.

megfilmworks
Oct 4, 2007, 08:52 PM
The ringtone issue is another reason I can NOT upgrade to 1.1.1 The sound they used for SMS messages is FAR too low and there is no way to change what it is. I do an oncall rotation, and monthly I am expected to respond to SMS alerts from our monitors. (24/7 during that week)

Apple has done a great job with their computers, OS X (I love Leopard), the AppleTV, iPods, etc. But, I am really embarrassed now to be an iPhone user / owner.
That's a problem. I would not use the iPhone in that case. Embarrassing? Maybe picking the wrong tool for the job? Don't blame the iPhone. It makes a lousy garage door opener too! :)

/dev/toaster
Oct 4, 2007, 09:32 PM
That's a problem. I would not use the iPhone in that case. Embarrassing? Maybe picking the wrong tool for the job? Don't blame the iPhone. It makes a lousy garage door opener too! :)

Not at all ...

1) No information on ringtones was available prior to purchase
2) I can't even begin to think of the last phone I owned that *didn't* allow me to change the alert tone. (Calendar, alarm, SMS, etc) Let me make note that I have also own a *LOT* of phones. Sometimes upgrading a few times a year.
3) A method was found for users to put custom ring tones on, Apple figured it was time to screw users and remove that. (v1.1.1)
4) Apple introduced their own service, but still failed to introduce a way to change the tone for something other then the phone.

EagerDragon
Oct 4, 2007, 09:57 PM
There's been enough posts on the subject of ringtones, but to reiterate, why can't the user upload ringtones freely under the following conditions:
1. The user has previously paid for ringtones ( used on their previous phone)
2. The user is a musician and has created their own rington
3. Free ringtones ( not ripped, but really, free given away by the author )

Apple sales of iPhone is minute compared to the likes of SE, Nokia, Motorola et al. You don't see RIAA preventing these other companies from shipping ring tone editors, stopping the uploading of ringtones on their phones. Why should it be any different to Apple? Answer: Its not, as purely an Apple revenue stream.

Free software... You can do better than that.

Why not? Do you not understand the concept of opensource or even free software? If people want to develop applications for iPhone, why should they not be allowed to? Apple are shooting themselves in the foot by being so controlling, every smartphone OS ( and we'll call mobile - OSX a smartphone OS, just for now ) thrive on 3rd party development and encouraged. The benefits of 3rd party devs is very well known and appreciated.. Oh, apart from Apple.

Why should Apple stop them Applications do not have to be vetted? This is a sure sign of the complete and utter weakness of mobile OSX.

Where would Apple be without the opensource community? We wouldn't be using OSX as we see it today, neither the iPhone, Safari etc etc.

If people don't want 3rd party applications, they don't have to load them on their iPhone.

Apple is using the iPhone to squeeze as much $$ out of its customers as possible.. by charging for absolutely everything.

If microsoft had released the iPhone with the same conditions, this forum would be screaming bloody murder.

Why can't they download ring tones?
Because it does not fit Apple business plan, as such they decided not to allow it.

Are you saying that Apple is being run by a bunch of morons that do not know how to run a business?

Maybe you can buy a controlling interest and run the company instead.

We need to stop being back seat drivers and let the driver drive or get off the car if we don't trust him.

/dev/toaster
Oct 4, 2007, 10:02 PM
Why can't they download ring tones?
Because it does not fit Apple business plan, as such they decided not to allow it.

Happy customers aren't in the business plan ?

Are you saying that Apple is being run by a bunch of morons that do not know how to run a business?

No, but I really wonder how much crack cocaine they were smoking the night before.

Cold-1
Oct 5, 2007, 01:01 AM
@Hopstretch: I totally agree.
The main problem with this "control mechanism" is that Apple not only desides what application is passing through technical wise but also political wise. E.g. you will never see a VOIP application, no matter how rock solid it would be. Neither will there be an application that doesn't fit into Apples business plans.
In my oppinion, it's a toothless tiger to keep the customers happy.

grappler
Oct 5, 2007, 01:40 AM
This is a step in the right direction.

I hope Apple plays this up because they need some good publicity for a change. This iPhone bricking thing has tarnished their reputation a bit in the eye of the general public as well as with some of its best customers.

By the way, a dead iPhone is much too thin to be called a brick - it's more like a tile :)

They need some good publicity? Right now I don't think they deserve good publicity. In fact, my hope is that some bad publicity will put them back on the right path.

I've liked Apple for a long time, and I still want to like them. Sadly, it's getting pretty hard with this whole 3rd party apps thing.

grappler
Oct 5, 2007, 02:24 AM
Those require you to be on Safari the whole time. It'd be great if there was a separate app that would notify you every time you'd get an IM, without needing to go through Safari, kind of like the Text client there is right now.

Yeah, in fact if you're connecting to EDGE through Safari you can't recieve a phone call. It doesn't even TELL you there's an incoming phone call.

peharri
Oct 5, 2007, 03:06 AM
I totally agree with this direction. While the complainers complain, Apple is getting down to business. I want 3rd party apps, but only the best, vetted and approved.

Yeah, I don't want applications to mysteriously appear on my phone or computers either.

But the complaints, FWIW, are not that they're against software being the best, vetted, and approved; they're that Apple, rather than the iPhone users, are going to be the people making those judgments.

Honestly, I'm amazed anyone here thinks this is a good idea. And to the person who asked whether we should "hate" T-Mobile for doing something similar to the Sidekick: No, we shouldn't, because T-Mobile isn't running around bricking opened Sidekicks (which is what the dislike for Apple is about); but likewise there's a reason why this committed T-Mobile user who has owned a variety of real smartphones over the last few decades, including the granddaddy of them all, the Nokia 9000, will not touch the Sidekick with a ten foot pole. And why I certainly don't agree with those who categorize it as a Smartphone.

In any case, I really don't believe this is what Apple intends to do except with a small number of applications that have to have low level access to the platform. The talk of expanding the Webkit/Javascript SDK to include better access to the phone's features and off-line capabilities strikes me as just a tad more probable. There's little downside to Apple doing that. But, again, after seeing Apple roll out the 1.1.1 update, there's no risk I'll ever get an Apple product in the future.

roman1
Oct 5, 2007, 04:37 AM
How about Apple deciding about the HTML code to be displayed in the Safari browser on your iPhone. Believe me, no matter how many advantages there may be for control, free and open is the only way to progress. I know this is an extreme example, but quite valid. Would you want to send your HTML to Apple first to get a permission to display it on your iPhone?

Peace,
Roman

jhande
Oct 5, 2007, 04:37 AM
I wonder if they'd let an SSH client through.

An SSH client is one of the big dealbreakers for me. I love being able to SSH from my Treo to various systems I run. From there I can IRC, MU*, and do basic system administration. It really does rock.

The downside is an SSH client doesn't sound like something that'd be "mainstream" enough for Apple to make available like this.

Sigh...

Precisely. While my Treo 650 is getting long in the tooth, I have SSH access to *everything* no matter where I am. Yeah the screen/keyboard is cramped, but it sure saved my butt when clients had a problem and I was on a canalboat in Amsterdam.

EagerDragon
Oct 5, 2007, 04:41 AM
Happy customers aren't in the business plan ?



No, but I really wonder how much crack cocaine they were smoking the night before.

LOL, best post I read in a while.

plasmacutter
Oct 5, 2007, 08:49 AM
One thing iPhone has going for it is OS X. If Apple can bring the power of Xcode and Cocoa to the development process, individuals and very small teams can bring very powerful applications to the iPhone.

I think to really make this approach work, however, Apple needs to sell a developer key (e.g., maybe part of the Select ADC membership) that would allow ADC members to develop and install iPhone applications on their own phones (but not for general distribution). Once they get it something truly useful, then they can take it to Apple for the vetting and placement on iTunes.

A good model for this might be Microsoft's Creator Club (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/xna/bb219592.aspx) for XNA (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/xna/default.aspx) for the 360.

Astroturfer Ahoy! Every Single Post you have made to this thread has sycophantically lauded the idea of shackling consumers with onerous drm "to protect them from themselves". This argument about insuring stability is fallacy in the highest, and here is an example which, in the case of iphone, lights this straw man thoroughly ablaze:
---I suppose since their phone runs os X, you would be perfectly happy applying this argument of yours to apple computers too? after all if we can muck up a phone with unstable applications surely a computer would be far worse. Maybe apple should require signing and vetting for all mac software? After all, that same money is "wasted" doing support and debugging for 3rd party causes on osX on pc's as it was on iphones running openly produced third party apps.


Enough!, You know who can insure the stability on your machine? YOU CAN! You can remove any suspected application at your discression rather than at the discression of some invasive power hungry executive at apple.

To people desiring real flexibility XNA is a spit in the face more than anything else. Just like sony's ps3 linux, it:

A - Gives no real priviledges to the developers so far as actually taking advantage of its graphics capabilities
B - Charges people monthly fees for what otherwise would be an open developer environment
C - (related to A) Prevents any applications which would compete with microsoft from making it to your machine
D - Forces anyone interested in doing what they want with their machine to pay a monthly microsoft tax.

The only reason XNA exists is to enable microsoft to be utterly hypocritical about their stance on piracy and make money at other people's expense.

It is the same with Apple. My long time use of their computing platform does not blind me to their indiscressions, and I'm sure people who are not paid by a corporate master to astroturf this forum agree with me.

This outing of an astroturfer has been brought to you by:
www.againsttcpa.com/what-is-tcpa.html

megfilmworks
Oct 5, 2007, 09:16 AM
Not at all ...

1) No information on ringtones was available prior to purchase
2) I can't even begin to think of the last phone I owned that *didn't* allow me to change the alert tone. (Calendar, alarm, SMS, etc) Let me make note that I have also own a *LOT* of phones. Sometimes upgrading a few times a year.
3) A method was found for users to put custom ring tones on, Apple figured it was time to screw users and remove that. (v1.1.1)
4) Apple introduced their own service, but still failed to introduce a way to change the tone for something other then the phone.
Why did you keep the phone?? That's why there is a refund period for users who find the product does not fit their needs. Take personal responsibility!

gingerbreadboy
Oct 5, 2007, 09:25 AM
Yeah, in fact if you're connecting to EDGE through Safari you can't recieve a phone call. It doesn't even TELL you there's an incoming phone call.

Yes you can. This works on mine and my friend's iPhone. What you can't do, is access EDGE while making a call.

Ovs
Oct 5, 2007, 09:30 AM
Well said plasmacutter.

No one in their right mind would want or need the same level of strict Apple control over their computer applications. So why do the apologists think itís a good thing for Apple to vet iPhone apps? It makes no sense.

This is not for our benefit. It's not for security or any other rubbish excuse. It's all about money.

Noren
Oct 5, 2007, 09:59 AM
As a software developer, I believe this is a good compromise between openness and safety. I know Apple's "security and stability" defense has received a lot criticism, but for something as important as a communication device which could literally mean life or death I think it is warranted. With this approach I would be able to focus entirely on writing quality software for the iPhone and let Apple handle payment and distribution.

To all the naysayers who claim this puts Apple in the same boat as Verizon, I would remind you that Apple has never said that all applications would be pay only. It is very possible that Apple could post a freeware section. I equate this decision to how Apple manages the Downloads (apple.com/downloads) portion of their website. There are some pay applications and there are some free applications and you can pick whichever you want. Only in this situation, all of the unstable applications are weeded out.

Nothing is final yet, so let's hold off on the sky is falling claims, ok? :o

grappler
Oct 5, 2007, 11:44 AM
Yes you can. This works on mine and my friend's iPhone. What you can't do, is access EDGE while making a call.

Really? Because I just tried it on mine, and if it is actively loading a page, incoming calls go to voicemail without my phone ringing. If the page finishes loading while the other party still hears ringing, *then* you'll see a "network interruption" message and have an opportunity to answer.

usarioclave
Oct 5, 2007, 12:50 PM
One problem with this system is simple: lots of neat apps won't be available, because the barrier to entry (apple certificaton) is high. Who's going to be able to write the obligatory car maintenance application for the iPhone now?

OTOH, that may be good, given the amount of crud software there is out there for phones.

What about third-party internal apps for verticals?

grappler
Oct 5, 2007, 01:06 PM
One problem with this system is simple: lots of neat apps won't be available, because the barrier to entry (apple certificaton) is high. Who's going to be able to write the obligatory car maintenance application for the iPhone now?

OTOH, that may be good, given the amount of crud software there is out there for phones.

What about third-party internal apps for verticals?

I'm working on an application right now that has a mobile component. An iPhone would be ideal for what we're building, but with no SDK and this new lockdown by Apple, we can't exactly go that direction.

Who the hell do they think they are over at Apple? We, collectively, are the Customers. Within a year or so, there WILL be an open mobile touchscreen platform with lots of third party development because we, the Customers, demand it. Whether Apple is a leader in that new market remains an open question.

Dragonmaster Lo
Oct 5, 2007, 01:21 PM
Who the hell do they think they are over at Apple? We, collectively, are the Customers. Within a year or so, there WILL be an open mobile touchscreen platform with lots of third party development because we, the Customers, demand it. Whether Apple is a leader in that new market remains an open question.

I agree completely, and I may actually end up going that route once I feel like my iPhone has gone flaky or is time for an upgrade, assuming Apple doesn't provide a reasonable policy towards opening up the iPhone for app development (and by reasonable I mean no app "censorship" based on function as opposed to quality and that developers are allowed to offer free applications through whatever method Apple deems is acceptable to distribute apps).

Don't get me wrong, my iPhone is overall a better phone than my much more basic Nokia. Its iPod capabilities also help soften the blow of whatever crippling they've done on the "other side" as it comes down to a 8G iPod touch combined with a $100 phone (if you got it after the price drop like I did). $100 for a phone with the iPhone's base capabilities isn't too unreasonable, but for a little bit more you can get (ignoring UI differences) a Blackberry, Windows Mobile Phone, Palm, etc., with sometimes superior phone/PDA capabilities and with open development. Hell, my aforementioned Nokia in some ways was a better phone than my iPhone in everything but the UI -- it had AIM instant messaging, arbitrary ring tone support, full bluetooth support, a voice recorder, etc., almost all of which have been made available by way of 3rd party apps on the iPhone.

Right now, I can't say I'm too disappointed in my iPhone, but I'm mostly happy with its iPod capabilities and the fact I don't have to lug multiple devices around to accomplish all that it does. However, if a much more open product comes around without the iPhone's baggage and with a comparable UI and music player capabilities, I'd drop my iPhone in a heartbeat, budget permitting.

diamond.g
Oct 5, 2007, 02:38 PM
To people desiring real flexibility XNA is a spit in the face more than anything else. Just like sony's ps3 linux, it:

A - Gives no real priviledges to the developers so far as actually taking advantage of its graphics capabilities
Well doesn't that make sense? I mean if you create a real game you have to pay Sony/Microsoft to for a license anyways. Now you dont' have to, but you also dont get access to all the hardware.

B - Charges people monthly fees for what otherwise would be an open developer environment
hmm, developing on a console isn't an open environment (unless you own your own business and are able to rent the dev stations)

C - (related to A) Prevents any applications which would compete with microsoft from making it to your machine
AFAIK XNA games aren't sold commercially, and if they were they would still have to be vetted just like any other game they license.

D - Forces anyone interested in doing what they want with their machine to pay a monthly microsoft tax.

Well if you can hack the 360 to run unsigned code, then I guess you don't have to pay them ;). BTW, XNA is 99 a year which I think is the same as a student ADC membership.

The only reason XNA exists is to enable microsoft to be utterly hypocritical about their stance on piracy and make money at other people's expense.

Or to allow people that don't work in the industry with access to a dev box be able to dabble in making games for the 360.

On the PS3? Well Linux runs in nongame os mode, under the hypervisor as a means of security. Otherwise Blu-Ray would have been broken a loooong time ago (note dumping of BR discs happened via the PS3 first).

megfilmworks
Oct 5, 2007, 05:25 PM
Who the hell do they think they are over at Apple? We, collectively, are the Customers. Within a year or so, there WILL be an open mobile touchscreen platform with lots of third party development because we, the Customers, demand it. Whether Apple is a leader in that new market remains an open question.
Hopefully this iPhone killer will come out very soon so we can say goodbye to the complainers who probably are shills for MS.

Dragonmaster Lo
Oct 5, 2007, 06:50 PM
Hopefully this iPhone killer will come out very soon so we can say goodbye to the complainers who probably are shills for MS.

Shill for MS? Not likely. I hardly ever use Windows -- I'm all Mac and Linux.

grappler
Oct 5, 2007, 07:00 PM
Hopefully this iPhone killer will come out very soon so we can say goodbye to the complainers who probably are shills for MS.

Hmmm, I suppose there isn't anything I could say that would convince you that I'm not a shill for MS.

Nonetheless, if I had a .sig like a lot of you people, it would look something like this:

17" Macbook Pro merom, 30" Cinema Display, 8GB iPhone, 60GB iPod, 4GB nano+nike


I made the switch to Apple computers entirely in the last year, because I had such a favorable impression of them. I want their platform to succeed and produce a thriving development ecosystem, both on the mac and the iPhone. I want to still like them a year from now. I'm speaking up because I care. I've already spent a lot on their products and nobody wants buyer's remorse!

plasmacutter
Oct 6, 2007, 01:58 AM
Well doesn't that make sense? I mean if you create a real game you have to pay Sony/Microsoft to for a license anyways. Now you dont' have to, but you also dont get access to all the hardware.

Companies should not have the right to assert ownership of my hardware after they have sold it to me
They are not entitled to make other people pay them for the right create intellectual property, who do they think they are king george? are we really back to the days where the aristocracy get to dictate who can and cannot express themselves on a given medium?

as for games, take off your blinders! not everything that runs on a game console has to be a game..
Have you ever heard of xbox media center? It's not a game, and it does require access to all the hardware.




hmm, developing on a console isn't an open environment (unless you own your own business and are able to rent the dev stations)

This is like responding to accusations of school segregation by proclaiming racism is an institution (with the implicit implication it's somehow 'ok'). Consoles are not leased, they are sold and people deserve the right to do what they want with their own hardware.


AFAIK XNA games aren't sold commercially, and if they were they would still have to be vetted just like any other game they license.

what exactly do you call charging 99 dollars a year to the public for a product if not "sold commercially"? what's worse is theyre charging people for free apps they dont even create!


Well if you can hack the 360 to run unsigned code, then I guess you don't have to pay them ;). BTW, XNA is 99 a year which I think is the same as a student ADC membership.
And if the united states forced these companies to respect our individual right to property we wouldnt have to. Further, the 360 was hacked to run unsigned code, microsoft responded by remotely breaking (as in PHYSICALLY BREAKING) part of the rom chips to prevent downgrading to that firmware. If you apply this same mentality to homes, I'd be able to fire bomb one of your rooms 3 years after selling you the house because I didn't like the fact you were using a nursery as a home office.

The similarity between XNA's price and student ADC price is irrelevant, theyre charging the people who work hard to produce free applications for the ability to publish them, then taking their creations and charging other people who would otherwise get them for free, making money off other people's creations both coming and going. They are worse than chinese pirates they purportedly hate so much!


Or to allow people that don't work in the industry with access to a dev box be able to dabble in making games for the 360.

my how generous of them, let's apply this to every other industry shall we? weld the hood on your car shut then make you pay 99 bucks a year for the "priviledge" of being able to change your own oil.
cover all work surfaces in your kitchen and charge you 99 bucks a year for the "priviledge" of being able to prepare your own food.
if they leased the consoles instead of selling them they might have a leg to stand on, the same is true for iphone.

Actions like this are an erosion of basic consumer and human liberty.

On the PS3? Well Linux runs in nongame os mode, under the hypervisor as a means of security. Otherwise Blu-Ray would have been broken a loooong time ago (note dumping of BR discs happened via the PS3 first).
your ignorance is amusing, blu-ray WAS broken a lonoong time ago, and they got to the central keys allowing them to adapt to any "updates" to the aacs standard. The rips show up on pirate bay now and again, but are still limited to private trackers because the media is still relatively unpopular, and large filesizes require ratios to keep the torrents alive. Expect to see a lot more of these in the future.

Billy Boo Bob
Oct 6, 2007, 06:05 AM
User's choice of "Software Permissions" (for lack of a better term at the moment, and not to be confused with UNIX permissions). Restricted or Unrestricted.

Restricted: Only apps approved by Apple and distributed through iTunes are capable of running on the phone.
Unrestricted: Any 3rd party apps are capable of running on the phone.

Restricted: All current liabilities that fall on Apple and/or Carrier still apply.
Unrestricted: User releases Apple and/or Carrier from liability in most situations.

Examples:

An application locks your phone or otherwise prevents you from dialing 911:
Restricted: Same as it would be now.
Unrestricted: Too bad.

An application goes haywire (or is actually malware) and causes your phone to: A) dial phone calls behind the scenes which runs out all of your minutes, or B) sends text messages without your knowledge, therefore running your text messages allotment dry – either one driving your bill up because of extra messages or talk minutes.
Restricted: Apple and/or Carrier refunds/corrects overcharge.
Unrestricted: Too bad.

An application leaves a heavy duty wifi/bluetooth/edge connection active and busy, therefore draining your battery in a couple hours or less (I had this happen, I think from leaving an SFTP/SSH connection going and forgot about it), possibly causing hardware damage due to excessive heat (my phone got REALLY hot there for a while).
Restricted: Apple replaces damaged units and/or refunds price of application.
Unrestricted: Too bad.

Basically anything that they say they're trying to protect us from (security and reliability).
Restricted: Apple replaces damaged units and/or refunds price of application. All current protections and liabilities apply.
Unrestricted: Too bad.

Before taking your phone to the Genius Bar with a problem:
Restricted: Do as you would now... Make appointment and bring it in.
Unrestricted: Depending on the problem, most hardware issues would still be covered... A 3rd party app is not likely to cause a screen to go bad, for instance. After reporting the issue (scheduling your Genius Bar appointment), you must restore your phone to factory default to evaluate if the problem still exists, and depending on the issue (battery drain, phone won't call out, WiFi dies, whatever), you must run as factory default (or as Restricted) for a given time to make sure the problem still exists. Most Genius Bar appointments will be well enough in the future to evaluate.

Apple could then lock this "permissions key" down tight (gotta prevent hacking this one) and have it controlled through iTunes, so they know your permission settings at any given time in order to prevent false claims.

Those who like the idea of vetted and approved apps can feel comfortable with their (current) complete warranty and protections intact.

Those who want to be able to "put anything under the sun" on their phone will be happy, too (unless Apple wants to charge an arm and a leg for this "unlock"), with the understanding (and agreement) that you use public 3rd party apps at your own risk.

Apple and/or Carrier have their butts covered if some rogue or malicious 3rd party app messes up the software or hardware, prevents a 911 call, increases billing, or any of a number of their "concerns".

There! Everybody's happy.!.! :p

diamond.g
Oct 7, 2007, 07:02 AM
Companies should not have the right to assert ownership of my hardware after they have sold it to me
They are not entitled to make other people pay them for the right create intellectual property, who do they think they are king george? are we really back to the days where the aristocracy get to dictate who can and cannot express themselves on a given medium?
I understand you own the hardware but MS/Apple owns the software and can brick your stuff freely if you chose to run their update.

as for games, take off your blinders! not everything that runs on a game console has to be a game..
Have you ever heard of xbox media center? It's not a game, and it does require access to all the hardware.

Are you talking about the OG Xbox or the 360? Cause the OG Xbox was a hack that MS "fixed".

This is like responding to accusations of school segregation by proclaiming racism is an institution (with the implicit implication it's somehow 'ok'). Consoles are not leased, they are sold and people deserve the right to do what they want with their own hardware.

And you are fully within your right to hack the hardware. Doesn't mean the manufaturer that owns the software has to support your actions.

what exactly do you call charging 99 dollars a year to the public for a product if not "sold commercially"? what's worse is theyre charging people for free apps they dont even create!

Um what are you talking about? I said that the games made through XNA aren't sold commercially. That is waaaay different than charging for XNA itself. Apple doesn't give away the keys to their system for free either.

And if the united states forced these companies to respect our individual right to property we wouldnt have to. Further, the 360 was hacked to run unsigned code, microsoft responded by remotely breaking (as in PHYSICALLY BREAKING) part of the rom chips to prevent downgrading to that firmware. If you apply this same mentality to homes, I'd be able to fire bomb one of your rooms 3 years after selling you the house because I didn't like the fact you were using a nursery as a home office.

Yup MS broke the hacked 360's just like Apple broke the hacked iPhones. Now whose fault is it for updating the now broken hardware?

your ignorance is amusing, blu-ray WAS broken a lonoong time ago, and they got to the central keys allowing them to adapt to any "updates" to the aacs standard. The rips show up on pirate bay now and again, but are still limited to private trackers because the media is still relatively unpopular, and large filesizes require ratios to keep the torrents alive. Expect to see a lot more of these in the future.
It was broken using the PS3, yes I know that. They used the PS3 to dump the contents of the disc onto the hard drive. From there they ftp'ed the contents off the drive. They didn't have access to the hardware on the PS3 that would have allowed them to break the DRM earlier than they did.

wizard
Oct 9, 2007, 02:38 AM
it seems like every iPhone rumor makes things like the OpenMoko more appealing

This is very true. Frankly I was actually leaning towards an iPhone as the third party software movement was filling in a lot of loose ends. It wasn't a perfect solution by any means but certainly good enough for my needs. Then the update happened that so drastically smacked the developers.

OpenMoko, if it gets off the ground soon enough, represents exactly the opposite of the iPhone. It is a platform that can be configured to do what you need to get done. The big issue here will be the quality of the web experience on OpenMoko and the initial hardware.

That is mostly a question of available RAM on the initial device. Apparently there won't be enough RAM to run a full blown version of Firefox. Depending on the quality of the browser that is delivered it might be a problem.

dave

wizard
Oct 9, 2007, 03:14 AM
As a software developer, I believe this is a good compromise between openness and safety.

There are no absolutes when it comes to software safety. For this to be a valid concept you would have to believe that Apple could vet software with 100% certainty that it would work correctly on the phone.

In any event it is a total non issue as each customer is an individual and has different expectations of what his cell phone can do. In the case of or a smart phone the usage patterns will differ dramatically from one person to another. For many of us the actual cell component of the iPhone would have been a minor feature.


I know Apple's "security and stability" defense has received a lot criticism, but for something as important as a communication device which could literally mean life or death I think it is warranted.

Would you please cut the crap! There are so many issues with respect to the availability of service that that is not even a rational argument. Besides it is ALWAYS a mistake to give up freedom for security.


With this approach I would be able to focus entirely on writing quality software for the iPhone and let Apple handle payment and distribution.

For a commercial developer it would be a very good avenue for business development. So don't get me wrong, but I see a significant need for additional access. The iPhone would be an ideal platform for captive business software, the stuff that companies don't want distributed. If Apple doesn't see the business potential in its product (with custom software) then they are completely blind.

Then there is the segment of society that simply doesn't want to go commercial, for any number of reasons. Any number of useful but maybe not commercially viable apps exist and could find a home on the iPhone. The biggest example here being the terminal apps and the unix utilities.


To all the naysayers who claim this puts Apple in the same boat as Verizon, I would remind you that Apple has never said that all applications would be pay only. It is very possible that Apple could post a freeware section. I equate this decision to how Apple manages the Downloads (apple.com/downloads) portion of their website.

This would be great if developers got unrestricted access to the freeware section. The recent turn of events seems to indicate that this is not likely. If they did it looks like excessive restrictions would be in place.

There are some pay applications and there are some free applications and you can pick whichever you want. Only in this situation, all of the unstable applications are weeded out.

I have trouble with this idea of weeding out the unstable apps. I consider ECLIPSE to be unstable but that doesn't make it a useless app. Taking the Eclipse example farther there are parts of Eclipse that are very stable, so who is going to audit something like this and to what standards will it be held?

Now I know full well Eclipse won't be running on a Cell Phone this year and probably not next year either. But it highlights just what sort of metrics would Apple use and how likely are they to meld with the users needs. I just don't think a vetting program could be successful. What seems to be the successful approach is to get software out to users so that strange use cases can trigger bug reports leading to improved software.


Nothing is final yet, so let's hold off on the sky is falling claims, ok? :o

Well obviously we have different opinions on what is falling. As I see it Apple has a very short period of time before the arrival of truly open platforms. I don't see any indications that they get it with respect to user needs.

I'd love to be proven wrong. Apple could go a long way with the iPhone software by simply release a version of software that includes a Finder, disk mode, and a suite of Unix apps to down load. Heck if the software development environment was Python I'd be much happier than I am now.

I just think that it is a royal shame that so much potential is currently going to waste for really piss poor reasons.

Dave

wizard
Oct 9, 2007, 03:36 AM
Personally, I don't want it to become the swiss cheese gaping hole security malestrom like Windows has become because then I am affected. I mean, who really wants to run virus and rootkit scanners with every email attachment that arrives on a phone?

For one thing Apple doesn't have a history of building network apps with the holes in them that MS does. Many of the security breaches seen on MS systems aren't possibly on most Unix like systems due to differences in software implementation. There are very few if any Unix mail programs that are scriptable like Outlook for example.

Second; if the iphone becomes a big enough target there will be people attacking it no matter what apple does. The fact that Apple had much of the software running as root on the iPhone is a security risk in and of itself.

Third; OS/X has proven to be pretty secure up and till now. While Apples use of OS/X in the first few software releases was less than stellar, the potential is there for the same level of security. Many of the hackers developing for the iPhone are the same ones developing on Mac OS/X without problem.


No thanks, let's close this baby up and uphold the rock-solid security.

There is no such thing a rock solid security so we can dismiss that right away. If you want a closed up phone there is a simple answer to that stay out of the smart phone category. The problem is that Apple markets the iPhone as a smart phone but yet is taking measures to lock it down to the point it will be one of the dumbest phones on the market. When the iPhone is no better than a $10 phone how will they sell?

Dave

MikeDTyke
Oct 9, 2007, 08:28 AM
Gee there's a lotta anger on this thread.

Told myself not to get involved, but i seem not to have paid any heed.

Right, you're all venting about an unsubstantiated rumour, as if it's fact. Before anyone welcomes me to Macrumors, i'm talking about the people here that are bad mouthing apple as if they'd come round their house handcuffed the iphone to the wall and told them off for installing software using an unfinished api installed via a hack.

You are not children, Apple is not treating you like children, stop acting like little brats because you don't have everything you want like right now. That's it stop stamping your little feet in frustration.

If you want to do some rumouring, do it in a methodically thought out fashion. like so.

When asked why there's no sdk for the iPhone, Jobs is quoted as saying, we'll do it when we have a way to do it safely. Everyone assumes that means web 2.0 which is Apples currently supported (note that word) development strategy. It's an assumption that this is the end of it.

Apple's UI guideline doc, reinforces this with "Currently only web based apps are supported" (Can't find the exact reference, but it's the general gist).

I would lay money on the line that a sdk is in development and will be released at or post Leopard Go-Live. The SDK was most likely the last thing on the priority list, as iPhone was slipping from its release, Mac OS developers were pulled off it along with Leopard.

We also know now that the OS X 1.0 release compared to 1.1.1 is an unfinished hack job, most likely to have gotten iPhone out the door on time.
1.1.1 is closer to what it should have been back in June.

What do we know about 1.1.1, well for one thing, the security bugs that allowed 3rd party apps are now gone, You can't mount the filesystem to make changes whereever you like and the baseband firmware has been FIXED! (Emphasis on Fixed as that's for AT&T's benefit, not anyone elses).

I'll posit that there'll be 4 classes of application on the iPhone.
1 Apple written
2 Certified 3rd Party
3 Uncertfied 3rd party
4 widgets.

We have 1 & 4 already, though i think 4 will get enhanced capabilities, ie offline caching and optional icon on the springboard.
2. Are apps apple have commissioned companies to write for them & other developers have submitted for approval. These are apps that use the full spectrum of API's available on the iPhone, ie. have all the capabilities of 1. This is the rumour du jour and were a lot of knickers are in a twist because we know apps that Apple approve and deliver via iTunes will fit their and AT&T's business mindset.
3. This is were it gets interesting. I believe this is were the comment by one of the guys' working on the jailbreak for 1.1.1, "Everything is signed" proves relevant. I believe category 3 app's ie. unsigned apps will not be able to access certain api's, ie. those that might give unlimited access to the baseband modem. I noticed a screenshot were some apps were in a lockdown directory and others were not. Why go to the bother of segmenting applications like that, if you're not going to offer the option.
VOIP and maybe IM will not be tolerated by AT&T and i'm sure an element of the agreement between them & Apple is to not encumber the voice revenue stream with skype or an equiv.

Basically, to bottom line it all, i don't think we've seen the full picture, so before y'all go a hating, just remember this rumour < 1/2 the facts.

M. :D

pjh
Oct 9, 2007, 09:25 AM
Gee there's a lotta anger on this thread.

Told myself not to get involved, but i seem not to have paid any heed.

Right, you're all venting about an unsubstantiated rumour, as if it's fact. Before anyone welcomes me to Macrumors, i'm talking about the people here that are bad mouthing apple as if they'd come round their house handcuffed the iphone to the wall and told them off for installing software using an unfinished api installed via a hack.

You are not children, Apple is not treating you like children, stop acting like little brats because you don't have everything you want like right now. That's it stop stamping your little feet in frustration.

If you want to do some rumouring, do it in a methodically thought out fashion. like so.

When asked why there's no sdk for the iPhone, Jobs is quoted as saying, we'll do it when we have a way to do it safely. Everyone assumes that means web 2.0 which is Apples currently supported (note that word) development strategy. It's an assumption that this is the end of it.

Apple's UI guideline doc, reinforces this with "Currently only web based apps are supported" (Can't find the exact reference, but it's the general gist).

I would lay money on the line that a sdk is in development and will be released at or post Leopard Go-Live. The SDK was most likely the last thing on the priority list, as iPhone was slipping from its release, Mac OS developers were pulled off it along with Leopard.

We also know now that the OS X 1.0 release compared to 1.1.1 is an unfinished hack job, most likely to have gotten iPhone out the door on time.
1.1.1 is closer to what it should have been back in June.

What do we know about 1.1.1, well for one thing, the security bugs that allowed 3rd party apps are now gone, You can't mount the filesystem to make changes whereever you like and the baseband firmware has been FIXED! (Emphasis on Fixed as that's for AT&T's benefit, not anyone elses).

I'll posit that there'll be 4 classes of application on the iPhone.
1 Apple written
2 Certified 3rd Party
3 Uncertfied 3rd party
4 widgets.

We have 1 & 4 already, though i think 4 will get enhanced capabilities, ie offline caching and optional icon on the springboard.
2. Are apps apple have commissioned companies to write for them & other developers have submitted for approval. These are apps that use the full spectrum of API's available on the iPhone, ie. have all the capabilities of 1. This is the rumour du jour and were a lot of knickers are in a twist because we know apps that Apple approve and deliver via iTunes will fit their and AT&T's business mindset.
3. This is were it gets interesting. I believe this is were the comment by one of the guys' working on the jailbreak for 1.1.1, "Everything is signed" proves relevant. I believe category 3 app's ie. unsigned apps will not be able to access certain api's, ie. those that might give unlimited access to the baseband modem. I noticed a screenshot were some apps were in a lockdown directory and others were not. Why go to the bother of segmenting applications like that, if you're not going to offer the option.
VOIP and maybe IM will not be tolerated by AT&T and i'm sure an element of the agreement between them & Apple is to not encumber the voice revenue stream with skype or an equiv.

Basically, to bottom line it all, i don't think we've seen the full picture, so before y'all go a hating, just remember this rumour < 1/2 the facts.

M. :D


How dare you come into this thread and start polluting it with intelligent debate :)

Probably the most well written balanced and logical post I've seen in a long time, overall it made me feel quite ill.