PDA

View Full Version : Apple to Announce 3rd Party iPhone App Development?




MacRumors
Oct 11, 2007, 12:18 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Tidbits's Glenn Fleishman claims (http://db.tidbits.com/article/9230) that he has heard from a number of sources that Apple is nearing an announcement "of some sort" regarding 3rd party application development on the iPhone.

Details are unknown but the announcement is expected "soon" and perhaps as early as this week.
The bits and pieces I've heard are maddeningly non-specific: I don't know, for instance, whether a full software developer's kit (SDK) will be released; what tier of Apple Developer Connection (ADC) program member you need to be (if any); and how much of the innards would be unleashed. I don't even know whether Apple is announcing that a program is coming, or the program itself.

This news comes after a number of conflicting reports about Apple's plans for future iPhone application development. At the heart of the issue is a lack of an official developer's kit for the iPhone. Instead, Apple has advocated the use of Web-based "applications" based on Javascript. These Web-applications are very limited, however, and require the user to be internet-connected during their use.

Despite Apple's stance, an active (though unofficial) iPhone development community had sprung up and deployed a number of native applications (http://iphone.nullriver.com/beta/) for the iPhone. The latest 1.1.1 iPhone update, however, closed the door to these unofficial applications.

A recent a report (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/04/apples-3rd-party-iphone-application-plan/) from 9to5 suggested that Apple was planning on allowing certain 3rd party developers to launch native applications for the iPhone, but in a very restricted manner. Meanwhile, Arstechnica's sources (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/03/iphone-sdk-to-receive-improvements-remain-web-based/) have claimed that Apple intends to keep 3rd Party iPhone application development Web-based, but is planning on introducing significant improvements, such as off-line execution, and tighter integration to iPhone functionality. It's possible that the expected announcements could be related to these improvements.

Another possibility is that this announcement could simply be related to an expected iPhone WebApp Directory (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2007/10/10/official-iphone-ipod-touch-webapp-directory-coming/) that Apple appears to be compiling on their site.


Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/11/apple-to-announce-3rd-party-iphone-app-development/)



kanekane
Oct 11, 2007, 12:23 AM
does everyone think this would be applicable for the ipod touch???

chr1s60
Oct 11, 2007, 12:26 AM
So all that is really known is nothing, but there may be an announcement coming soon?

I would love some 3rd party apps, even if they have to be Apple approved. I think there is a lot of cool stuff that could be brought to iPhone and if I can use them and still have no possibility of my warranty being voided, great. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple announced something just to distract people from the fact that Leopard still has no official release date and we are 10 days into October. Either way, I am all for some sort of iPhone related announcement from Apple.

samh004
Oct 11, 2007, 12:29 AM
I reckon it will happen eventually, with a initial limited availability of third party apps, as more of a trial, before they open the doors further and further.

As much as Steve Jobs is set in his ways, he's not blind to the complaints from many customers over this issue I'm sure, and something will eventually see the light of day.

So all that is really known is nothing, but there may be an announcement coming soon?

It's a rumour and this is a rumour site, what do you expect :p

Moof1904
Oct 11, 2007, 12:31 AM
I don't see how the iPhone can truly succeed in the long term unless Apple opens up development, at least in a limited way.

jonessodarally
Oct 11, 2007, 12:31 AM
9to5 mac thinks 3rd party app. development is coming?
that's good enough for me.
why?
I'll tell you why.
because the fatty is real.:apple:


i don't know why they don't just use that as their site tagline.


"9to5 Mac: Because the fatty was real."
(i do see reasons not to use this tagline... before someone misses the joke)



on a serious note, though. I am ALL for this, even if it means there's a cost involved. Here's some reasons.

a) i don't want to risk bricking my phone. regardless of the legality of it.
b) i'm tired of fighting what is sometimes sub-par wifi service just to use an app or two.
c) i'll feel a lot safer using apps if they get the apple thumbs up.

naco
Oct 11, 2007, 12:40 AM
They are also going to be releasing the G5 PB...oh, and the existence of unicorns. :rolleyes:

People say a lot of things about what Apple is doing. But only Apples knows. What I want to know is how soon can it really be expected. I mean, their most recent update has been hacked already so whats stopping SJ from standing there going "One more thing" and then venting his frustration about people ruining what he and his engineers have made. The only solution for everyone is for Apple to actually say that they are going to be releasing the availability of 3rd party apps. It stops people from hacking the iPhone and it keeps Apple happy with SJ's micro-management ways. But all that goes down the poop chute if Apple plans on charging for them.

So, second solution: Make a iPhone Application Upload program download able from Apples download section of their website (Or even what would most likely happen is a addition to the iTunes program like their games) , and then add a Tab under the iPhone Tab for Applications. Free downloads of 3rd party applications, and then being able to manage how the applications show up on your iPhone (Like what order they are shown in). Simple really.

furious
Oct 11, 2007, 12:51 AM
When are they going to release it Australia? Who the hell cares about app development. Apple should be exhausting all resources so that I can HAVE an iPhone. :p

janitorC7
Oct 11, 2007, 12:51 AM
I don't see how the iPhone can truly succeed in the long term unless Apple opens up development, at least in a limited way.

I really am way in favor of apple being the one who releases 3rd party apps, though itunes would be great.

I just think that if done though apple, we will have some really good quality control. Remember that that is why mac run so much better, hardware and software, the quality control is amazing

aaronh3
Oct 11, 2007, 12:54 AM
i really think the ipod touch is a stop-gap, if there was a 60gig iphone, would you need anything else? :)

aswitcher
Oct 11, 2007, 01:05 AM
I really hope the touch gets the same treatment.

wilburdl
Oct 11, 2007, 01:16 AM
I just want Word and Flash. 2 very reputable companies. I don't think they'd want to maliciously harm the iPhone or bring down the AT&T network.

katanna
Oct 11, 2007, 01:24 AM
I say 40% chance of an open SDK with open distribution, 60% chance that distribution will be through iTunes.

I also say that they won't announce anything now; the new SDK will be for iPhone 2.0, which will be first announced in January.

Just my humble opinion.

Matthew

onionperson654
Oct 11, 2007, 01:55 AM
I think that this is sort of an eventual place to go (if not only because of the constant hacking) but I'd be a little suprised to see it right away (the novelty still makes apple sell plenty)

While a sdk could be in the works, I think more likely is development with select companies who could sell or give away there products. Itunes would likely be the distribution.

Personally, i really hope apple opens up the iphone, and i'm sure they'd include the touch, from which i just wrote this post (love two finger typing on this thing, already 25-30 WPM with very little practice)

weckart
Oct 11, 2007, 02:01 AM
Prediction:

You will be able to buy these from the iTunes store, however those people upgrading from the iPhone Classic to the new iPhone 2G will have to buy the new version ...yadayadayada

samh004
Oct 11, 2007, 02:21 AM
I just want Word and Flash. 2 very reputable companies. I don't think they'd want to maliciously harm the iPhone or bring down the AT&T network.

I don't think you'll get Microsoft developing for the iPhone, or you will and it'll take them 5 years to release their first beta. More likely is you'll get a portable version of iWork, possibly packaged with the computer retail version, and that will be able to open Word, Excel and powerpoint files, edit, and send them onwards.

Magnus Reftel
Oct 11, 2007, 03:04 AM
I also say that they won't announce anything now; the new SDK will be for iPhone 2.0, which will be first announced in January.

I agree. My guess is that they hold off an SDK until after they have switched the application CPU to Intel (see Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/10/03/future-iphones-may-feature-intel-processors)).

JPyre
Oct 11, 2007, 03:24 AM
They gotta get something, although I am enjoying NES.app on 1.1.1 right now, it took me all day to do, something alot of people are afraid to try. I'd be more than glad to buy little games for a doller, not ringtones, and I'm happy with the freeware stuff now, so i've donated, hopefully apple will allow these people to remain creative. Make it easy to submit and get approved for free or for sale. kill simunlocks and keep everybody happy.

emotion
Oct 11, 2007, 03:38 AM
I agree. My guess is that they hold off an SDK until after they have switched the application CPU to Intel (see Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/10/03/future-iphones-may-feature-intel-processors)).

Given the tattters that there current 'closed' strategy is in following the 1.1.1 jalbreak I think Apple's hand has been forced here. They can't wait until 2009 to open up these devices.

I do agree though the we may have to wait until 2009 for iphone 2.0. It's a lot further off than people think.
We'll see an upgrade to 16GB in the spring and maybe an announcement of version 2 in a year from now.

Hattig
Oct 11, 2007, 03:57 AM
I agree. My guess is that they hold off an SDK until after they have switched the application CPU to Intel (see Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/10/03/future-iphones-may-feature-intel-processors)).

Well we'll be waiting until 2012 then. ARM will be the best choice for a mobile phone, even of the iPhone's calibre, for quite a few years.

Ignore the Intel fans. Intel is a bit-player in the mobile arena (less so now it sold off XScale to Marvell), ARM and its licensees are the juggernaut with a lot of momentum. They're not standing still either, ARM aim to have 8x the power of the iPhone's CPU soon with their Cortex A8 cores (still with sub 0.5W max power use), and Intel will struggle to attain the same deep sleep and power saving abilities that ARM has.

Anyway, I'm sure that "OS X Mobile" can use fat binaries like current Mac OS X can.

emotion
Oct 11, 2007, 04:06 AM
Well we'll be waiting until 2012 then. ARM will be the best choice for a mobile phone, even of the iPhone's calibre, for quite a few years.

Ignore the Intel fans. Intel is a bit-player in the mobile arena (less so now it sold off XScale to Marvell), ARM and its licensees are the juggernaut with a lot of momentum. They're not standing still either, ARM aim to have 8x the power of the iPhone's CPU soon with their Cortex A8 cores (still with sub 0.5W max power use), and Intel will struggle to attain the same deep sleep and power saving abilities that ARM has.

Anyway, I'm sure that "OS X Mobile" can use fat binaries like current Mac OS X can.

All good points. Esp. the last one.

I think Intel may become bigger players but they are definitely playing catch-up here.

GregA2
Oct 11, 2007, 04:35 AM
I really am way in favor of apple being the one who releases 3rd party apps

If Apple releases it, it's not a 3rd party app. :p

Mackan
Oct 11, 2007, 05:20 AM
The most ultimately vague rumor ever on MacRumors?

jouster
Oct 11, 2007, 07:27 AM
Given the tattters that there current 'closed' strategy is in following the 1.1.1 jalbreak....

Their strategy is not in tatters. Most iPhoners could care less about jailbreak or SDKs.

Telp
Oct 11, 2007, 07:34 AM
great news if it is true. I can't wait for apple to post this now. One more reason to check back every five minutes.

clevin
Oct 11, 2007, 07:48 AM
I really am way in favor of apple being the one who releases 3rd party apps, though itunes would be great.

I just think that if done though apple, we will have some really good quality control. Remember that that is why mac run so much better, hardware and software, the quality control is amazingapple's hardware QC is worse than many pc makers.
aple's software strength isn't god neither, remember the security patch for safari for win 48 hrs after release?

I don't think you'll get Microsoft developing for the iPhone, or you will and it'll take them 5 years to release their first beta. More likely is you'll get a portable version of iWork, possibly packaged with the computer retail version, and that will be able to open Word, Excel and powerpoint files, edit, and send them onwards.
I don't think M$ has to be involved, palm has documents to go, which is produced by dataviz.

tripperharrison
Oct 11, 2007, 07:52 AM
I would love Apple's Dictionary on the iPhone, as well trying out some kind of book reader. I'm not sure if the screen's quite big enough, but if it worked, that would be huge, selling books on iTunes.

speakerwizard
Oct 11, 2007, 08:25 AM
"apple's hardware QC is worse than many pc makers."
nonsence

"apple's software strength isn't god neither, remember the security patch for safari for win 48 hrs after release?"

why is a security patch a bad thing? that was a 1st beta, fast patches are good.

JPark
Oct 11, 2007, 08:52 AM
With the amount of speculation involved, this story really should have been relegated to Page 2.

Zadillo
Oct 11, 2007, 08:53 AM
apple's hardware QC is worse than many pc makers.


Worse than "many" PC makers? Examples please?

Surely you're not talking about Lenovo (the company making ThinkPad X61 tablets where the glue keeping the bezel connected to the screen heats up and comes loose)?

Or Dell, whose XPSM1330 launch has been plagues with complaints (loud CPU whine, keyboard bulges, parts not fit together properly, bad screen issues), or the new Inspirons, which have also been the subject of tons of complaints about screen issues, etc.?

Or Sony, who STILL can't seem to make a laptop without a rattling loose battery?

Or Asus, who seems to have become incapable of making a laptop with better than 2-3 hours of battery life?

Yes, Apple isn't perfect, but to say their QC is worse than MANY PC makers? I don't buy it. I think the reality is that QC seems to be going down across the board; but I'd love to see you point out a company with better QC than Apple right now (I'm in the market for a PC laptop, but frankly every company is having some pretty serious problems with QC, even the trusted brands who used to really stand for quality).

JPark
Oct 11, 2007, 08:53 AM
Their strategy is not in tatters. Most iPhoners could care less about jailbreak or SDKs.

That's probably true: 51% or more don't care. But there is a very large minority that do care, and other Would-be iPhoners that care as well.

ghall
Oct 11, 2007, 08:55 AM
I don't know how many of you are aware of this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=363383) I posted a little while back.

cwolves
Oct 11, 2007, 08:55 AM
My bet is on this being a web SDK, which is fine, despite any shortcomings, on two conditions: That there is offline support (e.g. google gears) and that they add multi-touch support.

With these two simple things the iPhone / iPod touch suddenly has "native" apps. You can do -almost- anything on a website that you would want to use a PDA for, short of playing games, watching video or listening to music. It can be argued that video & music aren't needed anyway.

Their strategy is not in tatters. Most iPhoners could care less about jailbreak or SDKs.

This isn't true at all. Most iPhone users could care less about -using- a jailbreak or SDK, but that doesn't mean that they don't want to use the outcome of that: 3rd party apps.

kellygeorge
Oct 11, 2007, 09:10 AM
consider that "door to these unofficial applications" offically reopened.

sishaw
Oct 11, 2007, 09:11 AM
I don't see how the iPhone can truly succeed in the long term unless Apple opens up development, at least in a limited way.

I agree. By trying to lock down the iPhone in the name of stability, Apple has paradoxically made the situation worse as the only recourse now is hacking the phone.

Societal trends are toward open source and personalization of technology. Bucking the trends is just going to send your customers elsewhere.

iKwick7
Oct 11, 2007, 09:13 AM
I reckon it will happen eventually, with a initial limited availability of third party apps, as more of a trial, before they open the doors further and further.

As much as Steve Jobs is set in his ways, he's not blind to the complaints from many customers over this issue I'm sure, and something will eventually see the light of day.



It's a rumour and this is a rumour site, what do you expect :p

I also think it's also a matter of time- and through iTunes. All I really want are a few basic apps, ones that are already available on the hacked iPhone app installer.

I would gladly pay a few bucks on iTunes for an eBook reader and some other programs.

hayesk
Oct 11, 2007, 09:33 AM
apple's hardware QC is worse than many pc makers.


Apple's QC is rated the highest in the industry. As a Mac forum reader, you are too close to the mac community - you only read about Mac problems, yet there are much more PC problems - there's just no PC site that reports them all.

Anyway, back on topic - even local webapp execution with a some local datastorage would be good. Even if Apple tightly controlled the local storage - it would at least give developers the opportunity to do something.

plumbingandtech
Oct 11, 2007, 09:36 AM
very large minority

Like Jumbo Shrimp?

This is great news but I fear the whines when the first voip app is denied access to the itunes/iphone store.

Oh the whines we will hear.

guzhogi
Oct 11, 2007, 09:51 AM
I really hope Apple releases a real, full SDK. Web apps are nice, but not a complete replacement for native apps. I'll admit, I'd like Apple to take it's time to get all the bugs out of the OS & SDK first, but not waste time either. There are so many really great developers out there who don't work @ Apple.

DaBrain
Oct 11, 2007, 09:57 AM
With the amount of speculation involved, this story really should have been relegated to Page 2.

Not if it's about the iPhone! Don't ya know it takes precedence! :rolleyes:

Island Dog
Oct 11, 2007, 09:59 AM
Well this is interesting "news". It will definitely be worth watching.

dashiel
Oct 11, 2007, 10:01 AM
i don't think it's coincidence that these rumors of and iphone SDK are hotting up weeks prior to the 10.5 release. the iphone is running a variant of leopard, there's a new version of xcode that will include some pretty important upgrades to objective-c (e.g. automated garbage collection) and specific dev environments for the iphone (final release of dashcode)

i suspect the rumored late october event will be a: here's leopard and btw, you can now develop widget style applications for the phone with xcode3

Adokimus
Oct 11, 2007, 10:10 AM
I personally don't think that it's very likely.....

but what do people think the chances are that they (:apple:) will allow window's mobile as a 3rd party app. I need word, and more importantly microsoft outlook, for work, and my work would pay for an iPhone and the at&t service if the iPhone would just carry those applications. I don't think that my company is the only one with such policies regarding smart phones and compatibility with microsoft office. It's just a kicker that the iPhone seems to me to be the smartest phone, but it's purposely dumbed down and controlled by apple. If apple wants to be in business with this segment, it needs outlook! I'm sure you graphic designers don't really care, and your work probably gives you ten mac pros and thirty 30" ACDs, but I work in a law/accounting office and apple isn't going to take over this market for a very long, long time. So, I need compatibility. iWork? Stop jesting.

Sincerely,

Ado

veneficuss
Oct 11, 2007, 10:11 AM
I don't think you'll get Microsoft developing for the iPhone, or you will and it'll take them 5 years to release their first beta. More likely is you'll get a portable version of iWork, possibly packaged with the computer retail version, and that will be able to open Word, Excel and powerpoint files, edit, and send them onwards.

Sorry Apple fanboy, but Microsoft has never released a Office version late and Office 2008 is right on schedule. Microsoft has a hard time releasing their OS on time due to the myriad of hardware they need to support as well as their promise to always support backward compatibility. Apple has neither of these concerns.

bbplayer5
Oct 11, 2007, 10:11 AM
I would def keep buying every new model of iphone if they open it up. Its simply the best phone out there interface wise. When the software packages start rolling, G3, and GPS come.. look out!!!

zwida
Oct 11, 2007, 10:15 AM
I would def keep buying every new model of iphone if they open it up. Its simply the best phone out there interface wise. When the software packages start rolling, G3, and GPS come.. look out!!!

The question is, will you keep buying every new model of iphone if they DON'T open it up? I'd guess that Apple is doing some calculation about what their closed system is costing (or earning, perhaps) them in terms of sales and fees. I'll likely buy new versions of the phone either way.

Adokimus
Oct 11, 2007, 10:16 AM
I would def keep buying every new model of iphone if they open it up. Its simply the best phone out there interface wise. When the software packages start rolling, G3, and GPS come.. look out!!!

G3? Perhaps you mean 3G? or are you hoping for an old-school PPC in your iPhone? ;)

-Ado

CBraun53
Oct 11, 2007, 10:16 AM
Although a lot of iPhone users right now don't care about 3rd party apps I do think that if they made some and put it on iTunes and even charged for them, a lot of people would buy them (of course there are going to be the people complaining that they are charging for 3rd party apps).
The only application I really really want is SlingPlayer. I would pay for it and I wouldn't care that it's on the edge network. Everyone says that it would work on the edge network but it would. I had the Treo 650 on sprint's slow network and it worked suprisngly well.

GTiPhone
Oct 11, 2007, 10:20 AM
Just a little tidbit on the way these rumor articles appear....

Is it really necessary to repeat every old piece of conflicting information when you really have only 1 new sentence to put forward?

Couldn't this post simply be:

"Source _____ says Apple may be gearing up to launch a 3rd Party App Development plan. No more info than that, no idea if its even remotely true."

And just leave it at that? Why is it necessary to repeat all of the conflicting information that in some way could be related? We already know this info because we've read it AND had it repeated in every subsequent article.

I just think this method of posting lends too much creedence to rumors. Rumors is what this site is for... but I think perhaps it should be limited to what you know, rather than trying to tie ends together that do not even meet in reality.

twoodcc
Oct 11, 2007, 10:29 AM
great news if it is true. I can't wait for apple to post this now. One more reason to check back every five minutes.

yeah great news. hopefully they'll post soon

GTiPhone
Oct 11, 2007, 10:37 AM
I'm going to go right out and call total BS on this rumor. It is either a complete lie or just a misunderstanding of what is really coming.

Apple is not going to change its stand on 3rd party apps. Not now, not ever.

What they WILL do however, is make web apps more useful. Allowing Home Screen icon placement, opening an official online directory, that sort of thing. We'll probably see that very soon.

Full SDK for native iPhone apps? Nope. Not going to happen. They have shown great interest in milking the pockets of iPhone users and they will not, MARK MY WORD, will not give up the opportunity to make money off of future native apps.

Its very simple really. How much would YOU pay for iPhone iChat from Apple? Think about it.

ruckus
Oct 11, 2007, 10:41 AM
When I can develop on the iPhone and people can freely use whatever I develop, and I can use what other people make, I will buy one. Native apps FTW!

question fear
Oct 11, 2007, 10:46 AM
I personally don't think that it's very likely.....

but what do people think the chances are that they (:apple:) will allow window's mobile as a 3rd party app. I need word, and more importantly microsoft outlook, for work, and my work would pay for an iPhone and the at&t service if the iPhone would just carry those applications. I don't think that my company is the only one with such policies regarding smart phones and compatibility with microsoft office. It's just a kicker that the iPhone seems to me to be the smartest phone, but it's purposely dumbed down and controlled by apple. If apple wants to be in business with this segment, it needs outlook! I'm sure you graphic designers don't really care, and your work probably gives you ten mac pros and thirty 30" ACDs, but I work in a law/accounting office and apple isn't going to take over this market for a very long, long time. So, I need compatibility. iWork? Stop jesting.

Sincerely,

Ado

Umm...exactly what are you asking for? Windows Mobile as in the operating system available on smartphones? When hell freezes over, dinosaurs again rule the earth, and Palm OS is updated, you'd only have to wait another billion years. ;-) Seriously, though, if you are thinking of a setup similar to boot camp, won't happen. WinMob is an entirely different animal than regular Windows, and is not sold to individuals, only corporations. And Apple would never sell it as a licensee.

If you need office compatibility and outlook syncing, and you dont want to use windows mobile, what about symbian or palm? Palm is getting VERY long in the tooth but they still work well for the basics, and they can read/write word docs, emails, etc. I believe Symbian can as well, but you'd have a harder time finding a symbian qwerty phone.

Unfortunately even with 3rd party applications the iphone is not going to windows mobile, and if your office requires you to have something that is tightly integrated with Windows, you're probably SOL. If you really want an iphone your best bet would be to use the company issued device during the week and swap out for the iphone on the weekend.

Adokimus
Oct 11, 2007, 10:49 AM
I'm going to go right out and call total BS on this rumor. It is either a complete lie or just a misunderstanding of what is really coming.

Apple is not going to change its stand on 3rd party apps. Not now, not ever.

What they WILL do however, is make web apps more useful. Allowing Home Screen icon placement, opening an official online directory, that sort of thing. We'll probably see that very soon.

Full SDK for native iPhone apps? Nope. Not going to happen. They have shown great interest in milking the pockets of iPhone users and they will not, MARK MY WORD, will not give up the opportunity to make money off of future native apps.

Its very simple really. How much would YOU pay for iPhone iChat from Apple? Think about it.


I've heard similar arguments in the past, such as why they wouldn't come out with a touch-screen iPod so soon after the iPhone. Basically the argument is that apple will force people into the products and apps and uses that it wants. But, while apple likes total control over their products, they are also experts at saturating every part of a market that they can milk for money. This, of course, has limits (such as no voice recording on an iPod) but, that's where licensed 3rd parties have always come in. I think that much like rings and games, Apple will release apps through iTunes. But, they will likely be heavily restricted by apple. And most, if not all, will cost money. My hope, for mobile window's office, is very unlikely, but apps in general are very likely... for a price.

-Ado

Adokimus
Oct 11, 2007, 10:53 AM
Umm...exactly what are you asking for? Windows Mobile as in the operating system available on smartphones? When hell freezes over, dinosaurs again rule the earth, and Palm OS is updated, you'd only have to wait another billion years. ;-) Seriously, though, if you are thinking of a setup similar to boot camp, won't happen. WinMob is an entirely different animal than regular Windows, and is not sold to individuals, only corporations. And Apple would never sell it as a licensee.

If you need office compatibility and outlook syncing, and you dont want to use windows mobile, what about symbian or palm? Palm is getting VERY long in the tooth but they still work well for the basics, and they can read/write word docs, emails, etc. I believe Symbian can as well, but you'd have a harder time finding a symbian qwerty phone.

Unfortunately even with 3rd party applications the iphone is not going to windows mobile, and if your office requires you to have something that is tightly integrated with Windows, you're probably SOL. If you really want an iphone your best bet would be to use the company issued device during the week and swap out for the iphone on the weekend.

I mispoke, not window's mobile, but compatibility with outlook and word, such as palm does with its software, I think Visio(sp?). Not the OS, but the actual microsoft office apps.

Peace,

Ado

GTiPhone
Oct 11, 2007, 10:54 AM
I've heard similar arguments in the past, such as why they wouldn't come out with a touch-screen iPod so soon after the iPhone. Basically the argument is that apple will force people into the products and apps and uses that it wants. But, while apple likes total control over their products, they are also experts at saturating every part of a market that they can milk for money. This, of course, has limits (such as no voice recording on an iPod) but, that's where licensed 3rd parties have always come in. I think that much like rings and games, Apple will release apps through iTunes. But, they will likely be heavily restricted by apple. And most, if not all, will cost money. My hope, for mobile window's office, is very unlikely, but apps in general are very likely... for a price.

-Ado


Agreed and they will not be 3rd party apps either...they will be authentic, OFFicial, Apple apps.....at 9.99 each.

They will also, likely, release the above stated improvements to Web-based 2.0 apps.


Think about it people: A full SDK for developers would ERASE web apps as a "thing" for iPhone. If we have developers pumping out freeware/shareware, web apps will be a thing of the past.

You may want to go back and watch Steve Jobs keynote from January to udnerstand why this will NOT happen.

MacTheSpoon
Oct 11, 2007, 10:54 AM
I've always thought that an official SDK would be forthcoming, and was just a matter of time. The old rumor about the Apple engineer who dropped innuendo about it at a party always rang true to me. The iPhone group has a ton on their plate, they're scrambling to do a lot of things, possibly including negotations with AT&T on this, and I think people just need to be patient. Apple doesn't make announcements about future products as a matter of course, so I think they're not going to discuss it until it's ready for release. In the meantime, I'm sure that Apple's strategy is to try to encourage development of web-based apps. They may announce improved web-based capabilities as a stop-gap measure, but my bet is on a real SDK eventually.

It reminds me of the way that Steve always used to pooh-pooh the idea of a video iPod -- and then, bam, he announced one. I think an official SDK will be released in similar fashion.

GTiPhone
Oct 11, 2007, 10:57 AM
When I can develop on the iPhone and people can freely use whatever I develop, and I can use what other people make, I will buy one. Native apps FTW!

Then why didnt you buy one in august or september? This was certainly the case then.

christian_k
Oct 11, 2007, 11:01 AM
I wonder why they don't just allow Java apps. I don't mean something like "J2ME" (mobile games java) but a "real" Java implementation like on the Mac.

- They could supply Java interfaces to Cocoa (like one the Mac). So look & feel could be native.
- Performance may be not as fast as "native", but much faster than JS in Safari or other script based systems. If Java3D was supported, even a lot of games would be possible.
- Runs inside a VM, if there is no JNI, there is no access to anything outside. So low level access to devices (Sim lock hacking or attacks against the network) or the OS /firmware ("bricking") can be prevented. Access to call / network functions and access to data of other Apps can be restricted.
- Any form of local storage could be managed by the VM, so installing and removing Apps could be very easy (like managing Music on an iPod).
- Apps could even be binary compatible with the Mac with no need for "triple binaries".


Christian

happydude
Oct 11, 2007, 11:04 AM
I would love Apple's Dictionary on the iPhone, as well trying out some kind of book reader. I'm not sure if the screen's quite big enough, but if it worked, that would be huge, selling books on iTunes.

a book reader would be huge! just imagine the use those of us who commute by train would get. that alone would almost clinch the deal on an iphone for me! . . . 3G and 16GB wouldn't hurt either . . . ;)

Stella
Oct 11, 2007, 11:10 AM
Actually, its very easy with several choices
SE P1, P910 ( et al ), Nokia E70, E61, E62 ( crippled E61 for north america ), E90 ( the communicator device ).

The Nokia's ship with QuickOffice - but you probably wouldn't want to edit, just read.


If you need office compatibility and outlook syncing, and you dont want to use windows mobile, what about symbian or palm? Palm is getting VERY long in the tooth but they still work well for the basics, and they can read/write word docs, emails, etc. I believe Symbian can as well, but you'd have a harder time finding a symbian qwerty phone.


Java provides a very good sandbox.

Apple have discontinued Cocoa Java.
I wonder why they don't just allow Java apps. I don't mean something like "J2ME" (mobile games java) but a "real" Java implementation like on the Mac.

- They could supply Java interfaces to Cocoa (like one the Mac). So look & feel could be native.
- Performance may be not as fast as "native", but much faster than JS in Safari or other script based systems. If Java3D was supported, even a lot of games would be possible.
- Runs inside a VM, if there is no JNI, there is no access to anything outside. So low level access to devices (Sim lock hacking or attacks against the network) or the OS /firmware ("bricking") can be prevented. Access to call / network functions and access to data of other Apps can be restricted.
- Any form of local storage could be managed by the VM, so installing and removing Apps could be very easy (like managing Music on an iPod).
- Apps could even be binary compatible with the Mac with no need for "triple binaries".


Christian

christian_k
Oct 11, 2007, 11:21 AM
Java provides a very good sandbox.

Apple have discontinued Cocoa Java.

Yes, I know. But why? With the iPhone in the labs and the ppc/intel transition that sounds like a very strange ( or bad ) decision.....

Christian

kingtj
Oct 11, 2007, 11:22 AM
The *problem* here is, MANY would-be "iPhoners" have their purchasing plans on hold until they see how this 3rd. party apps thing pans out!

Apple is losing a LOT of potential sales as long as they insist on locking the phone down this tightly.

I have several close, personal friends who wanted an iPhone badly (2 of whom already have AT&T as their cell carrier anyway), but they're waiting - because they want the "next generation smartphone" that Apple promised in their initial sales pitches. (Remember when Jobs got up at the media event and showed the iPhone side-by-side with phones like the Palm Treo and Blackberry? Well, THOSE phones let you install whatever applications, games and utilities you feel like downloading into them!)


Their strategy is not in tatters. Most iPhoners could care less about jailbreak or SDKs.

Transeau
Oct 11, 2007, 11:23 AM
Tell me, why would Apple open up development to the iPhone?
What reason would they have?

Why wouldn't they just add apps to iTMS?

Seems like a good money making idea...
$4.99 for iPhoneChat
$1.99 for iSSH
$9.99 for Google Calendar Subscription support

It's so cute to see so many people still think that this is NOT about money... There is a reason that Apple stock is over $160/share. PROFIT.

If the iPhone DOES get 3rd party support, it is not going to be free. If anything at all, they will be available via iTMS. (Think iPod games...)

Transeau
Oct 11, 2007, 11:31 AM
The *problem* here is, MANY would-be "iPhoners" have their purchasing plans on hold until they see how this 3rd. party apps thing pans out!

Apple is losing a LOT of potential sales as long as they insist on locking the phone down this tightly.

I have several close, personal friends who wanted an iPhone badly (2 of whom already have AT&T as their cell carrier anyway), but they're waiting - because they want the "next generation smartphone" that Apple promised in their initial sales pitches. (Remember when Jobs got up at the media event and showed the iPhone side-by-side with phones like the Palm Treo and Blackberry? Well, THOSE phones let you install whatever applications, games and utilities you feel like downloading into them!)



I disagree. The people waiting for / wanting 3rd party apps is maybe... what? 1%? Out of 1M phones sold, how many do you really think are mad about no 3rd party apps? I have 7 family members with iPhones, and NONE of them have a clue that it's missing something. Out of the friends I know when them (31 total) only 4 of them are wanting "more" from the phone.

Apple designed this phone for the mass market. The 99% of the population that is willing to accept what it is and not question it. The last 1% of the people are going to bitch about it. 1% isn't going to bother anyone.

yes, I'm in that 1%. I still have my Cingular 8525. I have it because it does what I need it to. (I require ssh and Remote Desktop for work). Also, I LOVE the keyboard. until the iPhone gets 2 of the 3, I will not own one.

kironin
Oct 11, 2007, 11:31 AM
I was waiting for iPhone 2G, but after the fallout of 1.1.1 and hostile intentions Apple has revealed antithetical to OSX, I have given up on Apple and this locked down iPhone ripoff.

I am going to wait for something like this...
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS2657814070.html

:mad:

Project
Oct 11, 2007, 11:40 AM
Java? No thanks.

Random Ping
Oct 11, 2007, 11:43 AM
I don't see how the iPhone can truly succeed in the long term unless Apple opens up development, at least in a limited way.

I completely agree. While maybe only a small percentage of people actually installed and used 3rd party apps on the pre-1.1.1 iPhone, the positive buzz it created was enormous.

quigleybc
Oct 11, 2007, 11:48 AM
Given the tattters that there current 'closed' strategy is in following the 1.1.1 jalbreak I think Apple's hand has been forced here.



i like tattter tots.

Random Ping
Oct 11, 2007, 11:48 AM
i really think the ipod touch is a stop-gap, if there was a 60gig iphone, would you need anything else? :)

The iPod Touch is the anti-AT&T device. When the iPhone is free of AT&T, then I think the iPod Touch may not be needed anymore.

mainstreetmark
Oct 11, 2007, 11:54 AM
My bet is on this being a web SDK, which is fine, despite any shortcomings, on two conditions: That there is offline support (e.g. google gears) and that they add multi-touch support.

With these two simple things the iPhone / iPod touch suddenly has "native" apps. You can do -almost- anything on a website that you would want to use a PDA for, short of playing games, watching video or listening to music. It can be argued that video & music aren't needed anyway.


"aren't needed" is not equal to "aren't wanted"

- No motion sensor support (many interesting marble games)
- No iPod support (visualizers, graphers, trackers, and all the stuff I like to do with iTunes data)
- No phone support (to track callers, hook into a planning/business apps)
- No radio support (to make a wifi signal strength grapher, so you don't have to drag a computer around)
- No Speaker support (to make your own sounds)
- No os-level support (to make wide-level things, like Quicksilver)
- No graphic card support (to make custom UI elements, or even custom apps like a Finger Paint)
- No native GUI (so a "webapp" would work more like YouTube.app, instead of a YouTube.com reformatted as a iPhone page)
- No local preference support (cookies?) (so an app can remember, for example, WHICH cities you want to display the weather of)
- No animation support (which goes right into the whole 'games' concept, but also helps for the various transitions and fades that the native iPhone apps do)

/dev/toaster
Oct 11, 2007, 12:02 PM
I'm going to go right out and call total BS on this rumor. It is either a complete lie or just a misunderstanding of what is really coming.

Apple is not going to change its stand on 3rd party apps. Not now, not ever.

What they WILL do however, is make web apps more useful. Allowing Home Screen icon placement, opening an official online directory, that sort of thing. We'll probably see that very soon.

Full SDK for native iPhone apps? Nope. Not going to happen. They have shown great interest in milking the pockets of iPhone users and they will not, MARK MY WORD, will not give up the opportunity to make money off of future native apps.

Its very simple really. How much would YOU pay for iPhone iChat from Apple? Think about it.

I _was_ a big supporter of the iPhone, until they started this BS. Apple is going to be left in the dust if they don't provide 3rd party apps. Even if they open up development to 3rd party "trusted" companies or start to release their own paid apps, it will NOT be enough. As it is, they are already missing some critical parts that make it unsuitable for business phones.

iKwick7
Oct 11, 2007, 12:04 PM
I would love Apple's Dictionary on the iPhone, as well trying out some kind of book reader. I'm not sure if the screen's quite big enough, but if it worked, that would be huge, selling books on iTunes.

The eBooks I have on my iPhone now (thanks to installer.app and the "Books" application) work wonderfully. I don't think it's small at all and find it quite easy to read. I love it!

/dev/toaster
Oct 11, 2007, 12:07 PM
"aren't needed" is not equal to "aren't wanted"

- No motion sensor support (many interesting marble games)
- No iPod support (visualizers, graphers, trackers, and all the stuff I like to do with iTunes data)
- No phone support (to track callers, hook into a planning/business apps)
- No radio support (to make a wifi signal strength grapher, so you don't have to drag a computer around)
- No Speaker support (to make your own sounds)
- No os-level support (to make wide-level things, like Quicksilver)
- No graphic card support (to make custom UI elements, or even custom apps like a Finger Paint)
- No native GUI (so a "webapp" would work more like YouTube.app, instead of a YouTube.com reformatted as a iPhone page)
- No local preference support (cookies?) (so an app can remember, for example, WHICH cities you want to display the weather of)
- No animation support (which goes right into the whole 'games' concept, but also helps for the various transitions and fades that the native iPhone apps do)

Lets not forget, additional sound options that Apple (for reasons I can't even begin to understand) forgot to add. Such as, change the ring tone for SMS messages.

Random Ping
Oct 11, 2007, 12:08 PM
That's probably true: 51% or more don't care. But there is a very large minority that do care, and other Would-be iPhoners that care as well.

I've heard numbers in the range of 1-5% who took advantage of third-party applications on pre-1.1.1 iPhones. However, while this is a small minority, it is a vocal and influential minority.

Furthermore, the other 95-99% might be much more likely to use 3rd party applications when (1) when there are a large number of professional applications available, which means that they are more likely to find one that is perfect for them; (2) the applications are easy to find and install (e.g., through iTunes); (3) installing applications is given "officially OK" status from Apple; and (4) software vendors start to market these applications.

So while the numbers of people who wanted to and did install 3rd party applications might be very small, we shouldn't confuse this small number with the size of the potential market.

artalliance
Oct 11, 2007, 12:09 PM
I disagree. The people waiting for / wanting 3rd party apps is maybe... what? 1%? Out of 1M phones sold, how many do you really think are mad about no 3rd party apps? I have 7 family members with iPhones, and NONE of them have a clue that it's missing something. Out of the friends I know when them (31 total) only 4 of them are wanting "more" from the phone.

Apple designed this phone for the mass market. The 99% of the population that is willing to accept what it is and not question it. The last 1% of the people are going to bitch about it. 1% isn't going to bother anyone.



I unfortunately agree with you. People need some perspective.

ibwb
Oct 11, 2007, 12:09 PM
Tell me, why would Apple open up development to the iPhone?
What reason would they have?

Why wouldn't they just add apps to iTMS?

Seems like a good money making idea...
$4.99 for iPhoneChat
$1.99 for iSSH
$9.99 for Google Calendar Subscription support

It's so cute to see so many people still think that this is NOT about money... There is a reason that Apple stock is over $160/share. PROFIT.

If the iPhone DOES get 3rd party support, it is not going to be free. If anything at all, they will be available via iTMS. (Think iPod games...)

It's a big mistake for outsiders to think they have figured out Apple's business plan. Clearly the iPhone is still a work in progress and there is still much to be seen. It may very well turn out that Apple decides they will make more profit on selling iPhones than they would charging people a few bucks for someone else's software.

You will note that this is the model even with the iPod -- unlike some competitors (I'm looking at you, Sony) Apple chose to make it easy for people to load music from CDs on the device. This surely reduces profit from Apple's music store, but increases the number of people who buy iPods.

So it's pretty simplistic at this point to say that we can know what the future plans are because "it's all about money". Making money is just not that simple. Personally, I expect to see third-party apps provided through an Apple service with some quality standards, some of them for free and some costing money based on the developer's choice. For example, we'll probably see a free GMail client from Google, and maybe somebody else will charge a few bucks for an SSH client.

Random Ping
Oct 11, 2007, 12:13 PM
Think about it people: A full SDK for developers would ERASE web apps as a "thing" for iPhone. If we have developers pumping out freeware/shareware, web apps will be a thing of the past.

I think both native and web-based applications will thrive. After all, I can install applications on my Mac now, but I still use plenty of "Web 2.0" applications as well.

cwolves
Oct 11, 2007, 12:15 PM
"aren't needed" is not equal to "aren't wanted"

- No motion sensor support (many interesting marble games)
- No iPod support (visualizers, graphers, trackers, and all the stuff I like to do with iTunes data)
- No phone support (to track callers, hook into a planning/business apps)
- No radio support (to make a wifi signal strength grapher, so you don't have to drag a computer around)
- No Speaker support (to make your own sounds)
- No os-level support (to make wide-level things, like Quicksilver)
- No graphic card support (to make custom UI elements, or even custom apps like a Finger Paint)
- No native GUI (so a "webapp" would work more like YouTube.app, instead of a YouTube.com reformatted as a iPhone page)
- No local preference support (cookies?) (so an app can remember, for example, WHICH cities you want to display the weather of)
- No animation support (which goes right into the whole 'games' concept, but also helps for the various transitions and fades that the native iPhone apps do)

My point is that short of a native SDK, a good web SDK can do a lot. There's no reason they couldn't throw some event handlers for the motion sensor into Safari. Apple has already said they're going to have offline storage (local preferences), safari supports canvas which is quite easy to make a finger painting app in, you can easily have basic animations (fade effects, etc), and there are already native-looking web GUIs freely available.

Granted you will never get access to the phone or media playlists if they choose to go this route, but it will be possible to write pretty much any "pda" software that doesn't require graphic-card access (e.g. not games, video players). There's also no reason that safari couldn't support embeded sound (no clue if it does or not).

It's not ideal, but it seems like apple is taking the stance that they're not going to open the OS to developers. For all I know they have legal restrictions in doing this. If a good web SDK is released I'd be happy.

A Pittarelli
Oct 11, 2007, 12:24 PM
hopefully apple will just make app development useful. It doesn't even matter if its open or not, just good enough so that decent apps can be user made without breaking the user licence agreement

Transeau
Oct 11, 2007, 12:27 PM
It's a big mistake for outsiders to think they have figured out Apple's business plan. Clearly the iPhone is still a work in progress and there is still much to be seen. It may very well turn out that Apple decides they will make more profit on selling iPhones than they would charging people a few bucks for someone else's software.

You will note that this is the model even with the iPod -- unlike some competitors (I'm looking at you, Sony) Apple chose to make it easy for people to load music from CDs on the device. This surely reduces profit from Apple's music store, but increases the number of people who buy iPods.

So it's pretty simplistic at this point to say that we can know what the future plans are because "it's all about money". Making money is just not that simple. Personally, I expect to see third-party apps provided through an Apple service with some quality standards, some of them for free and some costing money based on the developer's choice. For example, we'll probably see a free GMail client from Google, and maybe somebody else will charge a few bucks for an SSH client.

I'm not sure that you actually made a point here.
You are agreeing with me, with the exception that some apps might be free..?

And who said I was an outsider?

Don't you think it's pretty naive to think that a company who is in business to make money would just let this go? As a stock holder, I would be pretty pissed if I saw them pissing money away like that.

As for the iPod and loading music from CDs... That's a "Duh" comment. You can't compare a fact that would have killed a product from day-1 to "free 3rd party apps".

now, the reason that 3rd parties WILL be able to develop for the iPhone.. If apple sells apps for it, then they must allow others to prevent an anti-trust suit.

Random Ping
Oct 11, 2007, 12:31 PM
I read the full tidbits article, and it has given me hope. Here are three data points:

(1) From the article: "The other smartphone platforms - Palm OS, Symbian, and Windows Mobile - generally allow any arbitrary program to be installed, but access to phone features is typically limited, and network access is sometimes restricted to Wi-Fi, when that's available."

(2) From the article: "the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store works only over Wi-Fi"

(3) The original argument for not allowing 3rd party applications was to protect the AT&T network.

Together, these leads me to believe that 3rd party applications that don't use Edge may very well be near!

chameleon
Oct 11, 2007, 12:33 PM
I disagree. The people waiting for / wanting 3rd party apps is maybe... what? 1%? Out of 1M phones sold, how many do you really think are mad about no 3rd party apps? I have 7 family members with iPhones, and NONE of them have a clue that it's missing something. Out of the friends I know when them (31 total) only 4 of them are wanting "more" from the phone.

Apple designed this phone for the mass market. The 99% of the population that is willing to accept what it is and not question it. The last 1% of the people are going to bitch about it. 1% isn't going to bother anyone.
You are right, and if you take things at face value, you would be right in saying that Apple could just ignore that 1% and still make a mint.

Technology companies, however, are always trying to get to the "influencers". That small group of people who are on the cutting edge. They buy new products long before anyone has heard of them, figure out what's good and what isn't, then tell all their friends and family.

Take your example above. Would those 7 family members above have purchased an iPhone if you didn't recommend it to them? I'm guessing you watched every scrap of news leak out about the iPhone from January till June, helped build the hype amongst your family (and friends), so when the time came, they were ready to buy.

Am I close?

See, you are the person Apple really wants to sell. Getting you on board gets them 5, 10 or 20 extra sales because you generate the hype for them. If they burn the bridge with you, suddenly you're off recommending an LG Phone, a Dell PC or *gulp* a Zune.

So, don't discount the importance of that 1%. The really successful technology companies -- like Apple -- don't...

ibwb
Oct 11, 2007, 12:41 PM
I'm not sure that you actually made a point here.
You are agreeing with me, with the exception that some apps might be free..?

And who said I was an outsider?

Don't you think it's pretty naive to think that a company who is in business to make money would just let this go? As a stock holder, I would be pretty pissed if I saw them pissing money away like that.

As for the iPod and loading music from CDs... That's a "Duh" comment. You can't compare a fact that would have killed a product from day-1 to "free 3rd party apps".

now, the reason that 3rd parties WILL be able to develop for the iPhone.. If apple sells apps for it, then they must allow others to prevent an anti-trust suit.

You're convinced that Apple will try to directly make money by selling apps, and I'm saying that might not be the case. I think Apple might decide they will make more money in the long run by giving away the SDK (eventually) as they do for the Mac.

You don't work for Apple and that makes you an outsider in the sense that you know nothing of their business plans. Nor do I.

You may think that the iPod CD-loading is a "duh" comment but that's only because the strategy worked out so well; Sony tried a completely different strategy that was far less open, and they lost a fortune over it.

FoxyKaye
Oct 11, 2007, 12:54 PM
I'm sorry, but now that the sheen has worn off the iPhone, isn't the reality that it costs the same if not more than devices that have much more functionality and expandability? Yes, it's pretty, and yes the touchscreen is an amazing innovation, but at the end of the day it seems to be falling a bit short.

Gods willing, Apple is waking up to the fact that they're not selling iPods in the mobile phone market - they're selling something that helps people get work done. And I'm including return on investment as part of getting work done. If they're going to continue calling the iPhone a "smartphone" then the possibility for developers to create real, native 3rd party applications has to exist - both for free and for sale. I won't even touch the asinine ringtones issue Apple has created, that kind of nickel and dime behavior speaks for itself.

Transeau
Oct 11, 2007, 01:10 PM
You are right, and if you take things at face value, you would be right in saying that Apple could just ignore that 1% and still make a mint.

Technology companies, however, are always trying to get to the "influencers". That small group of people who are on the cutting edge. They buy new products long before anyone has heard of them, figure out what's good and what isn't, then tell all their friends and family.

Take your example above. Would those 7 family members above have purchased an iPhone if you didn't recommend it to them? I'm guessing you watched every scrap of news leak out about the iPhone from January till June, helped build the hype amongst your family (and friends), so when the time came, they were ready to buy.

Am I close?

See, you are the person Apple really wants to sell. Getting you on board gets them 5, 10 or 20 extra sales because you generate the hype for them. If they burn the bridge with you, suddenly you're off recommending an LG Phone, a Dell PC or *gulp* a Zune.

So, don't discount the importance of that 1%. The really successful technology companies -- like Apple -- don't...

Oh, but you are wrong. I told everyone in my family to avoid it. Most bought it the day it came out. And yes, I was the first to laugh at them when the price dropped. and I included the "i told you so". It's still cute to hear them bitch so much about how slow web browsing is. Then I show them my 8525 on HSDPA.. a little salt for the wound. I was recommending the Nokia N81... but the carriers killed that one off. Honestly, most people I know can work just fine with a Razr..

Transeau
Oct 11, 2007, 01:12 PM
ignore this

artalliance
Oct 11, 2007, 01:32 PM
Honestly, most people I know can work just fine with a Razr..

I think you are wrong about that one :p

Marx55
Oct 11, 2007, 01:36 PM
A SDK for the iPhone and iPod touch is a must. Or even better, a brand new Intel Silverthorne-based handheld computer booting a true and full Mac OS X 10.5. Thus the Mac OS X in your hand. Full native Keynote and PowerPoint support. High-speed wireless. We need tons for our University staff and students.

Transeau
Oct 11, 2007, 01:54 PM
I think you are wrong about that one :p

we know the same people?

winterspan
Oct 11, 2007, 04:00 PM
My bet is on this being a web SDK, which is fine, despite any shortcomings, on two conditions: That there is offline support (e.g. google gears) and that they add multi-touch support.

With these two simple things the iPhone / iPod touch suddenly has "native" apps. You can do -almost- anything on a website that you would want to use a PDA for, short of playing games, watching video or listening to music. It can be argued that video & music aren't needed anyway.

This isn't true at all. Most iPhone users could care less about -using- a jailbreak or SDK, but that doesn't mean that they don't want to use the outcome of that: 3rd party apps.

Multitouch gestures/arbitrary input recognized by javascript? I highly doubt it.
This is one of the main points of contention I have with web apps (besides the slooooooooooow execution of javascript, lack of accelerated graphics, dependence on the internet, inability to receive phone calls while using the apps, etc)

What a disappointment it would be to have an incredible Iphone interface/input system when most apps won't be able to use it?

To all the people who say "no one cares about jail-breaking", I would have to disagree. Many "laymen" / tech novices may not even know what jail-breaking is, but they sure as h*ll would appreciate quality third party applications that let their shiny new toy do hundreds of things that Apple would never think of/implement.

winterspan
Oct 11, 2007, 04:18 PM
I wonder why they don't just allow Java apps. I don't mean something like "J2ME" (mobile games java) but a "real" Java implementation like on the Mac.

- They could supply Java interfaces to Cocoa (like one the Mac). So look & feel could be native.
- Performance may be not as fast as "native", but much faster than JS in Safari or other script based systems. If Java3D was supported, even a lot of games would be possible.
- Runs inside a VM, if there is no JNI, there is no access to anything outside. So low level access to devices (Sim lock hacking or attacks against the network) or the OS /firmware ("bricking") can be prevented. Access to call / network functions and access to data of other Apps can be restricted.
- Any form of local storage could be managed by the VM, so installing and removing Apps could be very easy (like managing Music on an iPod).
- Apps could even be binary compatible with the Mac with no need for "triple binaries".


Christian

You know whats ever worse if true, Christian? When you look up the model number of the ARM chip running the iphone, it says it has HARDWARE support for running java bytecode natively. Now unless they made a custom chip for Apple and used the same model number or removed/disabled the java support or something, Native java bytecode support could be sitting right now in the iphone.
I can't even imagine what that would be like. Has anyone seen anything like this before where a chip can run java bytecode natively? Does anyone know if this capability is truly in the iphone processor? What did the tear down people say?

winterspan
Oct 11, 2007, 04:24 PM
"aren't needed" is not equal to "aren't wanted"

- No motion sensor support (many interesting marble games)
- No iPod support (visualizers, graphers, trackers, and all the stuff I like to do with iTunes data)
- No phone support (to track callers, hook into a planning/business apps)
- No radio support (to make a wifi signal strength grapher, so you don't have to drag a computer around)
- No Speaker support (to make your own sounds)
- No os-level support (to make wide-level things, like Quicksilver)
- No graphic card support (to make custom UI elements, or even custom apps like a Finger Paint)
- No native GUI (so a "webapp" would work more like YouTube.app, instead of a YouTube.com reformatted as a iPhone page)
- No local preference support (cookies?) (so an app can remember, for example, WHICH cities you want to display the weather of)
- No animation support (which goes right into the whole 'games' concept, but also helps for the various transitions and fades that the native iPhone apps do)

You touched on alot, but missed the MOST IMPORTANT of all:
Having multi-touch support. With web "applications" the iphone is reduced to a "Onclick" event. So much for the most advanced/intuitive interface on a mobile phone. This is a *MAJOR* point of contention here.

winterspan
Oct 11, 2007, 04:28 PM
I've heard numbers in the range of 1-5% who took advantage of third-party applications on pre-1.1.1 iPhones. However, while this is a small minority, it is a vocal and influential minority.

Furthermore, the other 95-99% might be much more likely to use 3rd party applications when (1) when there are a large number of professional applications available, which means that they are more likely to find one that is perfect for them; (2) the applications are easy to find and install (e.g., through iTunes); (3) installing applications is given "officially OK" status from Apple; and (4) software vendors start to market these applications.

So while the numbers of people who wanted to and did install 3rd party applications might be very small, we shouldn't confuse this small number with the size of the potential market.

You hit on an interesting point. There are so many naysayers that always shout "NO ONE CARES ABOUT 3RD PARTY APPS". Well, just as i mentioned in the other post, One could reason that the MAJORITY of iphone owners would indeed love the concept once introduced to cheap or free, easily
downloadable, reliable applications from iTunes. I haven't heard 1-5%, but I have seen a few different surveys on apple sites, and they are usually around 50%. How much this translates to in the general iphone buying public, I don't know. But I do now many "laypersons/tech novice" type people who did indeed try Apptap or whatever it is.

winterspan
Oct 11, 2007, 04:38 PM
I'm not sure that you actually made a point here.
You are agreeing with me, with the exception that some apps might be free..?

And who said I was an outsider?

Don't you think it's pretty naive to think that a company who is in business to make money would just let this go? As a stock holder, I would be pretty pissed if I saw them pissing money away like that.

As for the iPod and loading music from CDs... That's a "Duh" comment. You can't compare a fact that would have killed a product from day-1 to "free 3rd party apps".

now, the reason that 3rd parties WILL be able to develop for the iPhone.. If apple sells apps for it, then they must allow others to prevent an anti-trust suit.

Actually, he made a very valid point. He suggested that even though Apple will want to make as much money as possible on the device, that fact does not AUTOMATICALLY allow you to take the leap to saying apple will lock down the device. On the contrary, Apple may indeed end up making more money selling more iphones with a somewhat open 3rd party app environment, than selling less iphones with a secondary revenue source of selling Apple-only applications.

I myself, and a few friends fall into the category of "waiting to see" regarding 3rd party app support before we buy.

winterspan
Oct 11, 2007, 04:51 PM
You are right, and if you take things at face value, you would be right in saying that Apple could just ignore that 1% and still make a mint.

Technology companies, however, are always trying to get to the "influencers". That small group of people who are on the cutting edge. They buy new products long before anyone has heard of them, figure out what's good and what isn't, then tell all their friends and family.

Take your example above. Would those 7 family members above have purchased an iPhone if you didn't recommend it to them? I'm guessing you watched every scrap of news leak out about the iPhone from January till June, helped build the hype amongst your family (and friends), so when the time came, they were ready to buy.

Am I close?

See, you are the person Apple really wants to sell. Getting you on board gets them 5, 10 or 20 extra sales because you generate the hype for them. If they burn the bridge with you, suddenly you're off recommending an LG Phone, a Dell PC or *gulp* a Zune.

So, don't discount the importance of that 1%. The really successful technology companies -- like Apple -- don't...

THWACK! right on the nose.. This is an interesting point that I think many have neglected when they bring up the "small minority" argument. I think you saw Apple's commitment to this (although I didn't agree with the decision) with the $100 iPhone coupon. Whether apple truly cares about pleasing their loyal base or not, they DO KNOW how loud that minority can be, and would wish to at least appease them from making a rumble.

winterspan
Oct 11, 2007, 05:00 PM
Oh, but you are wrong. I told everyone in my family to avoid it. Most bought it the day it came out. And yes, I was the first to laugh at them when the price dropped. and I included the "i told you so". It's still cute to hear them bitch so much about how slow web browsing is. Then I show them my 8525 on HSDPA.. a little salt for the wound. I was recommending the Nokia N81... but the carriers killed that one off. Honestly, most people I know can work just fine with a Razr..

a Razr? What do your friends do for a living? Most of mine would shrivel up and die without their precious blackberry or treo. Besides all the other points being made in this thread, Apple drastically needs to get *some* type of mobile word/excel support, outlook sync, enterprise email compatibility (exchange), and enterprise WPA2 wifi security compatibility. With those features, can you imagine the huge business smartphone market that would open up?

winterspan
Oct 11, 2007, 05:05 PM
A SDK for the iPhone and iPod touch is a must. Or even better, a brand new Intel Silverthorne-based handheld computer booting a true and full Mac OS X 10.5. Thus the Mac OS X in your hand. Full native Keynote and PowerPoint support. High-speed wireless. We need tons for our University staff and students.

although it would be nice to see if Apple really makes a UMPC/MID/PDA with a 5-6" screen, it really is a different market than the iphone. And you don't need a silverthorne to do it. Apple could be doing it RIGHT NOW with an Intel 45nm Penryn-based Core 2 Duo low-voltage/ultra low voltage. go look at dynamism.com, and click on UMPC and subnotebooks. They have some pretty amazing stuff available in Japan/South Korea. Apple needs to jump on the bandwagon!

winterspan
Oct 11, 2007, 05:11 PM
sorry for all the posts... I was just responding as I went through the thread. And apparently, there was a nuclear blast/alien invasion and I'm the only one left on the planet able to write posts on macrumors. lol

MattInOz
Oct 11, 2007, 09:01 PM
I think both native and web-based applications will thrive. After all, I can install applications on my Mac now, but I still use plenty of "Web 2.0" applications as well.

I think Native and Webapps will be one and the same thing.
Add offline storage (like the app's already embeding themselves in a Bookmark).
Which gives you offline apps.
Add sandboxed low level language support (like dashboard, web frontend, whatever backend)
Which gives you have a native app.
But to the end user it's all one thing not three, it's seamless (Apple like)

Add support for Bookmark aliases on the home screen.
Picture Complete.

Transeau
Oct 11, 2007, 11:18 PM
a Razr? What do your friends do for a living? Most of mine would shrivel up and die without their precious blackberry or treo. Besides all the other points being made in this thread, Apple drastically needs to get *some* type of mobile word/excel support, outlook sync, enterprise email compatibility (exchange), and enterprise WPA2 wifi security compatibility. With those features, can you imagine the huge business smartphone market that would open up?

They are people like me, with a 3.5G (HSDPA for those that don't know there there is life beyond EDGE and 3G) ExpressCard or Mini PCIe card in our notebooks. My phone has support for what I need in a pinch. (email, web, Remote Desktop and ssh) But this is way off topic...

Most of my friends prefer NOT to be "in touch" that easy. In this industry, we are in constant contact, when we get in our cards, or go to dinner, we prefer not to be reachable THAT easy.

That said, if a server goes down, we receive a simple sms with the details. (a RAZR does that just fine) Then pull out the MBP and pop in the XU870 and fix it.

So, yes... I can live with a simple razr. as to the people I work with :)

goosnarrggh
Oct 12, 2007, 06:59 AM
You know whats ever worse if true, Christian? When you look up the model number of the ARM chip running the iphone, it says it has HARDWARE support for running java bytecode natively. Now unless they made a custom chip for Apple and used the same model number or removed/disabled the java support or something, Native java bytecode support could be sitting right now in the iphone.
I can't even imagine what that would be like. Has anyone seen anything like this before where a chip can run java bytecode natively? Does anyone know if this capability is truly in the iphone processor? What did the tear down people say?

It's not unheard of for high-end embedded application CPUs to include a native Java bytecode interpreter built in hardware. What isn't included in hardware, though, is any of the basic class libraries which would be required to do anything interesting with Java bytecode or to interact with any components of the hosting application or operating system.

A good portion of the J2ME would still need to be ported in order to provide those class libraries. And even if native applications are ever able to achieve Apple's blessing, there'd still be little incentive for Apple to spend any time developing any of those class libraries, because OS X's built-in API's should be more than adequate, and in such a small hardware ecosystem, cross-platform compatibility is of questionable value.

cwolves
Oct 12, 2007, 10:45 AM
Multitouch gestures/arbitrary input recognized by javascript? I highly doubt it.
This is one of the main points of contention I have with web apps (besides the slooooooooooow execution of javascript, lack of accelerated graphics, dependence on the internet, inability to receive phone calls while using the apps, etc)

Why? Simply give access to two "mouse cursors" and voila you have full multi-touch support. Leave it up to developers to create libraries to recognize gestures, etc.

winterspan
Oct 12, 2007, 03:12 PM
It's not unheard of for high-end embedded application CPUs to include a native Java bytecode interpreter built in hardware. What isn't included in hardware, though, is any of the basic class libraries which would be required to do anything interesting with Java bytecode or to interact with any components of the hosting application or operating system.

A good portion of the J2ME would still need to be ported in order to provide those class libraries. And even if native applications are ever able to achieve Apple's blessing, there'd still be little incentive for Apple to spend any time developing any of those class libraries, because OS X's built-in API's should be more than adequate, and in such a small hardware ecosystem, cross-platform compatibility is of questionable value.

Thanks for the info, I have no experience in the embedded market.
When you say the J2ME libraries would have to be ported, do you mean ported to the ARM architecture or "ported" as in interfaced with OSX?
Wouldn't the former be unnecessary since the chip can run the bytecode natively? Bytecode is the same for all platforms, correct? kinda of like MSIL code when talking about the .NET platform?
If Im wrong on that, wouldn't there already exist those J2ME libraries since so many cellphones/pdas (some of these being ARM?) have mobile java runtimes?

I appreciate the help...

winterspan
Oct 12, 2007, 03:17 PM
Why? Simply give access to two "mouse cursors" and voila you have full multi-touch support. Leave it up to developers to create libraries to recognize gestures, etc.

it just seems to me like that would be alot of (unnecessary) work to modify the JS runtime to support that. And with the javascript performance pretty slow, I wonder if a multitouch gesture such as a "pinch" would be so unresponsive it wouldn't even be worth it. Those type of user interface features have to run almost seamless or it will ruin the "illusion" of control in your brain...
But I don't know, maybe they will do something like that. It still seems much easier to just create a *** secure sandbox with access to a subset of the iphone APIs.. all the hard stuff is already written -- let people jump in and add the innovation...

winterspan
Oct 12, 2007, 03:24 PM
They are people like me, with a 3.5G (HSDPA for those that don't know there there is life beyond EDGE and 3G) ExpressCard or Mini PCIe card in our notebooks. My phone has support for what I need in a pinch. (email, web, Remote Desktop and ssh) But this is way off topic...

Most of my friends prefer NOT to be "in touch" that easy. In this industry, we are in constant contact, when we get in our cards, or go to dinner, we prefer not to be reachable THAT easy.

That said, if a server goes down, we receive a simple sms with the details. (a RAZR does that just fine) Then pull out the MBP and pop in the XU870 and fix it.

So, yes... I can live with a simple razr. as to the people I work with :)

First of all, I don't know if most people do that or not, but I don't call HSDPA/HSUPA at least in their lower speed incarnations "3.5G". 3G itself seems more fitting. Although I guess they do try and get away with calling EDGE "3G" sometimes. I have a CDMA phone, so EV-DO is "3G" for me.
Since only EVDO and HSPA have what I would call "broadband" speeds, I usually refer to them as 3G.

I have used EVDO rev A. express cards, and they seems to work well. I'm sure HSDPA cards work just as good, although without HSUPA, Im sure the upload side would be miserable. But as a replacement for an Iphone/smartphone, I would ask if you drive/take a subway/walk to work and to get around, since you apparently carry a small laptop around all day?

goosnarrggh
Oct 12, 2007, 08:22 PM
Thanks for the info, I have no experience in the embedded market.
When you say the J2ME libraries would have to be ported, do you mean ported to the ARM architecture or "ported" as in interfaced with OSX?
Sorry for the ambiguity. I mean in terms of interfacing it with the mobile version of OSX. The libraries themselves are already written, and published in Java bytecode. But you can only go so far before you need to put something up on the screen or wait for user input. The portions of the class libraries that deal with these sorts of issues must be at least in part tailored to the particular host OS and CPU.

Although it would seem that a lot of the work would be done already from the desktop version of OSX, that likely isn't really the case. In the desktop version of OSX, the Java runtime is interfacing with a virtual machine encapsulated within a running OSX process.

In the ARM version, assuming the full hardware support was in use, other issues would complicate things, such as the need swap the CPU in and out of the ARM and Java instruction set modes, and to swap data between the two. So it couldn't just be as simple as direct copy of the existing OSX implementation.

(In the handful of implementations I've studied, the two modes are mutually exclusive. It's sort of like the existing disparity that's already present for ARM cores that can execute the full-featured 32-bit instruction words, but can also be switched to the more compact but less-feature-rich 16-bit THUMB instruction words. Or the way in which PowerPC's (except for the G5) could be switched back and forth between big endian and little endian.)