PDA

View Full Version : Apple to Launch Official Development Kit for iPhone in January?




MacRumors
Oct 16, 2007, 11:34 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2007/tc20071015_258257.htm) reports that Apple may indeed be launching an official software development kit at this January's Macworld Expo.

According to "sources familiar with the company's plans":
Apple will release a software-development kit for the iPhone in early 2008, enabling programmers to create games, business-productivity tools, and countless other applications for the device.

This is the latest iteration of rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/11/apple-to-announce-3rd-party-iphone-app-development/) that Apple will or will not be introducing an official software development kit for the iPhone. At present, Apple's official stance is that applications for the iPhone should be written using web-technologies (HTML/Javascript) to be accessible through the iPhone's Safari.

A number of conflicting reports (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/11/apple-to-announce-3rd-party-iphone-app-development/) have expressed beliefs that Apple would further expand these Web tools or invite specific developers to produce true applications on the iPhone.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/16/apple-to-launch-official-development-kit-for-iphone-in-january/)



bytethese
Oct 16, 2007, 11:36 AM
Damn that would rock. I might even learn to create some of my own custom apps. :)

arn
Oct 16, 2007, 11:38 AM
Businessweek should be a more credible source. In that they would presumably only publish with more convincing information, than say, a blog.

arn

hunterjoules
Oct 16, 2007, 11:42 AM
This just means I'll have wait until January before I decide whether or not the iPhone is right for me. If they add 3G and support for third party apps, it will be an easy decision.

Eidorian
Oct 16, 2007, 11:43 AM
I'm really holding out for Skype on the Touch if the iPhone SDK can deliver that to the iPod Touch. :cool:

TheSpaz
Oct 16, 2007, 11:45 AM
Why is it always the iPhone that gets the special attention? What about the iPod Touch? It uses the same software!

chr1s60
Oct 16, 2007, 11:45 AM
This seems like a credible source. I think Apple has planned on 3rd party apps all along. They probably wanted to get the phone out there and have it used for some time and attempt their own software updates before allowing other applications to be downloaded on the phone. The whole web development could be just there to help get some developer attention to the iPhone and to make some of the internet experience even better. IDK, just an idea.

Drumjim85
Oct 16, 2007, 11:46 AM
I'm really holding out for Skype on the Touch if the iPhone SDK can deliver that to the iPod Touch. :cool:

Where would you Talk/Listen?? ... theres no speakers or mic on the touch..

chr1s60
Oct 16, 2007, 11:49 AM
Why is it always the iPhone that gets the special attention? What about the iPod Touch? It uses the same software!

For starters the Touch has only been out for a few weeks and iPhone has been out almost 4 months. Second, more people own iPhones than own the Touch. Third, the iPhod Touch is not what developers would create for. Since they are pretty similar, most people would probably design for iPhone and it could be used with the touch.

Eidorian
Oct 16, 2007, 11:52 AM
Where would you Talk/Listen?? ... theres no speakers or mic on the touch..Bitches don't know about my Dock Connector. :cool:

plumbingandtech
Oct 16, 2007, 11:53 AM
But I though apple was being an evul monopoly by not allowing third party apps?

Oh wait.

You mean the SDK is not ready as I and many others suggested?

That makes more sense then conspiracy theories that have been posted ad nasium here.

Manatee
Oct 16, 2007, 11:54 AM
It sure would be nice.

Apple did a great job with the interface, but to make the iPhone really useful to me, 3rd parties who have specific expertise in various type of applications need to be involved.

I want a file manager, a document editor (.doc/.xls), an IM client, investment portfolio tracking, password store (like eWallet), and some games like FreeCell and Sudoku.

WolfgangK
Oct 16, 2007, 11:56 AM
I can't imagine they would have apps be iPhone only. Allowing one app, to be bought and downloaded for both the iPhone and the Touch would double the potential customers/sales for any software developer and Apple. In the current climate...I can't see Apple throwing just throwing away those potential profits.

plumbingandtech
Oct 16, 2007, 11:58 AM
I can't imagine they would have apps be iPhone only. Allowing one app, to be bought and downloaded for both the iPhone and the Touch would double the potential customers/sales for any software developer and Apple. In the current climate...I can't see Apple throwing just throwing away those potential profits.

Pretty much.

As long as the app does not need bluetooth, a speaker or voice, I would say you will be proven correct.

eagle24
Oct 16, 2007, 11:59 AM
That would be a good move but the reason for an announcement in January sounds a little strange. They already use the SDK (which is most probably Xcode plus a new cross-compiler and some new frameworks) internally and could immediately find a lot of external beta-testers. Or could it be reaction to a recent open source project http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/20581 that simply uses Xcode to write applications for other linux handhelds like the OpenMoko phone?

What I wonder since WWDC is why they did not simply provide a small (and restricted) Web Server on the iPhone that can serve html, php, css, jpg an XML database plus some other file formats. Then, users could simply copy/install Web 2/AJAX applications and run them in Safari from the local server.

starnox
Oct 16, 2007, 12:01 PM
It's probably going be like dashcode for the iPhone. SDK, but still HTML/Javascript.

citi
Oct 16, 2007, 12:01 PM
I can't imagine they would have apps be iPhone only. Allowing one app, to be bought and downloaded for both the iPhone and the Touch would double the potential customers/sales for any software developer and Apple.

Agreed,
For me, someone who will not be purchasing an iphone, it is crucial to not have internet only apps. If I am outside of a wifi network with my touch basically all my internet apps will be unavailable, which will suck. I need native applications. Iphone doesn't have as big of a problem because of the always on cell service...of course native it's important to those users to. :)

crees!
Oct 16, 2007, 12:04 PM
Businessweek should be a more credible source. In that they would presumably only publish with more convincing information, than say, a blog.

Or a retail employee :D

Crike .40
Oct 16, 2007, 12:07 PM
now, the reliability of the source is always in doubt, but I expect this HAS to be on the way.

The iPhone is a killer product that is doing decently well, but there are still large portions of the market holding out for third party development (not some web-based nonsense). Apple knows this, and imho diverted resources back away from iPhone SDK to 10.5, now that 10.5 has an official launch date, I expect to see those developers moving back to iPhone to get a devkit up and running. I would suspect that it will come through in a very similar system to widget development.

Personally, I haven't used any third party apps because of the risks and hassel involved, but if Apple gave me an easy to use option I would jump all over it and try out many of the very good programs out there.

EagerDragon
Oct 16, 2007, 12:09 PM
Just a rumor, there is no confirmation!!!!!!!!!!

Next people are going to bellyache that their outfit was not selected to the "ELITE" set of people with access to create applcations and install them.

Ok... 1. 2, 3, GO!

Jocko
Oct 16, 2007, 12:14 PM
That would be a good move but the reason for an announcement in January sounds a little strange.Um well I heard a rumor they might have some sort of conference that month which could draw some media attention.
They already use the SDK (which is most probably Xcode plus a new cross-compiler and some new frameworks) internally and could immediately find a lot of external beta-testers.You have to understand there is a HUGE difference between an SDK for internal use and one for public use, right? Just one of a million examples of why a public one is so much more work: documentation.
Or could it be reaction to a recent open source project that simply uses Xcode to write applications for other linux handhelds like the OpenMoko phone?Why would they base the entire future strategy of their "third leg" business on some science project that will be used by like 5 people total ever?
What I wonder since WWDC is why they did not simply provide a small (and restricted) Web Server on the iPhone that can serve html, php, css, jpg an XML database plus some other file formats. Then, users could simply copy/install Web 2/AJAX applications and run them in Safari from the local server.Obviously this is something they have worked on. It's a simple idea, but the implementation on the iPhone actually invovles alot. Maybe its not ready yet? Or maybe in the end there was some fundamental reason they decided against it.

BiikeMike
Oct 16, 2007, 12:16 PM
Wirelessly posted (Treo: Opera/8.01 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/3.1.8295/1716; en; U; ssr))

What I have quitely felt all along is that the iphone dev team combined with adventurous users like myself and many other that have jailbroken their iphone/ipod ARE the beta testers.

You don't think Apple is tracking the dev teams every move to see how they circumvent the system and install 3rd party apps? With all the native apps being written avalaible through apptapp, Apple has their guniea pigs, and if something goes wrong, they can legally be hands off.

But with the overwhelming amount of people hacking, and the high success rates, why should they not open it? People want it, and it works. So far, the worst that has had to happen to most people is a restore. Big deal. The hack is stable, and if its apple supported, it will be just that much more stable

EagerDragon
Oct 16, 2007, 12:19 PM
That would be a good move but the reason for an announcement in January sounds a little strange. They already use the SDK (which is most probably Xcode plus a new cross-compiler and some new frameworks) internally and could immediately find a lot of external beta-testers. Or could it be reaction to a recent open source project http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/20581 that simply uses Xcode to write applications for other linux handhelds like the OpenMoko phone?

What I wonder since WWDC is why they did not simply provide a small (and restricted) Web Server on the iPhone that can serve html, php, css, jpg an XML database plus some other file formats. Then, users could simply copy/install Web 2/AJAX applications and run them in Safari from the local server.

And exactly why would they provide this for the next 9+ million non-developer iPPhone users?

The average iPhone user has no need to run a web server on their iPhone. One more way to get your iPhone hacked by anyone in a wireless setting.

As a developer myself, I see no need for a webserver on the iPhone, I have one in my laptop and desktop, and the iPhone is supposed to use iTunes for loading software.

Do you really think that Apple is going to implement WebDAV and FTP and other servers for everyone to intall tools that can be easily hacked and are not natural for a phone to have?

mainstreetmark
Oct 16, 2007, 12:20 PM
Oh please let this be the case.

My love for the iPhone, and indeed Apple, will be restored. This whole "locked down" thing has been gnawing at me for weeks now. I'm annoyed having to wait a minute or so for one of my "apps" to load (or even walk outside!). I'm annoyed having the Stocks and Weather app on the home screen, as I never use them. My annoyance is my knowledge that I'm holding OSX in my hand, which I know can be so much more, if it were only opened to the cumulative brilliance of the OSX developer community.

Bitches don't know about my Dock Connector. :cool:

I'm not exactly sure what this sentence means, since it's written in 8th Grade speak, but I assume it means you have a dock connector. So, why not use Skype on the computer then, if you're going to be docked?

darthraige
Oct 16, 2007, 12:22 PM
Yea, who cares about the iPhone, start bringing a new MacPro... NOW!

Eidorian
Oct 16, 2007, 12:24 PM
I'm not exactly sure what this sentence means, since it's written in 8th Grade speak, but I assume it means you have a dock connector. So, why not use Skype on the computer then, if you're going to be docked?It's actually a meme but I digress.

Dock Connector peripherals.

mainstreetmark
Oct 16, 2007, 12:25 PM
And exactly why would they provide this for the next 9+ million non-developer iPPhone users?

The average iPhone user has no need to run a web server on their iPhone. One more way to get your iPhone hacked by anyone in a wireless setting.

As a developer myself, I see no need for a webserver on the iPhone, I have one in my laptop and desktop, and the iPhone is supposed to use iTunes for loading software.

Do you really think that Apple is going to implement WebDAV and FTP and other servers for everyone to intall tools that can be easily hacked and are not natural for a phone to have?

I think he means so you can load webpages ON the iPhone FROM the iPhone, so you don't have to wait for edge/wifi. I doubt the iPhone is ever intended to server webpages to the outside world.

It's actually a meme but I digress.

Dock Connector peripherals.

Ah, I get you now. I think I assumed the physical dock when you said that. You mean some sort of external mic/speak that you'd plug in for use when you happen to be in a wifi or something. ..

Eidorian
Oct 16, 2007, 12:26 PM
Ah, I get you now. I think I assumed the physical dock when you said that. You mean some sort of external mic/speak that you'd plug in for use when you happen to be in a wifi or something...Exactly

My hopes aren't very high though.

MacTheSpoon
Oct 16, 2007, 12:27 PM
I definitely believe that an official SDK is going to come out. And I can't wait to see what cool apps people will write! :)

WildPalms
Oct 16, 2007, 12:27 PM
Businessweek should be a more credible source. In that they would presumably only publish with more convincing information, than say, a blog.

arn


Hehe, I got that. ;)

WildPalms
Oct 16, 2007, 12:28 PM
Bitches don't know about my Dock Connector. :cool:

:rollseyes:

eagle24
Oct 16, 2007, 12:28 PM
And exactly why would they provide this for the next 9+ million non-developer iPPhone users?

The average iPhone user has no need to run a web server on their iPhone. One more way to get your iPhone hacked by anyone in a wireless setting.

As a developer myself, I see no need for a webserver on the iPhone, I have one in my laptop and desktop, and the iPhone is supposed to use iTunes for loading software.

Do you really think that Apple is going to implement WebDAV and FTP and other servers for everyone to intall tools that can be easily hacked and are not natural for a phone to have?No. Why should they to serve AJAX applications locally?

I assume they could install a *simple* Web Server (much simpler than Apache: no WebDAV, no FTP, no configuration - just a plain WebServer that ONLY serves http://localhost/somepath). And, you could use iTunes or a similar tool to install files (what is the difference of installing Music from HTML?).

And, I can't see why this could be easily hacked if the web server allows local access only. I made a mistake in my original post - there is NO need for PHP or any scripting language (which is the usual source of Web Server vulnerability) on the iPhone. Safari already provides the scripting language: JavaScript. You have to serve just some .js files.

BTW
Oct 16, 2007, 12:29 PM
Why is it always the iPhone that gets the special attention? What about the iPod Touch? It uses the same software!

I'm sure it would be both. They use the same OS and interface, so why not?

dizastor
Oct 16, 2007, 12:30 PM
This just means I'll have wait until January before I decide whether or not the iPhone is right for me.

You could always ask your doctor. :D

Yvan256
Oct 16, 2007, 12:31 PM
All I want is the ability to store widgets and webpages on the iPhone/iPod touch itself, so we can use non-internet apps without a wi-fi connection.

Also, I really, really hope they'll be adding Mail and Google Maps to the iPod touch.

Drumjim85
Oct 16, 2007, 12:34 PM
Also, I really, really hope they'll be adding Mail and Google Maps to the iPod touch.

I kinda doubt it... if they wanted that on there it would have been from the beginning... But i think they want the touch to be an LE version of the the Phone... so less features...

numbsafari
Oct 16, 2007, 12:52 PM
With Flash being such a big part of the web, what is the possibility that Apple could be working with Adobe to bring the rich client AIR environment to the iPhone?

Or is Apple going to introduce their own RIA platform??

iJed
Oct 16, 2007, 12:52 PM
I wonder if the reason for the wait is because some of the iPhone APIs require the use of Objective-C 2.0. Obviously a lot of them do not because of the currently booming third party development community. However this could be the reason.

twoodcc
Oct 16, 2007, 12:53 PM
great news if this is true. time will tell

/dev/toaster
Oct 16, 2007, 12:53 PM
I love Apple and I love their products ... but I hate how they are dealing with 3rd party apps. Its childish.

I don't believe they are going to release an SDK. If they were, why would they be spending so much time locking down the device ?

Just doesn't make sense.

iJed
Oct 16, 2007, 12:54 PM
I kinda doubt it... if they wanted that on there it would have been from the beginning... But i think they want the touch to be an LE version of the the Phone... so less features...

It would however be nice if they'd offer these apps on the iTunes store for something like $5 each.

phi1281
Oct 16, 2007, 01:01 PM
I really think that it will be some port of Adobe's AIR runtime. (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/air/) It already runs on OS X, proper. I don't think that running on the iPhone would be too big of a stretch.

emotion
Oct 16, 2007, 01:09 PM
No. Why should they to serve AJAX applications locally?

...because you lose the apps when you are out of network contact.

Nevermind a webserver on the iphone (I see what people are saying but it's a little cludgy) we need Google Gears!

Common Apple team up with Google. I mean, you share board members.

emotion
Oct 16, 2007, 01:15 PM
I love Apple and I love their products ... but I hate how they are dealing with 3rd party apps. Its childish.

I don't believe they are going to release an SDK. If they were, why would they be spending so much time locking down the device ?

Just doesn't make sense.

Those 3rd party apps run as root. You should understand now.

They need either a sandbox to run them in or to be run with less priviledge.

Gm7Cadd9
Oct 16, 2007, 01:17 PM
I have had Leopard since the developer preview from WWDC 06, and through all the bugginess up till the last build released to developers I have gotten a feel for it.

That being said, there is no doubt that the phone runs on Leopard. Remember how they say it isn't a mobile OS, it IS OS X, sure there is some debate, but at the end of the day it's Leopard... they even said they stole members of the Leopard team to work on the iPhone.

This doesn't mean that Leopard's release = SDK. However it makes more sense. We all know how secretive Apple can be, and control freaks too. I am sure they could have released an SDK at WWDC this year, but they want to have some control over the applications. I installed AppTap like many people, and saw some impressive third party apps, however the majority of them were pretty useless.

I think once Apple figures out a way to control third party apps they will release an SDK... or they might just do what they did with the iPod and only let a few select companies develop apps/games.

In other news, I can't wait to hear more hype about Leopard, I love this phone, but give the new big cat some credit and let it share the spotlight for a little bit!

-Roy

megfilmworks
Oct 16, 2007, 01:36 PM
I think we will get the development kit sooner or later...hopefully sooner.
Imagine how great the iPhone will be by this time in 2008, 09, etc.

ivi7
Oct 16, 2007, 01:41 PM
January isn't too far away or is it

megfilmworks
Oct 16, 2007, 01:43 PM
I love Apple and I love their products ... but I hate how they are dealing with 3rd party apps. Its childish.

I don't believe they are going to release an SDK. If they were, why would they be spending so much time locking down the device ?

Just doesn't make sense.
They lock down the iPhone because the HAVE to. Imagine the lawsuits if they didn't close the security holes. And the bonus is they close up the platform to rogue development and thereby make the iPhone more attractive for developers of Apples' choice. The perfect storm scenario.

Marx55
Oct 16, 2007, 01:50 PM
We need the iPhone and the iPod touch fully open to third party application development via an Apple SDK for both developing for them at our University and also purchasing for our University studens and staff.

Is Apple blind not having released such SDK yet? They are losing big --BIG-- sales in the thousands, at least with us.

thomasfxlt
Oct 16, 2007, 01:59 PM
I love Apple and I love their products ... but I hate how they are dealing with 3rd party apps. Its childish.

I don't believe they are going to release an SDK. If they were, why would they be spending so much time locking down the device ?

Just doesn't make sense.

Secure environment while it's still essentially a development platform. They don't need to be chasing ghosts right now. I also think (as others have indicated in other threads) that Leopard is the real basis for the iPhone. Until it's release into the wild for a few months, Apple is keeping strict reigns. I'm looking forward to what Apple has in store for the iPhone. I think we will all be pleasantly surprised next year.

lazyrighteye
Oct 16, 2007, 02:08 PM
Why is it always the iPhone that gets the special attention? What about the iPod Touch? It uses the same software!

Because the iPhone represents a more revolutionary product than the Touch? Maybe?

megfilmworks
Oct 16, 2007, 02:15 PM
I think all the complainers, if they were just more patient, would see that there is an ongoing effort at Apple to make the best product they can.
After all, they have a pretty good track record with innovation and support.
I also think that the iPhone OS, as others have posted, is more related to Jaguar and is still just getting the bugs worked out. We could have waited a couple more years for the perfect iPhone or enjoy the development process that Apple will pursue as early adopters.

TurboSC
Oct 16, 2007, 02:17 PM
oh this is wonderful news indeed. I can't wait to see what kind of treats they'll give us!

plumbingandtech
Oct 16, 2007, 02:27 PM
Is Apple blind not having released such SDK yet? They are losing big --BIG-- sales in the thousands, at least with us.


What.
If.
It.
Simply.
Was.
Not.
Ready?

psychofreak
Oct 16, 2007, 02:29 PM
What.
If.
It.
Simply.
Was.
Not.
Ready?

Even the hackers quickly built a preliminary SDK, Apple could have done a better job by now, or even by release...

swagi
Oct 16, 2007, 02:29 PM
Wirelessly posted (Treo: Opera/8.01 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/3.1.8295/1716; en; U; ssr))

What I have quitely felt all along is that the iphone dev team combined with adventurous users like myself and many other that have jailbroken their iphone/ipod ARE the beta testers.

You don't think Apple is tracking the dev teams every move to see how they circumvent the system and install 3rd party apps? With all the native apps being written avalaible through apptapp, Apple has their guniea pigs, and if something goes wrong, they can legally be hands off.

But with the overwhelming amount of people hacking, and the high success rates, why should they not open it? People want it, and it works. So far, the worst that has had to happen to most people is a restore. Big deal. The hack is stable, and if its apple supported, it will be just that much more stable

This is the first time I have seen the whole hacking issue from this perspective. Thank you very much for opening my mind. Indeed you are right.

I personally think an SDK is just a matter of time. Why worrying about 3rd party plugins, when there is a real business for the originating company to receive (e.g. Why should Apple care about the Flash plugin, when the perfect people for optimizing are Adobe?).

plumbingandtech
Oct 16, 2007, 02:32 PM
Even the hackers quickly built a preliminary SDK, Apple could have done a better job by now, or even by release...


Oh you know this huh? Because you have built and documents a safe, secure, not battery draining, clearly documents SDK of the magnitude of the iphone SDK?


If the hackers could do it?

Big difference between a half ss hack job and a real documented SDK.

Big difference.



Again.

If we find out that more then its share of the iphone OS is using leopard "parts" then we know another reason for it not being ready.

mainstreetmark
Oct 16, 2007, 02:42 PM
No. Why should they to serve AJAX applications locally?

I assume they could install a *simple* Web Server (much simpler than Apache: no WebDAV, no FTP, no configuration - just a plain WebServer that ONLY serves http://localhost/somepath). And, you could use iTunes or a similar tool to install files (what is the difference of installing Music from HTML?).

And, I can't see why this could be easily hacked if the web server allows local access only. I made a mistake in my original post - there is NO need for PHP or any scripting language (which is the usual source of Web Server vulnerability) on the iPhone. Safari already provides the scripting language: JavaScript. You have to serve just some .js files.

So, you're not a developer, then, eh? Javascript isn't the end-all/be-all of programming languages for the web, and in fact, one I don't prefer to use for anything beyond user input (or jquery anim)

I think most of you in the "web pages are just fine for apps" crowd have totally different needs in mind than I do.

mainstreetmark
Oct 16, 2007, 02:49 PM
They lock down the iPhone because the HAVE to. Imagine the lawsuits if they didn't close the security holes. And the bonus is they close up the platform to rogue development and thereby make the iPhone more attractive for developers of Apples' choice. The perfect storm scenario.

No! No! No! No! You're speculating! This is "OSX" we're talking about. It is secure (and continues to improve on that front).

"Developers of Apple's choice?" Once again No!x4. I don't want Apple to bless certain apps, because then we'll only get a very few apps, and mostly useless crap like games.

"Rogue Development"? Jeez, rogue development. Rogue Development on the mac has produced everything in this list: http://coolmacapps.com/ To even THINK that Apple is able to decide what every iPhone user wants to use with their totally capable mobile device is foolish.
edit: This may be a more pertinent example: http://software.palm.com/us/html/

It's like this: If you don't want the app that some third party developer has made, don't install the damn thing, and more importantly, don't PREVENT others from doing so if they need to.

Drumjim85
Oct 16, 2007, 02:52 PM
It would however be nice if they'd offer these apps on the iTunes store for something like $5 each.

Sure, and it would be nice if the current iphone was 3G .... ;)

!¡ V ¡!
Oct 16, 2007, 03:03 PM
Presently I am holding out on the iPhone or iPod Touch as both run on the Mac OS X mobile edition which leaves them in the infancy stage. Some of the utilities and applications that I am used to for mobility are not available on the two products.

Maybe in a year, for now my MBP will fill any void in my mobile life. :)

Much Ado
Oct 16, 2007, 03:05 PM
Oh you know this huh? Because you have built and documents a safe, secure, not battery draining, clearly documents SDK of the magnitude of the iphone SDK?


If the hackers could do it?

Big difference between a half ss hack job and a real documented SDK.

Big difference.

True, but Apple know the very framework of the OS X derivative on which the iPhone runs. So big difference here, too.

!¡ V ¡!
Oct 16, 2007, 03:07 PM
Because the iPhone represents a more revolutionary product than the Touch? Maybe?

Give it possible another 6 months and revolutionary will become "the norm" utility.

Touch screens are nothing new, putting it together in a mobile device is nothing new, there way its executed is unique at the moment. :)

!¡ V ¡!
Oct 16, 2007, 03:10 PM
Sure, and it would be nice if the current iphone was 3G .... ;)

Seriously I have been without a mobile phone for over 3 years and I do not miss it at all.

I do not see all the hype of the touch screen and OS X mobile, and I have used it in person.

Though it would make more sense for a user to buy an iPhone instead of a Touch as it has more to offer a user. :)

I still cannot justify buying an iPhone or Touch, and price is not an obligation. :)

finalcut
Oct 16, 2007, 03:29 PM
I'm really holding out for Skype on the Touch if the iPhone SDK can deliver that to the iPod Touch. :cool:Indeed I am waiting on that also!

FoxyKaye
Oct 16, 2007, 04:09 PM
The outcome of this will mostly determine whether or not I purchase the iPhone, which is both more expensive and less functional than its competitors, or simply opt for a Treo, which is cheaper, more expandable, has an established base of 3rd party apps, and plays fine with OS X.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed, because despite the hardware limitations (no memory card slot, no 3G) in the iPhone, it is a well-designed device (my co-worker has one, and it really is lovely to use).

numbsafari
Oct 16, 2007, 04:12 PM
...because you lose the apps when you are out of network contact.

Nevermind a webserver on the iphone (I see what people are saying but it's a little cludgy) we need Google Gears!

Common Apple team up with Google. I mean, you share board members.

Gears is also an interesting option. However, I really think Adobe AIR is more well rounded.

Perhaps we'll see AIR and Gears mashup a little bit? I think there is some sense to that, though Google and Adobe both display a lot of NIH syndrome.

Applet cannot ignore Flash forever on the iPhone, and a web-based SDK doesn't make sense without some kind of client side storage/disconnected features. Without a solid spec on that front, they have to go with either Gears or Air... I cannot imagine them wanting to pick Silverlight... The only question is whether or not they'll try and rock the boat and do it themselves....

madmaxmedia
Oct 16, 2007, 04:13 PM
Since they are pretty similar, most people would probably design for iPhone and it could be used with the touch.

You don't have to design for either, they're the exact same for all applications that don't rely on phone or bluetooth.

We'll see if Apple holds back the Touch...

koobcamuk
Oct 16, 2007, 04:58 PM
now, the reliability of the source is always in doubt, but I expect this HAS to be on the way.

The iPhone is a killer product that is doing decently well, but there are still large portions of the market holding out for third party development (not some web-based nonsense). Apple knows this, and imho diverted resources back away from iPhone SDK to 10.5, now that 10.5 has an official launch date, I expect to see those developers moving back to iPhone to get a devkit up and running. I would suspect that it will come through in a very similar system to widget development.

Personally, I haven't used any third party apps because of the risks and hassel involved, but if Apple gave me an easy to use option I would jump all over it and try out many of the very good programs out there.

I really don't think that the apps on this iPhone are as dodgy as people make out. If you want to be fully covered, the plan is for you.

I highly recommend the phone. It's amazing.

sjo
Oct 16, 2007, 05:54 PM
Oh you know this huh? Because you have built and documents a safe, secure, not battery draining, clearly documents SDK of the magnitude of the iphone SDK?


If the hackers could do it?

Big difference between a half ss hack job and a real documented SDK.

Big difference.



Again.

If we find out that more then its share of the iphone OS is using leopard "parts" then we know another reason for it not being ready.

there already exists an sdk for osx that should be safe, secure, not battery draining and well documented. if the iphone uses a subset of osx (as is claimed), an sdk for it should be a matter of simplifying the osx sdk. not a big deal really.

GQB
Oct 16, 2007, 06:08 PM
Why would they base the entire future strategy of their "third leg" business on some science project that will be used by like 5 people total ever?

:D
Man did you nail that.
I've enjoyed watching the moaning from the 'developers' on this list who think that Apple should design their consumer electronics business plan around them.
Most developers wouldn't recognize a good business plan if it bit them in the ass, as evidenced by the fact that they think mass sales can be achieved by focusing on niche markets.

GQB
Oct 16, 2007, 06:15 PM
Is Apple blind not having released such SDK yet? They are losing big --BIG-- sales in the thousands, at least with us.

Oh My God!!!
Thousands?? Oh no!

Others have said it well.
Chill for a friggin minute. You really think Apple left all those open squares on the menu so that the empty black can be used as a mirror? (Well, given the narcissism of the 'gimme now!' crowd here, maybe that IS what its for. :) )

GQB
Oct 16, 2007, 06:16 PM
Even the hackers quickly built a preliminary SDK, Apple could have done a better job by now, or even by release...

Oh yeah... I'll bet THAT's a fine, robust piece of work.
Ah the hacker mentality.

GQB
Oct 16, 2007, 06:19 PM
Sure, and it would be nice if the current iphone was 3G .... ;)

For what its worth, see
http://seekingalpha.com/article/49988-why-apple-s-iphone-doesn-t-need-3g?source=yahoo
for at least another viewpoint on why 3G is not the be-all end-all many believe it is.

mugwump
Oct 16, 2007, 06:39 PM
For what its worth, see
http://seekingalpha.com/article/49988-why-apple-s-iphone-doesn-t-need-3g?source=yahoo
for at least another viewpoint on why 3G is not the be-all end-all many believe it is.

Um, the iPhone cannot receive data and calls at the same time, due to EDGE. Bring on 3G so I can get some mail without missing every call.

Plus, I think this 3rd party app thing hit Apple much more than they realized. They didn't simply say that the SDK is down the road a bit until they finalize the platform, they asserted that developers should move to web apps. Well, after using EDGE around busy cities, it makes the web app approach virtually unusable.

Random Ping
Oct 16, 2007, 06:53 PM
You have to understand there is a HUGE difference between an SDK for internal use and one for public use, right? Just one of a million examples of why a public one is so much more work: documentation.

The SDK/API is also a long-term commitment by Apple. It is a contract with the developers that Apple will have to support for years (decades?) to come. As long as it is internal, Apple can keep tweaking it until they think they have it right.

Random Ping
Oct 16, 2007, 06:59 PM
but I assume it means you have a dock connector. So, why not use Skype on the computer then, if you're going to be docked?

As you guys have already corrected, the dock can be used by audio input/output devices. I had one for my old iPod to use it as a digital voice recorder. Unfortunately, it was kind-of clunky (it made the iPod bigger) and didn't work very well.

If you plan to make a lot of calls (even if by Skype), the iPhone is probably the most elegant choice.

kresh
Oct 16, 2007, 07:13 PM
It's like this: If you don't want the app that some third party developer has made, don't install the damn thing, and more importantly, don't PREVENT others from doing so if they need to.

<rant>
You may not be old enough to remember the original Atari 2600 video gaming system. It was the first, and they had no controls on developers.

There was sooooo many crap games that every Tom, Dick and Harry put out, that it literally killed the platform and the video game industry in the US.

It was so bad that people thought that video games was just a fad. When Nintendo tried to get into the US, people were so put off with video crap-games, that not a single retailer would buy the Nintendo video game system. Nintendo attended the largest US Electronics show two years running, without a single retailer buying anything!

They had to rebrand it as a toy. Even then the only way the first Nintendo ever sold was because of the Teddy Rumskin manufacturer (Worlds of Wonder) had an agreement with Nintendo. If a retailer wanted to buy Teddy Rumskin, they had to buy Nintendo.

When Nintendo started taking off, they used draconian developer controls. There was a hardware key for the carts, and to promote quality games, the developer could only release five titles per year.

So let's don't forget about history.

Rampant generation of crappy software for a platform, means the death of the platform.

Nintendo only made it by controlling developers, the same as Sony Playstation and Microsoft X-Box.

I truly hope that Apple implements fairly draconian developer controls. It means that the iPhone will be around for a long time. Otherwise the market will be flooded with thousands of crappy apps for the iPhone, so much that the average user developes a bad taste of the iPhone.

</end rant>


edit: Awesome HD Podcast of source information posted above - http://tinyurl.com/ywnhv9

mdriftmeyer
Oct 16, 2007, 08:25 PM
Gears is also an interesting option. However, I really think Adobe AIR is more well rounded.

Perhaps we'll see AIR and Gears mashup a little bit? I think there is some sense to that, though Google and Adobe both display a lot of NIH syndrome.

Applet cannot ignore Flash forever on the iPhone, and a web-based SDK doesn't make sense without some kind of client side storage/disconnected features. Without a solid spec on that front, they have to go with either Gears or Air... I cannot imagine them wanting to pick Silverlight... The only question is whether or not they'll try and rock the boat and do it themselves....

It'll be WebKit, end of story. All these third party capabilities are in WebKit in one form or another.

Flash will be added in via Software Update.

Nothing that either 3rd party set does that Apple hasn't been able to do for years, outside of Flash being Adobe/Macromedia's own.

Pay close attention to the fact that WebKit is not just Cocoa & Qt but now GTK+. WebKit runs on Linux in both GNOME and KDE. KDE 4.1 will be using WebKit for their Konqueror Browser. WebKit is already an option for the latest GNOME Mozilla based browser.

The Linux mobile toolkits will be leveraging WebKit via Qt and GTK+.

pedroistheman
Oct 16, 2007, 09:10 PM
(removed)

megfilmworks
Oct 16, 2007, 09:46 PM
I have to agree with Kresh, Limit the apps and stabilize the platform.

numbsafari
Oct 16, 2007, 10:07 PM
It'll be WebKit, end of story. All these third party capabilities are in WebKit in one form or another.

Flash will be added in via Software Update.

Nothing that either 3rd party set does that Apple hasn't been able to do for years, outside of Flash being Adobe/Macromedia's own.

Pay close attention to the fact that WebKit is not just Cocoa & Qt but now GTK+. WebKit runs on Linux in both GNOME and KDE. KDE 4.1 will be using WebKit for their Konqueror Browser. WebKit is already an option for the latest GNOME Mozilla based browser.

The Linux mobile toolkits will be leveraging WebKit via Qt and GTK+.

Ok.... WebKit is just an html/javascript rendering engine (the guts of Safari, basically).... That's all well and good, but RIA need other cool things like localized data storage, disconnected operation, etc. WebKit doesn't provide that.

Things like Adobe AIR and Google's Gears do. Perhaps apple will add something similar to WebKit? Sure... but they are going to have a hard time moving the Flash developer base over to something else.

If you port Adobe's flash, AIR is right behind at this point.

My guess is that if Apple IS going to add this type of thing to WebKit then that is exactly why Flash isn't on there... and if that's the case then Flash most likely never will be.

robPOD
Oct 16, 2007, 11:16 PM
Open up the iPod touch for3rd party, oh wait its called jailbreak

Drumjim85
Oct 16, 2007, 11:38 PM
For what its worth, see
http://seekingalpha.com/article/49988-why-apple-s-iphone-doesn-t-need-3g?source=yahoo
for at least another viewpoint on why 3G is not the be-all end-all many believe it is.

Interesting article! But it would still be nice to be able to recieve calls when updating email or surfing the web without wifi.

megfilmworks
Oct 16, 2007, 11:41 PM
Very interesting article link, thanks!

B. Hunter
Oct 17, 2007, 12:50 AM
Obviously Apple has let someone develop a medical app for the iPod touch.
I just saw on the news tonight how a Seattle area hospital is using it.
Doctors and others use the touch to display body scans and readings.
It was cool to watch. An employee even had a black nano showing a patient some kind of scan.

egoldin
Oct 17, 2007, 01:39 AM
When Apple allows 3rd party applications and when the iPhone goes 3g, then I'll hop on the wagon. Might be waiting a while...

MattInOz
Oct 17, 2007, 02:12 AM
Gears is also an interesting option. However, I really think Adobe AIR is more well rounded.

Perhaps we'll see AIR and Gears mashup a little bit? I think there is some sense to that, though Google and Adobe both display a lot of NIH syndrome.

Applet cannot ignore Flash forever on the iPhone, and a web-based SDK doesn't make sense without some kind of client side storage/disconnected features. Without a solid spec on that front, they have to go with either Gears or Air... I cannot imagine them wanting to pick Silverlight... The only question is whether or not they'll try and rock the boat and do it themselves....

Apple do have a spec....
It's called dashcode.

edit: Sure i'm probably being a blind fanboi.
But what better way to work out what can be loaded on the phone and what needs live data than to have widget bundle. Let the "developer" decide.

Reading the Leopard 300+ page for Dashcode there is even mention of the project manager to bundle the widget, into a self contained unit for distribution. Plus it's all based on webkit, so all it really needs is the iPhone Templete file.

Then they can just start adding links to native libraries as they please.
/edit

swagi
Oct 17, 2007, 02:21 AM
The photo that was used by Al Gore in his movie was a hoax. The polar bears illustrated in the picture that he used were NOT stranded.

Interesting article! But it would still be nice to be able to recieve calls when updating email or surfing the web without wifi.

Use 3G regularly, and all I can say is, the author is wrong. Speech quality is great, signal dropouts rarely occur and Web experience is good.

Maybe this author should travel to Europe or Japan, before dissing 3G!

Haven't used an iPhone yet, but I guess there will be some interesting reads in November, when it hits the shelves in Europe.

MattInOz
Oct 17, 2007, 02:34 AM
Use 3G regularly, and all I can say is, the author is wrong. Speech quality is great, signal dropouts rarely occur and Web experience is good.

Maybe this author should travel to Europe or Japan, before dissing 3G!

Haven't used an iPhone yet, but I guess there will be some interesting reads in November, when it hits the shelves in Europe.

Did the author 'dis' G3?
I thought his point was that web like low Latency.
Phone networks are high Latency.

So smart designing for limited bandwidth (ie. reduce demand) will pay off when you get high bandwith but still have high Latency.

Sounds to me like iPhone widget bundles, that can contain as much as possible local would be killer on either EDGE or G3 or Wifi or WiMax, or what ever comes next in the evolution.

Catfish_Man
Oct 17, 2007, 03:02 AM
:D
Man did you nail that.
I've enjoyed watching the moaning from the 'developers' on this list who think that Apple should design their consumer electronics business plan around them.
Most developers wouldn't recognize a good business plan if it bit them in the ass, as evidenced by the fact that they think mass sales can be achieved by focusing on niche markets.

Uh, most developers (and I'm using the term in a restrictive sense here) are employed by companies which do have business plans. You can bet that many of those companies are watching the iPhone intently, and would love to move in on a rather wealthy and gadget-happy market like that.

Then you get the indie & small company developer crowd, who are making a fine living without mass sales (Omni*, Coda & Transmit, MarsEdit, NetNewsWire, etc...). I've asked some of them about it, and they would love to target the iPhone.

and then you get the open source developers, crazy enthusiasts, people with poor business plans, etc... who really aren't going to make any money off it.

I fall in the first and last category, although the last is where I'd be really excited about making iPhone apps.

All that said, you're making a strawman argument anyway, since I don't think anyone's claiming that Apple's iPhone strategy should be based around third party apps. Instead, they're saying* that third party apps would enhance Apple's iPhone strategy, just as they have on almost every other platform in existence**.

* heck, in some cases they're just saying "man, that would be awesome", which it would be.

**with the iPod being a conspicuous counterexample.

aussie_geek
Oct 17, 2007, 03:38 AM
skype here we come!!

emotion
Oct 17, 2007, 03:47 AM
skype here we come!!

If Apple hadn't left out bluetooth, a headset + Touch +skype would have worked out nicely.

As it is a cludge for mic use needs to be thought up (via the dock connector).

boss1
Oct 17, 2007, 04:57 AM
<rant>
You may not be old enough to remember the original Atari 2600 video gaming system. It was the first, and they had no controls on developers.

There was sooooo many crap games that every Tom, Dick and Harry put out, that it literally killed the platform and the video game industry in the US.

It was so bad that people thought that video games was just a fad. When Nintendo tried to get into the US, people were so put off with video crap-games, that not a single retailer would buy the Nintendo video game system. Nintendo attended the largest US Electronics show two years running, without a single retailer buying anything!

They had to rebrand it as a toy. Even then the only way the first Nintendo ever sold was because of the Teddy Rumskin manufacturer (Worlds of Wonder) had an agreement with Nintendo. If a retailer wanted to buy Teddy Rumskin, they had to buy Nintendo.

When Nintendo started taking off, they used draconian developer controls. There was a hardware key for the carts, and to promote quality games, the developer could only release five titles per year.

So let's don't forget about history.

Rampant generation of crappy software for a platform, means the death of the platform.

Nintendo only made it by controlling developers, the same as Sony Playstation and Microsoft X-Box.

I truly hope that Apple implements fairly draconian developer controls. It means that the iPhone will be around for a long time. Otherwise the market will be flooded with thousands of crappy apps for the iPhone, so much that the average user developes a bad taste of the iPhone.

</end rant>


edit: Awesome HD Podcast of source information posted above - http://tinyurl.com/ywnhv9


Holy flashback Batman!

I had forgotten all about that. I remember Nintendo going all out with Robo! the little robot that pushed the buttons for you on the NES controller. I think I still have my Robo... somewhere in the basement. That was a very creative leap there for Nintendo marketing wise, in order to attempt to overcome the perception of video game consoles suck.

I remember all the crap games that came to Atari also because of the lack of developer control.


I agree with the concept 100% . Apple does need to implement developer controls so that garbage doesn't wind up on the iPhone. I just hope it happens sooner then never. And right now, Never seems like the reality considering I'm going on almost 6 months into my 2 year contract. :(

Cleverboy
Oct 17, 2007, 05:07 AM
Where would you Talk/Listen?? ... theres no speakers or mic on the touch..Hm. Y'know... has ANYONE tried the iPhone headphones on the Touch yet? For that matter, has Apple said anything about the "Voice Recording" staple of the iPod brand? Along with FM Radio accessory support, there are still some gaping holes in the new multitouch platform.

~ CB

Chupa Chupa
Oct 17, 2007, 07:29 AM
The fact is, and I'm sure Apple knows this, that iPhone + Flash + 3G + 3rd Party Apps + sub $300 price = a true smartphone killer. No other phone would have a chance in the consumerworld and if you could get it to talk to Blackberry servers then B.I.N.G.O.

I don't know if we'll see all that @ MWSF, but if we did it would be tremendous and AAPL would shoot up 20-30 points instantly as RIMM, MOT, SNE and NOK got knocked down 5-10%.

mainstreetmark
Oct 17, 2007, 07:33 AM
<rant>
You may not be old enough to remember the original Atari 2600 video gaming system. It was the first, and they had no controls on developers.

There was sooooo many crap games that every Tom, Dick and Harry put out, that it literally killed the platform and the video game industry in the US.

It was so bad that people thought that video games was just a fad. When Nintendo tried to get into the US, people were so put off with video crap-games, that not a single retailer would buy the Nintendo video game system. Nintendo attended the largest US Electronics show two years running, without a single retailer buying anything!

They had to rebrand it as a toy. Even then the only way the first Nintendo ever sold was because of the Teddy Rumskin manufacturer (Worlds of Wonder) had an agreement with Nintendo. If a retailer wanted to buy Teddy Rumskin, they had to buy Nintendo.

When Nintendo started taking off, they used draconian developer controls. There was a hardware key for the carts, and to promote quality games, the developer could only release five titles per year.

So let's don't forget about history.

Rampant generation of crappy software for a platform, means the death of the platform.

Nintendo only made it by controlling developers, the same as Sony Playstation and Microsoft X-Box.

I truly hope that Apple implements fairly draconian developer controls. It means that the iPhone will be around for a long time. Otherwise the market will be flooded with thousands of crappy apps for the iPhone, so much that the average user developes a bad taste of the iPhone.

</end rant>


<Rebuttal>
Yep! I remember the 2600 quite well. The "Pac Man" was particularly terrible, but it was an early example of a home console game. And, to dwell on this example, have a read on the wikipedia article about the 2600, particularly the sections called "Launch and runaway success", "Decline" (which credits Atari *blocking* third party development as a decline), and of course, "The console that refused to die", which talks a bit about renewed third party game development.

But, if we're choosing examples from history as to why third party development is somehow bad, might I refer you, once again, to the Macintosh. Completely open, unhindered application development, and in the days of pre-OSX, not even much official support out of Apple, beyond some books and notes (there was no Xcode - only CodeWarrior). The third party developers played large roles in the success of this (and windows) platform, and one could easily imagine that if the origin company had to release ALL the software, it'd never be able to fill the general consumer need. Plus, someone would point a monopolistic finger at them.

Nowadays, software development has come a long way, and we have highly evolved development tools and everybody is using some form of object oriented approach (which makes even the poorest of coders behave). The development platform provides consistent user interfaces, built in protected memory management, and wonderful tools to help developers write quality apps without near the commitment of even 10 years ago.

The odds are that the market will be "flooded" with bad apps is pretty low. This isn't the 1980's where software lives on dusty shelves in stripmalls, and you make choices based on the description on the back. If an app is good, you'll hear about it. If it sucks, well, you'll hear about that too. It works well on the Real OSX, so it should also work well on the Mobile OSX. It's a free market, and one with so much feedback, it flies in the face of entropy itself.

(Besides - there's already a ton of crappy "WebApps" out there, and it hasn't dented anything (and I do mean crappy!))

goosnarrggh
Oct 17, 2007, 07:44 AM
No! No! No! No! You're speculating! This is "OSX" we're talking about. It is secure (and continues to improve on that front).
With the exception of the fact that it's been demonstrated that all native apps on the iPhone (at least up until and including version 1.0.2) run as root.

(That's ignoring the discussion about just how much of OSX is actually present in the thing. Remember, if they designed it to run all applications as root, then maybe they just didn't bother porting over any of the non-administrator security framework. Assuming that they always intended to have a closed system, those components would only serve to take up additional space without ever actually being used.)

If all native applications are granted root privileges, it doesn't matter how airtight the underlying security frameworks in the OS are - there'll still be the potential to do damage. I can only think of two possible remedies:
1) Add non-root user accounts on the iPhone, along with all the frameworks that are required to truly implement them.
2) Enforce strict controls on the types of applications that are allowed to make it on the iPhone in the first place.

Option (2) might be the easier path to take. In my view, that would mean Javascript/WebKit for all the script kiddies out there that want to play in Apple's limited public sandbox and make their neat-o programs, and full access to the powerful native OSX APIs for the serious developers who want to sign Apple's NDAs and revenue agreements.

Stella
Oct 17, 2007, 07:58 AM
By this logic, Apple should control 3rd party apps on OSX just in case someone releases a crap app.

Despite console games being a bit more controlled, there's still a lot of junk out there.... so controlling isn't always a good thing and doesn't mean automatic high quality.

No one is forcing people to install a crap app, or any apps at all. If people are that worried, they can only install iPhone apps that come from Apple. Its a really simple concept.

<rant>
You may not be old enough to remember the original Atari 2600 video gaming system. It was the first, and they had no controls on developers.
<snip>
</end rant>

http://tinyurl.com/ywnhv9

You don't need 3G for that. Its an iPhone limitation - other phones on the market can receive calls while connected to internet ( via GPRS et al ).

Interesting article! But it would still be nice to be able to recieve calls when updating email or surfing the web without wifi.

mainstreetmark
Oct 17, 2007, 09:20 AM
With the exception of the fact that it's been demonstrated that all native apps on the iPhone (at least up until and including version 1.0.2) run as root.


I did hear that this was the current case, and if it's true, then Safari is already running as root right now. The Apple guys must have something up their sleeve to ensure the safety of this most dubious of apps, as far as security is concerned.

I would think it would be easier to impliment your (1), which is a separate non-root user. You even see this for faceless processes like httpd who runs as it's own user for this very reason. I would think it'd be awkward to have to type in the "root" password on your iphone whenever an app needs to do low level stuff.


No one is forcing people to install a crap app, or any apps at all. If people are that worried, they can only install iPhone apps that come from Apple. Its a really simple concept.

Exactly. People's concerns about what "they" might put on "their" phone shouldn't stop me from experiencing the freedom to totally wreck mine with crappy apps. There's enough rules in this world. I just really worry about a tightly controlled environment where I don't have the freedom to innovate a solution to a problem I happen to have that Apple hasn't thought of. And, those of you who think a WebApp or some clever javascript solution will do "all I need to do" is, imho, shortsighted. I want more than a "RSS Reader" (which doesn't even exist yet!)

bretm
Oct 17, 2007, 10:13 AM
Well, Apple just announced it. From their own new page today...

Third Party Applications on the iPhone
Let me just say it: We want native third party applications on the iPhone, and we plan to have an SDK in developers’ hands in February. We are excited about creating a vibrant third party developer community around the iPhone and enabling hundreds of new applications for our users. With our revolutionary multi-touch interface, powerful hardware and advanced software architecture, we believe we have created the best mobile platform ever for developers. It will take until February to release an SDK because we’re trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once—provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc. This is no easy task. Some claim that viruses and malware are not a problem on mobile phones—this is simply not true. There have been serious viruses on other mobile phones already, including some that silently spread from phone to phone over the cell network. As our phones become more powerful, these malicious programs will become more dangerous. And since the iPhone is the most advanced phone ever, it will be a highly visible target. Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example, is not allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known developer. While this makes such a phone less than “totally open,” we believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on an advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively program the iPhone’s amazing software platform while at the same time protecting users from malicious programs. We think a few months of patience now will be rewarded by many years of great third party applications running on safe and reliable iPhones. Steve P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for iPod touch.

plinden
Oct 17, 2007, 10:24 AM
Here's the link to the Apple announcement - http://www.apple.com/hotnews/

pastmaps
Oct 17, 2007, 10:28 AM
This just up on the Apple "start" page:

"Let me just say it: We want native third party applications on the iPhone, and we plan to have an SDK in developers’ hands in February. We are excited about creating a vibrant third party developer community around the iPhone and enabling hundreds of new applications for our users. With our revolutionary multi-touch interface, powerful hardware and advanced software architecture, we believe we have created the best mobile platform ever for developers. It will take until February to release an SDK because we’re trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once—provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc. This is no easy task. Some claim that viruses and malware are not a problem on mobile phones—this is simply not true. There have been serious viruses on other mobile phones already, including some that silently spread from phone to phone over the cell network. As our phones become more powerful, these malicious programs will become more dangerous. And since the iPhone is the most advanced phone ever, it will be a highly visible target. Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example, is not allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known developer. While this makes such a phone less than “totally open,” we believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on an advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively program the iPhone’s amazing software platform while at the same time protecting users from malicious programs. We think a few months of patience now will be rewarded by many years of great third party applications running on safe and reliable iPhones. Steve P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for iPod touch."

mdriftmeyer
Oct 17, 2007, 11:14 AM
Ok.... WebKit is just an html/javascript rendering engine (the guts of Safari, basically).... That's all well and good, but RIA need other cool things like localized data storage, disconnected operation, etc. WebKit doesn't provide that.

Things like Adobe AIR and Google's Gears do. Perhaps apple will add something similar to WebKit? Sure... but they are going to have a hard time moving the Flash developer base over to something else.

If you port Adobe's flash, AIR is right behind at this point.

My guess is that if Apple IS going to add this type of thing to WebKit then that is exactly why Flash isn't on there... and if that's the case then Flash most likely never will be.

WebKit is more than HTML/JS. Much more.

Let's just say, it inherits from Foundation Kit.

emotion
Oct 17, 2007, 11:17 AM
WebKit is more than HTML/JS. Much more.

Please expand on the 'much more'.

Catfish_Man
Oct 17, 2007, 12:30 PM
WebKit is more than HTML/JS. Much more.

Let's just say, it inherits from Foundation Kit.

Uhhh, what? No it doesn't. WebKit is cross platform, currently running on Mac, Windows (with ported CoreFoundation and CoreGraphics), Qt, and GTK+. That said, HTML5 is pushing HTML+JS+CSS into being more suitable for webapps. I'm sure offline mode and local storage are in the works, for example.

kresh
Oct 17, 2007, 01:58 PM
By this logic, Apple should control 3rd party apps on OSX just in case someone releases a crap app.

Despite console games being a bit more controlled, there's still a lot of junk out there.... so controlling isn't always a good thing and doesn't mean automatic high quality.

No one is forcing people to install a crap app, or any apps at all. If people are that worried, they can only install iPhone apps that come from Apple. Its a really simple concept.



The logic is still there, it's just hidden behind another event.

That event is "Microsoft Office". Be honest and look back at history and ask yourself where OSX would have been if Apple had not made the deal to have Office on OSX?

When I look back and imagine what it would have been like without Office, all I see is a cesspool of shareware apps on a deadend system.

winterspan
Oct 17, 2007, 03:45 PM
You could always ask your doctor. :D

HAHAHAH. Bam... beat me to it !!!!