Steve Jobs Announces 3rd Party SDK for iPhone for February 2008 [Archive] - Page 2

plumbingandtech

Oct 17, 2007, 01:43 PM

Yvan256

Oct 17, 2007, 01:45 PM

A MOD/S3M/XM/etc player!

Thanks in advance! :D

P.S.: Yes I know I could convert those to AAC files, however the original files will be much, much smaller, not to mention the looping ability which lacks in the AAC files (the way MOD files do it, i.e. start at 0:00, loop back at 0:30).

mrrydogg

Oct 17, 2007, 01:46 PM

Uh - NO. And why only some and not all? Jobs has his back to the wall. If he doesn't and hasn't it's his own fault. And this after breaking people's devices - as many pundits say further it was done deliberately.

You may gain a few dorky apps for your precious iPhone but the basic tenet of Steve Jobs "to own and have a 100% grasp on the whole banana" has not changed and never will change. Steve Jobs is the antithesis of open source and open systems. He hates those things. Period. So you get what he gives you - or in this case after Nokia surged through the gaffe what he is forced to give you. Again, this might be perception only as regards the iPhone but Jobs had many chances. He could have nixed the idea of making bricks out of expensive devices. He could have spoken sooner. Etc. His reaction now is embarrassingly too close to the recent Nokia campaign. And finally, again, this is how Steve Jobs is. He wants the whole banana. If you like his banana, then go for it but don't expect people who are more wide awake and free thinking than you to "shut up now". Nothing's essentially changed.

I gotta leave this part in because it's so cool. :D

Your obviously not a fan of smart business people. Go ahead and dwell on the people who hacked their phones and bricked them. It was their fault not Apple's. Its a business! You don't understand how that works do you?

Why would assume that we would be getting a "few dorky apps"? Yeah, I am always thinking to myself "Man their are no software apps for the Mac!". What an ignorant statement.

And by the way he is complementing Nokia, not slamming them. Learn how to read and think at the same time. It might help you before you make these kind of posts which are so uneducated they are almost forgettable.

Project

Oct 17, 2007, 01:48 PM

sdk=more mac sales ;)

Interesting thought. I wonder if the SDK will be exclusive to XCode? More than likely.

Come on board, developers using Windows. The water is lovely :D

BornAgainMac

Oct 17, 2007, 01:48 PM

So sorry, my beloved Blackberry, looks like that evil iPhone that invaded your territory will eventually fly solo on my geek belt.

Now to sit back and wait for:
- Word/Excel editor
- "Today"-style appointment/calls/mail integrator
- File manager
- IM client(s)
- Useful e-mail client
- Freecell game
- Solitaire game
- Crossword puzzle program (for .puz files)
- Global "finder" -- like Spotlight
- eWallet
- Financial portfolio tracker
- Financial/Scientific calculator

Don't forget these favorites:
- Norton Utilities Mobile Edition
- Norton Antivirus
- Bootcamp
- Defrag
- Uninstaller
- Microsoft Office
- Partition Magic
- Ghost
- Visual Basic
- Internet Explorer
- Virtual Mobile PC
- iPhone Fortran
- Frontpage
- SQL Server

morespce54

Oct 17, 2007, 01:48 PM

Hope :apple: is not going to charge for Mail.app, I still feel it should be included. And in relation to the iPhone and Touch how will generation be differed other than more storage, if SJ mentioned that the iPhone will have free applications and software features upgradability.

Sorry OT but is Mail.app included on the iPod Touch?

mrrydogg

Oct 17, 2007, 01:49 PM

As long as they're not standing inline at the MR Kool-Aid dispenser, yes they are. Besides: if you weren't staggering under the weight of all the Kool-Aid you'd see the simplicity in it. 1. Nokia attack; 2. Jobs does an about face. Wow. I mean WOW. I am SO IMPRESSED.

About face? Not following you.

Again, Nokia compliment, not attack.

farmboy

Oct 17, 2007, 01:51 PM

As long as they're not standing inline at the MR Kool-Aid dispenser, yes they are. Besides: if you weren't staggering under the weight of all the Kool-Aid you'd see the simplicity in it. 1. Nokia attack; 2. Jobs does an about face. Wow. I mean WOW. I am SO IMPRESSED.

A sequence of events does not imply causation.

Jobs said at the iMac keynote that Apple wanted 3rd party apps and was looking for the right way to do that. You miss that? Nokia had nothing to do with it.

blilly

Oct 17, 2007, 01:54 PM

You really need to go here to see what prices we are looking at when the apps become available thru the itunes store.

http://software.brighthand.com/homeSoftware.asp?platform=-1&sString=Business+%26+Finance&CatID=1

a $4.99 max for iphone apps is just not going to be the case.

I honestly see an opportunity for corporate/enterprise level apps that my company would pay $100 + for if the functionality took some of the strain off people lugging laptops around. I barely go to my computer anymore now that I use an iPhone ... I only go there for Quicken for home and layout apps for work.

Unspeaked

Oct 17, 2007, 01:55 PM

Sorry OT but is Mail.app included on the iPod Touch?

No, it's not.

Analog Kid

Oct 17, 2007, 01:56 PM

My guess is this SDK won't be backwards compatible with existing phones. I expect this will be released at the same time as the next gen iPhone. If I had to guess, they're looking at running a dual processor setup where one core is devoted to phone functions and the second is available for application use. Some sort of virtual machine is possible too, I suppose. He did say "native development" which I interpret to exclude offline webapps.
I am soooo looking forward to getting an iMac loaded with Leopard and its development tools. Its been years since I've written any code for the Mac and on a personal level I'd like to get back to it. Hopefully the iPhone/iTouch SDK will be available for free through ADC as opposed to just for the premier membership.

Unfortunately the interest is personal, not work related - at least ... not yet. Let me loose with it and maybe I can bend a few ears.:D
This is my primary interest as well. Cocoa is too much fun, I'd love to be able to put stuff on a mobile device. I want to be able to do little stuff myself, without shelling out for a Premier membership. That said, if this was only targeted at top tier developers I don't think it would warrant this kind of announcement-- apps would have just appeared the way games did for iPod.
since 2008 is a leap year, I can almost sense Steve Jobs will release the SDK on February 29th at 6:00pm :)
iPhone development leaps ahead, Feb 29th.

Unspeaked

Oct 17, 2007, 01:56 PM

Don't forget these favorites:
- Norton Utilities Mobile Edition
- Norton Antivirus
- Bootcamp
- Defrag
- Uninstaller
- Microsoft Office
- Partition Magic
- Ghost
- Visual Basic
- Internet Explorer
- Virtual Mobile PC
- iPhone Fortran
- Frontpage
- SQL Server

And, of course, Final Cut Pro...

psychofreak

Oct 17, 2007, 01:56 PM

Sorry OT but is Mail.app included on the iPod Touch?

No, but people have hacked it onto the touch...

P.S. Not a capital T for iPod touch

morespce54

Oct 17, 2007, 01:58 PM

No, it's not.

No, but people have hacked it onto the touch...

P.S. Not a capital T for iPod touch

Dargn... Thank you!

DaBrain

Oct 17, 2007, 01:58 PM

... and that, my friends, is when I will be betting my iphone.

How much are u betting? :)

plumbingandtech

Oct 17, 2007, 02:03 PM

I honestly see an opportunity for corporate/enterprise level apps that my company would pay $100 + for if the functionality took some of the strain off people lugging laptops around. I barely go to my computer anymore now that I use an iPhone ... I only go there for Quicken for home and layout apps for work.

Exactly. And the Enterpise market is going to be big for the iphone now that there will be an SDK for things like Exchange Servers etc.

RIM just took a hit today.

Anyone who thinks these apps are all going to be under 10 bucks is in for a cold splash of reality.

diamond.g

Oct 17, 2007, 02:03 PM

ivi7

Oct 17, 2007, 02:05 PM

No, but people have hacked it onto the touch...

P.S. Not a capital T for iPod touch

I always end up putting a capital T for the iPod touch :o

Hattig

Oct 17, 2007, 02:07 PM

Right then. In the month before this SDK release there will be Version 2 of the iPhone / iPod Touch OS X, and this version will fix all the security issues with the current software, including the fact that applications run as superuser. In addition there will be the robust stable API available for these applications (I wouldn't be surprised if the current iPhone is running on a gently shifting API basis, release to release) and there's probably a horde of documentation to complete. In essence this will be the first complete full version of OS X Mobile (for want of a better name), pretty much like Mac OS X 10.1 was what the release version should have been. The current OS X Mobile is what they crowbarred together after the project got stuck and all the Mac OS X developers were brought in.

The SDK will be integrated into XCode of course. There will be the option to develop a project for "OS X Mobile / ARM" or "Mac OS X Intel & PowerPC", possibly with component sharing between the two.

What else can people think of?

chr1s60

Oct 17, 2007, 02:11 PM

You really need to go here to see what prices we are looking at when the apps become available thru the itunes store.

http://software.brighthand.com/homeSoftware.asp?platform=-1&sString=Business+%26+Finance&CatID=1

a $4.99 max for iphone apps is just not going to be the case.

Perhaps it is just my personal opinion then. I wouldn't want to spend $20 or more for an app on my phone. I can't really think of anything I need that is worth that much to take up space on my phone and possibly slow it down or take away battery life. I use my phone mostly for calling, texting, web browsing, and email so maybe that is why. I could understand businesses paying a lot of money for these things, but I personally do not need any specific app in order to improve what is already a brilliant device.

Avatar74

Oct 17, 2007, 02:13 PM

I think the prices you just listed are insane. Apple may distribute apps through iTunes and they may charge a certain amount, but those prices are way off. First off, it is likely there will be many apps that are free. Second, $9.99 is a crazy amount for anything short of a mobile version of MS Office. I think the most an app would sell for is $4.99, anything more is going to hurt sales. I could see between $0.99 - $4.99, but anything more likely wouldn't sell unless it was an extremely ground breaking amazing app.

I disagree. I see games for $4.99 on mobile systems with nowhere near the graphics or UI capabilities of the iPhone. Who the hell pays $3.99 for a copy of Pitfall that looks no better than it did on the Atari 2600?

I think that the feature-rich nature, ease of use, and especially the ease of install/uninstall are all premiums for which Apple will be able to command a higher price. Pricing goes beyond just cost or features.

If Apple can easily charge three to four times for their keyboards what third parties charge for theirs, and you can definitely tell there's a difference in quality to boot, then surely they can charge a premium for apps and such if the user experience far exceeds that of the same apps on another system... and there's every reason to imagine that it can.

~J~

Oct 17, 2007, 02:14 PM

So 3rd party apps shortly after Feb... I doubt we will see any "authorized" apps to compete with Apple's iTunes ringtone service tho... would love to see Ambrosia's iToner get the blessing... but just dont see that happening...

whatever

Oct 17, 2007, 02:15 PM

Works for me.

If I want to use 3rd party applications (I have yet to do so), I want them to just work. Not have to jump through the hoops to get it initially set up and then have to do it all over again when Apple updates.

If it means waiting until Feb. then so be it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to put my ear to the ground to listen for the herd of trolls likely heading this way.
I with you.

One of the last apps I installed on my iPhone actually bricked it (it was the GPS one) and luckily 1.1.1 brought it back.

As for prices of the apps, remember that you always get what you pay for!

whatever

Oct 17, 2007, 02:20 PM

Interesting thought. I wonder if the SDK will be exclusive to XCode? More than likely.

Come on board, developers using Windows. The water is lovely :D

God I hope it is exclusive to XCode. Can you imagine all of the brokenstandards that non-XCode developers would bring to the iPhone. Either play in our sandbox or get out!

Project

Oct 17, 2007, 02:26 PM

God I hope it is exclusive to XCode. Can you imagine all of the brokenstandards that non-XCode developers would bring to the iPhone. Either play in our sandbox or get out!

Yup, im pretty certain it will be XCode or die... which is great.

Remember this slide.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/352033527_6df6752408.jpg?v=0

The man is a visionary.

Darkroom

Oct 17, 2007, 02:27 PM

remember that you always get what you pay for!

the modern tax payer may disagree :rolleyes:

TigerPRO

Oct 17, 2007, 02:28 PM

It seems like the hacking movement forced the truth down Apple's throat that they can't survive against the enormous will of the people.
***... can we be a little more pretentious?

Yes, we could, if we had said: "The hacking movement has..." But I get the point, sorry about coming off so strongly.

nukiduz

Oct 17, 2007, 02:38 PM

Is a GPS app possible? I thought it was something more related to hardware than to software...

lazyrighteye

Oct 17, 2007, 02:44 PM

Sweet! Hope they don't block current jailbreaks/apps in the next firmware updates, otherwise Feb will be a long time to wait.

What are the odds we see a firmware update on Oct. 26 for Leopard compatibility?

psychofreak

Oct 17, 2007, 02:44 PM

Is a GPS app possible? I thought it was something more related to hardware than to software...
Navizon (http://navizon.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/a-version-of-na.html) has a positioning app already using triangulation, this could get MUCH better...

Clive At Five

Oct 17, 2007, 02:52 PM

I wouldn't be to sure about that. It's very possible Stevo will require iTunes to remain the only portal by which to purchase and install approved 3rd party apps.

I agree with you here. There will definitely be iTunes distribution... but will they charge? That seems to be the big question. There aren't currently any iTunes-downloadable items that are without
price (unless there is a sale, of course) so it seems unlikely to be absolutely free to me. I do wonder, however, if they'll allow product demos so we can try items before we buy.

-Clive

TitoC

Oct 17, 2007, 02:53 PM

My guess is this SDK won't be backwards compatible with existing phones . . .

You really think so? Aaah . . . I don't think so. Can you picture it now?

"Well, we finally are releasing our SDK for the iPhone" (2-minute applause).

"But, it won't work on the 1,000,000 + plus iPhones we have already sold, only on these new ones which we are releasing today" (2-minute boos & hisses).

I seriously doubt Steve would finally announce an iPhone SDK only to have it work on version 2 iPhones (talk about a backlash). Not going to happen.

"SDK for ALL my friends!" (ala Mickey Rourke in "Barfly").

Analog Kid

Oct 17, 2007, 02:53 PM

Don't forget these favorites:
...
- Visual Basic
...
I'm starting a collection to take a hit out on the first person to port Visual Basic to the iPhone...

lord patton

Oct 17, 2007, 02:54 PM

the modern tax payer may disagree :rolleyes:

or any tax payer, anywhere, ever. :rolleyes:

irun5k

Oct 17, 2007, 02:56 PM

I just hope the basis of the SDK isn't all about rendering content via the Safari engine and then providing some hooks to run this content offline and provide launcher icons.

That would suck. The whole Web 2.0 movement has been two steps backwards for software development IMHO. Compared to writing solid, object oriented code in a language like Java, C#, Objective C, etc.... well, lets just say that assembling functionality in HTML & Javascript utilizing asynchronous XML calls to who-knows-what on the server side... argh. What a mess. True, there are some frameworks that add a little structure to this, but they are exactly that- frameworks on top of a poor foundation.

yetanotherdave

Oct 17, 2007, 02:59 PM

I agree with you here. There will definitely be iTunes distribution... but will they charge? That seems to be the big question. There aren't currently any iTunes-downloadable items that are without
price (unless there is a sale, of course) so it seems unlikely to be absolutely free to me. I do wonder, however, if they'll allow product demos so we can try items before we buy.

-Clive

Podcasts. Hosted by third parties, but accessed through iTunes. Seems the closest model they have at the moment to an open software sort of program.

Of course if it's digitally signed and approved by apple it will be like the ipod games, hosted by apple and bought from apple through itunes.

KJK4734

Oct 17, 2007, 02:59 PM

ericmooreart

Oct 17, 2007, 02:59 PM

AWSOMMMMMME. :D

I Jailbreaked (or should I say Jailbroke) my touch and it rocks. Can't wait till the sdk

Now where's FLASH???????

mainstreetmark

Oct 17, 2007, 02:59 PM

$0.99 for widgets
$4.99 for simple apps/games
$9.99 for full size productivity apps

WHAT?!

You wish to put in place a forced price model for something that's currently an open economic playing field? What if Ambrosia wishes to charge $50 for a neat iPhone-based audio editor? What if the dude from Quicksilver ports his work to the iPhone, for free? The one-price-for-all model only works for music because of fierce fighting between apple and riaa. I, personally, would MUCH rather see a nice supply/demand cost system for iTunes Music. Artificial pricing is bad in almost every circumstance.

No, man. I don't want Apple in the loop for ANY of this software application stuff., especially not for billing. There are niches out there where we need to develop and install our own apps, and for the only way to distribute is have Apple reselling them just won't work.

..so, just like on your computer, you're responsible for not installing crappy apps from shady developers. You are responsible for if you think an app is worth the money you pay.

Trooperof3

Oct 17, 2007, 03:00 PM

I can see Jobs sitting in the meeting, "Well guys we tried"

Now I have 4 months to save up for an Ipod Touch.

chr1s60

Oct 17, 2007, 03:02 PM

So with all the new apps that are going to come out, how much space will they take up. Im one of the "cheapos" that bought the 4GB, If there are a bunch of cool apps are they gonna take up tons of space?

I was wondering this myself. I own an 8GB, but space is still an issue. That could be one huge advantage with apps through iTunes. This would allow users to purchase whatever apps they wanted and select what ones they wanted to sync to their phone. Just an idea. I am also curious what these apps will do to battery life.

stoneii

Oct 17, 2007, 03:03 PM

This news is almost to good to be true...there must be some little twist that comes along later...shrug...Even if there is some wild twist this could still be the coolest thing that Apple has done in awhile.

mainstreetmark

Oct 17, 2007, 03:05 PM

nonsense.
iTunes is a marketplace.3rd party apps will have to be certified and licensed before they will be allowed onto iTunes. This isn't going to be open house for every hacked junk shareware class app. Quality apps sold via iTunes- there won't be any 'bad developers'.

There won't be because the market will kill them, just as it has done for computers for YEARS. YEARS, man.

A 'certification system' will kill the creativity of the midnight coder who has some great idea that changes the way people live. A 'certification system' makes things elite, and the little guy is on the outside.

And you think Apple is going to do regression testing on every app that comes in the door? Nonsense.

Do you think Apple will allow competitors to Safari, Mail and (if it exists) iChat?

Please, guys -- if you don't want the app, DON'T INSTALL IT.

I can't understand why you want more rules. You want to control what *I* do.

La Porta

Oct 17, 2007, 03:06 PM

Clive At Five

Oct 17, 2007, 03:13 PM

Podcasts. Hosted by third parties, but accessed through iTunes. Seems the closest model they have at the moment to an open software sort of program.

Of course if it's digitally signed and approved by apple it will be like the ipod games, hosted by apple and bought from apple through itunes.

Touche! You can tell what I don't do much of... yeah... downloading podcasts.

-Clive

wongulous

Oct 17, 2007, 03:14 PM

This is going to be great--for now--but a little worrying in the longterm.

The iPhone and its class is an entirely new and burgeoning market of device and software... opening up the iPhone by opening up an SDK is going to mean that Apple is going to be at risk for another situation like what happened in the late 80s and early 90s with Microsoft stealing all of their innovation. Right now they are doing a freehand sketch of the iPhone, but with access to all of the innards and sciences behind it, the methods, goals, and platform of the iPhone, it'll be a whole lot easier to start those photocopiers in Redmond...

This will all sound paranoid, but I'd rather be paranoid than myopic. Keeping it closed could have saved Apple and propelled them to 95% marketshare in those key early days. We'll have to see how this unfolds in, like Jobs says, several years...

gwangung

Oct 17, 2007, 03:15 PM

A 'certification system' will kill the creativity of the midnight coder who has some great idea that changes the way people live.

I think you're over-romanticizing things.

KJK4734

Oct 17, 2007, 03:19 PM

I was wondering this myself. I own an 8GB, but space is still an issue. That could be one huge advantage with apps through iTunes. This would allow users to purchase whatever apps they wanted and select what ones they wanted to sync to their phone. Just an idea. I am also curious what these apps will do to battery life.

Great point, if they can be added or deleted through Itunes just like a movie or TV show that would mean you could get as many as you wanted and just change them out for ones that you want on at that time, I do this alot right now putting on different movies and shows every now and then to freshen up my chices since im pretty much out of available space

macUser2007

Oct 17, 2007, 03:23 PM

This was entirely predictable, an SDK was coming at some stage. The reasons outlined are perfectly acceptable. It is also acceptable that Apple wanted the product to bed down in the market before opening up the platform.

Remember — the first Mac didn't have and SDK.

Please note Jobs also says they "plan" for February, not "definitely" February, so don't start whinging on Feb 1st when we don't have your SDK.

No, the SDK should have been out by now, with all that hoopla by Apple. Plus all the bad publicity about the bricked iPhones by the 1.1.1 update is not going to help. By the time official 3rd party developers come on board and provide badly needed features, the competition would have copied much of the UI and added missing features.

Not to be negative, but I am getting sick of Apple's closed-mindedness, after sticking with them for so many years. I dropped them for my HTPC, because Apple has been so obtuse and it has no useable front-end (Front Row has so many limitations, it's a joke.)

If someone has the iPhone UI with GPS and 3G and open platform, they'll have my $$$. Still use Apple for work and just got a 24" iMac for home, though (to replace my old 20" iMac:-)

milo

Oct 17, 2007, 03:24 PM

I think they've had this planned all along, I've been saying it since the iPhone was first announced.

Gotta get rid of some of that bad press surrounding Apple lately.

Yeah...with stock at an all-time high, new OS shipping next week, guy on the BOD wins a freaking nobel prize...they're just dying over there in Cupertino.
:rolleyes:

GQB

Oct 17, 2007, 03:28 PM

My guess is this SDK won't be backwards compatible with existing phones. I expect this will be released at the same time as the next gen iPhone.

Not a chance. It would shoot their entire 'software based' device positioning in the foot. The only reason to orphan an existing platform would be that it doesn't have the processing power or memory to run a newer OS or apps, and I've never seen any manufacturer orphan the immediately preceeding version.
Check out the compatability list for Leopard that just came out. Compatability goes back quite a ways.

Edit: Correction... MS shoots their customers/partners in the back, not the foot. See the way Zune DRM is incompatible with existing licensees of MS DRM.

Tymmz

Oct 17, 2007, 03:28 PM

That sounds really exciting! I'm looking forward to see what kind of apps will be available from February on.

carlgo

Oct 17, 2007, 03:30 PM

Good news. GPS app for me, please (either standalone or integrating bluetooth GPS with Google Maps).

/me waits for the haters to find something else to attack now the SDK's out of the firing line.... :)

GPS for me, too. But, can software alone result in a true gps system? Or would it be a cell tower triangulation sort of thing?

Add a bigger optional remote screen that could be operated via bluetooth or wire. It could be used for very visable in-car navigation and easily moved to be used for other things elsewhere.

kainjow

Oct 17, 2007, 03:30 PM

Hell yeah.

There is going to be a mad rush on these apps.

You can bet there will be a ton of developers wanting to learn Cocoa now ;)

deppeler

Oct 17, 2007, 03:30 PM

Great long awaited news....now maybe Apple will add mail and maps to the Touch before Feb...

mainstreetmark

Oct 17, 2007, 03:35 PM

I think you're over-romanticizing things.

You're probably right. Lets lock it all down, and run everything through Apple, in case it happens.

(because it already does on the Mac. HORRORS!)

morespce54

Oct 17, 2007, 03:38 PM

GQB

Oct 17, 2007, 03:41 PM

Yes, we could, if we had said: "The hacking movement has..." But I get the point, sorry about coming off so strongly.

:)
Just conjured up pictures of the French Reign of Terror.

GQB

Oct 17, 2007, 03:42 PM

Is a GPS app possible? I thought it was something more related to hardware than to software...

One approach is indeed hardware based (communicates directly with satellites.)
But the lower tech version just uses the Cell towers used by the phone to triangulate on signal strength. Pretty accurate. That can be done in software with stock iPhone. Actually, think it already has been done.

GQB

Oct 17, 2007, 03:44 PM

"But, it won't work on the 1,000,000 + plus iPhones we have already sold, only on these new ones which we are releasing today" (2-minute boos & hisses).

He wouldn't make it off the stage alive. :eek:

macUser2007

Oct 17, 2007, 03:45 PM

One approach is indeed hardware based (communicates directly with satellites.)
But the lower tech version just uses the Cell towers used by the phone to triangulate on signal strength. Pretty accurate. That can be done in software with stock iPhone. Actually, think it already has been done.

Pretty accurate..., to within 6 city blocks:-) LOL.

GQB

Oct 17, 2007, 03:50 PM

No, man. I don't want Apple in the loop for ANY of this software application stuff., especially not for billing. There are niches out there where we need to develop and install our own apps, and for the only way to distribute is have Apple reselling them just won't work.

Don't get yourself set up for disappointment here. I'll put good $$ on the iTunes distribution model (its how everything else gets onto the iPhone after all) and also gives them the opportunity to vet for performance, battery usage, etc.
Remember, no matter what an independent developer claims, it'll be Apple that takes the blame.
They'll also take a modest pound of flesh... it is their store after all.
Actually, even if there were multiple purchase avenues, I'd probably (personally) opt to buy via iTunes. They at least have a good track record with me (vs. a potential 'iHackStores'.

GQB

Oct 17, 2007, 03:54 PM

There won't be because the market will kill them, just as it has done for computers for YEARS. YEARS, man.

Ahhh... the fatal flaw of the market.
Frankly, it doesn't do me any good to see a manufacturer of anything 'punished' by the market after I've suffered damage. Capitalism's flaw (vis-a-vis safety, environmental issues, social responsibility) is that it only deals with negligent or criminal behavior AFTER the barn door is open.

There are good cases for pro-active protection that the market doesn't provide.

EricBrian

Oct 17, 2007, 04:10 PM

Thank you to all you whiners and complainers... without you, this wouldn't happen. So, again, Thanks! :)

And, now that this is going to happen, Skype, get busy creating a VOIP app for me. :)

mainstreetmark

Oct 17, 2007, 04:21 PM

Ahhh... the fatal flaw of the market.
Frankly, it doesn't do me any good to see a manufacturer of anything 'punished' by the market after I've suffered damage. Capitalism's flaw (vis-a-vis safety, environmental issues, social responsibility) is that it only deals with negligent or criminal behavior AFTER the barn door is open.

There are good cases for pro-active protection that the market doesn't provide.

I, again, must bring up the example of a Macintosh running OSX. Buyer beware of malware.

Yes, there are probably cases where more control ("protection") would prevent some problems, but it comes at the expense of freedom for everyone. In this age of immediate feedback, if someone finds a particular application is mal, it'll be on the net in moments, just as it is on the Mac.

So, again, I'd prefer to be free to make mistakes. I prefer to be a bit bleeding edge on occasion. If you don't, you can still be 100% safe by sticking to known developers if you prefer. You may even stick to those apps which Apple chooses to list on Apple.com, but I do not want to be *limited* to them.

In the end, it's either all of us on the net, or the 9-to-5'ers at Apple who discover malware.

notsofatjames

Oct 17, 2007, 04:21 PM

...
As far as $9.99 being too hight... have you actually ever priced software? Good stuff is expensive,
...

I think 9.99 is too expensive for standard apps, but however major applications may be able to justify charging that much. But just because software is expensive, doesn't make it better. I don't want to start a windows vs OSX debate, but you can compare prices of the two OSes, or compare iWork and MS Office.

I would hope that the recent directory of WebApps for iPhone/touch is a bit of a trial on how real apps are to be distributed. Similar in the way that there is a dashboard widgets (http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/), and mac applications (http://www.apple.com/downloads/) directory on apples website, I would hope that a similar style would follow for Mobi-OSX.

xenotaku

Oct 17, 2007, 04:22 PM

I'm sorry if this has already been asked, but the fact that this includes development for the iPod Touch, does that mean it is just a matter of time until we can input stuff onto the calender and do all that "PDA" stuff? I mean, the demand is there, and if Apple doesn't do it, someone else will....so should we be seeing that update soon? It's the only reason I have not bought a Touch yet.

ely

Oct 17, 2007, 04:28 PM

I'd agree with GQB, until I hear otherwise I'm going to assume the worst case scenario: the Sidekick catalog method. Everything including updates would have to be (slowly) approved by Apple, a $5-$10 charge for most apps and games, no uploading of non-catalog apps unless you have a dev key. Sadly, even the previously free telnet/SSH client now costs $10 on a Sidekick.

pedroistheman

Oct 17, 2007, 04:32 PM

i'm sure this will make many happy. looking forward to new apps in Feb :cool:

doubt the apps will actually release in febuary...but is there actually an estimate on when the apps will be out? maybe I'm getting this wrong but I thought the code is released to developers in febuary, not the apps themselves...

erockerboy

Oct 17, 2007, 04:34 PM

I really want to know who rated this story negative :P

gwangung

Oct 17, 2007, 04:34 PM

I, again, must bring up the example of a Macintosh running OSX. Buyer beware of malware.

Yes, there are probably cases where more control ("protection") would prevent some problems, but it comes at the expense of freedom for everyone. In this age of immediate feedback, if someone finds a particular application is mal, it'll be on the net in moments, just as it is on the Mac.

So, again, I'd prefer to be free to make mistakes. I prefer to be a bit bleeding edge on occasion. If you don't, you can still be 100% safe by sticking to known developers if you prefer. You may even stick to those apps which Apple chooses to list on Apple.com, but I do not want to be *limited* to them.

In the end, it's either all of us on the net, or the 9-to-5'ers at Apple who discover malware.

Somethings can be tolerated more on PCs than they would be on consumer devices.

You may want to control your iPhone, but in order to do so, it would probably be at the expense of other users of the device. To turn it around, why should OTHERS be limited and inconvenienced by YOUR control freak impulses?

GQB

Oct 17, 2007, 04:43 PM

Yes, there are probably cases where more control ("protection") would prevent some problems, but it comes at the expense of freedom for everyone.

Just saying that the model of 'let the damage happen first, then seek remedy' is fine for trivial things (like, say, a hung computer... although in our age, even that can mean life or death.) But that just doesn't scale when the victims (sorry, there really are such things) are suffering from medical malpractice, food contamination, or environmental poisoning.

I just make it a point to point out the fallacies of the religion of the 'free market'.

Carry on. :)

GQB

Oct 17, 2007, 04:45 PM

I really want to know who rated this story negative :P

The cowboys from the laissez faire ranch.

APPLENEWBIE

Oct 17, 2007, 04:54 PM

You know, I hadn't thought of a camera adaptor, but I actually REALLY like that idea. A higher quality, snap-on camera. Brilliant. I would actually prefer this, not settle for it. :)

Or, how about a snap-on MICROPHONE for use with some version of voip... goodbye iPhone (just kidding)

ctakim

Oct 17, 2007, 05:01 PM

I really want to know who rated this story negative :P

Steve Ballmer?:rolleyes:

BWhaler

Oct 17, 2007, 05:12 PM

This is exciting news. Very good for Apple.

(And now I don't feel so stupid buying an iPod touch.)

As for a new iPhone in February, it's not going to happen. The SDK will be the news they need for Q2, and the new iPhone will come in the summer/fall.

Asia deployment along with Europe is going to be the focus. Plus, by then the hardware changes we want to see will be possible.

GQB

Oct 17, 2007, 05:14 PM

Or, how about a snap-on MICROPHONE for use with some version of voip... goodbye iPhone (just kidding)

SHHHHHHH!!!

xenotaku

Oct 17, 2007, 05:17 PM

Does this mean that calendar and all that will be able to be edited from the iPod touch? I mean, if Apple doesn't implement, a 3rd party will, right?

sal

Oct 17, 2007, 05:18 PM

good stuff. This is making, the wait for the next-generation iphone, much more difficult for me.

The Price cut followed by opening it up for 3rd party apps is a huge move.

GQB

Oct 17, 2007, 05:20 PM

Does this mean that calendar and all that will be able to be edited from the iPod touch? I mean, if Apple doesn't implement, a 3rd party will, right?

You'd see alternative calendaring apps, not 3rd party mods of Apple's own app.
But an email ostensibly from/to Jobs recently said Apple has touch mods for calendar on-deck. Never heard if that email was legit or not. I tend to believe it.

DaBrain

Oct 17, 2007, 05:42 PM

Great long awaited news....now maybe Apple will add mail and maps to the Touch before Feb...

I hope they do soon as no 3rd party excuse stands in their way. Surely they could do this now. I just purchased one. My first iPod. I tried to log on my ISP to check email. Damn near impossible to see.

Cmon Steve give us itouch users a regular email app pa lease. :)

lecorbu

Oct 17, 2007, 05:59 PM

check out the new iEye concept:

http://www.createthefuturecontest.com/pages/view/entriesdetail.html?entryID=365

:apple:

megfilmworks

Oct 17, 2007, 06:19 PM

thank the lord. finally apple has gotten some common sense! only thing is that we have to wait until Feb :rolleyes:
What makes you think they didn't have this in mind from the start??

erockerboy

Oct 17, 2007, 06:21 PM

The cowboys from the laissez faire ranch.

Milton Friedman? Adam Smith? David Stockman?

plumbingandtech

Oct 17, 2007, 06:30 PM

finally apple has gotten some common sense!

Please read this link.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/05/30/steveatd/index.php

May 30, 2007 2:40 pm ET

“I think sometime later this year we will find a way to let third parties write apps and still preserve security. But until we can find that way, we can’t compromise the security of the phone. Nobody’s perfect, but we sure don’t want our phone to crash. We would like to solve this problem, if you could be just a little more patient with us, I think everyone can get what they want,” he said.

The iPhone SDK HAS BEEN PLANNED ALL ALONG.

GQB

Oct 17, 2007, 06:32 PM

check out the new iEye concept:

http://www.createthefuturecontest.com/pages/view/entriesdetail.html?entryID=365

:apple:

iEye, aye aye!!!!

megfilmworks

Oct 17, 2007, 06:49 PM

When Jobs announced the iPhone he mentioned apps, and all the whiners said he lied. Now that we see the big picture, which has been planned form the start, these same lamos say, "Finally Jobs heard us."
Please, and if you wear the same underwear your favorite team will win. Nothing like magical though to deceive the thinker!

Tom Sawyer

Oct 17, 2007, 07:47 PM

Glad to hear the official announcement, I'm looking forward to learning the API and writing a thing or two for the iPhone. Any thoughts on what the development language/environment the SDK/API will support? And on that note, I would suspect they will have a "Certified for iPhone" program for 3rd party developers as well.

Should be fun... We knew it was coming but great to get a solid timeframe.

chrismball

Oct 17, 2007, 08:01 PM

Amazing. Bravo Apple...

I'm hoping this will also apply to the iPod Touch.

EspressoLove

Oct 17, 2007, 08:02 PM

El Jobso is as evil as he was, otherwise, out of his newfound "willingness" he would immediately STOP BLOCKING 3rd party apps for those who opt-out of Apple zealotry.
(Will zealots ever hear/get it : LET US HAVE IT OUR WAY, even if YOU PREFER to have it as Apple dictates).

Remember, 3rd party "developers" 'don't need' SDK, they do it ALREADY!!!
They just need Jobso to leave them alone.
And brainwash faithful instead.
(That is not to say we don't need true [publicly open] SDK, but I'm afraid it's no going to happen)

And I'm dread sure his SDK will be as "Sweet" as the previous one :mad:
... Although there is an improvement : El Jobso stopped to tell iJunkLies about bringing down east coast att.
Now he just telling iLies.

Hope my fellow hackers don't give in to his "sweet" speeches, keep their wares/senses ready, and then hack "SDK" in Feb.
Keep up the great work, zealots will be grateful for that ....... although they would thank ...... Jobso for "his" wisdom ...... when your efforts to 'jail-break' will finally get traction.

winterspan

Oct 17, 2007, 08:24 PM

Best ever speculation based on one letter. Maybe you forgot the smiley?

HAHAHA! Great post!

X38

Oct 17, 2007, 08:38 PM

Yeah baby!
[...]
iPhone OSX 1.0 thru 1.02 is based on Tiger code, ie. no binary signing, sandboxing of apps etc.
iPhone OSX 1.1.1 is closer to Leopard, ie. binary signing and sandboxing of apps.

Now when did 1.1.1 come out oh yeah Sept, and when is the premiere development platform for iphone AKA Leopard coming out? Oh yes 26th Oct. [...]

Are you quite certain that iPhone 1.0.x is based on OS/X 10.4? Perhaps you could share your source for that? The only information I can find indicates that the iPhone has been based on OS/X 10.5 from the start:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/01/18/apples_iphone_runs_mac_os_x_leopard___report.html

Cleverboy

Oct 17, 2007, 08:39 PM

El Jobso is as evil as he was, otherwise, out of his newfound "willingness" he would immediately STOP BLOCKING 3rd party apps for those who opt-out of Apple zealotry.
(Will zealots ever hear/get it : LET US HAVE IT OUR WAY, even if YOU PREFER to have it as Apple dictates). Have fun in never neverland, Peter Pan. Have fun with your broken iPhone and your whack security through obscurity. You're lucky your hacked iPhone will never be in the mainstream, because then the more malevolent amongst us in this whacky world would have their way with all your open ports and non-existant barriers between your private information and their slightest whims. --And you would blame Apple for giving you such an insecure communications device... even while you refuse to upgrade for the umpteenth time.

Sighhhh...

When I used App Tap, I appreciated the developers of the best apps, but eventually, that wasn't a good enough excuse for me to jones off of a totally insecure platform with an installer that gives me apps from a fairly decentralized group of developers and an ad hoc system of trust.

~ CB

kellygeorge

Oct 17, 2007, 08:40 PM

Hopefully the iPod touch will go 32GB around this time, and I'll sprint to the Apple store to get it :)

ya that would be nice, but i note the article says nothing about the ipod touch. yes, we all assume the apps will apply, but maybe not. just look at the calendars, and the apps they left off the touch.

blueskyrocket

Oct 17, 2007, 08:42 PM

Yes and we know that if SJ says Feb that really means the last day of Feb!

Oh well, at least Feb is short month, but wait, it is a leap year, Feb 29th. (Sigh) We'll have to wait 1 more day.

Cleverboy

Oct 17, 2007, 08:44 PM

ya that would be nice, but i note the article says nothing about the ipod touch. yes, we all assume the apps will apply, but maybe not. just look at the calendars, and the apps they left off the touch.Go to the Apple site and read the... oh, hell...
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. [Oct 17, 2007]Happy now?

~ CB

psychofreak

Oct 17, 2007, 08:45 PM

lamerlizer

Oct 17, 2007, 08:46 PM

argh! february! that is so dam long! i'm so excited! :D :apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple:

psychofreak

Oct 17, 2007, 08:47 PM

argh! february! that is so dam long! i'm so excited! :D :apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple:

At least its coming...

biggarthomas

Oct 17, 2007, 09:25 PM

[QUOTE=DTphonehome;4341403]So stop saying it and do it already! The market waits for no one.[/QUOTe

You are too late.

mdriftmeyer

Oct 17, 2007, 09:38 PM

Thank you to all you whiners and complainers... without you, this wouldn't happen. So, again, Thanks! :)

And, now that this is going to happen, Skype, get busy creating a VOIP app for me. :)

Incorrect. This has been planned the same time the iPhone was planned. OS X and Applications are what make a Platform.

PCMacUser

Oct 17, 2007, 10:06 PM

"And since the iPhone is the most advanced phone ever..."

That's just funny. We all know (even the iPhone lovers) that this is complete garbage.

psychofreak

Oct 17, 2007, 10:10 PM

"And since the iPhone is the most advanced phone ever..."

That's just funny. We all know (even the iPhone lovers) that this is complete garbage.

So what is the most advanced phone?

dangleheart

Oct 17, 2007, 10:15 PM

One approach is indeed hardware based (communicates directly with satellites.)
But the lower tech version just uses the Cell towers used by the phone to triangulate on signal strength. Pretty accurate. That can be done in software with stock iPhone. Actually, think it already has been done.

There was a thread that discussed the web site that implemented it. I can not find it now easily. If anyone remembers it better, please post the link to that thread. Thanks.

Shanesan

Oct 17, 2007, 10:22 PM

"And since the iPhone is the most advanced phone ever..."

That's just funny. We all know (even the iPhone lovers) that this is complete garbage.

As far as a UI and operating system is concerned, the iPhone is definately the most advanced phone ever. Stylish, sleek, colorful and VERY easy to use!

I say this phone IS the best phone ever, and now with a coming SDK, it (and the touch) can only get better.

boss1

Oct 17, 2007, 10:38 PM

So what is the most advanced phone?

He must be referring to the prototype "XT20 Delta series Interstellar Communicator" issued to James Bond in his upcoming film.

I wonder how much, if any influence the fact that 1.1.1 was cracked in record time had on the timing of this announcement from Apple.

Cleverboy

Oct 17, 2007, 10:42 PM

"And since the iPhone is the most advanced phone ever..."
That's just funny. We all know (even the iPhone lovers) that this is complete garbage.Certainly depends on how you look at it doesn't it? I suppose Popular Mechanics dubbing it one of the 10 Break-Thru devices of 2007 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=370189) doesn't say much, considering you logically can't go to PAST years for the "most advanced" hardware unless a category is virtually standing still. Hm... Yeah, I'd personally say it is the most advanced phone ever. I don't have a high regard for packing in the "most features", when most "feature" phones completely fail at setting new paradigm shifts in mobile computing.

I find myself, even months into owning an iPhone constantly shaking my head in disbelief that the thing is so damn great at its job, and I can only expect MORE from it in the months to come. MORE. Honestly, I don't think I've ever owned a phone I reasonably expected to get exponentially BETTER with time, especially when I'm already more pleased than I've ever been with it.

But, that's just me.

Apple has played a cruel... cruel... CRUEL jest on the competition. Hardware manufacturers have flocked to the iPod because Apple standardized the connector, enabling ongoing support for these devices (meanwhile PLEADING with other manufacturers to do the same, and failing). Now, the iPhone and iPod Touch have the SAME form-factor and multitouch feature-set, enabling application developers to STANDARDIZE their programs to its large screen, and burgeoning customer-base (promised to be 10 million strong by the end of next year). NO OTHER PHONE has the uniformity, technological power, customer-base, and advanced operating environment the iPhone/iPodTouch has/will-have.

It's like the other phone companies will be bringing spitballs to a gun duel... for at least the next 2-3 years... by which point, they'll be royally screwed. I'm looking forward to what Nokia launches in the next year, but I can't do anything but doubt they'll be able to get much working fast enough, now that Apple is gaining critical momentum.

~ CB

Stella

Oct 17, 2007, 10:43 PM

Incorrect. This has been planned the same time the iPhone was planned. OS X and Applications are what make a Platform.

Don't kid yourself, this is Apple in re-actionary mode. They now realised they have their strategy wrong and cannot keep up with the hackers so they have no choice.... UNLESS you can give us documentary evidence to prove otherwise.... ;)

megfilmworks

Oct 17, 2007, 10:47 PM

There is no doubt that the iPhone is the most modern and advanced phone out there. Period. UI, Safari, Video, iPod, integration with OSX, etc. No pretenders need apply!
And as far as the design? Everything else looks dorky.

And now with legit 3rd party apps to come the cell phone world will forever
be defined as:
BiP and AiP.

megfilmworks

Oct 17, 2007, 10:50 PM

Don't kid yourself, this is Apple in re-actionary mode. They now realised they have their strategy wrong and cannot keep up with the hackers so they have no choice.... UNLESS you can give us documentary evidence to prove otherwise.... ;)

Well Jobs mentions this game plan in print as far back as May....seems like it was planned a long, long time ago.

One month before the iPhone was released:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/05/30/steveatd/index.php

boss1

Oct 17, 2007, 11:00 PM

Well Jobs mentions this game plan in print as far back as May....seems like it was planned a long, long time ago.

One month before the iPhone was released:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/05/30/steveatd/index.php

Excerpt from that article:
Later asked by an audience member about writing applications for the iPhone, Jobs said that Apple ultimately wants both the iPhone to be secure and open without compromising either attribute. The last thing Apple wants, he suggested, is an iPhone that can be easily hacked or that crashes as a result of installing third party software.

“I think sometime later this year we will find a way to let third parties write apps and still preserve security. But until we can find that way, we can’t compromise the security of the phone. Nobody’s perfect, but we sure don’t want our phone to crash. We would like to solve this problem, if you could be just a little more patient with us, I think everyone can get what they want,” he said.

Jobs admitted to being wrong about video on the iPod — a concept he initially scoffed at. “I was definitely more skeptical than customers,” he said. “I think video’s here to stay on portable devices.”

Yep you are right, he did say that in May, I remember watching the video feed also.

EspressoLove

Oct 17, 2007, 11:02 PM

Have fun in never neverland, Peter Pan
Thanks Cleverone, I'll remember that :cool:

But your surely dreaded vision for me is single-sided, and you know that.
Because you know that a hacker 'never sleeps', hacker who has been thrown a challenge, who has been publicly slapped in the face.

This time Jobso will be even more protective, but wheel is moving already, and this SDK will be "trojan" [horse] who'll give unseen freedoms for 3rdP. developers.

And as you probably aware, all kinds of various efforts under way, to re-connect those who unlocketh.

So the point is, there might be situation along the way, that it is faithfuls will be more exposed to whacky world

At least we'll not sit shut on our as@#s, waiting for BigBrotherJobso to acknowledge and promise iCure.

Cleverboy

Oct 17, 2007, 11:07 PM

I wonder how much, if any influence the fact that 1.1.1 was cracked in record time had on the timing of this announcement from Apple.Absolutely ZERO. Did you read Fake Steve Jobs earlier announcement, long before 1.1.1 was "cracked".
Fake Steve wrote on October 2nd:
I'm not supposed to tell you this
But there might be an iPhone SDK heading your way later this month, like sometime in the week of Oct. 15. We've taken a lot of grief on this, and, well, we've listened. Okay? I wish I could say more, but I can't.

http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/10/im-not-supposed-to-tell-you-this.html
Which clearly seems to indicate that he'd gotten a tip from the same folks Business Week began sourcing. Moreover, in this very forum, a letter from Jobs was posted saying as much about the "coming soon, we're working on security" speil Jobs has been saying for a while, and shed a little more light on.
This time Jobso will be even more protective, but wheel is moving already, and this SDK will be "trojan" [horse] who'll give unseen freedoms for 3rdP. developers.Sure, eat what you like, leave the rest on the table... I get it. Much the same way the French Unlock phone will speak volumes, and allow the free unlock community to hopefully catch up to where iPhone Sim Free apparently already is. I get it. Its just... I think most people won't be paying much lip-service or interest in the "hacking" community with a "developer community" at large and going wild. You don't see Nullriver or Lucas Newman sounding off like they're rebels without a cause do you (http://www.iphoneatlas.com/2007/10/17/developers-react-to-apples-iphone-sdk-announcement/#respond)? Just notations about Apple not trying to "control" app deployment, which makes a lot of sense.

~ CB

megfilmworks

Oct 17, 2007, 11:12 PM

But your surely dreaded vision for me is single-sided, and you know that.
Because you know that a hacker 'never sleeps', hacker who has been thrown a challenge, who has been publicly slapped in the face.

This time Jobso will be even more protective, but wheel is moving already, and this SDK will be "trojan" [horse] who'll give unseen freedoms for 3rdP. developers.

And as you probably aware, all kinds of various efforts under way, to re-connect those who unlocketh.

So the point is, there might be situation along the way, that it is faithfuls will be more exposed to

At least we'll not sit shut on our as@#s, waiting for BigBrotherJobso to acknowledge and promise iCure.
If you write code like you write copy, I think I'll stick with Apple. :confused:

EspressoLove

Oct 17, 2007, 11:21 PM

Incorrect. This has been planned the same time the iPhone was planned. OS X and Applications are what make a Platform.

Yep you are right, he did say that in May, I remember watching the video feed also.

Well Jobs mentions this game plan in print as far back as May....seems like it was planned a long, long time ago.

One month before the iPhone was released:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/05/30/steveatd/index.php

What is it with all you people, are you all sooo short on memory (bad one).

You don't remember what it turned out to be?

"SWEET SDK", that is!

Don't you see now, that it's the same Jobso, pulling the same tricks of calming down (doubting zealots, hackers just hate him) with the SAME junk, he gave last time?

macridah

Oct 17, 2007, 11:23 PM

oh yeah. i think steve listened and reacted accordingly.

megfilmworks

Oct 17, 2007, 11:24 PM

What is it with all you people, are you all sooo short on memory (bad one).

You don't remember what it turned out to be?

"SWEET SDK", that is!

Don't you see now, that it's the same Jobso, pulling the same tricks of calming down (doubting zealots, hackers just hate him) with the SAME junk, he gave last time?
I'd like to comment, but I don't understand what you are trying to say.

EspressoLove

Oct 17, 2007, 11:36 PM

I'd like to comment, but I don't understand what you are trying to say.

That "solution" turned out to be "Safari SDK".

EspressoLove

Oct 17, 2007, 11:45 PM

psychofreak

Oct 17, 2007, 11:48 PM

That "solution" turned out to be "Safari SDK".

You think this will just be SafariSDK v.2? I really, really, really don't from the wording...

THE JUICEMAN

Oct 17, 2007, 11:51 PM

I find myself, even months into owning an iPhone constantly shaking my head in disbelief that the thing is so damn great at its job, and I can only expect MORE from it in the months to come. MORE. Honestly, I don't think I've ever owned a phone I reasonably expected to get exponentially BETTER with time, especially when I'm already more pleased than I've ever been with it.

This is one of the best things about the iPhone that I think many people consistently overlook. What other phone out there can you plug into your computer and easily receive software updates that add to and enhance the device(home button double tap, louder speaker volume, security. so far.....)? I don't know of any phones like this (please correct me if I'm wrong). Only ONE of the reasons why the iPhone is so great and just maybe "the most advanced phone ever." According to good ole' Steve.

megfilmworks

Oct 17, 2007, 11:52 PM

The SDK for Web 2 is already in play. This announcement today sounds like a more comprehensive solution.

EspressoLove

Oct 17, 2007, 11:58 PM

You think this will just be SafariSDK v.2? I really, really, really don't from the wording...

Oh no, absolutely not, he's sly but not stupid.

mmmm .... you know what "periphrasis" means, do you :rolleyes::(:mad:

I think [his] plan is to split, divert efforts of hacking swarm, so to lure some into "legitimate" ways.
Hope we can come up with something as sleek as AppTap, which will let devs to create their wares on SDK2.0, but then with a little effort skip "security" measures set by Jobso, just like iNdep does/feels.

psychofreak

Oct 18, 2007, 12:00 AM

Oh no, absolutely not, he's sly but not stupid.

mmmm .... you know what "periphrasis" means, do you :rolleyes::(:mad:

I think [his] plan is to split, divert efforts of hacking hive, so to lure some into "legitimate" ways.
Hope we can come up with something as sleek as AppTap, which will let devs to create their wares on SDK2.0, but then with a little effort skip "security" measures set by Jobso, just like iNdep does/feels.

I can almost guarantee that Apple's method will be slicker than AppTap...I'm just worried it won't be free...

EspressoLove

Oct 18, 2007, 12:09 AM

You think this will just be SafariSDK v.2? I really, really, really don't from the wording...

Although you've set me in motion. Maybe he is that stupid???

Last time (all the times actually) nobody knew it would be "Safari SDK", everybody believed BigChairmanJobso, and that his plan is holy and good for you, till the moment of truth of course.

Demon

Oct 18, 2007, 02:06 AM

Thanks steve,
That's good news, but let's see you get iCal working on iPod first. :o

povman

Oct 18, 2007, 06:40 AM

WOW!:eek:

I sure glad that Steve is starting to realize that we need our 3rd party apps on our phone!

Do you honestly think they only just decided to do it?
Don't you think they might have planned it since before the phone was even announced?

So many people on this site think apple has no idea what it's doing, just because they have no idea what apple is doing.

wongulous

Oct 18, 2007, 08:31 AM

Well, maybe both sides of this argument can concede that while Apple had been planning on researching this and POTENTIALLY finding a solution, and had reasons to both want and not want the iP* to be an open platform, the hacking and community/media response (I even saw the 'closed architecture' talked about on CNN!) deeeefinitely helped them along.

wongulous

Oct 18, 2007, 08:34 AM

I really want to know who rated this story negative :P

I did. Here's why:

This is going to be great--for now--but a little worrying in the longterm.

The iPhone and its class is an entirely new and burgeoning market of device and software... opening up the iPhone by opening up an SDK is going to mean that Apple is going to be at risk for another situation like what happened in the late 80s and early 90s with Microsoft stealing all of their innovation. Right now they are doing a freehand sketch of the iPhone, but with access to all of the innards and sciences behind it, the methods, goals, and platform of the iPhone, it'll be a whole lot easier to start those photocopiers in Redmond...

This will all sound paranoid, but I'd rather be paranoid than myopic. Keeping it closed could have saved Apple and propelled them to 95% marketshare in those key early days. We'll have to see how this unfolds in, like Jobs says, several years...

mainstreetmark

Oct 18, 2007, 08:40 AM

Somethings can be tolerated more on PCs than they would be on consumer devices.

You may want to control your iPhone, but in order to do so, it would probably be at the expense of other users of the device. To turn it around, why should OTHERS be limited and inconvenienced by YOUR control freak impulses?

How is this a reply to my posts? I have been vigorously and annoyingly advocating AGAINST control. Let the device be what it naturally wants to be - a mobile computing platform, free to grow to meet the demands of those who hold it.

I can think of no scenarios where something I do to my phone, say installing some vicious application, would affect anyone else with a phone, any more than installing a similarly vicious application on a computer would be. How would "controlling" my phone come at the expense of anyone? However, if you wish to put in all these rules about what I can and can not do with my phone, then it will not meet all my needs (as it currently does not, and no other phone can). Rules that forbid me from writing an application outside of Apples blessing directly affects me in a negative way, and provides no real benefit that a free and open market won't already provide (as, once again, the macintosh demonstrates by example).

dlastmango

Oct 18, 2007, 08:49 AM

Thanks steve,
That's good news, but let's see you get iCal working on iPod first. :o

AMEN Brother!

gwangung

Oct 18, 2007, 09:53 AM

How is this a reply to my posts? I have been vigorously and annoyingly advocating AGAINST control.

That you cannot see that what you want for the device would have an effect on others is quite sad.

mainstreetmark

Oct 18, 2007, 10:14 AM

That you cannot see that what you want for the device would have an effect on others is quite sad.

Elaborate!

I've installed quicksilver on my Mac. Does it affect you? I've installed something called "fink" on my Mac. Does it affect you?

stompy

Oct 18, 2007, 10:23 AM

Don't kid yourself, this is Apple in re-actionary mode. They now realised they have their strategy wrong and cannot keep up with the hackers so they have no choice.... UNLESS you can give us documentary evidence to prove otherwise.... ;)

Excerpt from that article:
Later asked by an audience member about writing applications for the iPhone, Jobs said that Apple ultimately wants both the iPhone to be secure and open without compromising either attribute. The last thing Apple wants, he suggested, is an iPhone that can be easily hacked or that crashes as a result of installing third party software.

“I think sometime later this year we will find a way to let third parties write apps and still preserve security. But until we can find that way, we can’t compromise the security of the phone. Nobody’s perfect, but we sure don’t want our phone to crash. We would like to solve this problem, if you could be just a little more patient with us, I think everyone can get what they want,” he said.

Yep you are right, he did say that in May, I remember watching the video feed also.

What is it with all you people, are you all sooo short on memory (bad one).

You don't remember what it turned out to be?

"SWEET SDK", that is!

Don't you see now, that it's the same Jobso, pulling the same tricks of calming down (doubting zealots, hackers just hate him) with the SAME junk, he gave last time?

That "solution" turned out to be "Safari SDK".

An early iPhone quote from Jobs:
“These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them. That doesn’t mean there’s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn’t mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.”

That was in January. Can you explain how web apps fit "buy," "load on them," and "it doesn't mean we have to write it all" description? (Actually, I don't doubt you'll come up with something.) Apple, right or wrong, holds back with strategies and development that they're not ready to announce. You may be used to other companies announcing mere ideas.

Unless you have first-hand knowledge confirming what you say, you're speculating, with biases firmly in place.

Cleverboy

Oct 18, 2007, 10:42 AM

An early iPhone quote from Jobs:
“These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them. That doesn’t mean there’s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn’t mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.”

That was in January. Can you explain how web apps fit "buy," "load on them," and "it doesn't mean we have to write it all" description? (Actually, I don't doubt you'll come up with something.) Apple, right or wrong, holds back with strategies and development that they're not ready to announce. You may be used to other companies announcing mere ideas.You're completely right, but if someone doesn't want to be generous in their own speculation, regardless of how often they turn out to be wrong, they probably won't be. Some people make a regular habit out of declaring Apple guilty until proven innocent (or whatever more appropriate analog).

~ CB

MattInOz

Oct 18, 2007, 10:29 PM

I did. Here's why:
Originally Posted by wongulous View Post
This is going to be great--for now--but a little worrying in the longterm.

The iPhone and its class is an entirely new and burgeoning market of device and software... opening up the iPhone by opening up an SDK is going to mean that Apple is going to be at risk for another situation like what happened in the late 80s and early 90s with Microsoft stealing all of their innovation. Right now they are doing a freehand sketch of the iPhone, but with access to all of the innards and sciences behind it, the methods, goals, and platform of the iPhone, it'll be a whole lot easier to start those photocopiers in Redmond...

This will all sound paranoid, but I'd rather be paranoid than myopic. Keeping it closed could have saved Apple and propelled them to 95% marketshare in those key early days. We'll have to see how this unfolds in, like Jobs says, several years...

I thought it was Curious that there was a specific mention of Nokia.
Don't Nokia use much the same Platform as Apple, isn't the Nokia Browser a ARM port of the WebKit open source project? http://trac.webkit.org/projects/webkit/wiki/S60Webkit (S60Webkit)

What i'm wondering is Steve hinting to a more active partner ship between them to not just release an iPhone SDK but to release an Open Platform SDK that of not only will Apple support and try like all might to produce the best device to run it on (ie. no multi-touch but on an Apple Product) but also provide the best enviroment to develop and distribute (Xcode and iTunesMS).

They aren't going to release the internal workings just the reference spec.
On the other hand there going rule the developer market.

daneoni

Oct 20, 2007, 06:40 PM

I guess this mean there'll be another software update (hopefully) to further lockdown the phone/beef up its security so as to protect the core software and ensure reliability and one gateway would be left open allowing these apps to run.

I'll take a working phone over 3rd party apps anyday

Cleverboy

Oct 20, 2007, 08:15 PM

What i'm wondering is Steve hinting to a more active partner ship between them to not just release an iPhone SDK but to release an Open Platform SDK that of not only will Apple support and try like all might to produce the best device to run it on (ie. no multi-touch but on an Apple Product) but also provide the best enviroment to develop and distribute (Xcode and iTunesMS).An active partnership between Apple and Nokia? No... Nokia is really happy about their new "open" campaign (showing up how they're "better" than Apple), and like any political candidate, they're not looking to blur any lines of distinction, so much as dump mounds of manure all over the iPhone. I don't think that collaboration would work unless Nokia felt they needed Apple somehow.
I guess this mean there'll be another software update (hopefully) to further lockdown the phone/beef up its security so as to protect the core software and ensure reliability and one gateway would be left open allowing these apps to run.

I'll take a working phone over 3rd party apps anydayMe too. Every now and then I try talking to my co-worker about doing more with his iPhone, and he looks at me like I have three heads. I got an iPhone, and I want it to eventually replace my Sony Cle that I used with BalanceLog. I'll wait though (especially with some kind of date to work with). I want them to do it right. I don't want to hear mocking reports of how lame iPhone security is, and find a worm/trojan has been busy recording my bank passwords.

~ CB

MikeDTyke

Oct 24, 2007, 11:29 AM

Are you quite certain that iPhone 1.0.x is based on OS/X 10.4? Perhaps you could share your source for that? The only information I can find indicates that the iPhone has been based on OS/X 10.5 from the start:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/01/18/apples_iphone_runs_mac_os_x_leopard___report.html

The guy in the Chicago Sun Times assumed just like everyone else that it's based on leopard because it has core animation. Apple's not said either way and aren't likely too. Core animation is just a framework, apple could ship it on Tiger if they wanted, except for the fact they'd have to update core image on tiger too.

I'm sure it's closer to Tiger than it is to leopard. Bottom line, iPhone OS X is NOT MAC OS X, it's a mix an match job. It's a arm optimised mach kernel with a subset of the Mac OS frameworks with a custom UI framework on top. I'd say it's closer to Mac OS than Wince is to Windows XP or Vista, and sure you'll inherit a lot of nice bits of non-gui code, but it's not Mac OS.

Apple never mentioned signed apps until just recently, i think because a lot of the delay we experienced this summer was about making this stuff rock solid. The fact that 1.02 doesn't have signed code and 1.1.1 does, tells me the kernel has been rebuilt to check sigs and thus is more like Leopard.

What's taking Apple so long in releasing the iPhone SDK, well their starting point is once they've worked out how binary signing and sandboxing is going to work. Which is right now. Over the next 4 months what'll they be doing? Rationalising the API's you will and will NOT be allowed to access.

M. ;)

MikeDTyke

Oct 24, 2007, 11:44 AM

I think it's fair analysis that Apple have been thinking about a native SDK for iPhone for a long time. But it was not a priority for July 07 as Apple's software teams have been stretched for resource (Evident from the Leopard delay).

It's also apparent that announcing the existence of an SDK by Feb shortly after the 1.1.1 release and not during one of their special events, indicates their reacting to people bricking their iPhones and hackers cracking 1.1.1.

They did the same last year by pre-announcing the AppleTV, the point was to get the message across to the TV & Film execs, look we're serious about selling video and look at what a cool implementation we've got. Get off the wall and agree to our terms.

This time round, they're saying, don't hack your iPhone/Touch, it's not worth the risk and anyway we'll have a nice official method of development and probably software delivery early in the new year. So hang fire y'all. ;)

M.

fazworld

Oct 24, 2007, 06:20 PM

The Feb '08 date is probably a stretch and put out there so that Apple can 'beat the deadline'. Before the iPhone and delays with Leopard, that was standard operating principle. Remember the switch to Intel? That was supposed to take a couple of years but they got that done way ahead of schedule.

Personally, I wish they would hurry up and complete it so that we get non Safari apps (legit, not hacked). Although people have done some great work with Safari, editgrid is one of those nice apps, true non-Safari applications are the best way to leverage the iPhone's 'mobile computing platform'.