iPhone 2.0, iPhone SDK, and iPhone Apps Frequently Asked Questions

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

It seems the same questions are coming up again and again, so here's an attempt to clarify some points.

What is iPhone Firmware 2.0? When can I get Applications/Enterprise Features?

iPhone 2.0 firmware is the next software update for the iPhone. It will include Enterprise features (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/03/06/iphone-enterprise-features-activesync-exchange-wpa2-push-services/) and support for the iPhone SDK and iPhone applications (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/03/06/apple-releases-iphone-sdk-demos-spore-instant-messaging/).

Regular customers will be able to download the iPhone Firmware 2.0 in "late June". Customers will also be able to start buying iPhone applications from the iTunes Store starting then. So for the next 4 months, your iPhone will stay pretty much the same as it did yesterday.

Read Full Article (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2008/03/06/iphone-2-0-iphone-sdk-and-iphone-apps-frequently-asked-questions/)

[iTeen]

so what is anyones guess on how much the apps will cost for the ipod touch?

[arn]

so what is anyones guess on how much the apps will cost for the ipod touch?

you mean iPhone 2.0 firmware? The iTunes Store apps will cost the same, of course, as it does for the iPhone.

I'd guess $20 for the 2.0 firmware, just like the previous one.

arn

[Telp]

Any word on bluetooth? Anyway to beef that up?

[overanalyzer]

you mean iPhone 2.0 firmware? The iTunes Store apps will cost the same, of course, as it does for the iPhone.

I'd guess $20 for the 2.0 firmware, just like the previous one.

arn

It is a huge release, so I can see them doing $20, but at the same time I feel like it'd be in Apple's interest to get as many people to upgrade as possible...maybe they'd go with the $1.99 that they did for the 802.11n upgrade to encourage adoption amongst existing iPod Touch users?

[Telp]

It is a huge release, so I can see them doing $20, but at the same time I feel like it'd be in Apple's interest to get as many people to upgrade as possible...maybe they'd go with the $1.99 that they did for the 802.11n upgrade to encourage adoption amongst existing iPod Touch users?

I agree. 20$ for 5 apps, a bit much but not outrageous. $20 for a software update seems a bit much. No more than $5 i would hope, and hopefully less.

[ChrisA]

so what is anyones guess on how much the apps will cost for the ipod touch?

Do you mean the 2.0 firmware upgrade from Apple. My guess is "cheap". Just some nominal amount like $1.99 or $5.

Or do you mean what will you have to pay for application that are sold on iTunes after y've upgraded to the 2.0 firmware. My guess is there will be many free ones and many price like current shareware (from $5 to $50) and there will be a very few quite expensive ones

[overanalyzer]

I agree. 20$ for 5 apps, a bit much but not outrageous. $20 for a software update seems a bit much. No more than $5 i would hope, and hopefully less.

The other thing too is that the iPhone/iPod Touch is going to be a long-term evolving platform, and potentially the kind of thing that 20 years from now we will credit with the same kind of revolution in computing that we credit the first Apple, IBM and Mac for. Clearly they can't keep charging $20 every single time there's a major firmware update to improve the platform...imagine if every OS X point release were $20.

[Telp]

The other thing too is that the iPhone/iPod Touch is going to be a long-term evolving platform, and potentially the kind of thing that 20 years from now we will credit with the same kind of revolution in computing that we credit the first Apple, IBM and Mac for. Clearly they can't keep charging $20 every single time there's a major firmware update to improve the platform...imagine if every OS X point release were $20.

I'm pretty sure i read somewhere that Apple (companies in general) had to charge since they arent on a paid subscription. Since the iphone is a monthly fee, that money goes towards the "free" upgrade. They do that with the Mac, each major increment you must pay for, while the minor ones are free.

[mekopolis]

my guess is $20 because a) it increases shareholder wealth, the purpose of apple and its business
b) because any new purchase of a touch will already have the update post late june just like the january update
c) Apple prob. believes that most, if not all (exluding a few who will remain jailbroken) will opt to particpate in the new App Store..and $20 is worth it
d) you have 4 months to count and save your pennies
e) they can do whatever they want -->refer to c).
f) if you want to make your money back, buy shares of stock in the company, and when you sell, deduct your capital gains tax, and wholla, you have your money back

[rckstwrz]

i wonder if 2.0 will get leaked... but i guess even if it did, it's not like you'd have all these sweet 3rd party apps to drop on it...

[Texas04]

I still can not download the SDK! I am a registered developer too! Arrg!

[overanalyzer]

I'm pretty sure i read somewhere that Apple (companies in general) had to charge since they arent on a paid subscription. Since the iphone is a monthly fee, that money goes towards the "free" upgrade. They do that with the Mac, each major increment you must pay for, while the minor ones are free.

Yes, though it actually has to do with how the company chooses to account for the revenue, not that it's a monthly fee per se. The AppleTV revenue is actually accounted for on a 24 month schedule too like the iPhone, which is why the major "take 2" update was free. The iPod Touch, however, isn't accounted for over a span of time, thus the charge. But my point is that it's going to get ridiculous if every firmware update for the iPod Touch is $20.

[Telp]

Yes, though it actually has to do with how the company chooses to account for the revenue, not that it's a monthly fee per se. The AppleTV revenue is actually accounted for on a 24 month schedule too like the iPhone, which is why the major "take 2" update was free. The iPod Touch, however, isn't accounted for over a span of time, thus the charge. But my point is that it's going to get ridiculous if every firmware update for the iPod Touch is $20.

Well not every update has been. The last update wasnt technically $20, it was just if you wanted those apps, otherwise it was free. Every other one has been free too. So this would technically be the first paid for update, and hopefully its not $20.

[overanalyzer]

my guess is $20 because a) it increases shareholder wealth, the purpose of apple and its business
b) because any new purchase of a touch will already have the update post late june just like the january update
c) Apple prob. believes that most, if not all (exluding a few who will remain jailbroken) will opt to particpate in the new App Store..and $20 is worth it
d) you have 4 months to count and save your pennies
e) they can do whatever they want -->refer to c).
f) if you want to make your money back, buy shares of stock in the company, and when you sell, deduct your capital gains tax, and wholla, you have your money back

As a shareholder I'd be happier to see high customer satisfaction and fast adoption over a little extra money in the short run. And when asked a couple days ago about the share price dropping and why he hadn't make any statements to reassure shareholders, Jobs was pretty clear on his feelings:

"We don't think it's our job to manage our shareholders," Jobs said. "It's our job as the management team to manage the company, to manage it through when the stock price is going up and to manage it when the stock price is going down."

Oddly enough, I actually found that reassuring. :)

[yayaba]

But my point is that it's going to get ridiculous if every firmware update for the iPod Touch is $20.

I agree. At least the first adopters to the Touch weren't as screwed as the $200 price drop to the iPhone though. That hurt (though slightly remedied by the fact that my copy of Leopard was $29 instead)

[Bernie-Mac]

Why would they charge for the 2.0 firmware? I read Job isnt going to charge for the firmware, but the SDK apps will cost money

[Telp]

Why would they charge for the 2.0 firmware? I read Job isnt going to charge for the firmware, but the SDK apps will cost money

True and false. Jobs is charging for the 2.0 firmware. He has to. App pricing will be based on what the developer wants. Most will be free, but some bigger ones you might have to pay for. I hope AIM is free. It's free on the computer, and its in there best interest for it to be free...seeing as anyone could make an AIM app (port over ApolloIM) for free and then AOL loses out.

[RoboCop001]

The $99/year thing is just to have the app on iTunes right?

If I download the SDK, can I put my app on my own phone and other iPhones through my computer without having to pay anything?

[overanalyzer]

Well not every update has been. The last update wasnt technically $20, it was just if you wanted those apps, otherwise it was free. Every other one has been free too. So this would technically be the first paid for update, and hopefully its not $20.

Didn't you also not get the ability to add/move home screen icons? I thought I saw that on MR or TUAW, but I can't seem to find the post about it. If you upgraded for free did you get the Maps updates? I'm just curious about what they can provide for free vs. not...I think I've read before it's "substantial" updates, but I'm not sure the law explains that in any detail.

[overanalyzer]

True and false. Jobs is charging for the 2.0 firmware. He has to. App pricing will be based on what the developer wants. Most will be free, but some bigger ones you might have to pay for. I hope AIM is free. It's free on the computer, and its in there best interest for it to be free...seeing as anyone could make an AIM app (port over ApolloIM) for free and then AOL loses out.

I was thinking earlier about whether some native apps, particularly free ones, might have embedded ads. Considering AIM on the desktop does, it's not unimaginable that AOL would provide AIM for free and have an advertising space in the app.

[Telp]

Didn't you also not get the ability to add/move home screen icons? I thought I saw that on MR or TUAW, but I can't seem to find the post about it. If you upgraded for free did you get the Maps updates? I'm just curious about what they can provide for free vs. not...I think I've read before it's "substantial" updates, but I'm not sure the law explains that in any detail.

Im not sure what the cut off is. For the ipod touch, you had to pay for the maps, mail, stocks, weather and one other i think. They would still hve been able to get the free update to be able to move the home screen around and to save webapp links onto the home screen though; I think.

[Telp]

I was thinking earlier about whether some native apps, particularly free ones, might have embedded ads. Considering AIM on the desktop does, it's not unimaginable that AOL would provide AIM for free and have an advertising space in the app.

Sorry for the double post, mods can combine them if need be...

I wouldnt care that much. Free is free. So there is some advertising, as long as it doesnt go full screen when im trying to IM someone. It's free on every other phone too (such as the sidekick) so why not?

[linsam]

Thanks for the post and for clearing up those details, ARN. :)

[Mr. Zorg]

I still can not download the SDK! I am a registered developer too! Arrg!
My link doesn't work either. Just go to developer.apple.com, click on the iPhone dev center, then click the login button. From there you can download straight off that page...

[arn]

The $99/year thing is just to have the app on iTunes right?

If I download the SDK, can I put my app on my own phone and other iPhones through my computer without having to pay anything?

No, the free SDK will only let you run applications on the Simulator. You can't install on the iPhone at all unless you are a $99/year developer.

arn

[Telp]

No, the free SDK will only let you run applications on the Simulator. You can't install on the iPhone at all unless you are a $99/year developer.

arn

So that means no debugger unless you pay the $99? That's alright with me. And good initiative for people to step it up, if they are serious enough...or willing to depart with that much if they arent serious, but just want to "play around" with it.

[un1ty]

I thought I saw them compiling and then running the app on the connected iPhone and the simulator at the same time.

[Telp]

I thought I saw them compiling and then running the app on the connected iPhone and the simulator at the same time.

They can do whatever they want, that doesnt mean the public can. I saw them playing games, i cant get them though. From what it sounds like arn is saying, if you pay the $99 you will be able to run the apps on your iPhone.

[joeshell383]

...and wholla, you have your money back

Did you mean "voilà" ???

[MacTheSpoon]

I am skeptical that your app will be yanked from the store if you stop paying the $99/year. You might lose the ability to update it. But I haven't seen an explicit statement from Apple that they will erase it from the store. After all, wouldn't Apple rather keep the app on there? The more apps available to help drive iPhone sales, the better, I'd think they'd say.

[arn]

I am skeptical that your app will be yanked from the store if you stop paying the $99/year. You might lose the ability to update it. But I haven't seen an explicit statement from Apple that they will erase it from the store. After all, wouldn't Apple rather keep the app on there? The more apps available to help drive iPhone sales, the better, I'd think they'd say.

I doubt that they'll pull your app if you are no longer an active developer.

arn

[chr1s60]

I'm looking forward to 2.0 just for the new calculator and iTunes icons! ;)

[Santa Rosa]

The FAQ needs slightly modified. It gives the impression that the applications will be bought from the iTunes store, which is correct but in the context of the iPhone this is wrong as the main distribution method will be the App Store, just wondering if you want to clarify that and clean up the article to make that subtle difference more obvious.

[aanndrew]

:D
:confused:
im annoyed july is sooo far ill be 19 :eek:
but ill wait

y isnt there a windows version of the sdk
looks like ill have to buy a macbook after all :D

[overanalyzer]

Sorry for the double post, mods can combine them if need be...

I wouldnt care that much. Free is free. So there is some advertising, as long as it doesnt go full screen when im trying to IM someone. It's free on every other phone too (such as the sidekick) so why not?

I'm not sure that AOL had anything to do with developing the software for other devices, though. But it'd certainly be in their best interest to make the software free and the best IM client available, because certainly they won't be the only ones releasing an AIM client for the iPhone. And my thought with advertising was less about AIM in particular, and more just in general about that as a revenue model instead of/in addition to charging for apps. It could even be like some desktop apps where you get it for free with ads or you pay and there are no ads.

[mekopolis]

I was thinking earlier about whether some native apps, particularly free ones, might have embedded ads. Considering AIM on the desktop does, it's not unimaginable that AOL would provide AIM for free and have an advertising space in the app.

i was going to ask the question, what happenes when you have wifi or edge turned off...but then AIM would not function as it requires the internet....
but for applications that dont need an active internet connection...would the ads be stored in a cache on the device to be served, or would they stream.....

and would apple even allow native ads in the device?

[macintel4me]

Implement copy/paste for $5. Sell like crazy.

[kuebby]

I've never developed before but I'd like to try it with the iPhone. I'm pretty sure I didn't install the developer tools when I did an erase and install with 10.5, will I have to install them in order to use the SDK?

[jamespa66]

The FAQ needs slightly modified. It gives the impression that the applications will be bought from the iTunes store, which is correct but in the context of the iPhone this is wrong as the main distribution method will be the App Store, just wondering if you want to clarify that and clean up the article to make that subtle difference more obvious.

The App Store is to be part of iTunes....

[ansalmo]

No, the free SDK will only let you run applications on the Simulator. You can't install on the iPhone at all unless you are a $99/year developer.

arn

That really sucks if it is the case. I'd want to be able to upload my home-grown apps to my own device, just as I can with my Windows Mobile device. There's no way I'm going to pay $99 a year (or, given I'm in the UK, probably something more like £79 = $160) for the 'privilege' of just doing that though. :mad:

[AlphaBob]

That really sucks if it is the case. I'd want to be able to upload my home-grown apps to my own device, just as I can with my Windows Mobile device. There's no way I'm going to pay $99 a year (or, given I'm in the UK, probably something more like £79 = $160) for the 'privilege' of just doing that though. :mad:


I suspect that is the case only for the next few months (Until 2.0 firmware is distributed to everyone).

Today the $99 fee gets you two things. First is early beta access to the 2.0 firmware which is required to upload applications to the iPhone/touch. It also gets you access in June to the iTunes App Store. But once you have the right firmware on your iPhone/touch you can use the SDK to upload to it (you don't go thru iTunes).

So if you wait long enough I suspect the free SDK will be able to put whatever you want on your own iPhone/touch. The $99 fee paid every year will then just be required if you plan on selling things through the App Store on iTunes.

[bithound]

I read that the final 2.0 will support new iPhone hardware, namely 3g chipset. found that on http://www.personafile.com/products

[ansalmo]

I suspect that is the case only for the next few months (Until 2.0 firmware is distributed to everyone).

Today the $99 fee gets you two things. First is early beta access to the 2.0 firmware which is required to upload applications to the iPhone/touch. It also gets you access in June to the iTunes App Store. But once you have the right firmware on your iPhone/touch you can use the SDK to upload to it (you don't go thru iTunes).

So if you wait long enough I suspect the free SDK will be able to put whatever you want on your own iPhone/touch. The $99 fee paid every year will then just be required if you plan on selling things through the App Store on iTunes.

Really? If that were the case, then what would stop me from being able to distribute my own app to anyone else, so subverting the App Store? All anyone would need, at worst, would be a copy of the SDK to upload to their device, which seems to go against what was said at yesterday's presentation.

[AlphaBob]

Really? If that were the case, then what would stop me from being able to distribute my own app to anyone else, so subverting the App Store? All anyone would need, at worst, would be a copy of the SDK to upload to their device, which seems to go against what was said at yesterday's presentation.

Trust me, installing the SDK is NO EASY TASK. (Just getting it and installing it was a 8+ hour ordeal). That is a HUGE barrier, believe me. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of computer nerds would not be able to carry out that task.

It would also be a very easy thing to ensure that you could only install an application generated by the a specific SDK onto a specific iPhone/touch (signed/keyed). Not too many developers would be happy having to distribute source code that could be compiled on somebody else's SDK I bet.

But what is the advantage of cutting out the App Store in the first place? To save the 30% fee I take it? How much does it cost to host a web service and get exposure for an application. 30% doesn't seem too bad to me given the exposure you get (10-20million potential customers added each year).

You may be right, I don't have my $99 key yet, but what I've read is that the version 2.0 firmware is the real enabler, not the annual fee. We shall see.

[iphonematt]

I am a registered developer at apple and go to developer.apple.com and click on iPhone Dev and log in and then all i get is "We are processing your request. Please wait a few moments then refresh this page." I got this all today and yesterday. This is ridiculous. Apple needs to get this together!
How have you got past this? Thanks!

[ansalmo]

But what is the advantage of cutting out the App Store in the first place? To save the 30% fee I take it? How much does it cost to host a web service and get exposure for an application. 30% doesn't seem too bad to me given the exposure you get (10-20million potential customers added each year).

I was raising it only because the implication was that this should not be possible. However the advantage for me of cutting out the App Store is that I want to write hobbyist apps, and I'm not bothered about writing stuff for cash (I do that for a day job!). I'd like to be able to write an app, stick it on my device, maybe give a copy to a mate, and maybe stick it on my own website for free in case anyone else might find it of use - all without having to pay $99, thanks very much!

[kepner]

There's no way I'm going to pay $99 a year (or, given I'm in the UK, probably something more like £79 = $160) for the 'privilege' of just doing that though. :mad:

That's the point. There's no reason to be testing on a device unless you intend to distribute the app through iTunes. If everyone were able to put apps on their devices through Xcode, then developers and hackers could distribute Xcode Projects, and Apple no longer has any control over third party software.

[ansalmo]

That's the point. There's no reason to be testing on a device unless you intend to distribute the app through iTunes. If everyone were able to put apps on their devices through Xcode, then developers and hackers could distribute Xcode Projects, and Apple no longer has any control over third party software.

Really? No reason? I thought I'd given a very valid reason, which is what I've been doing for the past 27 years - writing my own software and running it on my own devices. I guess I must be an anarchist :D

What I'd like to have seen is something along the lines of the model used on Windows Mobile - to access privileged APIs (mostly phone- or kernel-level), you need to have your app privileged-signed, which costs money. Yet any application using more mainstream APIs is able to be installed (and obviously distributed) freely - there's a prompt when running it the first time to warn that it's not signed, and it's up to the user whether they want to allow it to run. That model works for the hobbyist as they're only minimally constrained on the platform and have no monetary burden to bear, and it works for the networks as "dangerous" use of the devices is protected to a greater or lesser extent.

[klimegreen]

I read that the final 2.0 will support new iPhone hardware, namely 3g chipset. found that on http://www.personafile.com/products

this make sense. btw, the permalink for the story is http://www.personafile.com/pproducts.html?up=up0000003150

[Santa Rosa]

The App Store is to be part of iTunes....

I see what you mean, but do you understand where I am coming from in saying that its not the iTunes Store on the iPhone that will be distributing the apps, it will be the application App Store that will be distributing the apps on the iPhone.

Its just a subtle point that seems confused in the article, in a way puts across the idea that people can buy apps from the iPhone iTunes store.

[Nick.]

On the first page alot of people were unsure of the 1.1.3 free version of the update for the iPod Touch, in the 'free' update, where the user didn't pay $20, you couldn't move home screen icons, couldn't add web clip and didn't get any of the applications, what they did get though is a 100mb deduction of space on their Touch which was the unlocked apps.

I paid, but I updated my friends with the free one, and all you got was lyric support (not even sure if you got that! just a metal dock was all I noticed!)

[kepner]

I paid, but I updated my friends with the free one, and all you got was lyric support (not even sure if you got that! just a metal dock was all I noticed!)

You probably didn't even get lyric support, or chapter support in the video player. You got the rearranged Safari interface for free, and bug fixes I'm sure. Just no new functionality, because of the way Apple interprets Sarbanes-Oxley.

[McGiord]

How much space will it take out our iPhones?
With all those new features I wonder how big it will be?
________
aromed vaporizers (http://www.**************/aromed-vaporizer.html)

[DanBUK]

Talk of Flash, or more precisely, a lack of Flash support has got me confused. The gist seems to be that Flash has not been designed to run on low power chips and has no regard for power saving features.

Thus people have concluded that Flash will probably not come to the iPhone.

Also people are saying all it is good for is banner ads and roll-overs which we can live without- plus roll-overs are hard to conceive of, on a touch device.

There was also some mention of a Flash Lite, which in reality bears no resemblance to actual flash in terms of allowing devices to view flash sites.

My Question: Am I wrong in thinking that some phones, namely the Nokia N95 has some support for Flash?

Thanks.

[DanBUK]

Talk of Flash, or more precisely, a lack of Flash support has got me confused. The gist seems to be that Flash has not been designed to run on low power chips and has no regard for power saving features.

Thus people have concluded that Flash will probably not come to the iPhone.

Also people are saying all it is good for is banner ads and roll-overs which we can live without- plus roll-overs are hard to conceive of, on a touch device.

There was also some mention of a Flash Lite, which in reality bears no resemblance to actual flash in terms of allowing devices to view flash sites.

My Question: Am I wrong in thinking that some phones, namely the Nokia N95 has some support for Flash?

Thanks.

I just checked: Nokia N95 supports Flash Lite. Adobe say Flash Lite enables web video a la YouTube etc. Anyone have any experience of Flash Lite- is this something we want on the iPhone?

[ZacUSNYR]

I still can't download the SDK - keeps coming up with the try your request again in a few minutes. Not like I know Object C but still heh

[c-Row]

This might be no FAQ, but... I know Cocoa is just an API rather than a programming language, so - what language do you code in for the iPhone? Java? Objective C?

[a456]

In June the iPhone will be exactly one year old, and the first US customers will be halfway through their 2-year contracts (and UK customers will be about the same through their 18-month contracts). The birthday surprise is not the SDK, if it were then Apple has been a party pooper. So what will it be?

[Telp]

In June the iPhone will be exactly one year old, and the first US customers will be halfway through their 2-year contracts (and UK customers will be about the same through their 18-month contracts). The birthday surprise is not the SDK, if it were then Apple has been a party pooper. So what will it be?

I dont know, that would be a good birthday present for me...

[Fonzijr1964]

Hi i have the iPhone SDK and I have played around a bit but I'm not to good with code i was wondering can someone help me get NeoOffice to work with the iPhone. I can't do all the code it takes to write the program. i would be so thankful if you could send me the code for the program (preferably just the word processor part but i can reduce the program) If you could it would be great to send me a word app of your own!!!

Thanks