Apples first AJAX site for iPhone is up

[FreeState]

http://reader.mac.com/

This Application Is Viewable Only On iPhone

This application can only be viewed using the iPhone. For more information on the revolutionary new iPhone, visit http://www.apple.com/iphone

RSS News reader

[NightStorm]

Interesting... the first extension of .mac onto the iPhone... wonder if it will require a .mac account to use? Hope so, it would start to add some value to the overpriced .mac account that I already have.

[Toe]

I thought Apple was differentiating Macs from other devices (as noticeable in their website redesign).

Why would they be publishing iPhone apps at a mac.com URL?

[plumbingandtech]

Originally Posted by Toe

I thought Apple was differentiating Macs from other devices (as noticeable in their website redesign).

Why would they be publishing iPhone apps at a mac.com URL?

To sell more .mac accounts.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by Toe

I thought Apple was differentiating Macs from other devices (as noticeable in their website redesign).

Why would they be publishing iPhone apps at a mac.com URL?

Most syncing with the iPhone will be done with .Mac
Just like on a Mac in system preferences>.Mac

Address Book,Bookmarks,Email etc..

Seems logical.

[aria505]

I guess this negates my post in the last article saying that I was going to make a RSS Feed reader that looked just like Safari's.

Right after I posted that, I came back to the home page and then this was posted. LOL

[EricNau]

Originally Posted by Peace

Most syncing with the iPhone will be done with .Mac
Just like on a Mac in system preferences>.Mac

Address Book,Bookmarks,Email etc..

Seems logical.

Wasn't it already revealed that most (if not all) syncing is done through iTunes?

[ghall]

Perhaps its for accessing your iDisk. Or possibly something similar to this idea I had.

[Me1000]

I guess this negates my post in the last article saying that I was going to make a RSS Feed reader that looked just like Safari's.

Right after I posted that, I came back to the home page and then this was posted. LOL

make it anyway, kick apple's ass! maybe they would buy it from you, I know long shot. BUT THAT WOULD BE SO SWEET!

Your app launcher is great, id love to see you do just as good with a feed reader, or maybe integrate them, so the number of unread feed items in the app launcher. IDK just throwing out ideas!

[Peace]

Originally Posted by EricNau

Wasn't it already revealed that most (if not all) syncing is done through iTunes?

I was referring mainly to the .Mac servers and WebObjects.

[Porchland]

Originally Posted by Peace

Most syncing with the iPhone will be done with .Mac
Just like on a Mac in system preferences>.Mac

Address Book,Bookmarks,Email etc..

Seems logical.

I'd like to see Apple change .mac to a free service with some premium add-ons. Every time I think about signing up for .mac, I decide it just isn't worth the cost.

[Zadillo]

Originally Posted by Toe

I thought Apple was differentiating Macs from other devices (as noticeable in their website redesign).

Why would they be publishing iPhone apps at a mac.com URL?

Perhaps they're establishing the idea that the iPhone is like a miniature Mac (i.e. it's a computer, not just a mobile phone).

[Project]

Very interesting stuff. The RSS feed on the screenshot is Apple Hot News.

I can see a back/forward/bookmarks (feeds), refresh and add button

[scotto07]

Originally Posted by Zadillo

Perhaps they're establishing the idea that the iPhone is like a miniature Mac (i.e. it's a computer, not just a mobile phone).

no the www.mac.com is the main website for the .mac service apple offers it has nothing to do with their hardware.

[Toe]

Originally Posted by Zadillo

Perhaps they're establishing the idea that the iPhone is like a miniature Mac (i.e. it's a computer, not just a mobile phone).

Except they have been very, very careful to say that the phone runs "OS X" while in almost every single other instance, they refer to the Mac operating system as "Mac OS X." That would indicate that they're trying to distinguish the iPhone (and TV) from Macs.

[Zadillo]

Originally Posted by Toe

Except they have been very, very careful to say that the phone runs "OS X" while in almost every single other instance, they refer to the Mac operating system as "Mac OS X." That would indicate that they're trying to distinguish the iPhone (and TV) from Macs.

Yeah, certainly a good point - maybe they're sort of splitting out "Mac" and "OS X", perhaps - so "Mac OS X" still refers (in people's minds) the main OS X that runs on Macs, while "OS X" is the OS that runs other devices (iPhone, AppleTV, maybe upcoming 6G iPod, etc.).

[cdewitt]

heres hoping apple leads the way with those

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by FreeState

This Application Is Viewable Only On iPhone

So much for Jobs talking about the "real Internet".

Now, instead of the mobile Web usable by all handhelds, we're going to again end up with more and more websites splintered amongst the various browsers.

As a developer, I'm getting too old for this. Always one step forward, two steps sideways !

Between the constant cycle of whether client or server will be thick, which language is du jour, and what web to cater to, man...

[neven]

Originally Posted by kdarling

So much for Jobs talking about the "real Internet".
Now, instead of the mobile Web usable by all handhelds, we're going to again end up with more and more websites splintered amongst the various browsers.

Well, look at it this way: instead of using one technology to develop apps that could only be used by iPhone, you're going to use another technology to do the same. It's not like properly SDK-ed iPhone apps would run elsewhere - as far as THAT issue is concerned, iPhone web apps are BETTER - they'll run in other browsers on other devices (in some fashion, depending on the app).

Now, they're also slower, smaller, and less integrated - those are all valid complaints. But creating iPhone-specific web apps is no different than creating iPhone-specific Cocoa apps when it comes to splintering, so that's a non-issue.

[Yankees 4 Life]

Originally Posted by neven

Well, look at it this way: instead of using one technology to develop apps that could only be used by iPhone, you're going to use another technology to do the same. It's not like properly SDK-ed iPhone apps would run elsewhere - as far as THAT issue is concerned, iPhone web apps are BETTER - they'll run in other browsers on other devices (in some fashion, depending on the app).

Now, they're also slower, smaller, and less integrated - those are all valid complaints. But creating iPhone-specific web apps is no different than creating iPhone-specific Cocoa apps when it comes to splintering, so that's a non-issue.

i agree. much much better explaination

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by neven

Well, look at it this way: instead of using one technology to develop apps that could only be used by iPhone, you're going to use another technology to do the same. It's not like properly SDK-ed iPhone apps would run elsewhere - as far as THAT issue is concerned, iPhone web apps are BETTER - they'll run in other browsers on other devices (in some fashion, depending on the app).

Hi Neven. Yep, that's a good way of putting it.

I wouldn't think a thing about it, except for all those snarky comments Jobs made about the baby and mobile internet. There's a reason they cater to small screens and lack of flash/java/etc... and he's now in a similar position.

Besides, I'm one year older than he is, so I get to beat on him a bit

[Sbrocket]

http://reader.mac.com now redirects to the Apple iPhone page if you spoof the iPhone user agent with iPhoney, so apparently they don't want people to see the site before its ready.

[TitoC]

Operating System size
When formatted, the 8GB iPhone will have about 7.26GB of free space. The device's OS will take up about 300MB

Conference call
As previously noted in reviews, the iPhone's conference call feature holds up to six callers, including yourself. You will also be able to talk privately with an individual member of the conference while the other four are on hold; during this time, the other four can still talk to each other.

Congrats to ThinkSecret! Haven't heard much from them lately, but they got a nice little scoop here.

Did anyone else notice that there were a few other nice little tidbits in the TS post? Most notabley, the part about being able to "to talk privately with an individual member of the conference while the other four are on hold; during this time, the other four can still talk to each other."

Alright. Not only a nice conferencing feature (which we already knew) but also the ability to "sub-conference" with other callers. Nice touch.

Also, a 300 Mb but meaty OS. Now that's efficient.

[eclipxe]

Originally Posted by TitoC

Congrats to ThinkSecret! Haven't heard much from them lately, but they got a nice little scoop here.

Did anyone else notice that there were a few other nice little tidbits in the TS post? Most notabley, the part about being able to "to talk privately with an individual member of the conference while the other four are on hold; during this time, the other four can still talk to each other."

Alright. Not only a nice conferencing feature (which we already knew) but also the ability to "sub-conference" with other callers. Nice touch.

Also, a 300 Mb but meaty OS. Now that's efficient.

Lol - the conference stuff is nice...but you do know that you are charged ADDITIONAL minutes for each call you add? If you have a call with 5 other callers and talk for an hour, you are using 300 minutes. It's a great feature and a great way to get ARPU up for AT&T. I'd rather use a land-line if I really needed to do a conference, but that's just me.

[lofight]

Originally Posted by TitoC

Congrats to ThinkSecret! Haven't heard much from them lately, but they got a nice little scoop here.

Did anyone else notice that there were a few other nice little tidbits in the TS post? Most notabley, the part about being able to "to talk privately with an individual member of the conference while the other four are on hold; during this time, the other four can still talk to each other."

Alright. Not only a nice conferencing feature (which we already knew) but also the ability to "sub-conference" with other callers. Nice touch.

Also, a 300 Mb but meaty OS. Now that's efficient.

Huh, Conference call wit 6 people and yourself? i heard from one of the people who got the iPhone to make a review that it was 5 people max in conference call?