Apple's 3rd Party iPhone Application Plan?

[Random Ping]

Thus undermining the entire point of this whole article/discussion.

No. I mentioned somewhere else that Microsoft already does this with their XBox 360. I can write my own applications for the 360 using XNA and put it on my own XBox but I cannot sell it to the wider community.

I would be extremely happy if Apple could do something similar to this.

 

[Manatee]

I like the idea. Allow 3rd party apps, but they are vetted and possibly distributed by Apple. That maintains a high standard for the quality of the apps and their ability to interact properly with the iPhone.

I'm wary, though, of the deal that Apple might force on small software developers who offer great niche products for other PDA/Organizer/Phone devices. I can see Apple making it impossible for some of these small and humble developers to distribute their products with a reasonable profit for the developer. We'll see. I'm hoping for the best.

Peter

 

[mainstreetmark]

The Mac is a completely open platform. Look how well it does. Look how rarely it crashes. Look how many quality apps there are. Look how well it handles poorly written apps.

What OS does that Mac thing run? What OS does that iPhone thing run?

The MARKET will demand high quality apps. The crappy ones disappear. Apple's primary motivation isn't "quality" but "revenue". Who blames Apple for crappy third party software?

 

[thedarkhorse]

this sounds perfect to me. As long as they also support the touch with these apps. I probably wont buy tons of apps but if there are a couple useful or fun looking ones i won't mind dropping $5 per, i mean i already payed $500 for the iPod, what's $5 if it can add more functionality? Especially since this will gaurentee that they work and will be officially supported

 

[NewSc2]

This model sounds like a very realistic compromise to me.

I asked in another thread, but didn't get a reply - what's the problem with the online IM clients you can use on the iPhone? I never had a native IM app on my iPhone - the online clients like Beejive seem pretty great to me.

Those require you to be on Safari the whole time. It'd be great if there was a separate app that would notify you every time you'd get an IM, without needing to go through Safari, kind of like the Text client there is right now.

 

[Random Ping]

So let me get this straight. If I want to write my own app, can I put it on my own phone? If I submit it to an approval program, can it be available for free download? Or is apple going to charge everybody who wants to download MY application?

The important point is that virtually everything on this discussion thread is pure speculation. Apple has said nothing, and they may not have even made up their own mind on what they want to do. However there are different models that we can look at to get an idea of what might be possible.

One model is the Microsoft's XNA and their Creator Club for the XBox 360. In this model:

1. You can write your own application and install in you your own system.
2. You can share your application with other registered developers (you send them the source code which they compile and install on their systems).
3. If you really like your software, there is an upgrade path to share it with a wider audience.

 

[Hopstretch]

Thank you for not allowing every Tom & Charlie to put up applications up on our phones without some sort of screening policy.

This is what I don't understand about the knee-jerk Apple defenders on this particular issue. No matter what, no one is going to force you to put anything on your phone. If you want to keep it pure as the driven snow, unsullied by any grubby 3rd-party software, that's entirely up to you. But I honestly fail to see why you are so keen to force that choice on all the rest of us?

 

[ghall]

This isn't what I was hoping for, but it's good enough.

 

[grappler]

Indeed. Apple seems to be losing the warm fuzzy feeling it had back when I got my first Mac 6 years ago or so. Back then it seemed like the perfect balance -- open source back end, free development tools (also open source derived), awesome GUI, real useful apps, etc. Basically, a computer both a hacker and a non-hacker could love. While OS X (so far) doesn't seem to be falling down this trap, Apple's iPhone handling is concerning me that OS X and the Mac lineup may be heading this way.

It's getting to the point where I'm not even sure I'll get a Mac for my next computer when the time comes to retire my PowerMac G4 867. I'll probably still get one of the midrange Macs or a laptop for my wife (she needs Creative Suite and friends for her job), but I'll probably just use Linux for my desktop with a small Windows partition for gaming (much like what I would've done with an Intel Mac anyway). Hell, I use Linux daily at work without a problem (it's come a long way in the 6 years since I got my G4), and it seems like most of the apps I run on my Mac these days are ports of Linux apps anyway.

Agreed. And there are valuable lessons from tech history here.

Check out this comparison of AAPL and MSFT:
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=aapl+msft

Look at the 10 year view. Apple has been absolutely wiping the floor with Microsoft, from the point of view of the investor. And what has been happening for those 10 years? It's just as you said - Apple had an OS (and hardware) that both a hacker and a non-hacker could love. Sums it up perfectly.

Now switch to the 23 year view. The picture is quite the opposite, up until the end of the 90's. Microsoft chewed up apple and spat it out. Why?

The main reason, I would argue, is that Microsoft welcomed developers and Apple did not. Lots of developers. Big and small developers. Not just IBM and other "preferred developers". An ecosystem was born, and the rest is history.

This is Apple's chance to screw it alll up again.

 

[mikeinternet]

...I probably wont buy tons of apps but if there are a couple useful or fun looking ones i won't mind dropping $5 per, i mean i already payed $500 for the iPod, what's $5 if it can add more functionality? Especially since this will gaurentee that they work and will be officially supported

This is why they shouldn't sell these apps as products. It is not worth it for apple to have to back them. (unless they are soo selective that it is no fun)

When apple helps distribute free widgets they don't back there quality.

i'd rather not pay and have more selection even if you have to go through a couple apps before you find ones you like and actually get use out of.

 

[rydewnd2]

I love the apologist attitude. Apple's screening apps to make sure they don't provide functionality that Apple can profit on themselves. First and foremost, there's no way there will EVER be a native instant messaging client. This is because Apple and AT&T make profit on SMS messaging.

It has NOTHING to do with App stability or compatibility. I'm glad they don't 'screen' our apps for us on OS X, M$ office would never get through!

It's nice that they're allowing 3rd party development, but it's bad that they're restricting it. People pay a lot for these phones and even more for the service, they should be able to install whatever apps they want on THEIR phone. But, Apple has the right to attempt to stop them.

Maybe it's just me but i use instant messaging and texting for completely different purposes. Not enough of my friends are always on instant messaging to make it a viable means to organize meetings or coordinate events (which is what i mainly use texting for). I don't think one would really kill the use of the other as people keep suggesting.

 

[farmboy]

Settle down, children...

It's just a rumor. But it appears that to some of the juveniles who populate this forum Apple is the devil incarnate, based on a completely speculative *rumor* (I know, all rumors are speculative...still, what twits).

Stella: Your signature (68030) indicates you should be old enough to know better than to call every single charge you *might* have to pay "Greed, greed, greed". The record industry requires that Apple collect individually for each ring tone, and surely you post often enough to have seen that assertion before. Bitch to the record labels, not Apple. Or maybe they should have some sort of Kumbaya moment and just give everything away because the universe wants them to...

Second, why should everything be free? Do you have a job? Do you collect a salary for your work? Are *you* being greedy then, getting compensation for your services? OR do you receive what is fair for what you provide? If Apple has to vet every application not only interacting with the Apple software/hardware but also for playing nice with every other vetted application, and handle the hosting, billing and distribution, and carry the load of warranty service on wrecked phones, why are they not entitled to compensation of a few dollars? Get real.

 

[Rocksaurus]

This is what I don't understand about the knee-jerk Apple defenders on this particular issue. No matter what, no one is going to force you to put anything on your phone. If you want to keep it pure as the driven snow, unsullied by any grubby 3rd-party software, that's entirely up to you. But I honestly fail to see why you are so keen to force that choice on all the rest of us?

Best iPhone related post this year. Everyone please read and reread it.

 

[ejrizo]

if they are billing you through your phone bill... they are smart bastards!...lol

they are weeding out people that have unlocked their phones and are not on AT&T.

Steve Jobs you smart son of a bitch...

i went through this with my sidekick and it was an ok thing... not as great as being able to install your own apps... but was cool to have the choice... but the Sidekick was complete crap besides messaging... nothing else was that great about the device

 

[mugwump]

This is what I don't understand about the knee-jerk Apple defenders on this particular issue. No matter what, no one is going to force you to put anything on your phone. If you want to keep it pure as the driven snow, unsullied by any grubby 3rd-party software, that's entirely up to you. But I honestly fail to see why you are so keen to force that choice on all the rest of us?

Personally, I don't want it to become the swiss cheese gaping hole security malestrom like Windows has become because then I am affected. I mean, who really wants to run virus and rootkit scanners with every email attachment that arrives on a phone?

No thanks, let's close this baby up and uphold the rock-solid security.

 

[nimbuscloud]

Agreed. And there are valuable lessons from tech history here.

Check out this comparison of AAPL and MSFT:
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=aapl+msft

Look at the 10 year view. Apple has been absolutely wiping the floor with Microsoft, from the point of view of the investor. And what has been happening for those 10 years? It's just as you said - Apple had an OS (and hardware) that both a hacker and a non-hacker could love. Sums it up perfectly.

Now switch to the 23 year view. The picture is quite the opposite, up until the end of the 90's. Microsoft chewed up apple and spat it out. Why?

The main reason, I would argue, is that Microsoft welcomed developers and Apple did not. Lots of developers. Big and small developers. Not just IBM and other "preferred developers". An ecosystem was born, and the rest is history.

This is Apple's chance to screw it alll up again.

Dude...

IT'S A PHONE!!!!!

One minute people are pissed that Apple makes ANYTHING outside of computers, now you're trying to dictate how they do business? You're on the outside looking in with nothing but rumors and speculation to go by.

Calm down; the sky ain't fallin'.

 

[snchpnz]

Dear Apple,

Please stop controlling what I can and can not add to my phone. I bought it from you and that should be enough. Stop trying to milk me. I am not a cow!

Thank You.

With the way things are going I am waiting for Apple to announce that you will only be able to add songs bought through iTunes into you iPod.

 

[jnasato]

Now switch to the 23 year view. The picture is quite the opposite, up until the end of the 90's. Microsoft chewed up apple and spat it out. Why?

The main reason, I would argue, is that Microsoft welcomed developers and Apple did not. Lots of developers. Big and small developers. Not just IBM and other "preferred developers". An ecosystem was born, and the rest is history.

This is Apple's chance to screw it alll up again.

Apple went down in the 90's, because they didn't have a strong vision. Their hardware lineup was in-cohesive and cluttered, and the Mac clones were much better than what Apple was releasing.

After Steve Jobs returned to Apple, the iMac revolutionized personal computing style (and industrial design, in general) and started an Apple trend of forward thinking (though, at the cost of frustrating users), with no floppy disk drive and USB ports. Since then, the Apple product line has been slimlined, and everything is clear-cut and cohesive, which all results in a very strong brand image.

Apple went down in the 90's, due to Gil Amelio's bad management, and Steve Jobs' vision is what saved Apple and has brought it to the level of efficiency that it's been at in recent history.

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

iTunes Application store for iPhone.... not bad

Although that is beginning to clutter iTunes a bit...

Music
Movies
TV Shows
Games
Ringtones
now maybe... Apps

Beginning he says, beginning.

 

[3.1416]

Personally, I don't want it to become the swiss cheese gaping hole security malestrom like Windows has become because then I am affected. I mean, who really wants to run virus and rootkit scanners with every email attachment that arrives on a phone?

Banning third-party apps does nothing to protect you against Safari or Mail exploits.

No thanks, let's close this baby up and uphold the rock-solid security.

First, that's a false dichotomy. Second, would you apply this logic to Macs as well?

 

[grappler]

Apple went down in the 90's, because they didn't have a strong vision. Their hardware lineup was in-cohesive and cluttered, and the Mac clones were much better than what Apple was releasing.

After Steve Jobs returned to Apple, the iMac revolutionized personal computing style (and industrial design, in general) and started an Apple trend of forward thinking (though, at the cost of frustrating users), with no floppy disk drive and USB ports. Since then, the Apple product line has been slimlined, and everything is clear-cut and cohesive, which all results in a very strong brand image.

Apple went down in the 90's, due to Gil Amelio's bad management, and Steve Jobs' vision is what saved Apple and has brought it to the level of efficiency that it's been at in recent history.

By the time there were mac clones, Apple was already marginalized in comparison to windows. Everything you wrote is true, but I'm talking about events that transpired years earlier.

 

[Ovs]

I can’t believe some of the comments on this thread. Apple no longer needs snivelling PR people, because it seems consumers do the job for them.

I do not need or want Apple to vet applications for MacOSX on my computer, so why so would I need them to vet apps for my phone? A simple question. Any answers?

There is some fantastic freeware available on MacOSX, and there could also be fantastic freeware for the iPhone - if only Apple weren’t so greedy in their control. It has nothing to do with security issues, or stability. It has everything to do with MONEY.

Please, fellow consumers, stop making excuses for Apple. They have a good product in the iPhone - lets hope they see sense and make it a truly great one.

 

[donlphi]

translation...

So when they say, "WON'T INTERFERE WITH OTHER APPS", they mean, "WON'T TAKE AWAY SALES OF MUSIC OR MOVIES" and, "WON'T HURT PROFITS FROM THE ACTUAL PHONE SERVICE"

I am predicting some weak casual games and absolutely no useful "apps"

3 third party products that need to come out for the iPhone, but probably won't...

1. Slingplayer - gotta have it for the iPhone
2. iChat - no video support necessary, but voice would be awesome
3. Flash Support

 

[stoneii]

if they are billing you through your phone bill... they are smart bastards!...lol

they are weeding out people that have unlocked their phones and are not on AT&T.

well now we know why they went so NUTS about bricking unlocks and 3rd party apps on the last update.

The malicious intent by Apple with that update was crazy nuts and yet there were people justifying why they had the right to be mean....the right to BE MEAN....we live in a crazy world.

After going through that this option looks a whole lot better then if we hadn't seen that dark side of Apple...I guess that was Apple's way of pre conditioning us to accept this offer??

Although this offer still wreaks of Steve's parentalism at least he gave us an option...for 3rd party apps

 

[weg]

Personally, I don't want it to become the swiss cheese gaping hole security malestrom like Windows has become because then I am affected. I mean, who really wants to run virus and rootkit scanners with every email attachment that arrives on a phone?

No thanks, let's close this baby up and uphold the rock-solid security.

Not allowing 3rd party developers to provide applications for the iPhone doesn't make it more secure. In fact, people who exploit security holes know exactly how to deal with the lack of an API documentation or Apple's feeble attempts to lock the iPhone. Apple is only scaring off people who develop commercial software, and that makes the iPhone a less interesting platform for users. For example, there won't be Skype (or fring) for the iPhone, an application that I don't want to miss (it's running perfectly fine on my "swiss cheese gaping hole security malestrom" Windows Mobile phone).