Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple iPhone Apps Coming, but Limited

For EVERY one who has a smartphone, the ability to install 3rd party applications freely only ENHANCES the user experience, not degrade.

As for a bad app crippling a phone - utter utter crap. Its never happened to me or anyone I know. If it does, you better think about a better smartphone OS.

OK, Cingular may not want users to install 3rd party apps. But u.s carriers have a infamous reputations for this. Not all carriers do this, Rogers, Fido - they don't, lots of European carriers do not.

So, if this *were* the case then why are Apple applying the cingular case to the rest of the world?

"Cingular don't want you to use Skype"... maybe not, but there are other carriers who don't care.

Apple are bowing to the carriers too much and disregarding the needs of users. Traditional Smartphones have been built to allow 3rd party applications and *encourage* 3rd party developers, Apple on the other hand, do not. Very, very, very strange.

Smartphones ARE small computers, just like the iPhone. That is the whole POINT of smartphones!!!! Some people just don't get it. If i didn't want the benefits of a smartphone I'd buy a regular phone instead of a Symbian based smartphone.

There are a lot of crap applications out there for OSX, but apple doesn't try to control 3rd party applications just in case you make your Apple computer hang. Apple are making excuses, and very lame excuses. I get the feeling they don't understand Smartphones. The iPhone is a dumbed down smartphone for very very average users. And as a result, they've just crippled an otherwise great product. Existing smartphone users will not get the full benefits they otherwise would. A shame, a great great shame.

age234 said:
QFE

He never said "there will be no 3rd party apps". He said he wants more control over them. And if that means a better user experience, great. And if the apps are so great that people will simply die without them, they will overcome any certification that Apple may require, or whatever.

But all this hysteria over a product still-in-the-making is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
 
I have to admit this is pretty disappointing; I don't really buy that Cingular doesn't want third party apps installed (why would Cingular sell Palm OS and Windows Mobile-based smartphones then?).

Hopefully this is something that Apple changes their mind on or something.
 
appleintelrock said:
The "masses" aren't going to be spending $600 on a phone. Not now, not ever. "Sell like crack"- I doubt it. "No Cingular, and not enough money" Will be main reasons it wont "sell like crack." Not enough money being the largest of them all.
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me for every geek that's complaining the he won't buy this because of 3rd party apps, their won't be 100 consumer zombies ready to take his place. Most consumers don't even know what the term 3rd party apps mean! I know three people who want this phone, if I asked them, Does it bother you that Apple is going to filter 3rd party apps, they will look at me like I was on "crack". Yes it's expensive now, early adaptors will pay a hefty price, like somone said earlier wasn't the ipod photo $500 at one point. give it time even the ipod didn't really start blowing up till the 3rd gen.
 
I agree that third party apps do enhance my current smart phone, and are useful. I love the ability to add an application that does something a built-in app does not do. They cannot make a smart phone that does everything that everyone wants it to do, they can only make one that does most of what a normal user would want it to do.

They will eventually allow apps.... and I doubt cingular is behind it because cingular has 15 smart phones being sold right now running Palm 5, Windows Mobile 5, and Nokia's OS that all allow for third-party apps.
 
dan-o-mac said:
You mean to tell me for every geek that's complaining the he won't buy this because of 3rd party apps, their won't be 100 consumer zombies ready to take his place.
Click to expand...

I agree - personally I don't think this is anything to get bent out of shape over. Yeah it might sound cool to install additional apps but just because you cant, doesn't mean that this product is doomed to failure.

Lots of people complained that third party development would ruin the chances of the iPod becoming successful - and look what happened!

Apple have always bucked the trend - and they're continuing to do so with this device. Just because the other smartphones allow the installation of third party apps doesn't necessarily mean it's the best way of doing things.

What was that term Apple used to use a while back?!? Oh yeah... "Think Different" :)

RodC
 
I had the XDA II (O2) and didn't think of adding 3rd party thing. I didn't like it a bit and gave it to my brother. My brother hated it and sold it. As long as the thing functions properly then I am fine. Personally, I don't need most of the functions of the iPhone and most definitely, I don't even need the 4GB memory.
 
The iPhone will only be released in JUNE! Easy people, 6 months remain.

Apple never said it will not be capable of running 3rd party apps.

You are not being FORCED to buy this phone, don't like it, don't buy it.

What seems to me is that this whole iPhone stuff is getting out of hand. All I hear is bitc*ing and people complaining about a product that is still 6 months away. If most of you use Mac's than I guess you should trust Apple and give them the benefit of the doubt, they have a lot of time to solve the quirks that are surfacing after the phone's public presentation.

And that someone who said that it's the criticism that forces Apple to improve their products has no idea of what he's talkin about.
Do you actually think that it's YOUR observations that make the company grow bigger?
Do you actually think that there aren't 500 people at Apple already thinking about these exact same problems (and even further) and a way to solve them? that's an ego...

I wish it was up to all the complainers to build the iPhone, because I most certainly believe it would be a complete and utter crap device.

I will judge when I have it in my hands, before that it's only speculation.
 
Don't all cellphone manufacturer's and network providers lock down what can be put on a phone? Try getting any decent 3rd party apps for Verizon's BREW phones. It is impossible. I just want a simple database app for storing account numbers and passwords. There are hundreds of these for Palm devices but I found one terrible one that I could download on my wife's old verizon phone but not on my newer phone.

When I looked into this it seemed that everyone was worried about the first cell phone virus. I'm sure Apple has concerns about this too. Locking down the software on cell phones is not new. What is new is that this is more than a cell phone and we all need to wait and see what Apple does with 3rd party support.

No one can write for the iPod and that fact hasn't hurt its growth at all.
 
sigamy said:
Don't all cellphone manufacturer's and network providers lock down what can be put on a phone? Try getting any decent 3rd party apps for Verizon's BREW phones. It is impossible. I just want a simple database app for storing account numbers and passwords. There are hundreds of these for Palm devices but I found one terrible one that I could download on my wife's old verizon phone but not on my newer phone.

When I looked into this it seemed that everyone was worried about the first cell phone virus. I'm sure Apple has concerns about this too. Locking down the software on cell phones is not new. What is new is that this is more than a cell phone and we all need to wait and see what Apple does with 3rd party support.

No one can write for the iPod and that fact hasn't hurt its growth at all.
Click to expand...

That's the big question really. Compared to the typical cellphone, external control over what apps you can put on the phone is actually pretty typical. But compared to the typical smartphone, even Verizon doesn't prevent you from installing third party Palm or Windows Mobile apps, etc. It seems like maybe what Apple is shooting for here is some of the richer capabilities of a smartphone, but more like a cellphone in that the overall user experience is much more controlled.

Perhaps there is something there. I've always kind of thought that the idea of trying to push things like the Treo or Blackberry to consumers is kind of misguided, because a lot of consumers I know of don't want to deal with the hassle of installing and managing third party apps, etc. But at the same time, there is appeal to richer smartphone-style apps (not to even mention the capabilities of the iPhone's apps) that could appeal to users.

But I hope that however Apple handles third party apps, they do make it fairly painless for third parties to develop apps and have a way to get them on the iPhone. It seems like a potentially amazing platform.

-Zadillo
 
chromos said:
Yes, Google Maps and Yahoo! Mail just being 2 examples. :)
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, those are examples of using Apple's built-in apps to access online services.

What if I want to chat with by ICQ buddies? I can't.

(I hope I don't need to mention that the web browser based ICQ client is out of the question: It is available as either a Flash or a Java (NOT JScript) application, and apparently neither platform will be available. That's not surprising, since either of those platforms would open up the possibility of sending IMs without paying the cell company's SMS taxes. But they both would have provided universally-accessible programming environments, while featuring convenient "sandboxes" to satisfy Steve's apparent concerns about the interfering with the stability of the rest of the phone...)
 
goosnarrggh said:
Strictly speaking, those are examples of using Apple's built-in apps to access online services.

What if I want to chat with by ICQ buddies? I can't.

(I hope I don't need to mention that the web browser based ICQ client is out of the question: It is available as either a Flash or a Java (NOT JScript) application, and apparently neither platforms will be available. That's not surprising, since either of those platforms would open up the possibility of sending IMs without paying the cell company's SMS taxes. But they both would have provided universally-accessible programming environments, while featuring convenient "sandboxes" to satisfy Steve's apparent concerns about the interfering with the stability of the rest of the phone...)
Click to expand...

I can't see that as the reason though, as Cingular sells Treos, etc. right now that you can install IM apps on and chat with.
 
Where is the outrage at currently crippled cell phones???

I am amazed at the people here complaining about the iPhone, but are OK with the way existing cell phones are crippled by US providers.

I have a RAZR phone from Verizon. Verizon purposely cripples the bluetooth so that you can not transfer pictures or music back and forth...but this is a capability built into the design of the phone. So, if you take pictures on the phone, you have to transfer them OVER VERIZON'S NETWORK to an email account. You can not connect your USB cable to the phone and copy the photos to your computer. No, instead you have to be nickeled and dimed by the network provider for the privilege of getting your pictures off the phone. -- This is outrageous !!! ---

The iPhone on the other hand, allows all your media to be sync with your computer without going through the cell provider -- the way it should work!!! -- and it allows syncing of a whole lot more information than just pictures --- for FREE !!!

To me, this is a MAJOR shift in the capabilities of cell phones and a big boost for customers. The US cell phone companies are really squeezing people. They should worry less about squeezing us and focus on higher network reliability.

Oh, yes, BTW people, the iPhone WILL ALLOW 3RD PARTY APPS. Apple just wants to be sure the apps are certified. Seems to me, I remember Microsoft doing this for applications for Windows 3.1 and XP. As someone pointed out earlier, even now Microsoft is worried about poorly written apps taking down Vista -- go figure.
 
IMO this is a nice deal, I paid 200€ for a 2gb iPod Nano a year ago and I still haven't bought any new Phone since 2001 because nothing appeals to me as a consumer.

Now with iPhone I get a unique touch screen technology driven Phone, I get web browsing, email, widgets, calendar, Mac sync, Photo managing, video playback, music playback with twice the capacity of what I own currently. (again, 2Gb). All this for 499... I guess it's pretty fair to me.

I probably will never install a third party app into it, the standard features are quite enough for me nad yes, I have a job and active business life and still the iPhone seems quite enough for what I look for in a Phone and more...

Everyone was so eager for this to be released and now that it's been announced it's just terrible to see everyone saying it sucks without even watching it work live.
 
No iPhone for me without 3rd Party Apps

I think the iPhone is slick and very cool, and I really do understand the reasoning behind this. I think the stability of the iPod is what has been part of what has made it very successful, and I think this is what will help make the iPhone successful for the masses as well.

That being said, when it comes to "smart phones", there are a number of "power users" like me who use their smart phones for more than what the phone manufacturer includes in their built-in apps. On my Treo 650, for example, I have a couple of Bible readers (including several purchased modern texts) and Ultrasoft Checkbook, where I keep my check and credit registers for tracking all my transactions. These are critical to me, and the reason I bought a Treo in the first place was so that I didn't have to carry two devices -- a PDA with these apps PLUS my cell phone.

The lack of this will probably keep from buying an iPhone for myself personally, as what I need personally is in fact, a handheld computer that is also a phone.

I also noted how regularly I use my Treo one-handed with the keyboard for quick SMS messages, etc; as this will be difficult (if not impossible) with the iPhone, it will not work well for me.

Still, I think the iPhone is terribly cool, and will do very well in the
marketplace. It's just not for me. :)

I also should mention that I have an SSH client on my Treo which can be *quite* useful for administrative tasks (connecting to my Mac Mini at home as well as to servers I help administer), and this is something I also doubt will ever be available on the iPhone without more than very limited third-party application support.
 
The more we find out about the iPhone, the worse it sounds.

The iPhone is PRICED like a computer, not an iPod. It has functions of a computer, not just an iPod. It would open up so many developers (not just Mac developers) to the amazing underpinnings of OS X, that it might act as a trojan horse for switching.

Jobs' stability arguments are disingenuous. The exact same thing can be said of any computer. Of course third party apps can cause instability (hello, Apple apps can too!), but the risk of not being able to call Muffy about the movies is worse than the risk of losing every piece of important data, documents, and media youve ever collected? WTF?

There is no excuse. Open the platform up to developers (once it is finalized). We must demand it.
 
Thataboy said:
The more we find out about the iPhone, the worse it sounds.

The iPhone is PRICED like a computer, not an iPod. It has functions of a computer, not just an iPod. It would open up so many developers (not just Mac developers) to the amazing underpinnings of OS X, that it might act as a trojan horse for switching.

Jobs' stability arguments are disingenuous. The exact same thing can be said of any computer. Of course third party apps can cause instability (hello, Apple apps can too!), but the risk of not being able to call Muffy about the movies is worse than the risk of losing every piece of important data, documents, and media youve ever collected? WTF?

There is no excuse. Open the platform up to developers (once it is finalized). We must demand it.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like devs won't be able to develop apps at all for it.

It sounds like they will, just that it will be a controlled environment, and possibly require "signed" apps or something.

Someone on the Slashdot thread posted who works for Symbian, and they pointed out that the Symbian 9.x platform is actually somewhat similar, and requires an approval process for apps, etc.

I would personally prefer that the iPhone was just like a Mac (or my Treo) and that anyone could develop whatever they want and it could be user installable without having to go through Apple, but at least for the iPhone, that perhaps might not be realistic.
 
Zadillo said:
You make it sound like devs won't be able to develop apps at all for it.

It sounds like they will, just that it will be a controlled environment, and possibly require "signed" apps or something.

Someone on the Slashdot thread posted who works for Symbian, and they pointed out that the Symbian 9.x platform is actually somewhat similar, and requires an approval process for apps, etc.

I would personally prefer that the iPhone was just like a Mac (or my Treo) and that anyone could develop whatever they want and it could be user installable without having to go through Apple, but at least for the iPhone, that perhaps might not be realistic.
Click to expand...

Right but "controlled environment" = editorial control = they may not certify things that are in high demand but might annoy Cingular.

I think the 2 biggest examples are Adium and Skype. I feel like these are the 2 apps that keep getting mentioned (because IM and VOIP functionality should be a given considering the iPhone's specs). If the Adium and Skype developrs produce tight amazing and stable iPhone versions, will Apple certify them? Is it a question of stability (like Jobs claims) or politics?

I simply don't see how phone manfacturers and carriers dont mind such apps on Palm and Windows, but somehow on an OS X based phone it's all different.

Maybe I'm wrong, and Apple will allow Adium to submit a free app to download through iTunes. Why do I think this is highly unlikely though?
 
You have been mis-informed, or ,misunderstood the post.

There are plenty of Symbian 9 applications ( freeware and payware ) that are not signed. You get a warning saying that the app is unsigned upon installation, but that is as far as it goes. There is an option on the phone ( e-series at least ) to stop the user from installing any unsigned apps - this was for phone carriers mainly - who have the option.

Symbian, correctly, decided that signed 3rd party apps would damage the developer base too much and allowed unsigned applications as previously because it costs too much for the average hobbist developer. Nokia and SonyEricsson certainly have no restrictions on their phones.



( And I've installed plenty of unsigned apps on my Symbian 9 device - so I'm talking from first hand experience ).

Zadillo said:
pps or something.

Someone on the Slashdot thread posted who works for Symbian, and they pointed out that the Symbian 9.x platform is actually somewhat similar, and requires an approval process for apps, etc.
Click to expand...
 
This sux.

This could have been a revolutionary product. Instead, it's a step backwards.

If the 3rd party software is controlled by Apple in the same way they control the iPod, then there is not going to be many apps. There are only a few games for iPod. I know lots of developers that have tried to get Apple to let them develop for iPod, and they are shut out.

I was going to buy an iPhone as a PDA. I don't need it for a phone. Now that it's not a PDA, or at least not a PDA I can develop for, I'm not interested.

This is very sad. I got my hopes up that I could use "OS X" on my phone, and develop for it using "Cocoa", "Core Video", and "Core Animation", and my own "Widgets". I put those in quotes because that's what he told us. Jobs is a tease. I feel lied to.

I'm going to go cry now.
 
Stella said:
You have been mis-informed, or ,misunderstood the post.

There are plenty of Symbian 9 applications ( freeware and payware ) that are not signed. You get a warning saying that the app is unsigned upon installation, but that is as far as it goes. There is an option on the phone ( e-series at least ) to stop the user from installing any unsigned apps - this was for phone carriers mainly - who have the option.

Symbian, correctly, decided that signed 3rd party apps would damage the developer base too much and allowed unsigned applications as previously because it costs too much for the average hobbist developer. Nokia and SonyEricsson certainly have no restrictions on their phones.



( And I've installed plenty of unsigned apps on my Symbian 9 device - so I'm talking from first hand experience ).
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Just to clarify, there are a few posts on the Slashdot forums though that gave the impression that the unsigned stuff is basically J2ME apps, but the full native Symbian apps on S60 require signing. These are the two posts in particular I'm referring to:

Actually Nokia and Symbian S60 platform is moving towards more closed environment. You CAN see all the APIs but you can't use them without signing process on a real phone. The signing process is costly and the only alternative is to abide very restrictive open source path.

In addition Nokia is currently moving from three Symbian platforms (S40, S60 & S80) towards only S60. Sorry for the lack of links, but google "symbian signed" for yuorself and see.
Click to expand...

and

Disclaimer: I work for Symbian but everything I write is my personal opinion only.

Brilliant - mod up please. This kind of control is already present on all Symbian 9.x phones (e.g. Series 60 3rd ed) -in the form of "Platsec" or Platform Security. Apps have to be signed for the "capabilities" they use. The simple-to-understand capabilities can be granted by the phone user. The more "dangerous" capabilities have to be granted by getting an external test house, with appropriate authority, to sign the application. If you want to access deep parts of Nokia's or Sony Ericsson's GSM telephony stacks the you need to get a signature from them.

It has sparked lots of heated debates because the signing costs money but it offers protection against the kinds of problems that PCs have had with the internet. Without it, phones would be a very attractive ecosystem for malicious software.

Apple seem not to have this kind of architecture in place yet so their only option is to be more restrictive for now.
Click to expand...
 
dongmin said:
You're joking right? With it's web-browsing and email alone, it's already superior to every other smart phone out there.
Click to expand...
Web browsing? Over 2G EDGE network? That's slower than dial-up. No Flash or Java? It's nearly useless for web browsing. E-mail? Google, Yahoo and .Mac only? So no Exchange, IMAP or POP? That's not e-mail.

This thing will be next to useless in it's current iteration at that price point. No third-part apps is just the topping. I wouldn't even consider it.

There are plenty 3G smartphones with e-mail, web and third party apps that cost less.
 
Zadillo said:
Gotcha. Just to clarify, there are a few posts on the Slashdot forums though that gave the impression that the unsigned stuff is basically J2ME apps, but the full native Symbian apps on S60 require signing. These are the two posts in particular I'm referring to:



and
Click to expand...

I was just reading them - and came back here
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216502&cid=17571238

Interesting posts. So,
"The simple-to-understand capabilities can be granted by the phone user."

"The more "dangerous" capabilities have to be granted by getting an external test house, with appropriate authority, to sign the application. If you want to access deep parts of Nokia's or Sony Ericsson's GSM telephony stacks the you need to get a signature from them."

Because iPhone lacks this security model, Apple want to make it very restrictive.

So, Symbian have catered for hobbiest / freeware developers but if you want to write an API that could potentially do damage, your out of luck - you have to pay $$$ for Symbian do sign the app for you.

Series40 was never Symbian. Its great that Nokia will have only the one platform for Symbian - since Series80 apps can't run on Series60 etc. More compatible software. Its bad enough Symbian being fragmented between Nokia ( Series60/80 ) and UIQ camps - both of which are incompatible.
 
dusanv said:
Web browsing? Over 2G EDGE network? That's slower than dial-up. No Flash or Java? It's nearly useless for web browsing. E-mail? Google, Yahoo and .Mac only? So no Exchange, IMAP or POP? That's not e-mail.

This thing will be next to useless in it's current iteration at that price point. No third-part apps is just the topping. I wouldn't even consider it.

There are plenty 3G smartphones with e-mail, web and third party apps that cost less.
Click to expand...

I am almost positive they did say it supported any POP or IMAP e-mail.... I think the thing with Yahoo mail was that they would be offering some sort of special e-mail for it, but I don't think they were saying it would be only those three mail providers.

Regarding the web browser, even without Flash or Java, the stuff they showed on it looks a thousand times more useful to me than the Blazer browser I put up with on my Treo (or even Opera Mini, which unfortunately crashes my Treo 650).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back