Apple iPhone Apps Coming, but Limited

[crispoe]

There will be applications. Your phone will remain stable. This is how it should be.

I think there will be well established 3rd party applications, but they will have to be approved by Apple and then published in the itunes store.

I want all the cool apps on my cell phone just like every other power user, but I have managed/used treos, palms, blackberrys, windows mobile phones, and windows mobile smart phones for my company, and all of them crash all time or need to be rebooted. They have all sorts of issues. I am sure its because of all the apps that end users install on the phones that go untested with all the other apps they have on the phone.

Phones have limited memory, and a non savvy user will install too many apps on the phone- and run out of program memory, killing the stability of the phone. I am sure apple wants to avoid this. I think Apple is doing the right thing here.

If you want to put a pre-alpha version of putty on your phone - get a Treo.

If you want a fully tested stable version of ssh for your iphone, chances are you will see it come through iTunes and run in concert with the rest of your apps on the iPhone.

I like the idea of getting applications through the itunes store. It reminds me a bit of synaptic for debian/ubuntu. It would be nice if I could install any OS X application through itunes on my Macbook/iPhone with one click.

I think we will hear more about this process at WWDC.

I hope the iphone battery is reliable enough though.

 

[Data]

I still want it, al do salling clicker hopefully will get on the iphone to
;-)

 

[SiliconAddict]

Not for the upper 1% (at least) of that market. Many high-end nonsmartphones cost that much. And considering it has a full-fledged iPod built-in, it's not THAT expensive.

You are making the same justifications that people who support the PS3 are making. That HAY! It’s got Blu-Ray so it’s worth $600 for a game system. That justification isn’t working out so well because people are looking to use the system as a game console first and foremost. When you spend a premium on a device, and lets be fair this is a premium. The device that I’m waiting for in the mail that I mentioned above is $350 before the instant discount of $100. When you spend a premium on a device it becomes very hard to justify buying a device if you aren’t going to use all those features. What do I mean?
Its a full-fledged 4 or 8GB iPod Nano. You need to keep this in perspective. The audio features cater to a very narrow market.
Keep in mind that until now people paying a premium for iPods were doing it to get 60+GB drives. Now all they are getting is 4-8GB and a subset of their collection with all the cool zippy features of the iPhone. Realistically the iPhone caters to three groups of people when it comes to music:

A. People who can fit all their music on 4-8GB of space.

B. People who are willing to have a subset of their music on the thing.

C. People who don’t care about the iTunes functionality at all and are simply interested in the smart phone features.

Basicly what it boils down to is this device is targeted at Phone users who have a nano and are willing to spend more then they did on the Nano. That’s a pretty narrow user base without even factoring in Cingular.
Lets be under no delusions though: Apple is going to sell several metric tons of these things right out of the gate, but I’m certain there is going to be a pretty large segment of users who are going to wait for something better because this thing because of price, by and large, is catering to a narrow market segment. Now if this thing was $299 people could overlook this set of features or that set of features. But at half a grand for the base unit? People get twitchy about that half grand mark.
But like everything the price will eventually fall, new models will come out, 3rd party support will happen, and all will be right with the world again. Just have to give it time. For now Apple will sell these things like hotcakes to people with disposable incomes, tech heads, Mac heads, and generally people who need teh new shiny now. Which is perfectly fine by me. Please beta test this stuff for us and godspeed.

I'm missing something...David Pogue said the IPHONE has to be docked to sync...so why would you need bluetooth in the damn phone anyways...wireless keyboard and mice??? LOL

BT Headsets.

 

[voidptr]

Anyway, I'll just sit back and watch what will become of this phone when it releases. There will be 3rd party apps but will be QC'd to death by Apple and that IS a good thing.

No, it's not. Apple QC isn't going to come cheap. It's creating another false economy with an artificial barrier to entry like the current ringtone market instead of creating an ecosystem for independent development like OS X, Cocoa, XCode, and dashboard has for the Mac.

You don't want crappy apps on your iPhone? Nobody's holding a gun to your head and making you install them. But this is stopping development on the iPhone before it begins, because alot of people who would develop (quality software or otherwise) just aren't going to bother with the hassle.

 

[digitalbiker]

I feel like you’ll get your fill of towers, cores, 10s. In the mean time, you might ponder to yourself whether there is a dichotomy between nostalgia and longing for stasis or embracing change and welcoming evolution.

I, for example, do find it sad at times that we’re no longer living in caves and huts. But there is no time to lament the disappearance of these simpler living quarters and the progress that accompanied this change. I do like windows and central heating and being surrounded by rectangular patterns of dry wall...

Look the iPhone is an amazing little gadget. It is truly innovative from the miniaturation and design standpoint. But it cannot be perceived as the future for computing.

I can't develop and compile multi-platform applications on an iPhone. I can't edit and create HD DVD's on the iPhone. I am not going to use an iPhone for photoshop work. People can't design and render 3D animations on an iPhone.

Sorry but many of us who make a living with computers still need an 8 core MacPro.

I think your analogy is way way off. If a Mac Pro is a grass hut or cave. I sure wouldn't call an iPhone a modern house. More like a Mac Pro would be a castle or palace and and iPhone would be a nylon pup-tent.

 

[ksz]

Doesn't even make me hesitate. I could care less about 3rd party apps on the iphone.

I generally agree, particularly for the first year. After that, it would be a good idea to allow third party apps as long as they meet Apple's certification requirements.

As others have mentioned, it doesn't seem likely that Apple will develop or allow a Skype or IM client. This is probably due to the bundling and control-freak strategies employed by mobile carriers. Apple is not in a position to change the tactics of mobile carriers today, but if the iPhone becomes a huge commercial success, Apple will certainly be in a position to dictate terms.

I think Apple demonstrated this with iTunes. Once the iPod and iTMS became huge commercial successes, Apple gained the enviable position of being able to strongarm the music companies. One evidence of this is the continued 99-cent price of nearly all individual tracks, despite pressure from them to raise prices.

For movies, Apple will again try to hold prices down. Apple is not in a particularly strong position with movies yet, but with the announcement of Paramount Pictures, they are beginning to get there.

So I hope that with time and with the commercial success of iPhone, Apple will be able to change the dynamics of the mobile phone industry.

 

[dan-o-mac]

Don't buy it?

Yeah I think that's what a few people are going to do, but the masses will more than pick up the slack. I don't doubt this thing will sell like crack. I won't be buying myself. No Cingular, and not enough money being more of the reason than 3rd party support, but that does play a part for me.

 

[RealMcCoy]

I wonder ....

I wonder what apple, inc. would look like if all of those "apple should do this, apple should do that" people that are posting here, really would run the company ?

Make your own company and do better, I say !

The iPhone (in the current state it was presented by Steve Jobs) is already a great device, not only for the looks. Get one or simply don´t !

It is so easy to jump on something that is done already (involving lots of people to get it there) and then poping out of the box just to explain what they would have done to make it right ! Go ahead ... do it, why don´t you ?

The rebirth of apple was through the return of Steve Jobs. Let him do the thinking for the company cause this guy knows what he is doing ! Or is there anyone that would doubt this ?

In a perfect world, filled with perfect people and perfect people we would surely not driving stupid boxes on four wheels that are fueled with gas and my neighbor would not be a jerk ;o)

 

[gwangung]

I think there will be well established 3rd party applications, but they will have to be approved by Apple and then published in the itunes store.

Well, given that the article SAYS that there will be 3rd party apps, but they will have to approved by Apple, I don't think you're going out on a limb.

However, all the folks whining about the "NO" third party apps seems to have flunked basic reading comprehension 101.

 

[AidenShaw]

Who the hell cares? How many of your phones right now allow you program and install any app you want? This is a cell phone! Not a mini computer.

Ummm, look at http://www.handango.com/home.jsp?siteId=1 and rephrase the question....

 

[SiliconAddict]

No, it's not. Apple QC isn't going to come cheap. It's creating another false economy with an artificial barrier to entry like the current ringtone market instead of creating an ecosystem for independent development like OS X, Cocoa, XCode, and dashboard has for the Mac.

You don't want crappy apps on your iPhone? Nobody's holding a gun to your head and making you install them. But this is stopping development on the iPhone before it begins, because alot of people who would develop (quality software or otherwise) just aren't going to bother with the hassle.

My money is on this QC being all about memory footprint. Granted at this point we have NO idea how this thing is designed. For all we know the system is being run off a 1GB virtual disk on the storage side of things with no real system RAM in the traditional sense of the word. I really can't wait to find out how this thing works...anyways.
I'm willing to be the strict controls are all about keeping it within the working envelope of the system's RAM/ RAM drive, whatever.
Apple is notorious about shipping hardware that sits ON the edge of certain envelopes, be they thermal or systems with JUST enough RAM to function. (The RAM complaint has thankfully has changed in the last few years but does everyone remember the days of 256MB? That really wasn't all that long ago.)
Anyways I'm sure that its all about keeping these apps from going open buffet on the system's resources.
*shrugs* This is a good thing and a bad thing if its true. Granted I'm using the PIDOOMA model to come up with this stuff so who knows. *shrugs* Wait and see guys.

Ummm, look at http://www.handango.com/home.jsp?siteId=1 and rephrase the question....

Shhhhhhhh! Didn't you know? If it isn't Apple it doesn't exist.

Careful. We don't want to shatter people's fragile reality.

 

[RealMcCoy]

As others have mentioned, it doesn't seem likely that Apple will develop or allow a Skype or IM client. This is probably due to the bundling and control-freak strategies employed by mobile carriers.

Realisticly it is due to the charakter of a profit orientated company and the rules of the market. What would be the benefit of any mobile carrier to allow a product like Skype on a product they onbviously make money by charging you for the use of there network ?

 

[AppleIntelRock]

A phone with access to the internet, email and text messages. A so-so 2mp camera and only 8 GB of internal memory- no upgrade options. No third party applications will be available and you'll have to purchase almost every software add-on for an unreasonable price. It doesn't even feature HSDPA. How much would you pay? $50? $100? nope. Try $600 plus activation.

 

[ksz]

Realisticly it is due to the charakter of a profit orientated company and the rules of the market. What would be the benefit of any mobile carrier to allow a product like Skype on a product they onbviously make money by charging you for the use of there network ?

One should be able to use Skype or IM over WiFi, not necessarily over the cellular network. We can do this even now. I have a Skype client running on my Dell Axim (which looks a lot like the iPhone). I can only make calls, obviously, when there is a WiFi network around.

But the problem here is that the iPhone is a cellular phone, not an internet phone. It could be both, but it seems to me (speculation) that Cingular would rather not give it a dual identity. They want all calls going through their cellular network. Of course this has everything to do with profit margins, and at this time Apple is not in a position to argue with them. But if the iPhone becomes a huge commercial success, Apple may be able to exert more control over what the iPhone can and cannot do.

 

[ChrisA]

The OS could be quite primative

Likely the version of Mac OS X that runs on the iPhone is so stripped down it lacks even basic features like a file system that understands ownership and permissions and maybe even there is no memory protections and process can write over each other. I would not be surprised if the OS was quite primitive.

If I'm write allowing third party software would be like allowing third part drivers, the software would have free run of the device. You can't have that if the phone is to work

 

[RealMcCoy]

The new iMac ?!

And while we´re at to explain Steve Jobs how to run Apple, Inc. ... there you go: Steve I want this to be the next iMac o iTouch or iTouchMac or .... Now !!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NVIcGdmpp2k

 

[slffl]

Huge positive! I'm SO glad Apple and Jobs don't listen to half the people on these forums. I really think people who have a problem with this should be using Windows Mobile.

 

[Fukui]

I understand Steve's reasoning, in that he wants a smooth, seemless device. This is somewhat analogous to Mac's being so stable because Apple controls the hardware and software, so OS X is programmed with every possible circumstance in mind, unlike Windows which must cope with a myriad of hardware situation.

Perhaps, but also limiting the software options to only apple helps another potential problem... the first time I heard steve mention it runs OS X, the first thought that raced through my head was that virus writers are gonna have a field day trying to get things installed onto the iPhone. If apple locks it down, its gonna be harder to infect the things as well....

 

[RealMcCoy]

Skype on iPhone

One should be able to use Skype or IM over WiFi, not necessarily over the cellular network. We can do this even now. I have a Skype client running on my Dell Axim (which looks a lot like the iPhone). I can only make calls, obviously, when there is a WiFi network around.

Then the Dell Axim it is ! For you ;o)

... it seems to me (speculation) that Cingular would rather not give it a dual identity. They want all calls going through their cellular network.

Sure they do want that ! Wouldn´t you, if it would be your company ?

 

[ksz]

Then the Dell Axim it is ! For you ;o)

Sure they do want that ! Wouldn´t you, if it would be your company ?

Are you arguing for the status quo, or are you arguing for better choices?

 

[AppleIntelRock]

Yeah I think that's what a few people are going to do, but the masses will more than pick up the slack. I don't doubt this thing will sell like crack. I won't be buying myself. No Cingular, and not enough money being more of the reason than 3rd party support, but that does play a part for me.

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.

Likely the version of Mac OS X that runs on the iPhone is so stripped down it lacks even basic features like a file system that understands ownership and permissions and maybe even there is no memory protections and process can write over each other. I would not be surprised if the OS was quite primitive.

If I'm write allowing third party software would be like allowing third part drivers, the software would have free run of the device. You can't have that if the phone is to work

"stripped down... lacking basic deatures like file systems that understands ownership and permissions and maybe even there is no memory protections"

Sounds like Microsoft... not Apple.

Realisticly it is due to the charakter of a profit orientated company and the rules of the market. What would be the benefit of any mobile carrier to allow a product like Skype on a product they onbviously make money by charging you for the use of there network ?

If companies ONLY worried about profit margins, you'd never have innovation. A happy medium has to be found

 

[voidptr]

Sure they do want that ! Wouldn´t you, if it would be your company ?

No, I wouldn't. Go read my earlier post on why Cisco walked out of the deal.

Cell service is expensive, and cell companies used to sell cell service. And they think they still do.

But what they really sell is roaming access to the SS7 network. There's an incredible market for that with Voip becoming popular. Skype doesn't work when I'm in the middle of nowhere out of range of a Wifi hotspot. Vonage or my local telephone company doesn't work when I'm not home. Cingular doesn't work in the conference room in the middle of work, or at my house in the boonies.

Three ways to get a phone number and complete a call onto the telephone network everyone else is on. Only one has the infrastructure to work almost anywhere I am, but they don't have the infrastructure everywhere. I don't want 3 phone numbers. I don't want to deal with three different companies every month to stay connected. I want one unified network agnostic way to complete a call, whether it's over GSM when I can see a tower, or VOIP and Wifi when I've got that handy. And cell phone companies are in the best position to do that, because they have the hard part -- connecting while I'm on the road. Connecting while I'm within reach of an internet connection is easy. And when I'm near a TCP/IP connection, GSM is the worst possible way to get voice anywhere. It's expensive to deploy and maintain, and it's slow for general purpose data.

Cell phone companies are eventually going to either sell high QOS mobile voice and universal VOIP to SS7 access along with valuable mobile data, or they're going to get replaced by an upstart company who can. The question is how long it takes them to see that, or how long they're going to maintain a dying business model based on overpriced "special data" and trapping their customers in artificially inflated economies in a world where data and TCP/IP is quickly becoming a comodity item.

 

[applecrag]

if you want 3rd party apps/more flexibility get a palm. complain in 6 months if all isnt right. personally i think the iphone is an amazing device and we should all trust that steve knows what hes doing like he does with the ipod.

 

[AppleIntelRock]

if you want 3rd party apps/more flexibility get a palm. complain in 6 months if all isnt right. personally i think the iphone is an amazing device and we should all trust that steve knows what hes doing like he does with the ipod.

Now, now, we're not going to gain market-share using that attitude. The "if you don't like it, go someplace else attitude" isn't a productive one.

 

[jhedges3]

Maybe service providers should update their pricing plans to charge per email or per page or per packet. Cell providers should also charge less if the bandwidth of your conversation is smaller. Video stores should record the number of repeated viewings of a DVD, and charge per each. Beer companies should enforce a policy of one opening one gulp, or else you pay 45 cents and increasing exponentially.

Cell phone providers do charge per email (by forcing it through SMS) and per packet (by charging assininely high rates per kb of data). Every other company you listed realized that charging sane prices for use of their product instead of nickeling and dimeing their customers to death makes a much more profitable business in the long run. Maybe cell phone companies should join the 21st century and sell a "big dumb pipe" like the wired world does now.

I was being sarcastic. Apologies that was lost. Not that it means anything to anyone, but I am, and have been, in favor of business models that don’t try to squeeze money from consumers by needlessly charging for particular things.

The service providers I was referring to in the first sentence are Internet service providers not cell phone providers, which I was referring to in the second sentence. I did not list any companies.