I'm all for it, but shouldn't it be a more iPhone/iPod touch friendly page? Kind of defeats the object... Or am I missing something?...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Launches WebApps Directory
- Thread starter Sean7512
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
exactly what I was saying. it is great that they have done this, but it should have been formatted for the iPhone .. e.g appleopolis.com
Sorry if this has been said before, but, you think AT&T would want them to have locally stored apps. I say that because, think about how much bandwidth gets used. Especially now that Apple has a listing of webapps. People will go there and try a lot of them.
So with that in mind, you would think AT&T would say, wait a minute, these are unlimited data plans but not that unlimited.
So with that in mind, you would think AT&T would say, wait a minute, these are unlimited data plans but not that unlimited.
The question is how soon will this be available for general release?
http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/10/11/google.maps.on.ipod.touch/
http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/10/11/google.maps.on.ipod.touch/
You are not aware.
You download a webpage every time you visit it. Web apps and downloads do belong in the same sentence.
The iPod touch has a built-in calculator you can access from the home screen. You don't have to be online to use the calculator.
thanks for downloading forums.macrumors.com
lol, you sure can argue its "technically correct", but absolutely misleading. apple does "think different" tho.
204 Apps and i Still can't GROUP or FORWARD a Text!
Sell it and buy something else. Or submit feedback to Apple. You aren't doing much by rolling your eyes.
most are connected applications anyway
At least the web-apps have a higher level of visibility now. This will enable some hack from PC World or some such to write one of those pieces where they review the "current state of web-apps," and I wouldn't be surprised if the verdict ended up being "pretty good.".
To those saying that these web-apps "suck" because you have to be connected to the Internet, if you look closely, almost all of them require a connection for a valid reason internal to the program itself.
If you ignore the crappy games, demos, advertisements and joke-apps, almost all of these are apps that require access to a remote database or the network itself. Even if Apple allowed them as local authorised apps, they would still need to have access to the network for data in many cases.
Also, the fact that they *are* mostly networked apps kind of adds a bit of veracity to Apple's claims that these things could ruin your network/phone experience. Think about five crappy restaurant review apps running in the background accessing some website currently experiencing a DOS attack or some such thing.
These are in fact excellent solutions and with the (rumoured) future ability to store some data locally a la Gears-like technology, pretty much all anyone would need in most cases.
I think this is really the point of the exercise.
At least the web-apps have a higher level of visibility now. This will enable some hack from PC World or some such to write one of those pieces where they review the "current state of web-apps," and I wouldn't be surprised if the verdict ended up being "pretty good.".
To those saying that these web-apps "suck" because you have to be connected to the Internet, if you look closely, almost all of them require a connection for a valid reason internal to the program itself.
If you ignore the crappy games, demos, advertisements and joke-apps, almost all of these are apps that require access to a remote database or the network itself. Even if Apple allowed them as local authorised apps, they would still need to have access to the network for data in many cases.
Also, the fact that they *are* mostly networked apps kind of adds a bit of veracity to Apple's claims that these things could ruin your network/phone experience. Think about five crappy restaurant review apps running in the background accessing some website currently experiencing a DOS attack or some such thing.
These are in fact excellent solutions and with the (rumoured) future ability to store some data locally a la Gears-like technology, pretty much all anyone would need in most cases.
Also, the fact that they *are* mostly networked apps kind of adds a bit of veracity to Apple's claims that these things could ruin your network/phone experience. Think about five crappy restaurant review apps running in the background accessing some website currently experiencing a DOS attack or some such thing.
you can't be serious about that? what do you say to those people who use treo, wm smartphones? they can do more on their phone, and where is the crash of the networks?
no sdk... but who needs an sdk when we have THE SCRIPTURES on the iPhone/iTouch!
http://readscriptures.com/#_home
http://readscriptures.com/#_home
I completely agree. How wacky is it that they didn't format this for friendly, iPhone viewing?
Hello? Anyone there? That's such an obvious thing to do that I can only wonder in disbelief.
has anyone noticed that this Bible app has a offline use tab?
http://www.apple.com/webapps/searchtools/bibleforiphone.html
http://www.apple.com/webapps/searchtools/bibleforiphone.html
That's the first good argument I've heard for Apple not making an SDK available. I'm not quite convinced yet, but it's definitely plausible.
Yeah if you click on that it tells you they will email you the Bible so you can read it in your email... for a donation
http://iphone.clearsight.org/Offline.html
"You can now access the iPhone Bible while in a plane, underwater, or in a fallout shelter, through your iPhone, without EDGE or WiFi! I have formatted the text as emails for the iPhone. If you subscribe to the IMAP email account I have made available, you can download the entire Bible to the iPhone for reading whenever, or wherever you are."
Do you think this is how apple will get offline apps to work?? ... seems pretty crappy to me.
I think they gave this the wrong name. It should be something like
http://www.apple.com/websites-for-the-iphone-or-itouch
Sorry - I don't see any "real" apps here, just web sites. I also would much prefer installable apps to the iPhone itself, but I am also not ready to iHack my phone to get them. I'll wait and see what the next release (1.1.2) looks like.
http://www.apple.com/websites-for-the-iphone-or-itouch
Sorry - I don't see any "real" apps here, just web sites. I also would much prefer installable apps to the iPhone itself, but I am also not ready to iHack my phone to get them. I'll wait and see what the next release (1.1.2) looks like.
Playing Bejeweled with no sound is just wrong.
Thank you!!! I was hoping I wasn't the only one having a big problem with that too! lol
I agree. The page loaded fairly fast with 5 bars, but i dont always have 5 bars. You would think it would just be a much more simpler page that would load better on the EDGE network. Well see, maybe they will change it after seeing that. Also, the lack of IM clients bodes well for there own version coming as a native app making its debut release with leopard
I can help.
I tried to access the game Block, and already at first try it froze my iPhone and had to do a reboot. Then I find out that you have to pay $2.99 for Block, and can only access it for 33 days?! No thank you. The website is slow, and ever since I upgraded to 1.1.1, Safari has been crashing at random, so it could quit suddenly in the middle of a game or something, I would not want to put up with the hassle.