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

Apple Still Considering 3rd Party iPhone App Development?

absolute requirement for my to buy initially

I'm on the fence about this device, and being locked-in to Apple apps would definitely put me on the "wait and see" side of the fence. Of course the app I want to run most would really throw a monkey-wrench into Apple's partnering arrangements -- a VOIP softphone client.

Come on Apple, charging per minute of phone usage is so 20th century. Free us from the mobile operators! You've got the industry all worked up, you've got a very narrow window in time where YOU get to set the terms. Being locked into one provider wouldn't hurt nearly so much if you could use them only as a data provider but then use your own VOIP.

If Apple releases this thing as just another smart phone locking us into one mobile operator for everything including minutes, I'll never be able to hear Jobsy talk about "innovation" again without scoffing. What an amazing opportunity he'll have let just pass him (and us!) by...
 
If my old Nokia symbian (don't forget the m!) can handle third party apps, I don't know why the iPhone shouldn't.

Just look at the PSP, the only reason it's selling anywhere near the still mediocre sales it has now is because it's been heavily homebrewed.

When you pay this much for a phone you want to be able to take it to it's limit.

If I can't run Broken Sword through ScummVM on an iPhone, it'd be a tragedy!


EDIT: Not that I doubt that if the iPhone was locked, it'd be cracked within roughly 2.3 hours after release and contually recracked each time Apple tried to relock it with an update. The user always wins.
 
I'm beginning to think it was a mistake for them to announce that iPhone was running embedded OS X. I think they were just too proud of themselves and now they're having a hard time explaining that even though the OS is in there, no one is allowed to use it.

I'd like a VOIP app to go along with the built-in WiFi. Other than that, I can't think of what I'd need.

As a coder myself, I'd love to be able to write little stuff to run on there as a portable platform. Most of what I'd use it for would only need the Bluetooth serial port profile and access to the GUI and file system. Java would be one answer, but not ideal. It's much easier to keep in a sandbox though... The other would be to only offer a subset of the Cocoa frameworks-- the stuff they consider safe for cohabitation with the phone.

Since that seems to be the absolute least likely scenario, I'm not holding my breath.

More likely, they'll start with a few partners, then open the Widget interface and leave it at that. Aside from a few games to pass the time now and then, I don't see that adding much value for me.

Marx55 said:
We need to run Microsoft Office, Eudora Mail and some other applications in the iPhone. That is a must for us or else we will look elsewhere! Best of all if they run as native applications using the same native files used on any Mac. That coupled with wireless presentation capabilities will make the iPhone a best seller, even having a model without phone capatibilites but having the other fefatures. We will purchase thousands for our University.
Click to expand...
If this is absolutely necessary, you can probably get a few month jump on things and start looking elsewhere... As you can tell from all the chest beating at Microsoft, they're not about to port Office over. Apple has a pretty decent mail client on the phone already, so opening it up to another probably isn't a priority. Wireless presentation just isn't technically feasible given the bandwidth, storage and battery requirements of doing that-- not to mention you'd need a wireless projector to receive the input.

I do expect Apple will include at least the level of Office support they include in TextEdit. The mail client they've demonstrated looks more than capable enough unless Eudora has some magic feature you need. The most I'd expect for your presentations is some sort of remote control...
 
Free the iPhone! The message this sends to me is that this phone is so "delicate" to ptogram for that 3td party software is as likely to render the phone unusable as it is to provide extra value. Not a message your want to send if it is running some variant of OS/X.

Otherwise, why should :apple: care what apps users run on their Phone? Or if they are that worried, can't they provide some sort of "seal of approval" process where 3rd party developers can write for it, but they have to demonstrate to :apple: that their app can do no harm? In any case, all you really need is a "re-image to factory" option if the phone did download some malware app - and as long as your data is backed up via iTunes, there would be little chance of permanent harm.
 
Object-X said:
I think the iPhone needs to be looked at as a new platform. It's way more than a phone. The Internet communication part of this device is far more important than the phone, but it gets the least attention. It's the internet and the services that will grow up around the iPhone that will matter most.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. It will deliver what others only promise, and have been promising of their phones for years. How many people have the patience to surf the web or work out how to check email on a mobile phone? (I tried T-mobile's Web n Walk demo on their website the other day, it certainly did not convince me that web surfing was enjoyable or practical - especially not at the price people are charged for this stuff.)
 
dernhelm said:
Free the iPhone! The message this sends to me is that this phone is so "delicate" to ptogram for that 3td party software is as likely to render the phone unusable as it is to provide extra value. Not a message your want to send if it is running some variant of OS/X.

Otherwise, why should :apple: care what apps users run on their Phone? Or if they are that worried, can't they provide some sort of "seal of approval" process where 3rd party developers can write for it, but they have to demonstrate to :apple: that their app can do no harm? In any case, all you really need is a "re-image to factory" option if the phone did download some malware app - and as long as your data is backed up via iTunes, there would be little chance of permanent harm.
Click to expand...

You touched on a couple of interesting points:

1) The "Made For iPhone" seal of approval-- Apple validates and tests the program... and the programs are then distributed and installed through a service similar to (or the same as iTunes store).

2) The "Reset To Factory Settings" option where the user can reset the iPhone to a known "healthy" condition and then "refresh" his data via a service such as .mac-- maybe even a TimeMachine for your iPhone synched data.

There are some interesting business opportunities (for services) here:

1) 3rd-Party Developers pay Apple a small fee for sale, distribution, and installation of the apps (per unit sale). Everyone gains from the convenience of one-stop-shopping.

2) The users pay Apple a small (monthly) fee to have their data and 3-RD-Party Apps TimeMachined on Apple's servers.

So, even though an app misbehaves, the user can recover the function of his iPhone and his private data-- less the culprit app (until the problem is resolved).

It is the User's option to decide:

1) if he wants to pay to "open up" his iPhone and be exposed to an increased risk of additional downtime.

2) If he wants to buy a WiFi Service/Insurance policy that allows him to easily recover and circumvent the problem (think AAA for iPhone).

Simple risk vs benefit business decisions.

The AppleTV (and iPod, to some extent) gives some insight to how this could be implemented.

Hard-coded software layer (ROM) where you press a special menu or key-sequence to:

1) Run diagnostics
2) Reset factory settings
3) Update software
4) Resynch your data

As for programming the iPhone, Cocoa/XCode would be fine for the high-use/performance apps. The Widget approach would prolly be adequate for most other apps.

If Apple makes available the Widget CLI, then the programmer could have access to almost anything that can be installed on the iPhone, including:

Ruby
Perl
Java
JavaScript
OAScript (AppleScript)
SQLlite, MySQL
Apache
*
*
*

...is that a Web Server in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?

Dick Applebaum
 
They should make it so only select or premiere members of the apple developer connection program be allowed to make apps for the phone, and have the subscription include something like 5-10 "apple approvals" for an app, where apple itself will beta-test the application and approve it for installation on an iPhone via iTunes, like an iPod game for example.

That way, apple has control of the software in the device, but we'll still be able to get skype on it :D
 
How well would powerbooks sell if they only worked with AOL?

dernhelm said:
The message this sends to me is that this phone is so "delicate" to ptogram for that 3td party software is as likely to render the phone unusable as it is to provide extra value.
Click to expand...

I think there is a certain amount of truth to their fears, but I see the vast majority of their motivation as being pushed down by the provider. Although Cingular / AT&T are not as uptight and asinine as Verizon maybe (who won't even allow their phones to have bluetooth sync enabled), they are extremely paranoid and are clinging desperately to an outdated business model where they nickel and dime their customers to death for every little thing they can. Their model relies on charging for airtime, roaming, LD, syncing, ring tones, voicemail, each SMS, each MMS, every little thing. Some of them do incur a cost to provide, but many of those things are essentially free and the only way they can force people to pay for them is by leaning on the phone makers to lock their phones down so they can charge for what many customers could do themselves if the phone weren't intentionally crippled.

I'm still incredibly dissapointed in Apple. Had they simply released this phone as an unlocked quad-band GSM phone that used primarily a 3G data connection for everything, they could have single-handedly brought this industry into the next generation. The device could have used 3G while on the road, intelligently switched over to WIFI when available. With those data centers they're building all over the US, they had a perfect opportunity to provide their own VOIP tied-in with dot mac (reviving a quite lame product in the process). It's not even leading-edge tech anymore, it's quite mainstream and well established. Everything they need is an out-of-the-box solution, and without a huge legacy PSTN to upgrade it would have been a dream of a green-field implementation.

Apple could have held to their principles, wowed their customers, and let the GSM providers fight over who would sell it -- and they would have. I don't think I'm discounting AT&T too much when I say that 99.9% of the hype that surrounds this phone is because of the phone itself and Apple. AT&T hasn't brought a thing to the marketing yet. Maybe Apple underestimated the consumer interest in the device and let themselves get conned.

I hope for their sake that Apple is getting shedloads of money from AT&T for this deal, because the way I see it the consumers are getting hosed and AT&T isn't bringing anything to the table but their anti-consumer practices. The iPhone quite obviously would have sold itself.
 
For all of you who complain that the stability would be compromised if developers were allowed to create apps freely: if you are afraid that a 3rd party app will crash your iPhone, DON'T INSTALL IT! Only rely on applications made by apple or Apple-approved applications. Problem solved.

Have a look at the Nokia and their Symbian phones: there are massive amounts of powerful 3rd party applications coded in c++ available. Sure, some of them can cause instability, but it only affects people who are willing to take the risk and install them. Everyone else is totally unaffected.

Just make it so that 3rd party developers can submit their apps for a review to Apple for a fee, and if Apple decides the app is fine, it gets a "Apple Approves!" -seal. Those of us who want to be extra-careful with apps can choose to avoid apps not approved by Apple.
 
The enterprise argument is not flying for me. We have around 1000 blackberry's deployed, and I am not aware of a lot of demand to install the 3rd party applications at all. And I know very similar experiences at other large companies. Of course, any of us want an open platform, and like to install 3rd party apps, but I think it's fair to say, we are not the general public.

For them, it will be an ipod, and a phone in one. That's it. Nothing less, nothing more. Very well designed to do a few things: phone and voicemail, music player, SMS messaging and pics messaging. We want it to be more, but I think we are talking at that time about a different a device.
 
nagromme said:
"Pretty hard to screw up" is not good enough for a phone. I want my phone to be stable like my iPod--which NEVER fails. Not stable like my Mac which ALMOST never fails. At least when some game or utility crashes on my Mac, once in a blue moon, it doesn't stop me from getting a call that was arriving.

There's no foolproof way to open an OS to total freedom of app installation. There may, I hope, be some reasonable limits that allow SOME freedom.
Click to expand...

Nothing is perfect, even the iPod will screw up.

My Symbian phone very very very rarely crashes and I have lots of 3rd party software. I'm more likely to miss a call due to lack of coverage than buggy 3rd software - in fact, thats never happened. The only time that I've heard of a Symbian phone dropping calls is because some one was playing Doom on their Symbian device!!

Apple excuses are a smoke screen and I consider it to be that mobile OSX isn't up to scratch.
 
Sailing Clicker Support!

I wish Sailing Clicker support was offered on the iPhone! Or at least some way to use my iPhone as a remote for iTunes running on my mac!
 
It's deja vu all over again. The Mac itself was originally locked up tight as a drum. You had a very limited, controlled, BASIC. We will perhaps have limited, controlled widgets. But eventually, the Mac opened wide, and I expect that someday we will get XCode for the iPhone and full access.

Actually, I predict at first we will have a couple of Apple-blessed specific third party apps - and a ton of hacks. Then, ten tons of hacks. Then, a hundred tons of hacks. Then Apple will say ok, you can do widgets. Then in the second week of release...

Oh, and one more thing... Apple knows darn well there will be tons of hacks and unauthorized add ons. And they won't say, but they will NOT mind one bit. They just want, for the sake of the ordinary customer, to have an official, rock stable device, and what those other guys are doing way way over there is way way separate from your iPhone product.

Apple will be secretly delighted with the additions hacks will give folks, but just can't be associated with it at this time wink wink say no more.
 
They will likely start with an API on a mock up device for developers.

This will allow people to test their code without using an actual phone.

installation of the code will likely occur by having the code tested and certified by apple, and if it passes then Apple will sign the code. The iPhone will probably not run code that is not signed by Apple.

If all is well then the software will be sold and installed via iTunes.

The main security on the device to keep viruses and other malware out, will be the requirement to run only Apple signed software.

At least for know, that is what I see happening.
 
Being a Treo owner, I'd love to see the iP open up apps. Treo is nice, but I'd prefer OSX. I could only imagine that syncing with my iMac would be a snap.

The keyboard is an issue, but wouldn't Apple make the iP connect to a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse?

Thoughts? If so, that would be sweet! Throw iWork suite on there and we're in biz :)
 
jazzkids said:
agreed. I have [Clicker] on the Treo and it rocks! Use it with my MB to control Keynote presentations.
Click to expand...

What I want and expect is Apple Remote Desktop! It could completely control a Mac plus transfer files back and forth, chat, share the screen and more. And it could do it over the Net to get to any Mac or other iPhone anyplace.

Maybe just a nice VNC to start...
 
I think the average consumer would appreciate the insurance of stability from a "closed" or "governed" (submit to Apple for approval) application environment on the iPhone. However, business users and enthusiasts would likely sacrifice potential issues for the ability to load custom applications.

Seriously, how big of an issue is this for other mobile OSs? I've been a Windows phone user for about four years, and the only time I've had an issue with third-party software was when I was modding the OS. With applications, I've had no problems. So, I'd be fine with just allowing applications to be loaded on the phone, but purhaps it's an all or nothing deal.
 
mickeymikey said:
Seriously, how big of an issue is this for other mobile OSs?
Click to expand...

For Symbian... its not an issue.

So, we have Symbian, the worlds #1 smartphone OS ( and most secure, probably - with v9.x) and an OS that no one really uses ( 17% marketshare - windows mobile, CE ), and I think we can sum it up:
3rd party software doesn't overly affect performance of phones.

Remember, consumers are not forced to install 3rd party software on their iPhone. If they want 99.1% stability instead of 99.0%, then just don't install any software.
 
MarcelV said:
The enterprise argument is not flying for me. We have around 1000 blackberry's deployed, and I am not aware of a lot of demand to install the 3rd party applications at all. And I know very similar experiences at other large companies. Of course, any of us want an open platform, and like to install 3rd party apps, but I think it's fair to say, we are not the general public.

For them, it will be an ipod, and a phone in one. That's it. Nothing less, nothing more. Very well designed to do a few things: phone and voicemail, music player, SMS messaging and pics messaging. We want it to be more, but I think we are talking at that time about a different a device.
Click to expand...

In my company the Blackberry phone is locked, we do not allow them to install any apps, all the needed apps are push to the phone from our server.

They are also tied to Exchange all emails are in and out of exchange, all of them encrypted, the phone storage is encrypted also and the phone will only sync via a designated workstation.

There are two flavors of the blackberry, the consumer version and the enterprise version. We use the enterprise version with the server software and the tight coupling with Exchange.

Even if people wanted to add apps we wont let them and if they find a way around them, we may sent them to the unemployment line without the blackberry of course.
 
MarcelV said:
We have around 1000 blackberry's deployed, and I am not aware of a lot of demand to install the 3rd party applications at all.
Click to expand...

My experience is that the killer app for crackberries is full Exchange interop including calendars, invitations, etc. Would you have deployed 1000 of them if they didn't tie into Exchange so tightly? Do you think Apple will provide a server product like RIM does so that corp users can tie into their corp email?

I doubt it. I think it will be sold as a purely consumer device where a simple POP/IMAP client is enough. Some corp users may use it as well, but from my experience a very large percentage of the whitecollar workers in the west are completely locked into exchange whether they like it or not. The majority of the ones who are not locked into exchange are equally locked into Lotus notes (shudder). As someone said a few weeks ago during the last big iPhone thread, in general only small business owners and self-employed will be able to use this phone for their business usage.

I've been the guy bucking the trend and trying to use a normal IMAP client in a 99% exchange corporate environment. You quickly get browbeaten by management and their PAs into switching to exchange. "But I sent you an invitation, why didn't you just click on it and it would have been in your calendar?" "I don't know my email address, just click on my name in the global address book." "You have to make an appointment and invite a meeting room in order to reserve it." I really REALLY hate M$, but it takes a lot more than that to buck the trend.
 
Apps

I really want a terminal app so I can ssh into a server remotely in an emergency. Other than that, there aren't too many apps I would care about. Primarily, a phone should be a phone.

In any case, I don't think I will be getting one. While I currently have Cingular, I will probably be dropping them in favor of Verizon because of severe lack of coverage where I am planning on moving to. Verizon coverage is sketchy, but it is there ... out in the middle of nowhere. I have to drive 30-40 minutes before I get Cingular coverage.
 
nagromme said:
"Pretty hard to screw up" is not good enough for a phone. I want my phone to be stable like my iPod--which NEVER fails. Not stable like my Mac which ALMOST never fails. At least when some game or utility crashes on my Mac, once in a blue moon, it doesn't stop me from getting a call that was arriving.

There's no foolproof way to open an OS to total freedom of app installation. There may, I hope, be some reasonable limits that allow SOME freedom.
Click to expand...

Given the relative simplicity of the iPhone platform, compared to Mac OS X, Apple shouldn't have that difficult of a time rigorously sreening potential third party apps for the iPhone. I think Apple wants to be the main if not sole distributor of iPhone apps, not because they want to corner the market, but because they want to control the quality of everything that could potentially reflect on the perceived quality of the iPhone.
 
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