Apple to Allow Free iPhone/Touch Apps Without Special Approval?

[bigmc6000]

o.

So, enjoy your "bad@ss" games; I have absolutely no problem with you using your iPhone that way. But hopefully while you are sticking to your safe iTunes provided content, I will be doing so much more with thousands of available third party apps. An app on my iPhone may crash every now and then, but it will be well worth the risk. And assuming Apple does its job with security updates, I will have little more need to worry about malicious software than you.

"Little more" is still infinitely more than "none" and that's really my point. And there's going to be more than just games available on iTunes. There's going to be IM, games, Quicken, there's going to be TONS of apps through iTunes. While I won't deny the use and occasional functionality of free apps, most of the time the highly functional and useful apps aren't free. I mean, when was the last time Quicken gave away their product for free? As far as Opera mini you obviously had a "smart phone" before the iPhone. I (along with many, if not most of other users) have never had a "smart phone" before the iPhone. that's part of the allure of the iPhone - it's an iPod phone on steroids (not quite like Barry Bonds, I don't think Jobs' head is getting bigger, at least not from steroids ).

Please note I'm not saying 3rd party software sucks or freeware sucks. A lot of times I download games that I find terribly addictive. I even use Adium because it's far more useful than iChat (at least for me). I'm just saying that I would appreciate Apple to put it all in iTunes so 1) I could have a one-stop shop for all apps and 2) I wouldn't have to wonder for even a second if the app is safe.

Will places like MR, CNet, Gizmodo, etc get pissed if Apple closes the system up? Absolutely. However, all those same people have been complaining about the lack of customization of hardware in Macs for ages and they still won't let you build a mini-tower and their business model has proven quite successful (both monetarily and market share in the past couple/few years). Most people with iPhones aren't hell bent on putting a second browser on their iPhone. I'd even bet that even if it was available most people still wouldn't use it because I doubt it would run as well as Safari does on the iPhone.

I definitely see Apple following the same route as they have with the iPod but dishing out the SDK to many, many, many more developers since they all see it as a potentially huge revenue source.

Anyway - my wish list for the SDK. 1) Flash 2)IM (multi-client) 3) Games (Looking forward to EA and Freeverse offerings) 4) Quicken and 5)an audio recorder.

 

[Chaos215bar2]

This goes back to my original point. In order to ensure the quality of testing that will lead to the level of trust you want to, and indeed should be apple to put in, apps available through iTunes, Apple will not be able to certify every little app some developer makes for the iPhone. Nor should they; if an app will only appeal to 0.01% (or some sufficiently small number) of iPhone owners, it would be a waste of resources to certify it. However, I fully expect there to eventually be a large assortment of apps available through iTunes capable of satisfying the needs of the vast majority of iPhone owners.

In this situation, most people would have no need to go outside the safe boundaries of iTunes for their iPhone software needs. However, for those occasions where the software available in iTunes is not sufficient and the user is willing to trust an outside source, I believe they should have this option.

As for the comparison to the Mac, I do agree that for most people, mainstream pay and occasionally free software is sufficient. However, I can tell you from personal experience that this is not always the case. And just as I have the ability to go look for that (generally free) niche app and run it on my Mac when I need to, I would like to be able to do the same thing on the iPhone, without risking bricking it with a jailbreak.

 

[Stella]

Where did I ever say that I didnt want 3rd party apps or free apps is not good, my user name is free_loader for christ sake All I wanted is for Apple to check all applications make sure that its secure and stable.

Sorry, large typo - it should have read "developers free to develop and distribute what ever apps they like without Apple being a gatekeeper".

My phone should never be compared with my Mac, all of my computers combined would never be as important as my phone. I need my phone to be stable and secure so that I could use it when I need to. I could live with little glitches here and there on my computer, computer softwares shutting down unexpectedly but not my phone. Its not OK for a car dying on me from time to time on a freeway. I want it working all the time when I need to use it.

Have you ever used a smartphone before? My experience of smartphones, which I've used for around 5 years ( two different phones ) is that *never* has an application *ever* stop me from receiving or making calls. Yes, I've installed a lot of applications.

Yes, the odd application has frozen my phone, but so have a few applications on OSX, which has resulted in loss of work. I'm very unlikely to miss a call during a phone reboot due to this.

I've never never had a virus problem on it either. Neither am I likely to for quite a few years to come.

When it comes to applications on phones, I do not appreciate nor need any company to tell me what applications I should use. I'll decide and take the ( extremely minor ) risk that it'll seriously bork my phone or introduce a virus / trojan onto the phone. I'll more likely get a virus / trash my hard disc due to a bad app on OSX before something like this occurs on my phone.

 

[ebouwman]

I think that it'd be really nice to get apps from iTunes, for 3 reasons:

1. I know the app will be mostly stable
2. I don't have to buy the app from some random, possibly shady site.
3. All the apps will be in one spot so i won't have to go around the web looking for them

Any app not on iTunes probably won't really be worth getting, thats what i think

 

[dicklacara]

Let's be realistic

After all this discussion here are a few points:

1) Apple, nor anyone else, can prevent a pristine iPhone or Touch being compromised, unless it is kept locked in a drawer with the battery drained. The first byte of digital content acquired from the dock connector, cell modem or wifi can start a process to brick these devices.

2) Apple, nor anyone else, can prevent hackers/developers from writing and installing apps on these devices... and making them available for others to install.

3) The argument: "I depend on my phone, so..." becomes moot when talking about the Touch. The Touch and iPhone are joined at the hip... hack/compromise one, likely, you have hacked/compromised the other. The case can be made that the Touch, because it has fewer orifices, is less susceptible to infection or DTDs (Digitally Transmitted Diseases).

 

[dicklacara]

Weird situation

removed-- duplicate

 

[dicklacara]

Weird situation

I have 2 iPhones, but only one is activated (can use the cell modem).

One, I depend on, the other is for play (kinda' a Touch on steroids).

I can switch the "active" SIM between them, so they can change roles.

With each Apple update or Jailbreak cycle I normally update one and leave the other one in its existing state.

When the dust settles, i bring them into parity.

I was at jailbroken 1.1.3 on both, but the "where am I" feature of Maps would just hang unless WiFi was available... kinda' defeats the purpose.

So, I updated the "active' iPhone to pristine 1.1.4.

Maps "where am I" works great... but the camera takes pics, but doesn't save them.

mmm... the hacked phone works better than the pristine one...

 

[Stella]

I think that it'd be really nice to get apps from iTunes, for 3 reasons:

1. I know the app will be mostly stable
2. I don't have to buy the app from some random, possibly shady site.
3. All the apps will be in one spot so i won't have to go around the web looking for them

Any app not on iTunes probably won't really be worth getting, thats what i think

Another person with a lot of paranoia.

Do you buy shareware OSX Apps? If Yes, why do you think your experience with iPhone will differ? You certainly don't have to search the web looking for OSX apps.

Your points:
1. Not necessarily.
2. Buy from a payment site you trust, i.e., Worldpay, Kagi etc as you may do now for OSX apps.
3. Versiontracker.com, MacUpdate.com - both of these will carry iPhone Apps, no doubt.

However, each to their own. If you want to limit your 3rd party iPhone app choice, then only buying from iTunes will be the way to go ( assuming, only Apple approved apps are 'hosted' on iTunes ).

 

[LoganT]

Here's what I think. I think that the people who are going to be developing apps for the iPhone/Touch are the same developers who are developing apps for the Mac OSX platform. I doubt you are going to see any Windows or Linux guys. Developing on the Mac is a niche product, most of them don't want to hurt the Mac, I doubt they would want to hurt the iphone/touch.

 

[TheSpaz]

What about the iPod touch? That ISN'T a phone... it's a mobile computer and I think people with iPhones realize that it's more than just a phone. It's a mobile computer that fits in your pocket that can also make phone calls.

 

[goosnarrggh]

As I understand it: Apple is required, by law, to charge for those apps for the Touch. This is because the Touch revenue is booked at the time of sale; where the iPhone revenue is prorated over 24 months

It is conceivable that argument may be valid for the January update where the iTouch got its first batch of new apps.

I could also be persuaded to agree that it might be valid for a hypothetical upcoming firmware update that officially adds the "feature" of a supported framework through which 3rd-party applications are meant to be installed.

But certainly after the floodgates have been opened, I honestly don't see how Sarbanes-Oxley could be blamed for a price tag being attached to any future applications that 3rd parties (though maybe not Apple themselves) may choose to contribute to the iPhone.

At that point, I'd like to think it would legally be totally up to the app developer and distributor to collectively agree with each other what is fair compensation for their work - including the possibility that they may agree it is fair to give away some of their work for free.

You don't see the Mozilla Foundation getting sued for giving away all those free copies of Firefox. Nor do you see Apple/MS/Dell/whoever getting sued for allowing software created by the Mozilla Foundation to be installed, adding all those new features to their hardware/software, without incurring any additional accounting fees.

 

[dicklacara]

It is conceivable that argument may be valid for the January update where the iTouch got its first batch of new apps.

I could also be persuaded to agree that it might be valid for a hypothetical upcoming firmware update that officially adds the "feature" of a supported framework through which 3rd-party applications are meant to be installed.

But certainly after the floodgates have been opened, I honestly don't see how Sarbanes-Oxley could be blamed for a price tag being attached to any future applications that 3rd parties (though maybe not Apple themselves) may choose to contribute to the iPhone.

At that point, I'd like to think it would legally be totally up to the app developer and distributor to collectively agree with each other what is fair compensation for their work - including the possibility that they may agree it is fair to give away some of their work for free.

You don't see the Mozilla Foundation getting sued for giving away all those free copies of Firefox. Nor do you see Apple/MS/Dell/whoever getting sued for allowing software created by the Mozilla Foundation to be installed, adding all those new features to their hardware/software, without incurring any additional accounting fees.

I agree that 3rd-party developers can do and charge what they want... they aren't bound by SOX (as it pertains to how Apple chose to account for iPod Touch sales.)

I am not sure if SOX-compliance will force Apple to stop giving free updates to iPhone and AppleTV buyers once the 24 months pass and all the revenue has been booked as earned. If so, by individual iPhone-- based on date of purchase? Or, for all iPhones-- 24 months after initial availability? Or, something like iLife where: new iPhones come with the year's set of free new (updated) Apple apps; and existing customers have the option to purchase the same.

The mind reels at the extra cost of doing business, lost opportunity, disadvantage with foreign competitors, and ultimate disservice to the buyer!

Some feel that SOX is an abomination that puts American corporations and buyers at a disadvantage with its unintended (and intended) consequences.

If this (Apple's) situation is illustrative, i would tend to agree.

 

[3.1416]

Some feel that SOX is an abomination that puts American corporations and buyers at a disadvantage with its unintended (and intended) consequences.

If this (Apple's) situation is illustrative, i would tend to agree.

Yes. SOX was a knee-jerk response to Enron and other accounting scandals, where the government's primary goal was to appear to be doing something, regardless of the actual costs and benefits. It's the same mindset that's given us the post-9/11 security theatre. (Amusingly, many politicians and partisans support one of those things and oppose the other).

 

[gnasher729]

There are essentially two options for the certification of apps:

1) Spend several hours testing and reading the source of every app released. This will catch most malicious software, but its still likely to miss something eventually, especially if Apple is processing a huge volume of random third party software. There are just too many ways to disguise malicious code.

2) Solve the halting problem and create and automated code certifier (and prove P=NP while you're at it). (Have fun with this one.)

After thinking about this for a bit, I think the following would be acceptable: 1. You can make your application installable via iTunes. Apple will not check your application, they will check the maker of the software. They will make hundred percent sure that the maker of the application is genuine (and can be sued if something is wrong with it). So if it says on iTunes that the software was produced by MyGreatCompany.com, then you can be sure that it is indeed created by them. Apple guarantees the application is genuine, they give no guarantee at all about its quality.

2. For everything that doesn't come this way, Apple provides an installer that shows who _claims_ they made the application, what they _claim_ that it does, and a big warning that nothing of this has been checked by Apple or anyone else. Whatever that application does with your iPhone, you are on your own. That's fine if you're a hacker who writes an app for himself and a few friends. Or if a huge company writes an in-house application and has the resources to control its distribution. And lots of things in between.

 

[EagerDragon]

After thinking about this for a bit, I think the following would be acceptable: 1. You can make your application installable via iTunes. Apple will not check your application, they will check the maker of the software. They will make hundred percent sure that the maker of the application is genuine (and can be sued if something is wrong with it). So if it says on iTunes that the software was produced by MyGreatCompany.com, then you can be sure that it is indeed created by them. Apple guarantees the application is genuine, they give no guarantee at all about its quality.

2. For everything that doesn't come this way, Apple provides an installer that shows who _claims_ they made the application, what they _claim_ that it does, and a big warning that nothing of this has been checked by Apple or anyone else. Whatever that application does with your iPhone, you are on your own. That's fine if you're a hacker who writes an app for himself and a few friends. Or if a huge company writes an in-house application and has the resources to control its distribution. And lots of things in between.

Just my opinion:

Apple will likely make sure by actually checking the code by eye. To ensure there is no malware and no security holes.

As to acceptable .... Acceptable is what ever Apple thinks is acceptable, if a few developers do not like the process that is too bad for them. There is too much money to be made, there will be 100 other developers to take his place.

If Apple can get AT&T and others to pay them a percent of their revenue, what makes you think that they will not set some fairly comprehensive loops for the developers to jump thru?

Apple wants to open the iPhone, but only if in their minds (not mine or yours) they feel conformable with the applications being allowed to be installed.

It is a matter of trust and Apple does not trust it's own mother. Expect that Apple will sign every single software that they are allowing to run on the iPhone by using their CA private key. The iPhone then will use Apple public key to verify the signature and may go so far as to only allow downloads while wifi connected to ensure that the certificate used to sign the software has not expired or been revoked. As the private key is not likely to be released (just a few will have access to it), it would be difficult to use it to sign software Apple has not blessed. Besides, if it gets compromised, all they have to do is revoke it and software will no longer work without a full reload of the iPhone. However it maybe possible to replace the public key and fool the iPhone into thinking the public key it is using is legit. Not likely to happen as there are other checks that can be made to ensure the public key is real and still valid.

I expect Apple is taking this seriously and that the iPhone will refuse to load and run software that is not signed by Apple.

It is not a matter of what we think they should do, it is a matter of what they think they should do. At this time the iPhone is the item that can make them the most money for the next 3 years, you bet they are going to do all they can to ensure it does well even if a few geeks and fans get tic-off.

I don't expect to get full answers by Thursday, but we will get some and we will see how serious Apple is going to be.

In my opinion the SDK will be available to everyone that is a registered developer and is likely that it contains an emulator to allow developers to test their software without actually putting it into an iPhone. The emulator maybe the reason why it is taking so long to release the SDK. It is not just an API, it is a complete editing, developing, compilation, debugger/emulator environment, a true SDK.

 

[dicklacara]

After thinking about this for a bit, I think the following would be acceptable: 1. You can make your application installable via iTunes. Apple will not check your application, they will check the maker of the software. They will make hundred percent sure that the maker of the application is genuine (and can be sued if something is wrong with it). So if it says on iTunes that the software was produced by MyGreatCompany.com, then you can be sure that it is indeed created by them. Apple guarantees the application is genuine, they give no guarantee at all about its quality.

2. For everything that doesn't come this way, Apple provides an installer that shows who _claims_ they made the application, what they _claim_ that it does, and a big warning that nothing of this has been checked by Apple or anyone else. Whatever that application does with your iPhone, you are on your own. That's fine if you're a hacker who writes an app for himself and a few friends. Or if a huge company writes an in-house application and has the resources to control its distribution. And lots of things in between.

Actually, Apple already has a pretty good mechanism for doing this:

1) Offer the "official" apps on the iTunes store for purchase dload and synch similar to TV shows, Music Videos, music, games, etc. This would involve the iTunes Client/Widget on your Computer, iPhone or Touch communicating with the iTunes store to conduct the transaction.

2) The "unofficial" apps could be treated as unlisted podcasts currently are-- the iTunes Client/Widget on your Computer, iPhone or Touch uses an RSS feed to access the unofficial app from wherever it resides on the Cloud. The transaction is conducted without involvement of the iTunes Store.

3) Apple could choose to allow "unofficial" apps to be listed in a separate section of the iTunes Store to allow one-stop shopping. But Apple would not host the app-- just descriptive info and the RSS feed.

4) IT apps and apps written for small or closed groups: extended family, Hospital, University, etc. could be handled as unofficial apps that are only accessible through login, behind a firewall etc.

5) Any developer could build, test and deploy iPhone or Touch apps on a single computer-- using localhost or file:/// to host the app, RSS feed, and iTunes Client.

Apple prolly would need to tweak a few things in the iTunes Store, the iTunes Client/Widget, and Safari to make this happen in a streamlined way.

If Apple wants to obviate Jalibreaking, they will need to make this as easy-to-use as the current Installer.app process (or better).

Savvy Apple, already knows all this... I suspect that they will do a pretty good job of satisfying the major needs of customers, developers and some enterprises... If not Mar 6, within the next few months.

 

[Topper82]

Nike+ iPhone

C'mon Apple, how hard is this?? There's nothing that requires a rocket scientist here.

 

[ebouwman]

C'mon Apple, how hard is this?? There's nothing that requires a rocket scientist here.

Ya but be a little realistic, can you imagine working out with something that heavy either in your pocket, or on an armband or something?

That would be ridiculous!

 

[Topper82]

Ya but be a little realistic, can you imagine working out with something that heavy either in your pocket, or on an armband or something?

That would be ridiculous!

You must not workout much if the iPhone (4.8oz) would be heavy for you. I've worked out (cardio and weights) with a 60GB 5th Gen iPod (heavier than iPhone) and didn't have an issue.

 

[ebouwman]

You must not workout much if the iPhone (4.8oz) would be heavy for you. I've worked out (cardio and weights) with a 60GB 5th Gen iPod (heavier than iPhone) and didn't have an issue.

hahah

Well i have to admit i really don't work out that much, but i do remember a few years back when i had my 20gb i had it in my pocket for gym class and it kept yanking my shorts down.

If or when i start working out i'm not going to drag my touch out there, it's too bulky, i'll probably get a shuffle, a sanza express, but i don't think i'd drag out my touch, or future iPhone.