Apple's 3rd Party iPhone Application Plan?

[CWallace]

I'm certainly not against paying for apps for my iPhone. Development is not cheap and I'd be a little bit more comfortable with an application that wasn't just a "labor of love" that didn't have a solid test program behind it running on my iPhone.

Do remember that many (but certainly not all) of the applications that worked under 1.0.2 did so by exploiting a security hole in the iPhone's OS, after all.

However, I do echo the concerns of those who feel Apple will only allow a small subset of applications with minimal functionality and value-add. Notice the IE plug-ins world compared to FireFox's.

If paying tribute to Caesar, er Steve, is what it takes to get quality third-party applications on my iPhone, tell me where to send the gold.

 

[slughead]

For folks that have a problem with the certification process idea, keep in mind that this is not an uncommon method in use already. The most obvious one that comes to mind is game consoles. The only question I really have is what kind of rules will Apple dictate. Will basically only games get approved, or will utility type tools (maybe like ssh, vnc client, etc) be allowed ?

The difference is: Consoles are loss leaders. The Sony PS3 and M$ Xbox360 lost tons of money for those companies. Apple makes plenty of money directly off iphone sales.

Not to mention that game consoles are toys, iPhones are supposed to be tools.

I think there's a serious distinction.

Moreover, console companies charge for each 'app' (game). Is apple going to do the same? That changes things too.

Just because console companies do something doesn't mean we should expect it from all our products. Yeah, it's a way of doing business, another way is for them to not be jerks.

 

[whickey]

i seriously do not give a **** about greed / apples pockets...att's pockets

can someone just ****ing release ichat for the phone already. ffs, it shouldn't be that hard.

 

[hevaKmaI]

If this is going to be the only way and they continue to thwart 3rd party efforts, then I'm sorry, I'll move back to my treo 750.

It's been a good run, and a shame really to let such a platform go to waste (assuming this rumor has any merit).

 

[sanford]

i seriously do not give a **** about greed / apples pockets...att's pockets

can someone just ****ing release ichat for the phone already. ffs, it shouldn't be that hard.

iChat would be better, but meebo.com is really good. Give it a shot while you wait.

 

[3282872]

And what have I been saying all along? That Apple has wanted to stifle third party application development to sell them on iTunes. It all makes sense...

and frankly, I believe Apple had a lot of things in store for the iPhone, such as iChat, but AT&T may have stifled those plans. Does any one know the track record of IM programs on AT&T phones? Does AT&T allow them? I know that IM programs take away money from text messaging (or does each IM sent via a third party chat program count as a text message sent?). I believe Apple had to shelve a few ideas for the iPhone in order for AT&T to agree to their terms.

 

[riverfreak]

As a sidekick 3 owner and huge Mac fan, i'm going to warn you all...you will regret the day that apple made this decision.

Agreed. I was a Sidekick 2 owner for years. I hardly remember them releasing any applications. Oh, but they did manage to pump out crappy tones.

 

[ibwb]

The difference is: Consoles are loss leaders. The Sony PS3 and M$ Xbox360 lost tons of money for those companies.

Clarification: only some consoles are loss leaders, and usually for only a short period of time. All recent Nintendo consoles have been sold at a profit, and the PS2 has been sold at a profit for years. The PS3 and XBox 360 will probably be making a profit by next year (unless Microsoft continues to have quality problems).

 

[Virgil-TB2]

... Apple has already lined up specific development partners for 3rd party applications on the iPhone. EA is reportedly porting their existing iPod games over to the iPhone, along with "other big developers" also on board. ... expects Apple to adopt a application model from T-Mobile's Sidekick, in which developers submit applications for review and approval ... also suggests that Apple will continue to thwart efforts for user-installation of 3rd party apps to reduce piracy concerns.

I think this sounds reasonable and a good approach but it's been covered before by several places, most notably "Roughly Drafted" about two or three months ago.

While I like the idea I don't know as I would put any trust on anything this particular site (9to5mac), has "discovered." In particular, they state that the main reason for this move is not to make sure the applications are safe and vetted, but so Apple can take "2/3rds" of the profits.

Even though this is positioned as the main reason for the move, the statement is tossed in to the article as an un-sourced and unfounded "guestimate."

Since this (IMO speculative and unrealistic), "guess" is pretty much the only new material in the article, it makes me suspicious of the article in general.

 

[QCassidy352]

I think this sounds like a good compromise.

 

[iJed]

I am getting more and more disgusted by the behaviour of Apple every time a new iPhone lock down story appears. In all my time as a Mac user, from Plus to MacBook, I have never been been more annoyed at Apple. The iPhone and iPod touch are great products so don't have them end up marginalised like the Mac. Open them up to all third party developers!

 

[objc]

And what have I been saying all along? That Apple has wanted to stifle third party application development to sell them on iTunes. It all makes sense...

It sure does. I don't much care for this idea. I have Verizon Wireless phone service right now and this is exactly what Verizon does. I'm sure the fanatics will come out and attack me over this, saying well it's not bad when Apple does it -- kind of similar to how the neocons will tell you fascism is good when they do it. But really, the Verizon locked phones suck. If you want apps or ring tones or whatever on your phone, you must pay Verizon for the privilege. And you pay every month -- it's a rental. (And I refuse to pay it, and I won't pay Apple either -- Apple's not special) I'm sure the app developer gets something, but Verizon likely takes a big cut. I can't remember how much money they're making off this, but it's a boatload of cash -- I think it was close to a billion$ last year. Apple's intent is to do the same thing. They want to make money on the phone, the cell service, AND the third-party apps. The latter two are pure profit.

There are most certainly many good, free, open-source software apps out there. One neat one I saw for the iphone was Apollo IM. Do you really think Apple would allow people to run that on their phones? Do you think Apple would certify it if ATT didn't like it because it was cutting down on SMS money?

It's nice to be able to have 3rd party apps, but I don't like the idea that users will have to pay for what the developers want to be free, or that Apple gets to decide what programs we can put on a phone we paid for.

Developers will likely have to pony up some cash to get the SDK too.

 

[AquaVita]

Agreed. I was a Sidekick 2 owner for years. I hardly remember them releasing any applications. Oh, but they did manage to pump out crappy tones.

People here won't listen, but i'm trying to warn them, this will be a disaster for them. You will get low quality apps first of all, and second of all you won't get any apps that might conflict with ATT or Apples interests. No IM, no ringtones, before you know it, they'll start selling you wallpapers and screensavers and won't let you use your own. Think it won't happen? Just wait, there are so many examples already.

 

[twoodcc]

well this is good news! finally games for the iPhone. any hopefully more than just games

 

[sanford]

I am getting more and more disgusted by the behaviour of Apple every time a new iPhone lock down story appears. In all my time as a Mac user, from Plus to MacBook, I have never been been more annoyed at Apple. The iPhone and iPod touch are great products so don't have them end up marginalised like the Mac. Open them up to all third party developers!

Yeah, my Mac Plus was totally open software and hardware architecture, extensible, expandable, user-upgradeable. Not locked down a bit. Nope. Not at all. Hey! Has anyone seen that case-opening wedge and the soldering iron?

 

[macintologist]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1C28 Safari/419.3)

They won't allow an IM app

 

[EagerDragon]

And what are the chances that this will come to the iPod touch as well...? Somehow I feel the iPod touch owners will be left out in the cold, since Apple doesn't want it to compete with the iPhone.

If they implement it for the iPod Touch, it will be games only. The rest of the functionality is reserved for the phone.

 

[Rot'nApple]

9to5mac... "The cost of application is added to the customer's monthly bill. The Danger team actively works with the developers to insure compatibility and stability in applications through SidekickOS updates."

Please tell me I'm reading this wrong... the cost of application is a one time cost and added to your billing statement to pay. Not, cost of application is added to monthly bill and you pay over and over again!

 

[EagerDragon]

As a sidekick 3 owner and huge Mac fan, i'm going to warn you all...you will regret the day that apple made this decision.

As a sidekick 3 owner, I have lots of 'wonderful' apps in our catalog. Let's take a quick look.

Excel viewer- Oh great, now i can look at excel files but not touch them in any way. Awesome.

Dating Boot camp- An ebook that tells me how to get women.

MPTAG- A program for editing id3 tags

PhotoTwist- a zany and totally crazy app that lets you add hilariously awesome effects to your pictures! Oh great!

Time traveler- A freaking alarm clock. That's right, we had to pay for something that should have been there in the first place.

The Cycle- An app that tells you when you shouldn't bust inside your girlfriend, when she's most fertile. Wow thanks guys.

AudioLab- let's me record 10 seconds of audio wihch i can then add lots of zany effects to. Hooray.

Showcase- Slide show creator for 6 dollars.

File manager- Want to access the file system on your sd card? Buy this for 10 dollars!


I'm warning you apple users, you will absolutely hate this arrangement. You will get a ton of useless apps, all in the name of stability, and nothing of what you actually want. Do bear in mind all of the above terrible apps usually cost around 4-10 dollars. Useless.

A useless app for one person is a God send for another. If the apps suck, people wont buy them, is very simple. Good applications will sell a lot and encourage others to create good usefull applications.

First we reach to hold on to the furniture, then while holding take a few steps, after a while briefly let go of the furniture, take first step, with a little practice, run like the road runner.

One step at a time.

 

[mikeinternet]

they will need to come up with something pretty great in order to get me to switch from the old firmware with apptap.

i'm to use to a native aim, and free games to pay now, and everything else.

my vote is for widget-like ditribution

...it is sad that whatever they come with will probably not be as good as apptap already did and without apple's help or charging a dime.

-being able to download over edge and install right on the phone

 

[Dragonmaster Lo]

and frankly, I believe Apple had a lot of things in store for the iPhone, such as iChat, but AT&T may have stifled those plans. Does any one know the track record of IM programs on AT&T phones? Does AT&T allow them? I know that IM programs take away money from text messaging (or does each IM sent via a third party chat program count as a text message sent?). I believe Apple had to shelve a few ideas for the iPhone in order for AT&T to agree to their terms.

My old Nokia (Which, granted, I got when it was still Cingular, but still) had AIM on it...

 

[3282872]

It sure does. I don't much care for this idea. I have Verizon Wireless phone service right now and this is exactly what Verizon does. I'm sure the fanatics will come out and attack me over this, saying well it's not bad when Apple does it -- kind of similar to how the neocons will tell you fascism is good when they do it. But really, the Verizon locked phones suck. If you want apps or ring tones or whatever on your phone, you must pay Verizon for the privilege. And you pay every month -- it's a rental. (And I refuse to pay it, and I won't pay Apple either -- Apple's not special) I'm sure the app developer gets something, but Verizon likely takes a big cut. I can't remember how much money they're making off this, but it's a boatload of cash -- I think it was close to a billion$ last year. Apple's intent is to do the same thing. They want to make money on the phone, the cell service, AND the third-party apps. The latter two are pure profit.

There are most certainly many good, free, open-source software apps out there. One neat one I saw for the iphone was Apollo IM. Do you really think Apple would allow people to run that on their phones? Do you think Apple would certify it if ATT didn't like it because it was cutting down on SMS money?

It's nice to be able to have 3rd party apps, but I don't like the idea that users will have to pay for what the developers want to be free, or that Apple gets to decide what programs we can put on a phone we paid for.

Developers will likely have to pony up some cash to get the SDK too.

Exactly. Remember Verizon getting sued in 2005 over the Motorola v710 cause they crippled the Bluetooth ObEx (file exchange on the phone) in order to force customers to use their pay service "Get It Now"? They lost HUGE, and their initial court stance was that bluetooth was not secure enough and crippling it was for the security of the user (sound familiar, like Apple's stance?). Then they admitted it was a business tactic in order to promote their "user friendly" "Get it Now" service and charge per pic and ringtone transfer. When I had the my RAZR with Verizon, I flashed the firmware back to the very first one as they failed to cripple some of the phones so I was able to make and download my own ringtones and pictures. But after they started bricking phones with it I left (for many other reasons) and went to Cingular as Cingular did not cripple any of their phones' bluetooth features. I was able to use my RAZR fully. I believe this is still the same with AT&T after they bought out Cingular, but only the iPhone is a closed platform. Makes you wonder why other phones are open on AT&T but not the iPhone. So who is behind this? Doesn't seem to be AT&T as others have claimed (and a NYTimes article with AT&T employees was published recently that claimed Apple is pulling the strings on all this hoopla, and not AT&T or the RIAA). Interesting eh. Money talks and b.s. walks, even in Apple.

 

[Fast Shadow]

Expect the Mac to also go to this model within 5 years.

 

[Jetson]

This is a step in the right direction.

I hope Apple plays this up because they need some good publicity for a change. This iPhone bricking thing has tarnished their reputation a bit in the eye of the general public as well as with some of its best customers.

By the way, a dead iPhone is much too thin to be called a brick - it's more like a tile

 

[joeconvert]

Thus undermining the entire point of this whole article/discussion.

Not really they should allow code signing for use with a single iPhone. This is similar to the method individuals use to write J2ME stuff for Blackberries and other phones. It allows them to access protected fucntions, but only on the single phone.