Apple's 3rd Party iPhone Application Plan?

[donlphi]

Agreed. And there are valuable lessons from tech history here.

Check out this comparison of AAPL and MSFT:
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=aapl+msft

Look at the 10 year view. Apple has been absolutely wiping the floor with Microsoft, from the point of view of the investor. And what has been happening for those 10 years? It's just as you said - Apple had an OS (and hardware) that both a hacker and a non-hacker could love. Sums it up perfectly.

Now switch to the 23 year view. The picture is quite the opposite, up until the end of the 90's. Microsoft chewed up apple and spat it out. Why?

The main reason, I would argue, is that Microsoft welcomed developers and Apple did not. Lots of developers. Big and small developers. Not just IBM and other "preferred developers". An ecosystem was born, and the rest is history.

This is Apple's chance to screw it alll up again.

They didn't stop selling computers... they just started making phones. I would also like to mention that when Apple released the iPhone, Steve Jobs never called it a smart phone. He just questioned why other phones were called smart.

There are a lot of phones that you can't put squat on without purchasing. I had sprint with many a phone (smart and dumb) and they don't even compare. I don't care how much stuff you put on the phone.

Plus 23 years ago, the government didn't know anything about technology or the monopoly Microsoft was creating. Technology was run like the wild west. If all of the things that happened back 20+ years ago, happened today. A company like Microsoft wouldn't even exist.

 

[donlphi]

Not allowing 3rd party developers to provide applications for the iPhone doesn't make it more secure. In fact, people who exploit security holes know exactly how to deal with the lack of an API documentation or Apple's feeble attempts to lock the iPhone. Apple is only scaring off people who develop commercial software, and that makes the iPhone a less interesting platform for users. For example, there won't be Skype (or fring) for the iPhone, an application that I don't want to miss (it's running perfectly fine on my "swiss cheese gaping hole security malestrom" Windows Mobile phone).

Adding 3rd Party Apps increases security? If 3rd party apps can be made by anybody, how could you say that they are more or less secure. You don't even know what the app is or what it is supposed to do. You must just assume everybody is living in a "happy hacker" world contributing to society. Couldn't somebody create a malicious 3rd Party App? If it can be done over the internet, I would think a 3rd party app could really wreak havoc.

I'm not saying 3rd party apps are a bad thing. I'm just saying they aren't the answer to every problem... if there is a problem.

 

[EagerDragon]

Not allowing 3rd party developers to provide applications for the iPhone doesn't make it more secure. In fact, people who exploit security holes know exactly how to deal with the lack of an API documentation or Apple's feeble attempts to lock the iPhone. Apple is only scaring off people who develop commercial software, and that makes the iPhone a less interesting platform for users. For example, there won't be Skype (or fring) for the iPhone, an application that I don't want to miss (it's running perfectly fine on my "swiss cheese gaping hole security malestrom" Windows Mobile phone).

The ability to unlock the iPhone and that allowed the 3rd party applications was caused by a security hole. This hole has been closed, making it impossible to use that avenue. Now they have to find a new one in order to break in again. How long that will take is hard to say, but Apple must be in full alert using the same tricks to locate other possible avanues and pluging them before the hackers find them.

Apple did not from the start intended on having a security hole that would allow people to break in.

I seen people in this site stating that is unfair that apple allowed and looked away at the begining therefore promoting for people to create more and interesting apps that now no longer work.

Even with no bricked phones, the changed was designed to close all known security issues, therefore preventing good and malicious codes from running on the iPhone.

The phone was meant to be closed to both applications and unlocking from the begining. Pleople found a crack in a glass window and punched it in to get inside. Apple kicked the intruders and replaced the window pane with a steel plate making it much harder.

I do not see anything wrong.

BTW, most people are not interested in hacking their phone, it is just the loud minority making all the fuzz.

Most people are happy with the apps that come on the phone and they are very smart ..... they vote with their wallets. Apparently they don't mind the restrictions since iPhones are flying out the store at records never seen before.

 

[plumbingandtech]

Thats what I think they should do.

Who agrees?

ME!

YAYAYAYAYAYYYYAAAA!!

(of course there will still be whiners, but hey. Nothing perfect. )

P.S.

Look for an enterprise version of this program in 6-9 months I betcha! For companies that want to install custom CRM apps etc. On their empolyees phones (and to standardize on the iphone.)

 

[megfilmworks]

I totally agree with this direction. While the complainers complain, Apple is getting down to business. I want 3rd party apps, but only the best, vetted and approved.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I am happy with 3rd party apps that MUST come from Apple thru iTMS, for example, rather than being able to buy anyone's app and install yourself. Apps that have to have Apple's blessings, will work and will not crash the system. Also means ATT and Apple won't have to deal with "my phone doesn't work anymore" issues, thus wasting their time and resources. Let's hope it's something like this. Of course, there will be many who still won't like it and that's just a case of the iPhone is not for them. For now....

I tend to agree with you. Apple seems to be a ready target for anyone with a lawyer. Given that a growing number of consumers have a cell phone as their only phone, myself included, it does make sense for Apple to want to make sure the phone portion is always available. Imagine the cry and lawsuits if a rouge app caused a 911 call not to go through....

The problem is who pays for the testing of the app? In particular for a programmer that just wants to provide a app for free, because it is helpful?

I still think that Apple is using the first iPhone as a testbed to gauge need and desires for the rumored PDA which could morph in to a more full featured iPhone - leaving the original iPhone as what it was intended to be, an iPod with phone and internet capabilities.

 

[Random Ping]

Apple's feeble attempts to lock the iPhone.

I think this last attempt is less feeble.

 

[Hopstretch]

I want 3rd party apps, but only the best, vetted and approved.

Sadly, you're unlikely to get everything you want, then. As the people on this thread who actually have Sidekicks (remember, that's where we started this whole cat fight) have noted several times, the "gatekeeper" model of application development hasn't been very successful in actually producing useful software for that platform.

A simple analogy here is the free market (with the usual provisos) versus the classic centrally-planned economy. Forward the glorious five-year plan to bring further useful functionality to the iPhone! Develop wider the mighty Stakhanovite device! All bow to the wisdom of the Central Committee!

 

[megfilmworks]

I would be happy with iwork apps. I don't need anything else. It's a phone. I own a laptop. Otherwise I liked your post.

 

[elmimmo]

The site also suggests that Apple will continue to thwart efforts for user-installation of 3rd party apps to reduce piracy concerns.

Duh! What is this crap? To avoid piracy of applications, we do not allow having applications to start with…

And what about this gem from the article

Apple, learning about the devastating effects of pirating from its first hand experience in the music and film industry and their own OS/applications, does not want this to happen

. Yes, and that's why they decided to dump DRM (to an extent). And Apple certainly seems to be suffering from devastating effects of all its soulless Mac users who only want to keep installing apps in their computers (some people even pay for them…).

 

[Stella]

There's been enough posts on the subject of ringtones, but to reiterate, why can't the user upload ringtones freely under the following conditions:
1. The user has previously paid for ringtones ( used on their previous phone)
2. The user is a musician and has created their own rington
3. Free ringtones ( not ripped, but really, free given away by the author )

Apple sales of iPhone is minute compared to the likes of SE, Nokia, Motorola et al. You don't see RIAA preventing these other companies from shipping ring tone editors, stopping the uploading of ringtones on their phones. Why should it be any different to Apple? Answer: Its not, as purely an Apple revenue stream.

Free software... You can do better than that.

Why not? Do you not understand the concept of opensource or even free software? If people want to develop applications for iPhone, why should they not be allowed to? Apple are shooting themselves in the foot by being so controlling, every smartphone OS ( and we'll call mobile - OSX a smartphone OS, just for now ) thrive on 3rd party development and encouraged. The benefits of 3rd party devs is very well known and appreciated.. Oh, apart from Apple.

Why should Apple stop them Applications do not have to be vetted? This is a sure sign of the complete and utter weakness of mobile OSX.

Where would Apple be without the opensource community? We wouldn't be using OSX as we see it today, neither the iPhone, Safari etc etc.

If people don't want 3rd party applications, they don't have to load them on their iPhone.

Apple is using the iPhone to squeeze as much $$ out of its customers as possible.. by charging for absolutely everything.

If microsoft had released the iPhone with the same conditions, this forum would be screaming bloody murder.

Stella: Your signature (68030) indicates you should be old enough to know better than to call every single charge you *might* have to pay "Greed, greed, greed". The record industry requires that Apple collect individually for each ring tone, and surely you post often enough to have seen that assertion before. Bitch to the record labels, not Apple. Or maybe they should have some sort of Kumbaya moment and just give everything away because the universe wants them to...

Second, why should everything be free? Do you have a job? Do you collect a salary for your work? Are *you* being greedy then, getting compensation for your services? OR do you receive what is fair for what you provide? If Apple has to vet every application not only interacting with the Apple software/hardware but also for playing nice with every other vetted application, and handle the hosting, billing and distribution, and carry the load of warranty service on wrecked phones, why are they not entitled to compensation of a few dollars? Get real.

 

[Stella]

If this is the case, then why aren't Symbian, RIM, Palm et al worried about this situation and prevent 3rd party apps on their OSes?

EDIT: Maybe Apple should be also worried that a 911 call may fail because iPhone switches off due to a faulty battery...

Imagine the cry and lawsuits if a rouge app caused a 911 call not to go through....

Your probably spot on, on this point.

I still think that Apple is using the first iPhone as a testbed to gauge need and desires for the rumored PDA which could morph in to a more full featured iPhone - leaving the original iPhone as what it was intended to be, an iPod with phone and internet capabilities.

 

[donlphi]

There's been enough posts on the subject of ringtones, but to reiterate, why can't the user upload ringtones freely under the following conditions:
1. The user has previously paid for ringtones ( used on their previous phone)
2. The user is a musician and has created their own rington
3. Free ringtones ( not ripped, but really, free given away by the author )

I agree 100% with this, but unfortunately if you allow garageband to make ringtones, you could drop an mp3 into the program and export it as a ringtone. I'm still convinced the free ringtone work around isn't dead yet.

I think it's ridiculous that iTunes charges ME to make a ringtone. I understand that they are giving me the choice to put my favorite part of the song in it, but that isn't right. Charge me for something YOU make and distribute, not something I have to sit over and edit.

That would be like Apple charging you to cut and paste in Safari from websites with copyrighted materials like quotes or poetry.

 

[megfilmworks]

I don't think Apple believes you do not have the right to use your own songs and recordings as ringtones, it just will take time (if it can be done) to figure a way to do it that would not allow some users to exploit it for their own gain. Again the masses suffer because of a small group of hackers.

 

[zorinlynx]

I wonder if they'd let an SSH client through.

An SSH client is one of the big dealbreakers for me. I love being able to SSH from my Treo to various systems I run. From there I can IRC, MU*, and do basic system administration. It really does rock.

The downside is an SSH client doesn't sound like something that'd be "mainstream" enough for Apple to make available like this.

Sigh...

 

[/dev/toaster]

The ringtone issue is another reason I can NOT upgrade to 1.1.1 The sound they used for SMS messages is FAR too low and there is no way to change what it is. I do an oncall rotation, and monthly I am expected to respond to SMS alerts from our monitors. (24/7 during that week)

Beyond that, the way Apple is dealing with ringtones in general is very silly and really angers me.

Due to 1.1.1 ... its only a question of time before I am royally screwed by Apple. God forbid I have a problem with my phone, and its replaced with a 1.1.1 phone ... Apple then puts my job in jeopardy since I can't change the SMS ring tone. The other big fear is if they force 1.1.1 on people.

Apple has done a great job with their computers, OS X (I love Leopard), the AppleTV, iPods, etc. But, I am really embarrassed now to be an iPhone user / owner.

 

[megfilmworks]

The ringtone issue is another reason I can NOT upgrade to 1.1.1 The sound they used for SMS messages is FAR too low and there is no way to change what it is. I do an oncall rotation, and monthly I am expected to respond to SMS alerts from our monitors. (24/7 during that week)

Apple has done a great job with their computers, OS X (I love Leopard), the AppleTV, iPods, etc. But, I am really embarrassed now to be an iPhone user / owner.

That's a problem. I would not use the iPhone in that case. Embarrassing? Maybe picking the wrong tool for the job? Don't blame the iPhone. It makes a lousy garage door opener too!

 

[/dev/toaster]

That's a problem. I would not use the iPhone in that case. Embarrassing? Maybe picking the wrong tool for the job? Don't blame the iPhone. It makes a lousy garage door opener too!

Not at all ...

1) No information on ringtones was available prior to purchase
2) I can't even begin to think of the last phone I owned that *didn't* allow me to change the alert tone. (Calendar, alarm, SMS, etc) Let me make note that I have also own a *LOT* of phones. Sometimes upgrading a few times a year.
3) A method was found for users to put custom ring tones on, Apple figured it was time to screw users and remove that. (v1.1.1)
4) Apple introduced their own service, but still failed to introduce a way to change the tone for something other then the phone.

 

[EagerDragon]

There's been enough posts on the subject of ringtones, but to reiterate, why can't the user upload ringtones freely under the following conditions:
1. The user has previously paid for ringtones ( used on their previous phone)
2. The user is a musician and has created their own rington
3. Free ringtones ( not ripped, but really, free given away by the author )

Apple sales of iPhone is minute compared to the likes of SE, Nokia, Motorola et al. You don't see RIAA preventing these other companies from shipping ring tone editors, stopping the uploading of ringtones on their phones. Why should it be any different to Apple? Answer: Its not, as purely an Apple revenue stream.

Free software... You can do better than that.

Why not? Do you not understand the concept of opensource or even free software? If people want to develop applications for iPhone, why should they not be allowed to? Apple are shooting themselves in the foot by being so controlling, every smartphone OS ( and we'll call mobile - OSX a smartphone OS, just for now ) thrive on 3rd party development and encouraged. The benefits of 3rd party devs is very well known and appreciated.. Oh, apart from Apple.

Why should Apple stop them Applications do not have to be vetted? This is a sure sign of the complete and utter weakness of mobile OSX.

Where would Apple be without the opensource community? We wouldn't be using OSX as we see it today, neither the iPhone, Safari etc etc.

If people don't want 3rd party applications, they don't have to load them on their iPhone.

Apple is using the iPhone to squeeze as much $$ out of its customers as possible.. by charging for absolutely everything.

If microsoft had released the iPhone with the same conditions, this forum would be screaming bloody murder.

Why can't they download ring tones?
Because it does not fit Apple business plan, as such they decided not to allow it.

Are you saying that Apple is being run by a bunch of morons that do not know how to run a business?

Maybe you can buy a controlling interest and run the company instead.

We need to stop being back seat drivers and let the driver drive or get off the car if we don't trust him.

 

[/dev/toaster]

Why can't they download ring tones?
Because it does not fit Apple business plan, as such they decided not to allow it.

Happy customers aren't in the business plan ?

Are you saying that Apple is being run by a bunch of morons that do not know how to run a business?

No, but I really wonder how much crack cocaine they were smoking the night before.

 

[Cold-1]

@Hopstretch: I totally agree.
The main problem with this "control mechanism" is that Apple not only desides what application is passing through technical wise but also political wise. E.g. you will never see a VOIP application, no matter how rock solid it would be. Neither will there be an application that doesn't fit into Apples business plans.
In my oppinion, it's a toothless tiger to keep the customers happy.

 

[grappler]

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

They need some good publicity? Right now I don't think they deserve good publicity. In fact, my hope is that some bad publicity will put them back on the right path.

I've liked Apple for a long time, and I still want to like them. Sadly, it's getting pretty hard with this whole 3rd party apps thing.

 

[grappler]

Those require you to be on Safari the whole time. It'd be great if there was a separate app that would notify you every time you'd get an IM, without needing to go through Safari, kind of like the Text client there is right now.

Yeah, in fact if you're connecting to EDGE through Safari you can't recieve a phone call. It doesn't even TELL you there's an incoming phone call.

 

[peharri]

I totally agree with this direction. While the complainers complain, Apple is getting down to business. I want 3rd party apps, but only the best, vetted and approved.

Yeah, I don't want applications to mysteriously appear on my phone or computers either.

But the complaints, FWIW, are not that they're against software being the best, vetted, and approved; they're that Apple, rather than the iPhone users, are going to be the people making those judgments.

Honestly, I'm amazed anyone here thinks this is a good idea. And to the person who asked whether we should "hate" T-Mobile for doing something similar to the Sidekick: No, we shouldn't, because T-Mobile isn't running around bricking opened Sidekicks (which is what the dislike for Apple is about); but likewise there's a reason why this committed T-Mobile user who has owned a variety of real smartphones over the last few decades, including the granddaddy of them all, the Nokia 9000, will not touch the Sidekick with a ten foot pole. And why I certainly don't agree with those who categorize it as a Smartphone.

In any case, I really don't believe this is what Apple intends to do except with a small number of applications that have to have low level access to the platform. The talk of expanding the Webkit/Javascript SDK to include better access to the phone's features and off-line capabilities strikes me as just a tad more probable. There's little downside to Apple doing that. But, again, after seeing Apple roll out the 1.1.1 update, there's no risk I'll ever get an Apple product in the future.

 

[roman1]

Control is dangerous

How about Apple deciding about the HTML code to be displayed in the Safari browser on your iPhone. Believe me, no matter how many advantages there may be for control, free and open is the only way to progress. I know this is an extreme example, but quite valid. Would you want to send your HTML to Apple first to get a permission to display it on your iPhone?

Peace,
Roman