Precisely. While my Treo 650 is getting long in the tooth, I have SSH access to *everything* no matter where I am. Yeah the screen/keyboard is cramped, but it sure saved my butt when clients had a problem and I was on a canalboat in Amsterdam.
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's 3rd Party iPhone Application Plan?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Precisely. While my Treo 650 is getting long in the tooth, I have SSH access to *everything* no matter where I am. Yeah the screen/keyboard is cramped, but it sure saved my butt when clients had a problem and I was on a canalboat in Amsterdam.
Astroturfer Alert
Astroturfer Ahoy! Every Single Post you have made to this thread has sycophantically lauded the idea of shackling consumers with onerous drm "to protect them from themselves". This argument about insuring stability is fallacy in the highest, and here is an example which, in the case of iphone, lights this straw man thoroughly ablaze:
---I suppose since their phone runs os X, you would be perfectly happy applying this argument of yours to apple computers too? after all if we can muck up a phone with unstable applications surely a computer would be far worse. Maybe apple should require signing and vetting for all mac software? After all, that same money is "wasted" doing support and debugging for 3rd party causes on osX on pc's as it was on iphones running openly produced third party apps.
Enough!, You know who can insure the stability on your machine? YOU CAN! You can remove any suspected application at your discression rather than at the discression of some invasive power hungry executive at apple.
To people desiring real flexibility XNA is a spit in the face more than anything else. Just like sony's ps3 linux, it:
A - Gives no real priviledges to the developers so far as actually taking advantage of its graphics capabilities
B - Charges people monthly fees for what otherwise would be an open developer environment
C - (related to A) Prevents any applications which would compete with microsoft from making it to your machine
D - Forces anyone interested in doing what they want with their machine to pay a monthly microsoft tax.
The only reason XNA exists is to enable microsoft to be utterly hypocritical about their stance on piracy and make money at other people's expense.
It is the same with Apple. My long time use of their computing platform does not blind me to their indiscressions, and I'm sure people who are not paid by a corporate master to astroturf this forum agree with me.
This outing of an astroturfer has been brought to you by:
www.againsttcpa.com/what-is-tcpa.html
Astroturfer Ahoy! Every Single Post you have made to this thread has sycophantically lauded the idea of shackling consumers with onerous drm "to protect them from themselves". This argument about insuring stability is fallacy in the highest, and here is an example which, in the case of iphone, lights this straw man thoroughly ablaze:
---I suppose since their phone runs os X, you would be perfectly happy applying this argument of yours to apple computers too? after all if we can muck up a phone with unstable applications surely a computer would be far worse. Maybe apple should require signing and vetting for all mac software? After all, that same money is "wasted" doing support and debugging for 3rd party causes on osX on pc's as it was on iphones running openly produced third party apps.
Enough!, You know who can insure the stability on your machine? YOU CAN! You can remove any suspected application at your discression rather than at the discression of some invasive power hungry executive at apple.
To people desiring real flexibility XNA is a spit in the face more than anything else. Just like sony's ps3 linux, it:
A - Gives no real priviledges to the developers so far as actually taking advantage of its graphics capabilities
B - Charges people monthly fees for what otherwise would be an open developer environment
C - (related to A) Prevents any applications which would compete with microsoft from making it to your machine
D - Forces anyone interested in doing what they want with their machine to pay a monthly microsoft tax.
The only reason XNA exists is to enable microsoft to be utterly hypocritical about their stance on piracy and make money at other people's expense.
It is the same with Apple. My long time use of their computing platform does not blind me to their indiscressions, and I'm sure people who are not paid by a corporate master to astroturf this forum agree with me.
This outing of an astroturfer has been brought to you by:
www.againsttcpa.com/what-is-tcpa.html
Why did you keep the phone?? That's why there is a refund period for users who find the product does not fit their needs. Take personal responsibility!
Yes you can. This works on mine and my friend's iPhone. What you can't do, is access EDGE while making a call.
Well said plasmacutter.
No one in their right mind would want or need the same level of strict Apple control over their computer applications. So why do the apologists think its a good thing for Apple to vet iPhone apps? It makes no sense.
This is not for our benefit. It's not for security or any other rubbish excuse. It's all about money.
No one in their right mind would want or need the same level of strict Apple control over their computer applications. So why do the apologists think its a good thing for Apple to vet iPhone apps? It makes no sense.
This is not for our benefit. It's not for security or any other rubbish excuse. It's all about money.
As a software developer, I believe this is a good compromise between openness and safety. I know Apple's "security and stability" defense has received a lot criticism, but for something as important as a communication device which could literally mean life or death I think it is warranted. With this approach I would be able to focus entirely on writing quality software for the iPhone and let Apple handle payment and distribution.
To all the naysayers who claim this puts Apple in the same boat as Verizon, I would remind you that Apple has never said that all applications would be pay only. It is very possible that Apple could post a freeware section. I equate this decision to how Apple manages the Downloads (apple.com/downloads) portion of their website. There are some pay applications and there are some free applications and you can pick whichever you want. Only in this situation, all of the unstable applications are weeded out.
Nothing is final yet, so let's hold off on the sky is falling claims, ok?
To all the naysayers who claim this puts Apple in the same boat as Verizon, I would remind you that Apple has never said that all applications would be pay only. It is very possible that Apple could post a freeware section. I equate this decision to how Apple manages the Downloads (apple.com/downloads) portion of their website. There are some pay applications and there are some free applications and you can pick whichever you want. Only in this situation, all of the unstable applications are weeded out.
Nothing is final yet, so let's hold off on the sky is falling claims, ok?
Really? Because I just tried it on mine, and if it is actively loading a page, incoming calls go to voicemail without my phone ringing. If the page finishes loading while the other party still hears ringing, *then* you'll see a "network interruption" message and have an opportunity to answer.
Problems, etc
One problem with this system is simple: lots of neat apps won't be available, because the barrier to entry (apple certificaton) is high. Who's going to be able to write the obligatory car maintenance application for the iPhone now?
OTOH, that may be good, given the amount of crud software there is out there for phones.
What about third-party internal apps for verticals?
One problem with this system is simple: lots of neat apps won't be available, because the barrier to entry (apple certificaton) is high. Who's going to be able to write the obligatory car maintenance application for the iPhone now?
OTOH, that may be good, given the amount of crud software there is out there for phones.
What about third-party internal apps for verticals?
I'm working on an application right now that has a mobile component. An iPhone would be ideal for what we're building, but with no SDK and this new lockdown by Apple, we can't exactly go that direction.
Who the hell do they think they are over at Apple? We, collectively, are the Customers. Within a year or so, there WILL be an open mobile touchscreen platform with lots of third party development because we, the Customers, demand it. Whether Apple is a leader in that new market remains an open question.
I agree completely, and I may actually end up going that route once I feel like my iPhone has gone flaky or is time for an upgrade, assuming Apple doesn't provide a reasonable policy towards opening up the iPhone for app development (and by reasonable I mean no app "censorship" based on function as opposed to quality and that developers are allowed to offer free applications through whatever method Apple deems is acceptable to distribute apps).
Don't get me wrong, my iPhone is overall a better phone than my much more basic Nokia. Its iPod capabilities also help soften the blow of whatever crippling they've done on the "other side" as it comes down to a 8G iPod touch combined with a $100 phone (if you got it after the price drop like I did). $100 for a phone with the iPhone's base capabilities isn't too unreasonable, but for a little bit more you can get (ignoring UI differences) a Blackberry, Windows Mobile Phone, Palm, etc., with sometimes superior phone/PDA capabilities and with open development. Hell, my aforementioned Nokia in some ways was a better phone than my iPhone in everything but the UI -- it had AIM instant messaging, arbitrary ring tone support, full bluetooth support, a voice recorder, etc., almost all of which have been made available by way of 3rd party apps on the iPhone.
Right now, I can't say I'm too disappointed in my iPhone, but I'm mostly happy with its iPod capabilities and the fact I don't have to lug multiple devices around to accomplish all that it does. However, if a much more open product comes around without the iPhone's baggage and with a comparable UI and music player capabilities, I'd drop my iPhone in a heartbeat, budget permitting.
Well doesn't that make sense? I mean if you create a real game you have to pay Sony/Microsoft to for a license anyways. Now you dont' have to, but you also dont get access to all the hardware.
hmm, developing on a console isn't an open environment (unless you own your own business and are able to rent the dev stations)
AFAIK XNA games aren't sold commercially, and if they were they would still have to be vetted just like any other game they license.
Well if you can hack the 360 to run unsigned code, then I guess you don't have to pay them
. BTW, XNA is 99 a year which I think is the same as a student ADC membership.Or to allow people that don't work in the industry with access to a dev box be able to dabble in making games for the 360.
On the PS3? Well Linux runs in nongame os mode, under the hypervisor as a means of security. Otherwise Blu-Ray would have been broken a loooong time ago (note dumping of BR discs happened via the PS3 first).
Hopefully this iPhone killer will come out very soon so we can say goodbye to the complainers who probably are shills for MS.
Shill for MS? Not likely. I hardly ever use Windows -- I'm all Mac and Linux.
Hmmm, I suppose there isn't anything I could say that would convince you that I'm not a shill for MS.
Nonetheless, if I had a .sig like a lot of you people, it would look something like this:
17" Macbook Pro merom, 30" Cinema Display, 8GB iPhone, 60GB iPod, 4GB nano+nike
I made the switch to Apple computers entirely in the last year, because I had such a favorable impression of them. I want their platform to succeed and produce a thriving development ecosystem, both on the mac and the iPhone. I want to still like them a year from now. I'm speaking up because I care. I've already spent a lot on their products and nobody wants buyer's remorse!
Companies should not have the right to assert ownership of my hardware after they have sold it to me
They are not entitled to make other people pay them for the right create intellectual property, who do they think they are king george? are we really back to the days where the aristocracy get to dictate who can and cannot express themselves on a given medium?
as for games, take off your blinders! not everything that runs on a game console has to be a game..
Have you ever heard of xbox media center? It's not a game, and it does require access to all the hardware.
This is like responding to accusations of school segregation by proclaiming racism is an institution (with the implicit implication it's somehow 'ok'). Consoles are not leased, they are sold and people deserve the right to do what they want with their own hardware.
what exactly do you call charging 99 dollars a year to the public for a product if not "sold commercially"? what's worse is theyre charging people for free apps they dont even create!
And if the united states forced these companies to respect our individual right to property we wouldnt have to. Further, the 360 was hacked to run unsigned code, microsoft responded by remotely breaking (as in PHYSICALLY BREAKING) part of the rom chips to prevent downgrading to that firmware. If you apply this same mentality to homes, I'd be able to fire bomb one of your rooms 3 years after selling you the house because I didn't like the fact you were using a nursery as a home office.Well if you can hack the 360 to run unsigned code, then I guess you don't have to pay them
The similarity between XNA's price and student ADC price is irrelevant, theyre charging the people who work hard to produce free applications for the ability to publish them, then taking their creations and charging other people who would otherwise get them for free, making money off other people's creations both coming and going. They are worse than chinese pirates they purportedly hate so much!
my how generous of them, let's apply this to every other industry shall we? weld the hood on your car shut then make you pay 99 bucks a year for the "priviledge" of being able to change your own oil.
cover all work surfaces in your kitchen and charge you 99 bucks a year for the "priviledge" of being able to prepare your own food.
if they leased the consoles instead of selling them they might have a leg to stand on, the same is true for iphone.
Actions like this are an erosion of basic consumer and human liberty.
your ignorance is amusing, blu-ray WAS broken a lonoong time ago, and they got to the central keys allowing them to adapt to any "updates" to the aacs standard. The rips show up on pirate bay now and again, but are still limited to private trackers because the media is still relatively unpopular, and large filesizes require ratios to keep the torrents alive. Expect to see a lot more of these in the future.
So, how about this?
User's choice of "Software Permissions" (for lack of a better term at the moment, and not to be confused with UNIX permissions). Restricted or Unrestricted.
Restricted: Only apps approved by Apple and distributed through iTunes are capable of running on the phone.
Unrestricted: Any 3rd party apps are capable of running on the phone.
Restricted: All current liabilities that fall on Apple and/or Carrier still apply.
Unrestricted: User releases Apple and/or Carrier from liability in most situations.
Examples:
An application locks your phone or otherwise prevents you from dialing 911:
Restricted: Same as it would be now.
Unrestricted: Too bad.
An application goes haywire (or is actually malware) and causes your phone to: A) dial phone calls behind the scenes which runs out all of your minutes, or B) sends text messages without your knowledge, therefore running your text messages allotment dry – either one driving your bill up because of extra messages or talk minutes.
Restricted: Apple and/or Carrier refunds/corrects overcharge.
Unrestricted: Too bad.
An application leaves a heavy duty wifi/bluetooth/edge connection active and busy, therefore draining your battery in a couple hours or less (I had this happen, I think from leaving an SFTP/SSH connection going and forgot about it), possibly causing hardware damage due to excessive heat (my phone got REALLY hot there for a while).
Restricted: Apple replaces damaged units and/or refunds price of application.
Unrestricted: Too bad.
Basically anything that they say they're trying to protect us from (security and reliability).
Restricted: Apple replaces damaged units and/or refunds price of application. All current protections and liabilities apply.
Unrestricted: Too bad.
Before taking your phone to the Genius Bar with a problem:
Restricted: Do as you would now... Make appointment and bring it in.
Unrestricted: Depending on the problem, most hardware issues would still be covered... A 3rd party app is not likely to cause a screen to go bad, for instance. After reporting the issue (scheduling your Genius Bar appointment), you must restore your phone to factory default to evaluate if the problem still exists, and depending on the issue (battery drain, phone won't call out, WiFi dies, whatever), you must run as factory default (or as Restricted) for a given time to make sure the problem still exists. Most Genius Bar appointments will be well enough in the future to evaluate.
Apple could then lock this "permissions key" down tight (gotta prevent hacking this one) and have it controlled through iTunes, so they know your permission settings at any given time in order to prevent false claims.
Those who like the idea of vetted and approved apps can feel comfortable with their (current) complete warranty and protections intact.
Those who want to be able to "put anything under the sun" on their phone will be happy, too (unless Apple wants to charge an arm and a leg for this "unlock"), with the understanding (and agreement) that you use public 3rd party apps at your own risk.
Apple and/or Carrier have their butts covered if some rogue or malicious 3rd party app messes up the software or hardware, prevents a 911 call, increases billing, or any of a number of their "concerns".
There! Everybody's happy.!.!
User's choice of "Software Permissions" (for lack of a better term at the moment, and not to be confused with UNIX permissions). Restricted or Unrestricted.
Restricted: Only apps approved by Apple and distributed through iTunes are capable of running on the phone.
Unrestricted: Any 3rd party apps are capable of running on the phone.
Restricted: All current liabilities that fall on Apple and/or Carrier still apply.
Unrestricted: User releases Apple and/or Carrier from liability in most situations.
Examples:
An application locks your phone or otherwise prevents you from dialing 911:
Restricted: Same as it would be now.
Unrestricted: Too bad.
An application goes haywire (or is actually malware) and causes your phone to: A) dial phone calls behind the scenes which runs out all of your minutes, or B) sends text messages without your knowledge, therefore running your text messages allotment dry – either one driving your bill up because of extra messages or talk minutes.
Restricted: Apple and/or Carrier refunds/corrects overcharge.
Unrestricted: Too bad.
An application leaves a heavy duty wifi/bluetooth/edge connection active and busy, therefore draining your battery in a couple hours or less (I had this happen, I think from leaving an SFTP/SSH connection going and forgot about it), possibly causing hardware damage due to excessive heat (my phone got REALLY hot there for a while).
Restricted: Apple replaces damaged units and/or refunds price of application.
Unrestricted: Too bad.
Basically anything that they say they're trying to protect us from (security and reliability).
Restricted: Apple replaces damaged units and/or refunds price of application. All current protections and liabilities apply.
Unrestricted: Too bad.
Before taking your phone to the Genius Bar with a problem:
Restricted: Do as you would now... Make appointment and bring it in.
Unrestricted: Depending on the problem, most hardware issues would still be covered... A 3rd party app is not likely to cause a screen to go bad, for instance. After reporting the issue (scheduling your Genius Bar appointment), you must restore your phone to factory default to evaluate if the problem still exists, and depending on the issue (battery drain, phone won't call out, WiFi dies, whatever), you must run as factory default (or as Restricted) for a given time to make sure the problem still exists. Most Genius Bar appointments will be well enough in the future to evaluate.
Apple could then lock this "permissions key" down tight (gotta prevent hacking this one) and have it controlled through iTunes, so they know your permission settings at any given time in order to prevent false claims.
Those who like the idea of vetted and approved apps can feel comfortable with their (current) complete warranty and protections intact.
Those who want to be able to "put anything under the sun" on their phone will be happy, too (unless Apple wants to charge an arm and a leg for this "unlock"), with the understanding (and agreement) that you use public 3rd party apps at your own risk.
Apple and/or Carrier have their butts covered if some rogue or malicious 3rd party app messes up the software or hardware, prevents a 911 call, increases billing, or any of a number of their "concerns".
There! Everybody's happy.!.!
I understand you own the hardware but MS/Apple owns the software and can brick your stuff freely if you chose to run their update.
Are you talking about the OG Xbox or the 360? Cause the OG Xbox was a hack that MS "fixed".
And you are fully within your right to hack the hardware. Doesn't mean the manufaturer that owns the software has to support your actions.
Um what are you talking about? I said that the games made through XNA aren't sold commercially. That is waaaay different than charging for XNA itself. Apple doesn't give away the keys to their system for free either.
Yup MS broke the hacked 360's just like Apple broke the hacked iPhones. Now whose fault is it for updating the now broken hardware?
It was broken using the PS3, yes I know that. They used the PS3 to dump the contents of the disc onto the hard drive. From there they ftp'ed the contents off the drive. They didn't have access to the hardware on the PS3 that would have allowed them to break the DRM earlier than they did.
This is very true. Frankly I was actually leaning towards an iPhone as the third party software movement was filling in a lot of loose ends. It wasn't a perfect solution by any means but certainly good enough for my needs. Then the update happened that so drastically smacked the developers.
OpenMoko, if it gets off the ground soon enough, represents exactly the opposite of the iPhone. It is a platform that can be configured to do what you need to get done. The big issue here will be the quality of the web experience on OpenMoko and the initial hardware.
That is mostly a question of available RAM on the initial device. Apparently there won't be enough RAM to run a full blown version of Firefox. Depending on the quality of the browser that is delivered it might be a problem.
dave
There are no absolutes when it comes to software safety. For this to be a valid concept you would have to believe that Apple could vet software with 100% certainty that it would work correctly on the phone.
In any event it is a total non issue as each customer is an individual and has different expectations of what his cell phone can do. In the case of or a smart phone the usage patterns will differ dramatically from one person to another. For many of us the actual cell component of the iPhone would have been a minor feature.
Would you please cut the crap! There are so many issues with respect to the availability of service that that is not even a rational argument. Besides it is ALWAYS a mistake to give up freedom for security.
For a commercial developer it would be a very good avenue for business development. So don't get me wrong, but I see a significant need for additional access. The iPhone would be an ideal platform for captive business software, the stuff that companies don't want distributed. If Apple doesn't see the business potential in its product (with custom software) then they are completely blind.
Then there is the segment of society that simply doesn't want to go commercial, for any number of reasons. Any number of useful but maybe not commercially viable apps exist and could find a home on the iPhone. The biggest example here being the terminal apps and the unix utilities.
This would be great if developers got unrestricted access to the freeware section. The recent turn of events seems to indicate that this is not likely. If they did it looks like excessive restrictions would be in place.
I have trouble with this idea of weeding out the unstable apps. I consider ECLIPSE to be unstable but that doesn't make it a useless app. Taking the Eclipse example farther there are parts of Eclipse that are very stable, so who is going to audit something like this and to what standards will it be held?
Now I know full well Eclipse won't be running on a Cell Phone this year and probably not next year either. But it highlights just what sort of metrics would Apple use and how likely are they to meld with the users needs. I just don't think a vetting program could be successful. What seems to be the successful approach is to get software out to users so that strange use cases can trigger bug reports leading to improved software.
Nothing is final yet, so let's hold off on the sky is falling claims, ok?
Well obviously we have different opinions on what is falling. As I see it Apple has a very short period of time before the arrival of truly open platforms. I don't see any indications that they get it with respect to user needs.
I'd love to be proven wrong. Apple could go a long way with the iPhone software by simply release a version of software that includes a Finder, disk mode, and a suite of Unix apps to down load. Heck if the software development environment was Python I'd be much happier than I am now.
I just think that it is a royal shame that so much potential is currently going to waste for really piss poor reasons.
Dave
For one thing Apple doesn't have a history of building network apps with the holes in them that MS does. Many of the security breaches seen on MS systems aren't possibly on most Unix like systems due to differences in software implementation. There are very few if any Unix mail programs that are scriptable like Outlook for example.
Second; if the iphone becomes a big enough target there will be people attacking it no matter what apple does. The fact that Apple had much of the software running as root on the iPhone is a security risk in and of itself.
Third; OS/X has proven to be pretty secure up and till now. While Apples use of OS/X in the first few software releases was less than stellar, the potential is there for the same level of security. Many of the hackers developing for the iPhone are the same ones developing on Mac OS/X without problem.
There is no such thing a rock solid security so we can dismiss that right away. If you want a closed up phone there is a simple answer to that stay out of the smart phone category. The problem is that Apple markets the iPhone as a smart phone but yet is taking measures to lock it down to the point it will be one of the dumbest phones on the market. When the iPhone is no better than a $10 phone how will they sell?
Dave
Gee there's a lotta anger on this thread.
Told myself not to get involved, but i seem not to have paid any heed.
Right, you're all venting about an unsubstantiated rumour, as if it's fact. Before anyone welcomes me to Macrumors, i'm talking about the people here that are bad mouthing apple as if they'd come round their house handcuffed the iphone to the wall and told them off for installing software using an unfinished api installed via a hack.
You are not children, Apple is not treating you like children, stop acting like little brats because you don't have everything you want like right now. That's it stop stamping your little feet in frustration.
If you want to do some rumouring, do it in a methodically thought out fashion. like so.
When asked why there's no sdk for the iPhone, Jobs is quoted as saying, we'll do it when we have a way to do it safely. Everyone assumes that means web 2.0 which is Apples currently supported (note that word) development strategy. It's an assumption that this is the end of it.
Apple's UI guideline doc, reinforces this with "Currently only web based apps are supported" (Can't find the exact reference, but it's the general gist).
I would lay money on the line that a sdk is in development and will be released at or post Leopard Go-Live. The SDK was most likely the last thing on the priority list, as iPhone was slipping from its release, Mac OS developers were pulled off it along with Leopard.
We also know now that the OS X 1.0 release compared to 1.1.1 is an unfinished hack job, most likely to have gotten iPhone out the door on time.
1.1.1 is closer to what it should have been back in June.
What do we know about 1.1.1, well for one thing, the security bugs that allowed 3rd party apps are now gone, You can't mount the filesystem to make changes whereever you like and the baseband firmware has been FIXED! (Emphasis on Fixed as that's for AT&T's benefit, not anyone elses).
I'll posit that there'll be 4 classes of application on the iPhone.
1 Apple written
2 Certified 3rd Party
3 Uncertfied 3rd party
4 widgets.
We have 1 & 4 already, though i think 4 will get enhanced capabilities, ie offline caching and optional icon on the springboard.
2. Are apps apple have commissioned companies to write for them & other developers have submitted for approval. These are apps that use the full spectrum of API's available on the iPhone, ie. have all the capabilities of 1. This is the rumour du jour and were a lot of knickers are in a twist because we know apps that Apple approve and deliver via iTunes will fit their and AT&T's business mindset.
3. This is were it gets interesting. I believe this is were the comment by one of the guys' working on the jailbreak for 1.1.1, "Everything is signed" proves relevant. I believe category 3 app's ie. unsigned apps will not be able to access certain api's, ie. those that might give unlimited access to the baseband modem. I noticed a screenshot were some apps were in a lockdown directory and others were not. Why go to the bother of segmenting applications like that, if you're not going to offer the option.
VOIP and maybe IM will not be tolerated by AT&T and i'm sure an element of the agreement between them & Apple is to not encumber the voice revenue stream with skype or an equiv.
Basically, to bottom line it all, i don't think we've seen the full picture, so before y'all go a hating, just remember this rumour < 1/2 the facts.
M.
Told myself not to get involved, but i seem not to have paid any heed.
Right, you're all venting about an unsubstantiated rumour, as if it's fact. Before anyone welcomes me to Macrumors, i'm talking about the people here that are bad mouthing apple as if they'd come round their house handcuffed the iphone to the wall and told them off for installing software using an unfinished api installed via a hack.
You are not children, Apple is not treating you like children, stop acting like little brats because you don't have everything you want like right now. That's it stop stamping your little feet in frustration.
If you want to do some rumouring, do it in a methodically thought out fashion. like so.
When asked why there's no sdk for the iPhone, Jobs is quoted as saying, we'll do it when we have a way to do it safely. Everyone assumes that means web 2.0 which is Apples currently supported (note that word) development strategy. It's an assumption that this is the end of it.
Apple's UI guideline doc, reinforces this with "Currently only web based apps are supported" (Can't find the exact reference, but it's the general gist).
I would lay money on the line that a sdk is in development and will be released at or post Leopard Go-Live. The SDK was most likely the last thing on the priority list, as iPhone was slipping from its release, Mac OS developers were pulled off it along with Leopard.
We also know now that the OS X 1.0 release compared to 1.1.1 is an unfinished hack job, most likely to have gotten iPhone out the door on time.
1.1.1 is closer to what it should have been back in June.
What do we know about 1.1.1, well for one thing, the security bugs that allowed 3rd party apps are now gone, You can't mount the filesystem to make changes whereever you like and the baseband firmware has been FIXED! (Emphasis on Fixed as that's for AT&T's benefit, not anyone elses).
I'll posit that there'll be 4 classes of application on the iPhone.
1 Apple written
2 Certified 3rd Party
3 Uncertfied 3rd party
4 widgets.
We have 1 & 4 already, though i think 4 will get enhanced capabilities, ie offline caching and optional icon on the springboard.
2. Are apps apple have commissioned companies to write for them & other developers have submitted for approval. These are apps that use the full spectrum of API's available on the iPhone, ie. have all the capabilities of 1. This is the rumour du jour and were a lot of knickers are in a twist because we know apps that Apple approve and deliver via iTunes will fit their and AT&T's business mindset.
3. This is were it gets interesting. I believe this is were the comment by one of the guys' working on the jailbreak for 1.1.1, "Everything is signed" proves relevant. I believe category 3 app's ie. unsigned apps will not be able to access certain api's, ie. those that might give unlimited access to the baseband modem. I noticed a screenshot were some apps were in a lockdown directory and others were not. Why go to the bother of segmenting applications like that, if you're not going to offer the option.
VOIP and maybe IM will not be tolerated by AT&T and i'm sure an element of the agreement between them & Apple is to not encumber the voice revenue stream with skype or an equiv.
Basically, to bottom line it all, i don't think we've seen the full picture, so before y'all go a hating, just remember this rumour < 1/2 the facts.
M.
Gee there's a lotta anger on this thread.
Told myself not to get involved, but i seem not to have paid any heed.
Right, you're all venting about an unsubstantiated rumour, as if it's fact. Before anyone welcomes me to Macrumors, i'm talking about the people here that are bad mouthing apple as if they'd come round their house handcuffed the iphone to the wall and told them off for installing software using an unfinished api installed via a hack.
You are not children, Apple is not treating you like children, stop acting like little brats because you don't have everything you want like right now. That's it stop stamping your little feet in frustration.
If you want to do some rumouring, do it in a methodically thought out fashion. like so.
When asked why there's no sdk for the iPhone, Jobs is quoted as saying, we'll do it when we have a way to do it safely. Everyone assumes that means web 2.0 which is Apples currently supported (note that word) development strategy. It's an assumption that this is the end of it.
Apple's UI guideline doc, reinforces this with "Currently only web based apps are supported" (Can't find the exact reference, but it's the general gist).
I would lay money on the line that a sdk is in development and will be released at or post Leopard Go-Live. The SDK was most likely the last thing on the priority list, as iPhone was slipping from its release, Mac OS developers were pulled off it along with Leopard.
We also know now that the OS X 1.0 release compared to 1.1.1 is an unfinished hack job, most likely to have gotten iPhone out the door on time.
1.1.1 is closer to what it should have been back in June.
What do we know about 1.1.1, well for one thing, the security bugs that allowed 3rd party apps are now gone, You can't mount the filesystem to make changes whereever you like and the baseband firmware has been FIXED! (Emphasis on Fixed as that's for AT&T's benefit, not anyone elses).
I'll posit that there'll be 4 classes of application on the iPhone.
1 Apple written
2 Certified 3rd Party
3 Uncertfied 3rd party
4 widgets.
We have 1 & 4 already, though i think 4 will get enhanced capabilities, ie offline caching and optional icon on the springboard.
2. Are apps apple have commissioned companies to write for them & other developers have submitted for approval. These are apps that use the full spectrum of API's available on the iPhone, ie. have all the capabilities of 1. This is the rumour du jour and were a lot of knickers are in a twist because we know apps that Apple approve and deliver via iTunes will fit their and AT&T's business mindset.
3. This is were it gets interesting. I believe this is were the comment by one of the guys' working on the jailbreak for 1.1.1, "Everything is signed" proves relevant. I believe category 3 app's ie. unsigned apps will not be able to access certain api's, ie. those that might give unlimited access to the baseband modem. I noticed a screenshot were some apps were in a lockdown directory and others were not. Why go to the bother of segmenting applications like that, if you're not going to offer the option.
VOIP and maybe IM will not be tolerated by AT&T and i'm sure an element of the agreement between them & Apple is to not encumber the voice revenue stream with skype or an equiv.
Basically, to bottom line it all, i don't think we've seen the full picture, so before y'all go a hating, just remember this rumour < 1/2 the facts.
M.
How dare you come into this thread and start polluting it with intelligent debate
Probably the most well written balanced and logical post I've seen in a long time, overall it made me feel quite ill.