iPhone SDK Details Emerging?

[Tosser]

No that would be a valid argument on behalf of those with the problem.

You're wrong. You don't get that those plaster floors, the non-existing toilet, the non-existing front door, are analogies to the designed crippling. Not bugs or a defect. But that it is designed that way. Hence the notion that I should buy a crippled iPhone/touch/house in order to pay intention to the crippling is ridiculously flawed.

Thing is, as an iPhone owner myself...I'm not sure I need you fighting for my cause...perhaps you should go get your own cause...or buy an iPhone.

Yes, I'm aware that some people are perfectly happy with anything, as long as it's the right brand. Don't worry, I'm not going to take your crippled product away from you.

Btw: Unlike some, I didn't have to buy a product, before noticing that it was lacking. Unlike some, I am actually not buying into products because of brand-loyalty, and unlike some, I am actually aware of what I want, before I make a purchase.

 

[jmorrison0722]

Tosser,
The only folks who get to voice their opinions about their poorly maintained homes are the homeowners. Who do they let speak as the homeowners association...homeowners. Who do they let vote at shareholders meetings...shareholders. You have a right to your opinion...but it just doesn't carry much weight considering you are not an end-user of the product being discussed.

 

[Spades]

Spades,
With all due respect, that's sort of like saying, "Here, borrow my car for a joyride", then you getting pissed that I didn't put up guardrails to keep you from swaying off the road.

So we're getting into the "car analogy" part of the argument?

Actually it's more like saying "Here, borrow my car" and then getting mad because the car you gave me didn't have brakes. That's perfectly reasonable.

This sole gatekeeper plan is offering the car without brakes, and then fixing it by putting up guardrails.

 

[jmorrison0722]

Hence the notion that I should buy a crippled iPhone/touch/house in order to pay intention to the crippling is ridiculously flawed.

I agree totally...you shouldn't buy one. Now go away and those to whom this news impacts discuss it.

 

[EagerDragon]

What verification would Apple be doing that only they can do? If there is some super secret process they should just share it with everybody and save themselves the cost of testing.

I see a lot of people saying that consumers would blame Apple if something went wrong with an app. I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but why is this different from a computer? People don't blame Apple with a third-party app crashes on a Mac. If the difference is a matter of consumer perception they should do something about that perception. Even if they QA every iPhone app, they're still going to crash sometimes anyways.

They need to satisfy themselves. There is no magic, no secret sauce, they need set down a set of checks that in their mind (correct or not) will satisfy their obligation.

You may do better than that team, but you are not the one that apple trust to make the decision. It is a matter of trust, not how good you are. They need to feel warm and fuzzy and they will only feel that way if they do it because they are the ones with the most to loose and as such the most reason to get it right.

 

[hayesk]

What verification would Apple be doing that only they can do? If there is some super secret process they should just share it with everybody and save themselves the cost of testing.

They're probably going to check that the app doesn't try to access some undocumented or unsupported portion of the iPhone hardware or OS. It's quite easy to do, and they can do it without the source code in many cases.

That is, if these rumors are true.

 

[visor]

That's pretty bad news.

• iTunes Store as hub - as expected, Apple will require future iPhone and iPod Touch applications to be distributed through Apple's iTunes Store.
• Apple as Application Gatekeeper - iLounge believes that Apple will act as a gatekeeper for the applications themselves and will formally approve or deny all software releases.
• No Accessory Support - no ability to support dock-based accessories, though the iPhone's own phone, Wi-Fi, and camera will reportedly accessible.

Good grief. That's going to dwarf all open source Projects apart from jailbreak. Small Companies wouldn't even look at supporting the iPhone, and the large ones will just go and do their usual boring out of the box stuff.

Thank god - I did resist buying yet, and will reconsider only after those rumors proove false.

 

[jmorrison0722]

So we're getting into the "car analogy" part of the argument?

Actually it's more like saying "Here, borrow my car" and then getting mad because the car you gave me didn't have brakes. That's perfectly reasonable.

This sole gatekeeper plan is offering the car without brakes, and then fixing it by putting up guardrails.

Going back to the car analogy...do you think that Honda publishes the blueprints to their cars to the 3rd party car parts developers, only to then take responsibility when those parts don't fit?

 

[Spades]

They need to satisfy themselves. There is no magic, no secret sauce, they need set down a set of checks that in their mind (correct or not) will satisfy their obligation.

You may do better than that team, but you are not the one that apple trust to make the decision. It is a matter of trust, not how good you are. They need to feel warm and fuzzy and they will only feel that way if they do it because they are the ones with the most to loose and as such the most reason to get it right.

That's fine. But it does strike me as bad business. I also don't think they'd be the ones with the most to lose if they could manage the perception that app quality is tied to the platform quality. In the end this may be the best decision for them, but all the possibilities are pointing to it being the best only because of failures in other areas.

Going back to the car analogy...do you think that Honda publishes the blueprints to their cars to the 3rd party car parts developers, only to then take responsibility when those parts don't fit?

Honda doesn't take responsibility when the parts don't fit and nobody blames them. That's exactly what I'm arguing for; Apple shouldn't be taking this responsibility for the quality of 3rd party apps, but for some reason they're insisting on it.

 

[visor]

You're not as big or as important to Apple as you think you are. Get off that high horse!

Learning from the Dance Monkey is learning from winners.

DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS,.., DEVELOPERS!

 

[EagerDragon]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)



Nifty apps sure will be!

Yes, and most of those programs written by the garage programmers will be very creative and inventive, I wish them luck and I hope they are successful, but once apple sets the rule to get their code verified, they need to do it or not be represented. Just like an agent will not represent a performer if the agent does not think it cant make a good living from the commisions because the performer sucks. Apple needs to feel want and fuzzy that is why they need to do the verification themsleves that way they have but themselves to blame.

 

[Tosser]

Tosser,
The only folks who get to voice their opinions about their poorly maintained homes are the homeowners.

Sheesh! Are you slow, or just ignorant?
I am not talking about "poorly maintained", I am talking about something designed that way.

Who do they let speak as the homeowners association...homeowners. Who do they let vote at shareholders meetings...shareholders. You have a right to your opinion...but it just doesn't carry much weight considering you are not an end-user of the product being discussed.

Ah, yes, in order to say that the product is simply crippled in X,Y,Z-ways for me to buy it, I have to buy it, otherwise the points are invalid.

For further explanation see above.

I agree totally...you shouldn't buy one. Now go away and those to whom this news impacts discuss it.

Let me repeat:

Unlike some, I didn't have to buy a product, before noticing that it was lacking. Unlike some, I am actually not buying into products because of brand-loyalty, and unlike some, I am actually aware of what I want before[] I make a purchase.

 

[gmeddles]

RE: iPhone SDK Details Emerging?

This discussion is awash in FUD. I can tell that very few of the posts have come from fellow developers. There is a big disctinction between an SDK and a distribution model, as someone pointed out several posts ago. Lets cover the SDK first.

1. Any info on the SDK itself? I'm assuming it's some flavor or Objective C /Cocoa libraries. Could someone who's seen an early peek at it post anonymously to shed some light? Or are the early releases plain old C libraries?

2. The mac development community is small in comparison to other software communities, and the iPhone community will be a subset of that group. I think a lot of you expect millions of developers to come out with the next best thing since sliced bread on day one. Realistically, there aren't many people who are going to be paid developers salaries (meaning at least 80-100K for 5 years experience) to work 100% on iPhone software. Those who are will be paid by brand-name companies. Most people using this SDK will be doing ports of existing software, or else hobbyists/after-hours coders. Manage your expectations accordingly--it will take time for cool stuff to appear.

3. Many great developers don't distribute cool apps because they write them for their own use, and don't want to invest the resources needed to "product-ize" the app (and even more importantly SUPPORT paying customers). A lot of the hobbyist/after-hours coders' work will fall into this category. We're probably not going to get richer selling our iPhone apps than we will by doing our daily work. We write code at home to make our lives easier, not necessarily to get rich quick. If we really come up with something good that can change, but the qa\marketing\support cycle cost a LOT of money/time/hassle. A lot of this stuff becomes great open-source matierial, so the distribution model affects whether this kind of software makes it to this platform.

As to the distribution model:
1. I'm not going to write code that I can't test and use personally. Apple won't want me to try to sell code that hasn't been tested in situ. There WILL be a way to get that code compiled, packaged, and installed on a device prior to final distribution. It may require that you use something in the never-before-seen-by-laity Xcode suite, but it will exist.

2. The iPhone is presently being sold in EU countries. The EU has not liked when Microsoft has not played nicely with other developers. The EU will not like it if Apple does not play nicely with other developers. It may take a few months, but fear not for the vultures (I mean lawyers) will always be lurking.

 

[jmorrison0722]

Well we have some here who argue that Apple shouldn't police the quality of the software...but should insure the iPhone doesn't crash because of them.

Others feel like Apple should police the software in order to insure the iPhone doesn't crash.

Either way, we don't want the iPhone to crash. Again I'll point to the Palm platform. It crashed all the time because of poorly written 3rd party apps. Take those apps off and it was fine. I personally don't think it was Palms responsibility to make the OS bulletproof...but had they policed their software a little better....

 

[EagerDragon]

For those thinking that there is no need to verify.

My team of 14 people verify (for security) millions of lines of code every year. Including 3rd party commercial software, also code developed in house and code developed under Open Source. On average we find 3 security errors/vulnerabilities per 1000 lines of code. That is a lot of security issues.

The worst ones are the commercial products followed by Open Source but Open Source is a lot better than the commercial products. That tells us that OS is a little better but it still has issues.

Sorry can not go into further details.

 

[jmorrison0722]

"Unlike some, I didn't have to buy a product, before noticing that it was lacking. Unlike some, I am actually not buying into products because of brand-loyalty, and unlike some, I am actually aware of what I want before[] I make a purchase."


Again, I totally agree. Don't buy one. Just go away.

 

[Silencio]

Yes, I'm aware that some people are perfectly happy with anything, as long as it's the right brand. Don't worry, I'm not going to take your crippled product away from you.

What a colossally arrogant statement, borne out of the typical geek fallacy of "my needs = the entire market's needs".

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

I understand everything you say and I been programming professionaly for 35 years.

You are making assumptions about the time and capital that lone programmers and small groups of garage programmers have. It is not just the skill and creativity, its is the handholding, support and the ability to hire 40 people to help finish a project.

One person can not do the job of a well hone team of experienced programmers and do so in time to meet the market need. Notice I said well honed.

There are excelent programmers out there that will beat a medicre team of 100 programmers and do so single handed. But that is the exception not the rule.

Also a single programmer does not have the time or money to do market research. He is likely to get lucky once in a while and come out with a program that people want. But 100 programs? No way.

So a chat program takes 40 people? Why does a single programmer need to write 100 programs? Software is still the one field where all it takes is 1 man and a vision. I'm not assuming anything about time or money. Look at the apps that are already out there for the jailbroken phones. That right there seems to show there are at least some people who want to write software for the iphone and have the time and resources to do so.

Also, you're talking about apps the scope of an MS Office. I'm talking about all of the small apps that could make the iphone more useful. The problem is that Apple doesn't want anyone 'meeting the market need' before they do (which will happen if the release and open the SDK). This is their right, I'm just confused how anyone can defend it and say it's good for the consumer.

 

[Spades]

For those thinking that there is no need to verify.

My team of 14 people verify (for security) millions of lines of code every year. Including 3rd party commercial software, also code developed in house and code developed under Open Source. On average we find 3 security errors/vulnerabilities per 1000 lines of code. That is a lot of security issues.

You can't make a device totally secure and still keep it useful, but you can certainly make it so hard to break that it's not worth the effort. If Apple got their security to that level and just worried about verifying their own OS, they wouldn't need to worry about security with 3rd party apps.

And it would be a lot easier and cheaper for them to QA their own code than everybody else's.

 

[Tosser]

What a colossally arrogant statement, borne out of the typical geek fallacy of "my needs = the entire market's needs".

Actually, it's not. It's based on the arguments of Apple-apologists who thinks: "Good for Apple's bottomline=must be good for me".

 

[Avatar74]

I know these boards are rife with tinkerers and gadget geeks. I'm one of them. But I'm also a consumer who likes integrated solutions.

The thing is, while these announcements may annoy those of you who were hoping to integrate every toy under the sun with iPhone, the vast majority of phone users, even "smartphone" users, do not sit around all day and tinker and configure and install every app under the sun. They want integrated solutions that actually work, and work well.

That isn't going to happen with an Apple product. Steve Jobs has NEVER supported the idea of making Macintosh, iPod, iPhone, etc. as an open box for nerds to play with. Their goal is to design products that are integrated solutions from top to bottom whose chief feature is elegant design.

This may seem unimportant to some of you... but elegant design is the difference between having 300 mediocre applications that work poorly, and three useful applications that work exceedingly well FOR WHAT THEY DO. By this I do NOT define "useful" as it has every feature under the sun in the app... I mean that the app, for what it actually does, does it well.

That slows down the process. Many companies release slapdash products and Apple cannot compete on that plane. They will never win at being the Wal-Mart of electronics manufacturers. Their core competency is in industrial design, and in that regard iPhone, SDK or not, blows every other phone out of the market.

The accessories issue doesn't bother me. I am tired of clunky, poorly integrated solutions like Griffin iTrip. If it is really an elegant feature that ought to be in the iPhone, it OUGHT to be IN the phone... not attached to it. The entire form factor goes to waste if you have umpteen things connected into the iPhone.

That being said, I don't think Apple can stop third party developers from making accessories. They just are under no particular obligation to support them. And they'd be right not to... that's a can of worms you're opening up there, no smaller than the can of worms that Dell and HP have to deal with when some idiot design flaw in Windows makes their computers perform poorly.

If you'd rather live in the WinPC world of rickety PC cases, hotkeys that aren't consistent from one app to the next (Ctrl-F to Find EXCEPT in Windows own OUTLOOK? WTF?), application interfaces that are wildly inconsistent and idiotically unergonomic... and so on, then go buy some other gadget and be done with it.

 

[Akitakoi]

Screw The Sdk

SCREW THE SDK!

We can do it on our own, look what's been so far!

Apple is not going to stop any apps that the people want from getting on our iPhones.

 

[quantumbits]

I am now officially waiting for Android.

The lack of 802.1x support in the Touch/iPhone platform is the perfect example of the benefits associated with an open SDK. There is no reason why Apple should be dragging their feet with 802.1x. But they are. Open up the SDK and I guarantee you that we would see that functionality within a week.

 

[LoganT]

SCREW THE SDK!

We can do it on our own, look what's been so far!

Apple is not going to stop any apps that the people want from getting on our iPhones.

Tell me some of these amazing applications made by people?

 

[SFC Archer]

So a chat program takes 40 people? Why does a single programmer need to write 100 programs? Software is still the one field where all it takes is 1 man and a vision. I'm not assuming anything about time or money. Look at the apps that are already out there for the jailbroken phones. That right there seems to show there are at least some people who want to write software for the iphone and have the time and resources to do so.

Also, you're talking about apps the scope of an MS Office. I'm talking about all of the small apps that could make the iphone more useful. The problem is that Apple doesn't want anyone 'meeting the market need' before they do (which will happen if the release and open the SDK). This is their right, I'm just confused how anyone can defend it and say it's good for the consumer.

You said it your self Surfer..."small apps that could make the iphone more useful" IMHO, that is exactly what Apple is trying to do with this "rumored" model.

Let me use Treo as an example...totally open, 100's of third party apps that can be purchased on a multitude of web sites. You even get to try them out before you purchase and probably 90% of them worked flawlessly (had one for 3 years) but the minute you pay for the license and encode it, the phone would continously crash, freeze and just plain not work. A few times I even had to restore the phone because there was not control.

The iPhone is not perfect, I had to replace my original purchased on iDay due to wifi connection and battery issues. The replacement has been perfect, the OS is the best OS i have ever had. I have had to reset my phone maybe once a quarter, never had to do a restore. I would like to see this continue. No one...to include all of the posted "Rumors" has stated that the 3rd party apps would be denied. It states that they will be tested (for the benefit of the user) and distributed through iTunes (for the protection of the user). They are trying to maintain a control to benefit all of the average users and reduce the potential of crashes and errors. Not one of the rumors discriminates about who or what will be accepted or denied. I think that there is too much assumption in the "rumor" that this will be such a restricted SDK when there is no proof or statements to that assumption. We should all wait and see what will be and even then not all will be happy but the majority of average users will be satisfied until the next best greatest gadget is released and we start this whole song and dance over again.