iPhone SDK Details Emerging?

[Svennig]

Woah - feeling the hate here!

Guys, Gals, Seriously, please can we all chill out?

No-one's saying that all the apps will be free. However, there are apps available now for the phone that are distributed free of charge - what will happen to these applications? How will commercial apps be costed?

There's room for both models, free and non-free.

Much much much more concerning is Apple's control of what can get onto the phone; it's my phone, I should be able to put what I like on it. You wouldn't tolerate this kind of restriction on an iMac or your Macbook, would you?

I think Apple is hell bent on maintaining quality on the phone and not letting things that might harm the phone onto it. I also think Apple is hell bent on making access easy for users.

Attitudes such as this confuse me. It's not apple's place to prevent you from installing something you want to install. Even if it harms the phone.

 

[slffl]

Sounds GREAT to me! The last thing I want is a Palm/Windows Mobile type of setup where there are thousands of crappy software programs and only a few dozen really worth owning.

Give me the ones that are up to Apple's standards and I'll be happy.

 

[gnasher729]

This is a very good point which I hadn't thought about. In my line of work I could consider some very nice applications for the iPhone that I could code up that couldn't be done either as a web app, and definitely could not be released to the public. If all apps for the iPhone have to be vetted through Apple and then released to the public, then this would put a definite cramp on any "in-house" business iPhone apps.

I think it depends on what kind of damage you could do with a borked application installed on an iPhone. If the worst you can do is crash (and in a way that it can be attributed to your application, so the people using your application won't bother Apple) then it should be fine.

If it is possible to physically damage the iPhone using a badly written application, that would be a tricky thing. For example, if you had to send your application to Apple, and it comes back with an installer that says "This software is written by XYZ company and intended for exclusive use by XYZ company only. All responsibility is with XYZ, not with Apple", would that be fine with you?

If it is possible to damage the AT&T phone network, then I'd expect that Apple wants to check your application before allowing you to use it on _your_ phone. I have no idea if that is possible.

 

[GroundLoop]

Do you think the security of the iPhone/Touch is any weaker than desktop OS X? If so, why not be more worried about that than third-party apps?

I think that this is the heart of the matter here. The version of OSX on the iPhone is much lighter weight than what you have on your Mac. There is likely several layers of security that have been stripped out of OSX to make this OSX-Lite perform well on the limited cpu resources of the iPhone and iPod Touch.

This is why the SDK needs to strongly guard what areas on OSX-Lite are available to the developer so that the overall security of the device is maintained. This was not a problem in the closed ecosystem. I also think that part of the possible "delay" is to ensure that OSX-Lite's security is beefed up to protect the devices and save Apple from a zillion hours of support calls.

Hickman

 

[Svennig]

No, its a security issue. If you prevented non-computer experts from download executable files from any site except Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Download.com and other download sites computers would be a hell of a lot more secure.

Is that you George Orwell?

 

[roland.g]

I was thinking about all the 3rd party apps and dev kits for the iPods all these years. Oh, wait, there weren't any. Until games, and that was iPod v.5.

So quit your crying.

 

[olternaut]

Please, please, just give me my Slingbox client and everything will be ok.

None of this surprises me and should be very good for Apple and its customers. Although, the thing about no accessory support is a bit of a downer. Perhaps that could be relaxed over time. Even still this is good stuff.

 

[Rot'nApple]

If true, this is a lot of folks' worst-case scenario. Very unfortunate and short-sighted on Apple's part. This strongly suggests, as well, that free applications will be non-existent. Forget a chat or VOIP application.

The silver lining is that Apple originally didn't plan (or at least didn't tell us) an SDK at all, but here we are. So maybe they'll loosen up over time.

This is really control-freaky, even for Apple.

Free applications may be non-existent, but that does not mean that Apple, through iTunes, cannot have a "Free App of the Month" just like the "Free Single of the Week". I have gotten a lot of songs, as well as music video and a few tv shows downloaded through iTunes that I never had to pay, thanks to taking advantage of those 'special' offerings.

Regarding Apple being "control-freaky", that's the price we pay ever since the first hacker wrote malicious code for software. If people in the world could play nice then this SDK issue might have been mute from the start and we could have been enjoying native apps in the beginning. I know about 'Jail Break' and all the apps out there now, just saying, it only takes, pardon the pun, one bad apple of an app. If Apple is distributing through iTunes, the last thing Apple wants or needs is customer service or discussion boards being jammed with calls from people who got an iPhone app through iTunes and it did "insert adjective here" this to my phone (or iPod Touch). Grant it, we may not get the cutesy apps like a "snow globe" iPhone or a "bic lighter flame" iPhone that you can sway back and forth at the next concert, but between an app that really improves the capability of the iPhone that tens of thousands will want or something cute that hundreds will want, I'll go with Apple on this one with the cavet that it's all about the user experience - plentiful great apps that improve the iPhone, with a nice selection of some cute secondary apps all with the Apple approval that downloading the darn things won't give you headaches in the end.

 

[Stella]

iPhone is a weak beta product??? Mine works consistently great, which is why I want more applications on it. I've not had problems with my i-phone, so if this is beta, boy am I excited for the final release.

Thats because Apple are only allowing you to use the functionality that works.

You being shielded.

Sounds GREAT to me! The last thing I want is a Palm/Windows Mobile type of setup where there are thousands of crappy software programs and only a few dozen really worth owning.

Give me the ones that are up to Apple's standards and I'll be happy.

Then don't install crap applications. Its easy. Applications don't automatically appear on your iPhone.

Define crap - one person will think an application is great, whilst the other has no interest.

Nanny Apple.

 

[abijnk]

Attitudes such as this confuse me. It's not apple's place to prevent you from installing something you want to install. Even if it harms the phone.

I don't understand what is confusing. Who loses if Apple looks at each program and sees if it will harm the phone? Seriously who does that harm and who does that restrict? It only restricts people who want to write malicious code. This is what I am hoping Apple will do, look for malicious code. Will this be all they will do? I don't know, and neither do you.

Also, next time you quote me try to understand the context in which I said something. The poster to which I was replying said Apple seemed hell bent on destroying the iPhone. I think the steps Apple are taking are for quality reasons and not because they don't want everyone to be able to develop for the phone. That's not an attitude, its an opinion. I never said I think Apple SHOULD restrict what can and cannot be placed on the phone, that would be an attitude.

 

[GroundLoop]

None of this surprises me and should be very good for Apple and its customers. Although, the thing about no accessory support is a bit of a downer. Perhaps that could be relaxed over time. Even still this is good stuff.

Accessory support is what also gives the developer much more access into the OSX-Lite's infrastructure. There are likely security concerns with that kind of access.

It will come in time once OSX-Lite's security is there.

Hickman

 

[Stella]

Are you crazy? Or just naive?

Remember Google is your friend:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone-virus.htm

Are you naive?

That affected very very very very few people.

The risk was very very very low of anyone getting a virus on their phone.

Risk v reality.

Maybe you should load your Mac up with virus checkers / anti-adware applications *just in case*.

Reality: The risk of getting a virus on your phone is MUCH lower than getting a virus on OSX.

 

[grimjim]

This is a very good point which I hadn't thought about. In my line of work I could consider some very nice applications for the iPhone that I could code up that couldn't be done either as a web app, and definitely could not be released to the public. If all apps for the iPhone have to be vetted through Apple and then released to the public, then this would put a definite cramp on any "in-house" business iPhone apps.

I feel much the same way. There are several small utilities that I was planning to knock together to pass to my colleagues. They will probably be of no interest at all to those outside of the company I work for, so I wouldn't want to put them on iTunes, even if Apple was likely to agree to host them.

If these rumours are true, Apple clearly isn't trying to make the iPhone/iPod touch into a mainstream hand-held computing platform, like PocketPC (or whatever it's called now). They want to keep control of what goes on it and what it can do. Partly this will be for security reasons, I'm sure. But I'm also sure that much of it will be to prevent developers coming up with applications that could damage Apple's own future software sales, or their partners' profits. So there will be no iChat clients or VOIP apps, because to use those would deprive Apple's partners of revenue from voice or text. No doubt there will be other apps that Apple wants to be the one to introduce, and any third-party app that looks similar will not be made available through iTunes. So I suspect that there will be a few, very polished apps (mostly games, I would expect), and yes, folks, you will have to pay for them. I expect that the SDK will be used to write better apps for use with jailbroken phones, and that, as long as jailbreaking is possible on the iPhone, this will be the way that the smaller utilities, "private use" apps and hobbyist apps will be made available.

 

[brinycbri]

wait i dont get it (and/or im ignorant)..but what does the beta sdk really mean? does that mean i have to wait until june to play games on my iphone?

 

[abijnk]

wait i dont get it (and/or im ignorant)..but what does the beta sdk really mean? does that mean i have to wait until june to play games on my iphone?

No one knows for sure.

 

[parapup]

I would love to hear you ideas for this, as I am obviously incompetent and cannot think of them on my own.

Well I am sorry if I made you feel incompetent - that wasn't my intention and I do not think a genius is needed to understand this.

So consider this - Blackberry has done it right since day 1.
1) It is NOT necessary for an application developer to get their application endorsed by RIM or their phone carrier or any central authority.

2) You can download any application you want over the air - the Blackberry will tell you if it is signed and trusted and warn you if it is not. Your choice to trust the source of the application or not.

3) Blackberry applications which are not signed and verified by RIM can do a subset of things on your handset that are proven to make no harm. If the application needs to do some low level stuff that could be harmful it needs to be verified and signed by RIM.

4) You can easily set permissions on all applications - what it can do and what it cannot. The default permissions are secure so you don't get to shoot yourself out of the box.

So the Blackberry apps are easily accessible, can do no harm if they are not verified / signed by Blackberry, they can do very little damage if you explicitly allow them to. And there is still an easy possibility for Application developers who want to do low level stuff that is not allowed for unsigned apps - they can go online, pay $100 USD and get their app verified/signed and bingo they are all set.

Why is it hard for Apple - because of the technology they chose. Blackberry can run applications in a sandbox, Apple currently cannot. The technology barrier is to some extent resolvable but I suspect its a lot of effort.

 

[Spades]

That is the same with applications, but if they were signed then developers can't change the application code afterwards.

I think when you add in the cell phone capability and the mobility of the iPhone there are some additional risks. However, if (AND IF... remember this is a rumor site) they mandate software distribution through iTunes, I don't see that as a bad thing. It will provide consistency... also, maybe the thing they are trying to secure is the API to the iPhone so hackers can't get in and mess with things???? Hummmm... maybe that is it??

Those same issues exist with desktops, so the question remains, do you have a problem with third-party apps on the desktop too? Cell phone capability = always-on internet connection, which most desktops have. Mobility is the same thing as laptops.

I think that this is the heart of the matter here. The version of OSX on the iPhone is much lighter weight than what you have on your Mac. There is likely several layers of security that have been stripped out of OSX to make this OSX-Lite perform well on the limited cpu resources of the iPhone and iPod Touch.

Security is a question of design, not power. The iPhone originally did in fact have a security problem. Everything ran as the superuser. That's been fixed in 1.1.3 with a simple design change. Apps now run as a separate user.

The iPhone is more powerful than a desktop computer from 10 years ago, but I can put the latest versions of Linux on a 10-year-old desktop and have a computer more secure than a 10-day-old PC with Windows XP (and probably Vista) on it.

 

[Popeye206]

wait i dont get it (and/or im ignorant)..but what does the beta sdk really mean? does that mean i have to wait until june to play games on my iphone?

Maybe? Beta means the SDK is still in development and not finished... but again... this is only a RUMOR! We'll know more next week.

 

[twoodcc]

aw man, so we'll have to wait til June again? i'm really disappointed apple.

 

[Stella]

Well I am sorry if I made you feel incompetent - that wasn't my intention and I do not think a genius is needed to understand this.

So consider this - Blackberry has done it right since day 1.
1) It is NOT necessary for an application developer to get their application endorsed by RIM or their phone carrier or any central authority.

2) You can download any application you want over the air - the Blackberry will tell you if it is signed and trusted and warn you if it is not. Your choice to trust the source of the application or not.

3) Blackberry applications which are not signed and verified by RIM can do a subset of things on your handset that are proven to make no harm. If the application needs to do some low level stuff that could be harmful it needs to be verified and signed by RIM.

4) You can easily set permissions on all applications - what it can do and what it cannot. The default permissions are secure so you don't get to shoot yourself out of the box.

So the Blackberry apps are easily accessible, can do no harm if they are not verified / signed by Blackberry, they can do very little damage if you explicitly allow them to. And there is still an easy possibility for Application developers who want to do low level stuff that is not allowed for unsigned apps - they can go online, pay $100 USD and get their app verified/signed and bingo they are all set.

Why is it hard for Apple - because of the technology they chose. Blackberry can run applications in a sandbox, Apple currently cannot. The technology barrier is to some extent resolvable but I suspect its a lot of effort.

Extremely insightful, on the point and accurate.

There's a lot of FUD / misinformation when it comes to ( lack of ) mobile security.

 

[georgeoommen]

so if all apps are to be distributed through itunes then how do developers test their software? If I write a program, I'd like to put it on the iphone and test it out to make sure it works the way I want it to before even I think about submitting it to apple for their signing and publication to the general public. So there has to be a way to get the apps on the phone without going through the itunes route..

anyone.. thoughts??

 

[Svennig]

I don't understand what is confusing. Who loses if Apple looks at each program and sees if it will harm the phone? Seriously who does that harm and who does that restrict? It only restricts people who want to write malicious code. This is what I am hoping Apple will do, look for malicious code. Will this be all they will do? I don't know, and neither do you.

Also, next time you quote me try to understand the context in which I said something. The poster to which I was replying said Apple seemed hell bent on destroying the iPhone. I think the steps Apple are taking are for quality reasons and not because they don't want everyone to be able to develop for the phone. That's not an attitude, its an opinion. I never said I think Apple SHOULD restrict what can and cannot be placed on the phone, that would be an attitude.

Even if I agree with the motivation, that of checking code, you're faced with a logistical problem. If the SDK takes off, and a lot of apps are created, then there are going to be more Apps than QA engineers at apple. Then who are they going to give their time to - the money making ones, or the free ones?

What are they going to do if code comes along that conflicts with their business interests? a phone-based iToner for example, or a skype client, or mobile adium. What happens if someone writes a remote for the appleTV while they have one in development?

 

[razorianfly]

I feel much the same way. There are several small utilities that I was planning to knock together to pass to my colleagues. They will probably be of no interest at all to those outside of the company I work for.

This is easily resolved if Apple plan to introduce application categories within the 'Applications' store of iTunes, which I think is a given at this point, personally.

R-Fly

 

[boz0]

I don't understand what is confusing. Who loses if Apple looks at each program and sees if it will harm the phone? Seriously who does that harm and who does that restrict? It only restricts people who want to write malicious code. This is what I am hoping Apple will do, look for malicious code. Will this be all they will do? I don't know, and neither do you.

As always, time will tell. All I know is that this line of reasoning usually only leads to increased control from whoever holds the power, and less freedom for the consumers, which is something I deeply resent.

 

[Eraserhead]

Those same issues exist with desktops, so the question remains, do you have a problem with third-party apps on the desktop too?

Yes absolutely, figure 1: Windows. Its just politically impossible to bring in the required changes at the moment, as the only company that can do it is Microsoft, and everyone will cry MONOPOLY!!!!1111!! There are various reasons why the Mac doesn't have problems at the moment, but there is no reason that will continue.

Attitudes such as this confuse me. It's not apple's place to prevent you from installing something you want to install. Even if it harms the phone.

Yes it is, because it can affect other people, its the same reason driving tests are mandatory.