iPhone SDK Details Emerging?

[Poltras]

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.

You know, you're right. We should also remove all security in airports, because the risk of a plane being overturned by terrorists and thrown in buildings is what... once in 50 years?

 

[Mac21ND]

No it's not. iTunes is just a podcast directory. Each podcast still handles its own distribution.

In the case of podcast, iTunes is the central hub of content; most of which would have never been noticed unless Apple allowed users to create and distribute content via iTunes.

Most podcast come from users who have no marketing budget, no technical infrastructure other than having the time and labor associated with making a podcast.

For the vast majority of third-party developers, they are similar to podcast creators. They stay up until 3 am, drinking mt. dew, coding away. I think their devotion is cool. But they're not marketers or a distribution company, they don't know how to communicate the benefits of program to others. Their best bet is to make a cool web site to distribute it and hopefully user groups, or Macworld, or something similar will notice them.

Image if at the end of my all night, mt. dew laced, coding session I could upload my program to iTunes for distribution to users. I could set the price, say it's free - whatever. The infrastructure is already there. All I have to do is tap into it. Even if Apple takes a cut (which they should) it's a whole lot better than trying to market my program on my own.

 

[Eraserhead]

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.

The fundamental flaw with this is that in general the user isn't actually capable of making this decision.

 

[abijnk]

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 and will 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.

I guess my views on what apple will do with the iphone is a lot like they do with widgets. You submit your widget and they approve it and post it on their site (correct me if I am wrong here).

I think the blackberry model you described it good, and I also think that the itunes method (as I have it in my head) wouldn't be that much different, really.

Here's my idea, what I would like to see happen.

A developer comes up with an application for the phone an submits it to Apple with their desire for pricing (or lack thereof). Apple reviews the application for malicious intentions, maybe some minor obvious bugs and then "approves" or "declines" the application. In the approved situation I would imagine they would post the application on iTunes (perhaps even the wi-fi store???) with the price suggested from the developer. Then whomever would like to get the application downloads it and syncs it to their phone.

We can sit around a speculate all day, but really only time would tell. However, I don't think you and I see things as differently as it first appeared.

 

[boz0]

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?

If and when that day comes, it's likely talented individuals will do some reverse engineering on the iTunes protocol and write a private server.

 

[Otaviano]

The fundamental flaw with this is that in general the user isn't actually capable of making this decision.

That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard in my life. I should come to your house and take away from computer and replace it with one where you have no privileges to install any software. Clearly the user is not capable of making that decision.

How has the computer industry managed to not collapse all these years? Why aren't cellular networks collapsing every other night from uneducated Blackberry users?

Give me a break

 

[Spades]

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.

I actually respect what you're saying, believe it or not. You could indeed eliminate a lot of security problems with centralized quality control and application signing. The problem with that is you lose lots of freedom. That's why your route should be an option, not the only way.

Image if at the end of my all night, mt. dew laced, coding session I could upload my program to iTunes for distribution to users. I could set the price, say it's free - whatever. The infrastructure is already there. All I have to do is tap into it. Even if Apple takes a cut (which they should) it's a whole lot better than trying to market my program on my own.

An application directory in iTunes isn't a bad idea. It's a good place for it; way more visible than the desktop application directory on Apple's website. It's Apple being the sole gatekeeper that's a bad idea.

 

[LoganT]

What would be really cool is if you could buy the applications off the iTunes WIFI Music Store.

 

[Eraserhead]

How has the computer industry managed to not collapse all these years. Why aren't cellular networks collapsing every other night from uneducated Blackberry users?

Give me a break

How come so many Windows users have spyware on their machines?

I actually respect what you're saying, believe it or not. You could indeed eliminate a lot of security problems with centralized quality control and application signing. The problem with that is you lose lots of freedom. That's why your route should be an option, not the only way.

The issue is separating the users who know what we are doing like us, and those who don't which is very difficult. Forcing application signing is the only route that might actually work. This is how businesses run their Windows system very successfully.

 

[SFC Archer]

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.

So when are you selling your iPhone? What you have stated was/is true for its time and place but that is slowly ending. New times call for new platforms and a way to distribute trusted software/apps.

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/ne...ds-in-corporate-smartphone-satisfaction/13536

Not only is this starting to happen but I seem to recall to major shut-downs for lengthy periods of time with this ohhh so secure system. Just an observation, not an argument.

I totally agree with what apple is doing, because again...they are looking at what the "AVERAGE" user will do/use...not what a bunch of geeks, fanboys, trolls and worldly unhappy individuals post in this "Rumored" forum (no offense ment). The majority of you unhappy, restricted individuals need to open your minds and accept the fact the this is all being designed for the average, simple user...not the tecno phobe....and so far it seems to be working, otherwise they would change...just a simple thought and opinion...nothing to get your panties in a wad about.

 

[Svennig]

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.



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

There is a world of difference between "can" and "does". Just because an application might affect someone else (in the case of a virus, which is a flaw in the underlying operating system), does not mean that they all will.

In reality, the chances of this affecting others is absolutely miniscule.

A crowbar can be used for a burglary; should we restrict the sale of crowbars?

 

[abijnk]

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?

Apple can hire new employees. Actually, if they need help with this I will send them my resume . I see you point though. It would be a time demanding venture.

As for the conflicts of interest between Apple and AT&T (with things such as skype, adium, etc.) I would be very very surprised if Apple allows such things. (not to say I wouldn't like them)

 

[Eraserhead]

In reality, the chances of this affecting others is absolutely miniscule.

What about Zombie computers? Every time I receive spam email I'm getting it because someone has allowed their computer to be hacked. Ditto with DDoS attacks, these problems aren't going to get better until you make changes to the current status quo.

 

[iSee]

This is fine, IF...

There are two things here:
1. A supported SDK for writing iPhone/Touch apps (that won't break every time the firmware is updated)
2. A distribution system via iTunes Store.

It's perfectly fine if Apple wants to approve apps distributed through iTunes. It's their store and they can sell what they want there.

BUT HOPEFULLY, the SDK is not ball-and-chained to that distribution system. That is, app developers *should* be able to use the SDK to develop their apps but distribute via another system.

Let's say the app bundle just needs to be added to a particular folder in an iTunes library for it to be available for syncing to your phone/touch. How it gets there--whether it's itunes store, manual download, or some other distribution system--is up to the owner of the iPhone/Touch!

 

[grimjim]

What would be really cool is if you could buy the applications off the iTunes WIFI Music Store.

I suspect that this, or something very similar, is what the "Software Update" sign on the iPhone Software Roadmap invitation is alluding to. That there will be some method of installing and updating iPhone apps over the air. But if so, it's on the other side of 'SDK', so we won't be seeing it any time soon.

 

[Otaviano]

How come so many Windows users have spyware on their machines?

Because it's the dominant platform, had it been Apple to come out on top then it would have been Apple in the same position.

Also the vast majority of spyware is contracted without the user actually downloading and installing anything because of how insecure Internet Explorer is.

So you would be down to take a computer with no privileges? Or are you above your statement?

 

[Spades]

The issue is separating the users who know what we are doing like us, and those who don't which is very difficult. Forcing application signing is the only route that might actually work. This is how businesses run their Windows system very successfully.

For consumers: way too draconian. For business: great idea, except it should be under the control of the company's IT department possibly with support of the software developer, not Apple, Microsoft, or any other third party.

 

[razorianfly]

What would be really cool is if you could buy the applications off the iTunes WIFI Music Store.

This would work perfectly! - But I think videos will hit first before full on application downloads.

I honestly can't see the 'iTunes Wifi Music Store' remaining that for long.

With the hype it got when released (if I remember correctly, it was a 'one more thing' announcement at one of the Macworld conferences) - I can't see it just offering music for much longer. Videos, TV Shows, and More will come, in time.

R-Fly

 

[Eraserhead]

Also the vast majority of spyware is contracted without the user actually downloading and installing anything because of how insecure Internet Explorer is.

That isn't actually true any more. Mostly the user chooses to install the software themselves.

 

[Sheepless]

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.

How are Apple going to test every application? Perhaps my app will only misbehave under some rare combination of circumstances: it would be hard for Apple to catch this (they often fail to spot bugs in their own code!). And testing costs money: if Apple intend to do meaningful testing of every app before allowing distribution, this cost will probably rule out most free (as in beer) software.

The bottom line, if this rumour is true, is that Apple are restricting the customer's choice. If you wish to limit yourself to software distributed by Apple, because this makes you feel safer, that's fine and understandable. But why should every user be subject to the same restriction?

 

[Poll Smoker]

If people in the world could play nice then this SDK issue might have been mute from the start ...

That's a lot of words from someone who doesn't know the difference between "mute" and "moot".

 

[wolfpackfan]

I can promise you that the Apple certifications of applications is being driven by AT&T. AT&T does not want consumers calling them when they have problems with an application nor do they want applications on the phone that may expose vulnerabilities in their network.

Baloney. AT&T also supports the Motorola Q and the Treos, all of which have very strong third party app support. AT&T doesn't control what apps you can install on these phones. Why should the iPhone be any different. In my opinion Apple just wants to be Big Brother and control everything that goes on the iPhone. Yesterday I cancelled my AT&T account because the service in my house in lousy. I have gone back to my Moto Q and it is so refreshing to have the freedom to install and use my Q anyway I wish without Big Brother telling me what I can do. I had planned on just using my phoneless iPhone as a Touch, but right now I don't know that I want to have anything to do with Apple.

 

[UltraNurd]

I'm not *too* bothered by most of it - some apps are better than nothing, and I've little doubt that the key to allow applications that Apple refuses to still be installed will be forthcoming in hours rather months.

However, no dock access is a major, major ****up. One of the things I've been looking forward to with the SDK is third parties picking up Apple's slack and giving us a working radio remote or an external synced flash for the camera. Possibly even bluetooth keyboard support. I just cannot fathom any reason for not including it, because it's really, really stupid.

If I had to guess, Apple is going to cripple the SDK just enough to make sure that no one can release a widget that will turn an iPod Touch or iPhone into a VoIP phone (and therefore kill their revenue stream through at&t).

 

[SFC Archer]

How are Apple going to test every application? Perhaps my app will only misbehave under some rare combination of circumstances: it would be hard for Apple to catch this (they often fail to spot bugs in their own code!). And testing costs money: if Apple intend to do meaningful testing of every app before allowing distribution, this cost will probably rule out most free (as in beer) software.

The bottom line, if this rumour is true, is that Apple are restricting the customer's choice. If you wish to limit yourself to software distributed by Apple, because this makes you feel safer, that's fine and understandable. But why should every user be subject to the same restriction?

Testing will more then likely be done throught the Apple Seed program which is utilizing everyday users with both Macs and PCs...it wont slow anything down that much at all or effect the way Apple does business.

 

[i.mac]

As a small 3rd party developer I'm just going to refuse to do anything for the iPhone/iTouch platform if Apple acts like a gatekeeper. If iTunes is an option that's fine, if its mandatory and Apple has to approve each app I'm just not interested. Hopefully other developers feel the same way.

why would others feel like yourself? If anyone has a good program for the iphone, why would it be rejected? iPhone owners are a rich niche market, and if you reach 1/4 of all of them, you'll be compensated handsomely for your troubles. What is bad about this model?

Moreover, most folks would not want any body to put a rogue program in their iPhone, and therefore, having Apple seal of approval is a must.

Not happy? Jailbreak the iPhone and be done with it. Thank you very much.