iPhone SDK Details Emerging?

[Hooka]

Ugh.. I'm keeping my jailbreak. This SDK release is becoming more and more dismal with each new update.

Your jailbreak is the problem. Apple has a right to control who and what gets the seal of approval. You haven't taken a trip to your local Apple store and tried to get your phone serviced. They usually just replace the phone. Like they did with mine.

Do you think that Apple wants a Genius Bar in every AT&T store (which wouldn't be a bad idea), but I digress. The point is your Jail-breaking ways has forced Apple's hand to clamp down on you lill bastards that can't wait for "official" software releases.

 

[gyumilly]

There's so much iPhone can do, but Apple is just limiting too strictly.

 

[SFC Archer]

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).

Again...it was just stated above by a poster that is leaving apple.

Blackberries, Treo's, Nokia's, LG's etc. are sold by AT&T everyday and they do not have restrictions on all the secondary communication software that is installed on these products every second of every day...they havent increased fees or set up addition restrictions to account for this so why would it be any different for the iPhone?

Come on people...lets use some common sense here and not just throw comments out there to acquire 15 sec of moanin.

 

[abijnk]

Blackberries, Treo's, Nokia's, LG's etc. are sold by AT&T everyday and they do not have restrictions on all the secondary communication software that is installed on these products every second of every day...they havent increased fees or set up addition restrictions to account for this so why would it be any different for the iPhone?

Are there chat clients and the like (skype too) for Blackberries and Treo's and the such?

If this is the case then AT&T has set a precedent and we might be able to get things like this on the iPhone. That would be really nice.

 

[i.mac]

Why is this not an issue for Palm, Symbian or Windows Mobile apps then?

Maybe because those are not iPhone?

Who cares about any of those anyway? IS any of the aforementioned devices comparable to the iPhone? So on and so forth...

 

[Konstanty]

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.

Then how and why should any of this apply to the iPod Touch?

 

[Maccus Aurelius]

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!

I was wondering this as well, but I suspect that it will work similarly to iPod games.

 

[rfrankl]

I used to laugh at Microsoft how long it took them to get Vista out (and it still sucks), but lately Apple never seems to his their promised dates either. Everything is always delayed.

 

[parapup]

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

Well on Blackberry even if they are not capable - there can be no harm done as the unsigned and unverified apps basically cannot do anything that causes harm. And it is not like the alternative of having corporations decide for users what is good or bad is not practical either.

 

[redkamel]

apple already announced all applications would have to be approved by them when they announced the SDK. NEXT!

 

[pyramid6]

As I've said before, the iPhone was a great phone when it came out. Now, not as much. They have added one new application, and one new feature since its release (iTunes store, and quasi-gps). What is Apple going to do once Android and Palm's new OS come out? I'm not looking for a phone that 'just works'. I need an extension to my desktops. For that, I need more software. Anything that Apple does to restrict the iPhone/software, is going to hurt iPhones sales. You have to look at it in terms of competition, right now Apple doesn't really have any, but you think Nokia, Samsung, HTC, MS, etc are just going to throw up there hands and quit? This summer I think the iPhone will be knocked off its pedestal by Android.

P6

 

[sebastianlewis]

sebastianlewis, your mad if you think all the apps will be free.

Where did I say or even imply this? I like freeware and FLOSS, but I don't mind paying for applications either when I feel they are easily worth the money. In addition, I don't feel a fee should be slapped on just because Apple wants a cut of the revenue, if they want revenue for software development they can start charging for the tools, not the transaction. But read below the 3rd quote in case you missed it in the forums, it sums up what I think pretty nicely.

An application can be FLOSS/FOSS and still cost money. The term "free" in those acronyms doesn't mean "doesn't cost money." If a developer doesn't want to charge I am sure they won't have to. I would actually be willing to bet on it. Look at the application links for the mac platform. Some cost money and some don't. I think we can all agree that Apple approval is about the only way to prevent malicious code from ruining the iphone experience.

I'm well aware of this, but the vast majority of FLOSS is still freeware, things like Firefox and Adium.

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!

I completely agree!

Sebastian

 

[quantumbits]

Ugh. How disappointing.

No Touch for me.

 

[diamond.g]

Are there chat clients and the like (skype too) for Blackberries and Treo's and the such?

If this is the case then AT&T has set a precedent and we might be able to get things like this on the iPhone. That would be really nice.

Apparantly Skype has been made for WinMo phones.

 

[abijnk]

I feel I need to post this is a more obvious way for those who haven't actually read what Steve Jobs had to say about the SDK. Please click the link below and read the transcript so we are all on the same page here. Thanks!!!

Steve Jobs iPhone SDK Announcement Script

 

[Popeye206]

I used to laugh at Microsoft how long it took them to get Vista out (and it still sucks), but lately Apple never seems to his their promised dates either. Everything is always delayed.

Hummm.... MS misses dates measured in years... Apple misses dates measured in days or weeks! I think there is a slight difference.

 

[The Phazer]

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).

That's no justification for the lack of dock connectivity - if Apple are signing all apps anyway then there's no extra security issue, and they can still block VOIP if they want to.

The only reason I can possibly think of is either lack of technical competence or bad planning, and both of those possibilities make me sad.

Phazer

 

[Eraserhead]

Well on Blackberry even if they are not capable - there can be no harm done as the unsigned and unverified apps basically cannot do anything that causes harm.

Hmm, so maybe that is a better approach, sandbox anything that isn't signed.

Sorry if I have ranted a little in this thread, I do feel there are significant flaws with the way applications are currently distributed on the PC/Mac.

 

[abijnk]

Apparantly Skype has been made for WinMo phones.

Interesting. I must say that the idea of chat clients and VOIP stuff is the part that I am most interested in. Not necessarily because I will actually use them, but because it will be interesting to see how Apple and AT&T handle it.

 

[parapup]

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).

No - they do not force you to download widgets from their site and neither do they sign/verify/endorse those widgets.

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.

The point is that this is not practical - Not all developers have the time and money to get their app certified and Apple cannot possibly keep up if many developers do this. And we are not even thinking about Application updates / bug fixes etc.

Think of what would have happened to Mac OS X if Apple had decided to play the controller - the whole array of nice apps that exist today for OSX would never have existed was it not for the flexibility of Independently developing /deploying and maintaining the applications.

The other thorn in this model is that Apple gets to decide what developers can develop and users can use - for entirely non-sensical authoritative reasons. Control under the disguise of security.

 

[Eraserhead]

The point is that this is not practical - Not all developers have the time and money to get their app certified and Apple cannot possibly keep up if many developers do this. And we are not even thinking about Application updates / bug fixes etc.

I presume it'll work in a similar way to Apple downloads, which works fine and doesn't cost money, or significant time to use.

 

[Svennig]

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.

Malware is a problem. Having someone approve every application is not the solution.

 

[Popeye206]

As I've said before, the iPhone was a great phone when it came out. Now, not as much. They have added one new application, and one new feature since its release (iTunes store, and quasi-gps). What is Apple going to do once Android and Palm's new OS come out? I'm not looking for a phone that 'just works'. I need an extension to my desktops. For that, I need more software. Anything that Apple does to restrict the iPhone/software, is going to hurt iPhones sales. You have to look at it in terms of competition, right now Apple doesn't really have any, but you think Nokia, Samsung, HTC, MS, etc are just going to throw up there hands and quit? This summer I think the iPhone will be knocked off its pedestal by Android.

P6

Wake me up when this happens! How is the iPhone any less of a great device today than it was 6 months ago? It has not even been out a year and there has been more than just one improvement. Also, I think with the SDK coming and an installed base of iPhones out there, there is demand for applications and we'll see plenty. Android is cool... but it's just another phone OS and development platform... someone has to put it in something as slick as the iPhone to "knock it off it's pedestal" as you put it. Oh... and I guess the iPhone would have to stand still too... which I dont think is going to happen.

 

[maknik]

Oh well. At least this removes one reason for waiting to buy: it looks like it's going to be jailbroken iPhones from here on out. It would have been nice to have a legitimate computer-phone that I could do as much with as my laptop, but it seems that Apple's desire for control/money won't allow that. Yet another push towards open-source for me. Maybe the 3G will come out soon enough to keep me from defecting to Linux phones or Android.

 

[i.mac]

...
I need an extension to my desktops. For that, I need more software. Anything that Apple does to restrict the iPhone/software, is going to hurt iPhones sales.
...

This summer I think the iPhone will be knocked off its pedestal by Android.

P6

do not mean to offend, but I wonder, are you a teenager?

why do you 'need' any thing from the iphone? What did you do last year at this time with your 'need' ? Does your particular 'need' is of any consequence to any body other than you and those in your closed circle?

Apple has done well without you for a good while, and I am sure that will be the case with or without your approval.

Finally, when Android knocks the iPhone, then go with it, and the rest of us keep our shiny iPhone just the same without having to deal with your 'needs'

All this whining is ridiculous.