iPhone SDK Details Emerging?

[Otaviano]

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

I couldn't agree more ... matter of fact I'm kind of hoping it happens. I own an iPhone and I really love it. I naturally unlocked mine, because out of general principle Apple will not get a dime of my cell bill. '

I can't stand Apple's approach to this product and what's more frustrating is watching people line up and make lame excuse after lame excuse to defend it. When had this behavior taken place back when the Mac was struggling that vast majority of us would have moved on.

A bit ironic that the company behind the iconic "1984" would end up behaving just like Big Brother.

 

[dicklacara]

First Impressions

These are my first impressions, before reading everyone else's opinions.

1) Apple tends to initially "over control" their products to maintain a "Apple" level of quality, usability, reliability, etc... This is not, necessarily, a bad thing... nor is it unexpected.

2) Over time, Apple loosens control to satisfy the needs and realities of the marketplace. Case in point the iPhone:
-- Initially, closed system, no 3rd-party apps except those contracted by Apple.
-- Early on, Apple supports/encourages web-apps for iPhone
-- Then the Jailbreak crowd demonstrates the need & viability of native 3rd-party apps
-- Later Apple recognizes this fait accompli, reorganizes how apps run on iPhone and sets about to build a SDK for the public to use.

3) As much as still possible, Apple wants to "over control" the SDK apps for the same reasons: to maintain a "Apple" level of quality, usability, reliability, etc...

4) Even if these rumors are true, the iPhone and (never before opened) iPod Touch will have come a long way from the initial closed system, in a very short time.

5) If the SDK solution that Apple provides, does not meet the needs of the marketplace, then Jailbreaking will continue, likely at an accelerated pace.

6) If Apple declares certain parts of the iPhone "off limits" in the SDK, e.g. BT or the Accessory/Dock connector-- then this will only focus the efforts of the Jailbrakers.

7) There, likely are (or will be), multiple levels of SDK access to iPhone functions. For instance, the IT department of a large corporation or institution may have an SDK that allows them to encrypt data and remotely erase and brick a lost/stolen iPhone.

Sooner, rather than later, Apple will find a way accommodate the needs of customers, developers and maintain Apple's level of quality... that's what they do!

Even MS, eventually, gives customers what they want.... XP!

Dick

 

[diamond.g]

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.

From my understanding AT&T may or may not really care. Even if you don't use your minutes you are still paying, and if you are using 3G you are paying for that as well. So in the end AT&T still gets paid.

 

[Eraserhead]

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

Well as parapup suggested, maybe unsigned applications could be sandboxed. But other than that I can't think of a better solution.

 

[parapup]

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.

That would mean that Apple would not have to endorse/sign/verify those Mobile apps and any one can freely download them from anywhere including Apple Downloads site. (Apple downloads is just a courtesy site - Apple doesn't require you to post your app there, nor do they endorse/verify it etc.)

That certainly is the hope but from what has been heard so far it doesn't seem that way. If it turns out that way well that'd be great.

 

[abijnk]

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.

SFC Archer answered this already.

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.

-------------------------------------

From my understanding AT&T may or may not really care. Even if you don't use your minutes you are still paying, and if you are using 3G you are paying for that as well. So in the end AT&T still gets paid.

That makes a lot of sense. That would be really great then if those apps would be allowed!

 

[SFC Archer]

These are my first impressions, before reading everyone else's opinions.

1) Apple tends to initially "over control" their products to maintain a "Apple" level of quality, usability, reliability, etc... This is not, necessarily, a bad thing... nor is it unexpected.

2) Over time, Apple loosens control to satisfy the needs and realities of the marketplace. Case in point the iPhone:
-- Initially, closed system, no 3rd-party apps except those contracted by Apple.
-- Early on, Apple supports/encourages web-apps for iPhone
-- Then the Jailbreak crowd demonstrates the need & viability of native 3rd-party apps
-- Later Apple recognizes this fait accompli, reorganizes how apps run on iPhone and sets about to build a SDK for the public to use.

3) As much as still possible, Apple wants to "over control" the SDK apps for the same reasons: to maintain a "Apple" level of quality, usability, reliability, etc...

4) Even if these rumors are true, the iPhone and (never before opened) iPod Touch will have come a long way from the initial closed system, in a very short time.

5) If the SDK solution that Apple provides, does not meet the needs of the marketplace, then Jailbreaking will continue, likely at an accelerated pace.

6) If Apple declares certain parts of the iPhone "off limits" in the SDK, e.g. BT or the Accessory/Dock connector-- then this will only focus the efforts of the Jailbrakers.

7) There, likely are (or will be), multiple levels of SDK access to iPhone functions. For instance, the IT department of a large corporation or institution may have an SDK that allows them to encrypt data and remotely erase and brick a lost/stolen iPhone.

Sooner, rather than later, Apple will find a way accommodate the needs of customers, developers and maintain Apple's level of quality... that's what they do!

Even MS, eventually, gives customers what they want.... XP!

Dick

Well said Dick...have to totally agree with you and might I add (without putting words into your mouth) It is their soul right to do so...they own the phone and can do what they want with it...obviously they will learn as they go and fix what needs to be fixed but they sure arent going to bow down to a bunch of whiney thread posts when the majority are happy with what they have and keep buying the product.

 

[kainjow]

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.

Exactly. I don't think this model will last. Apple will have to be more open eventually.

 

[kingtj]

I just see this resulting in a "fork" in the road ....

I can understand Apple's reasoning for what they're doing, but the REAL key to making this whole thing go smoothly is whether or not Apple will agree to stop actively fighting the jailbreak efforts.

There's a lot of value to be had by Apple's strategy, if indeed, they're going to act as "gatekeeper" for officially released apps, pushed through their iTunes software. (Presumably, for example, this would allow corporate iPhone users to install additional applications they want/need on their phones without hassle from their I.T. dept. or managers, concerned about the "security risk" of using code of unknown origin or quality.)

On the other end of the spectrum though, sure - you're always going to have "power users" and hobbyists (like me!) who don't mind re-flashing or hacking their phones to do things that weren't originally intended to be done with them. I'm fine with an understanding that this might void my factory warranty, and certainly means no "support" from Apple for problems I encounter. BUT - I don't like seeing Apple trying to FORCE things like "Installer.app" to go away by locking it out with each firmware update they do.

Ideally, you'll have things work "officially" and in a "supported" manner on stock phones using Apple's rules, AND the option of easily modifying your phone to use the "unsupported" repository of apps made by 3rd. parties and given away free. Depending on your situation and personal concerns/priorities, you can go either way with it.

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.

 

[michelepri]

Come on Google, please be quick with your phone. We need to escape from this Apple Big Brother nightmare!

 

[Spades]

It is their soul right to do so...they own the phone and can do what they want with it

No, they do not own the phone. They can have certain terms of service, but that only applies if you use the service. Which means Apple has no say in how Touches and unlocked iPhones are used.

 

[Svennig]

Well as parapup suggested, maybe unsigned applications could be sandboxed. But other than that I can't think of a better solution.

Then stop thinking. This isn't something that can be solved.

 

[parapup]

So when are you selling your iPhone?

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.

I did not sell my iPhone - just that I jailbroke and unlocked it and decided no more money in Apple/AT&T pocket. I don't know if for my money I would ever accept a coporate overlord telling me what app I can develop and what app I can download for what amount of money. If you do well - it looks like it would be better for you not to rely on your judgement and liking and instead have a far away clueless corporation decide on your behalf.

And if you cannot write in a mature fashion or if you cannot comprehend that others can have different opinions than you - my advice would be that you stop public interactions, get the problem sorted and then try again. Ok?

 

[Kedrik]

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

You being shielded.

STELLAAAA using best Marlon Brando voice....

You are suggesting that they allow "functionality" that doesn't work?

The fact that the phone works consistently is a good thing, no?

 

[Tosser]

Oh, haha, this is just swell. Another excessive control-move by Apple. And yet people still twist it so it sounds like a good a thing.

A week or two ago, the Apple-apologists were going "There's nothing wrong with the iPhone or the Touch. When the SDK comes, we will have GPS, and all of you who think it's crippled will be put to shame".

And now, with this news, the very same people it seems are going "but this means quality" …

You have to be kidding me. Are people really buying this shyte?

First of all, you won't get any third party hardware (oh, yes, a sleeve and a radiotransmitter plugged into the headphone jack is sure useful ), and there will be no third party software to compete directly with the apps of Apple/AT&T .

It's like having to buy your food and what have you all at 7eleven, yet people are _still_ going "but it means quality".

Sheesh! Apple is acting as Microsoft – when Microsoft was acting their worst. Yet people still defend them and, unfortunately, still buy their products hoping that Apple will open up. Well, they won't. Stop buying crippled products from them.

 

[darkblu]

Let me get this straight. I have to dedicate crazy time, money, effort to build software for the iPhone and then it's a crap shoot if Apple will let me get my investment back and not the marketplace?

if apple rejected your app i'd bet my monthly salary that you did not 'dedicate crazy time, money and effort'. either that or you were utterly naive and when ahead without a clue of what could and could not pass.

I guess in economics they call that "barriers of entry". I'd like to add the adjective "needless" in front of that phrase. This alone is going to discourage the kinda fun $5 game from coming out except by the big shots.

Un-friggin-real.

ever heard of the "unreal" game consoles and their "unreal" market model?


for all the knee-jerker in this thead:
apple is offering a consumer-friendly platform. they cannot, and will not, turn this into a 'free-for-all', simply because the average consumer cannot exist in a 'free-for-all' environment. ever seen your parents and grandparents computing happily under linux? or under windows without the obligatory and utterly annoying anti-virus, anti-malware and and-you-name-it security governants? - i doubt it.

 

[Poll Smoker]

All this whining is ridiculous.

Totally! The only thing worse is the knee-jerk reactions of fanboys defending everything Apple does! I hate that!

 

[christian_k]

Why? So I can get your free break-my-iPod app on my iPod without Apple knowing? Yeah, people with your attitude will be missed by myself and I'm sure by Apple.

At least we'll get quality apps, and not deadwood.

Everyone can develop Apps for the Mac without Apple knowing.

Yes, maybe its not possible to "brick" a Mac this way, but an iPhone is a peace of junk compared to the value just of the data a lot of people have on their computers.

A well done system should be able to prevent "normal" apps from accessing dangerous things like raw flash devices etc.

 

[OldCrustyMacDev]

Apple already has a plan

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.

Yes and no - as you yourself mention below. You don't need approval if you restrict yourself to a subset of the total functionality. This is a key point that many people making comparisons between the iPhone and other smartphones miss. They claim other phones let you download and run any applications, which is misleading - it's only applications that meet a restricted set of functionality.

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.

Exactly. And how can you accomplish this? One way is to restrict these unsigned apps to an API and language set already designed for sandboxing.

Why is it hard for Apple - because of the technology they chose. Blackberry can run applications in a sandbox, Apple currently cannot.

And here's where you missed. Apple already has a technology that has a restricted API, is designed to run (and does in fact run) in a sandbox - and they've had it for over 3 years. They've even created a rich development toolkit for this technology.

It's Widgets - written to run in the WebKit sandbox, but with local code and data persistence, and limited access to the native API. It's been proven and tested, and the Dashcode toolset is new but shows great promise.

Yes, full blown native apps will be restricted, certified by Apple, available only through iTunes, etc. But Widgets for the iPhone will be just like podcasts - free to produce, free to distribute, free to do whatever you want within the limits of the environment (free as in speech, and free as in beer if the developers so choose).

What can you do within this limited environment? While I can't say for sure, it's pretty easy to evaluate based on what we've seen so far. Games, yes (although high-performance games may prefer to be native apps). Chat client, yes. VoIP, probably not. Unix shell, a big no. Other ideas? Just take a looks at the widgets available now for the Leopard Dashboard and you'll get an idea of where you can go with this.

And best of all, even though the full SDK is delayed, Widgets for the iPhone will be ready and available starting in a week. <crossed fingers>

 

[Poll Smoker]

It is their soul right to do so...they own the phone and can do what they want with it...

 

[Tosser]

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.

Ah, yes. I guess that the average user don't use disk mode. The average user don't use copy/paste, reading a PDF or other document they might want to put on there, not to mention all the rest of the crippling that Apple has done purposefully. Only "geeks, fanboys, trolls and worldly unhappy individuals" would ever think of something that extreme. Good thinking.

Also, I'm wondering if you're even aware of what the words you type mean? A fanboy (I'm assuming an Apple-one?) is hardly someone calling Apple out because of the crippling. A geek that is technophobe? Another example of excellent thinking on your part

 

[Supermacguy]

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.

I agree 100%. I'm a single guy just making some apps, some which might only be for my use. I disagree with Apple needing to 'approve' all apps on the phone/pod. Hopefully there will be a way around it. I think I will add a feedback report a while.

 

[Poll Smoker]

Ah, yes. I guess that the average user don't use disk mode. The average user don't use copy/paste, reading a PDF or other document they might want to put on there, not to mention all the rest of the crippling that Apple has done purposefully. Only "geeks, fanboys, trolls and worldly unhappy individuals. Good thinking


Also, I'm wondering if you're even aware of what the words you type mean? A fanboy (I'm assuming an Apple-one?) is hardly someone calling Apple out because of the crippling. A geek that is technophobe? Another example of excellent thinking on your part

Take it easy on him. He clearly doesn't understand what words mean!

 

[Svennig]

if apple rejected your app i'd bet my monthly salary that you did not 'dedicate crazy time, money and effort'. either that or you were utterly naive and when ahead without a clue of what could and could not pass.

Aaah I see - may I have a copy of the list of things that will and will not pass that you clearly own?

 

[Tosser]

Aaah I see - may I have a copy of the list of things that will and will not pass that you clearly own?

Ah, a strawman …