iPhone SDK Details Emerging?

[jmorrison0722]

My thoughts

Should this 'rumor' end up being true...I'll be sad about the lack of add-on device supported. All in all though, I'm completely okay with the decision to 'police' the iPhone apps and distribute them only through iTunes. Apple needs to protect their product, and more importantly the perception of their product. Palm faced this years ago and chose to allow anyone to install anything on any device. Problem was, much of the software was poorly written and didn't work well...which lowered peoples perception of the Palm platform in general.

 

[Sheepless]

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.

And yet... if software distribution had been locked down and controlled by commercial interests back in the day, would we have the incredible richness of software we all benefit from today? Would we even have OS X? It seems likely that that sort of control would have stifled FOSS: and even if you never install a third-party app on your Mac, you benefit from FOSS, given how much of it is present under your Mac's hood.

 

[Svennig]

Why not? Unsigned apps have to be run in a sandbox, signed apps can be run outside a sandbox for a $99 fee or free/low fee if they are submitted to iTunes.

That sounds like a sensible and achievable model.

The problem with these models is that it assumes a perfect, benign signing authority.

Apple is neither perfect nor benign.

It's not acceptable on the desktop - you don't have to get an apple-signed version of "firefox" so that it accesses the web. You (as a software developer) don't have to get your D&D application signed so it can write to the disk!

It's my phone. I can do what I want. If I choose to install an application which disrupts all the other iphones, then I should face some kind of recrimination (disconnection etc). However, until then, I can do as I like.

Is the added beurocracy worth the tiny tiny increase?

The desktop, server, hell any-other-computer market says no...

 

[Smith288]

The point is you require a licence to drive a car, whereas you don't require a licence to use the internet.

You also have to make sure the car stays roadworthy, otherwise its illegal, whereas if you install "Zombie Phone 1.0" you aren't liable for the damage that causes to other mobile phone users.

I would equate getting my phone and an AT&T contract as my "license" to drive.

 

[unconcious]

Are you nuts or are you a shareholder? This destroys the market for freeware and FLOSS, some developers don't bother charging for every little thing either because it's an extra that they worked on or just do software development on their spare time. Some of the best apps on the planet are also FLOSS such as Adium, Quicksilver, HandBrake, and Goban, granted the only ones on that list that might be used on an iPhone are Adium and Goban, but you get the point, and that's not even mentioning the fact that Apple built their operating system on FLOSS.

What about applications that compete with the default apps that Apple has installed? Will apps be able to use the EDGE radio or are they going to be glued to WiFi while Apple has the advantage with their apps having access to the always on connection (with the exception of the iTunes WiFi Store)? Will it be possible to add 3rd party codecs?

Sebastian

If I am not mistaking, during the announcement of the SDK release Steve said the price range would from FREE to whatever the developer wanted to charge. (anyone please confirm)

 

[yg17]

This is not a computer. It is a phone and it needs to work. You don't pay $$$ each month to use your computer. Ipod apps have always been controlled by Apple in some way. Nike + ring a bell?

Uhhh....my computer needs to work. And the fact that you have to pay money each month to use the thing is even better reasoning for you to have complete control over what you can and can't install on it.

Just because iPod apps have always been controlled by Apple doesn't make it right. I never agreed with it.

 

[EagerDragon]

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.

Apple has to cover the cost of running the operation and its work. Like with iTunes music, some programs maybe made available for free with permission from the developer. However I do not think developers wanting to release free software will be allowed unless (out of their pocket) they cover Apple cost for hosting the software and distributing it. You can have free software if apple decides and the developer pays the bill. It is a business not charity.

There is allways the GPhone for those not willing to pay.

I do not think that Apple will prohibit clkasses of software unless they are legaly obligated to stop it, as such talk to O2, AT&T and others.

As a corporation, they are in business to make money for the shareholders and they do a lot of marketing studies to get it as correct as they can, even if we do not agree always with their decisions. It is their sucess or failure, not ours.

 

[Lepton]

Did anyone think that Apple would distribute stuff on the iTunes store (the obvious way to distributing iPhone/Touch software) and not vet it? The last thing they need is a lawsuit because some malicious software was made available on iTunes.

I have no problem with that, let them check and approve of stuff distributed on iTunes. Keep iTunes a source of quality material. Fine.

BUT THERE MUST be a way for me to write a crappy, stupid, buggy, junky pile of bytes that I want me and my friends to put on our iPhones for our own perverse amusement. This is how innovative software gets invented! We need some way for this random, independent, unsupervised stuff to get on the platform and distributed on uncontrolled channels. This stuff WILL appear. Make it not have to be totally underground.

Note that I also have no problem with requiring a digital signature making it (somewhat) more likely to be able to trace malware. Make it free but you must identify yourself to Apple or someone to get it.

 

[razorianfly]

Apple doesn't control what apps you install on your computer, why should they control what you put on your phone?

Because it's their PLATFORM to protect.

R-Fly

 

[diamond.g]

<snip>

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, it looks like you are mistaken who Svennig is quoting.

 

[Spades]

As to thise saying that it is not necessary to do the checking .... If Apple says it is then it is, simple as that. Most developers allways think their S**t never stink as they are pperfect, Apple says we need to verify, so they get verified. Developers set the ego trip aside quick if there is good money to be made, those that won't will not be distributed.

People saying that the apps don't need to be verified are not making egotistical qualitative assertions that their code doesn't stink. They're making objective technical assertions that Apple are not the only ones that can test applications. Software testing is not an arcane secret process that only Apple understands. If Apple wants to insist on checking every app, it is not to ensure the quality of the applications, but to ensure that applications released do not compete with their own appliactions and to ensure that they get a cut of the profits.

Because it's their PLATFORM to protect.

Once again, how is the iPhone different from a computer?

 

[Svennig]

...

Did you bother reading my comment? Did you notice who I was replying to?

 

[SFC Archer]

Totally unintentional - I wanted to focus on how wrong it was for you to say it is OK for *everyone* to have Apple decide what they can do and what they cannot. That sounds too close to dictatorship.

"Everyone" is a generic term and quite obvious in the way it was used.

You are confused here. Obviously. They generated that following and cult by adhering to open standards and not forcing people and not acting like a monopolistic dictator. That is _past_. What they are doing with the iPhone is the _present_ and it is wrong to force people to do what Apple thinks is right with the iPhone that they own legitimately. The current stance of Apple is greedy - they want everything and they want others to have little. That never works..

The iPhone has *NEVER* been an "open" source and what do you call only allowing one provider (AT&T) in the U.S.? Seems to me it started from the beginning and is still continuing...so what has changed? NO one is *forcing* you or anyone (generic) into using or not using the iPhone in anyway you see fit, the choice is and always has been yours (thus yours is hacked) and no one has stopped you. They invented, designed and sell the product so it is their choice to do that as they see fit...it is yours to buy or not buy; to hack or not hack...No one is forcing you to do anything.

Well similarly I could *not* care less about what you think is right and what you want to do with your iPhone. However the claims about bugfree product and it being Apple's right to control is utter crap. I don't have to explain the basics again - OSX is not any more buggier than it would've been with Apple controlling the apps it can run. The iPhone runs OSX. Technology is proven, mature and already implemented to achieve that without a manually intervening centrally controlling entity which is impractical. .

Again, you forgot that I said "LIMITED" Bug free...which means that I am not saying that it is perfect or bugfree. I have the same bugs as everyone else, it just doesnt bother me because the overall product works as designed (for the most part)

We can mix apples and oranges all day long because of our values and beliefs, it does not mean either one of us is right or wrong. However, this is a public forum and we do have a right to state our opinion and unless a moderator states it has gone to far then let it be. I will discuss all day with you but I will not argue or belittle you in anyway.

 

[Tosser]

Tosser, it looks like you are mistaken who Svennig is quoting.

Yup, it looks like Svenning has now quoted someone. He hadn't to begin with.

 

[Hooka]

It is a computer. If an app can make the phone portion stop working then the OS is flawed. Fix that. Don't force people into a walled garden because they're too lazy or incompetent to fix that. However, I do expect that OS X on the iPhone is designed well enough that an external app won't kill the phone portion.

That argument is out, either way.

What makes you think it is going to be a "Walled Garden?"
Apple will not want to trouble shoot every app that makes the iPhone not work properly. when they deem an app ready and programed to the SDK then it will be released. And why do you get so angry over some apps that haven't even been written? Lets just wait to Thursday and see what the wizard has to say. My god.

 

[w00master]

LOL so after paying 399 I don't own my cell phone

To be fair if I buy a car, I am restricted with what I can do with it. I need to have a licence and pass a test to drive it (which isn't free) on a road outside my property. I also have to have insurance which covers any possible damage which I do to other peoples property.

Funny... this line of argument may hold true for the iPhone, but what about the iPod Touch? Hmmmmm?????

Again, I do hope this is a false rumor, but if it's true then it's very sad that Apple is going in this direction. Still, I'm certain of some very cool apps coming our way soon.

w00master

 

[w00master]

What makes you think it is going to be a "Walled Garden?"
Apple will not want to trouble shoot every app that makes the iPhone not work properly. when they deem an app ready and programed to the SDK then it will be released. And why do you get so angry over some apps that haven't even been written? Lets just wait to Thursday and see what the wizard has to say. My god.

Sorry, but this line of control is the very definition of a "Walled Garden." The model follows *nearly exactly* to how MS handles updates/games/applications/etc. on XBox Live. EVERYONE calls XBox Live a "walled garden." So, explain to me what the difference here is with Apple?

w00master

 

[razorianfly]

Once again, how is the iPhone different from a computer?

Are you implying Apple don't take the necessary measures to secure Mac OS?

Last time I checked, it was the most secure OS on the market, to date.

Why would they treat the iPhone any differently?

Or perhaps the question is:

Why would you even think they would look at security differently? - As you said, what is the difference in the iPhone/iPod touch and a computer?

Answer? - Nothing.

R-Fly

 

[irun5k]

LOL so after paying 399 I don't own my cell phone

At first, I laughed. Funny. Then, I cried. You're right, even if you didn't mean to be! This is part of the problem- Steve Jobs thinks he still owns a little bit of every iPhone that has been sold!

It is kind of like that TV show on TLC where people buy someone's home, remodel the hell out of it, and the original owners come back and totally freak out. I'm always like... "why?" If you were so attached to the house and didn't want it to ever change, why did you even sell it?

...ponders a future where Steve Jobs stockpiles all iPhones ever produced in his garage...

 

[jmorrison0722]

This is a good thing for consumers...eve if the developers don't all agree. As soon as someone's iPhone stops working due to a poorly written app, the perception of the product will head downhill. Apple want's to do anything and everything they can to avoid this.

 

[yg17]

Because it's their PLATFORM to protect.

R-Fly

They don't protect OSX. And I can cause a hell of a lot more damage with a virus on a computer than I can on a phone. None of the other phone makers protect their OS either. It's not about protecting anything, it's about control. Apple's a control freak.

 

[Tosser]

Why would you even think they would look at security differently? - As you said, what is the difference in the iPhone/iPod touch and a computer?

Answer? - Nothing.

R-Fly

Well – apart from size and the in-built battery. Oh, wait …

 

[EagerDragon]

My point is that AT&T haven't required any software vetting on any of their other smart phones have they? Yet swordsman24 is sure that this is the reason why Apple want to vet apps. If AT&T were so pushy in this area, it would be true for all other smartphones as well, especially now that phones like Blackberries are becoming mainstream.

Simple .... AT&T pays Apple for the priviledge of having its subscribers use the iPhone, in exchange AT&T gets exclusivity and have some control over features that may affect AT&T ability to make money. So AT&T is going to protect its shareholders by forcing via contract that Apple not allow ceirtain applications.

It is all about money .... As it should be.

AT&T does not pay the other phone manufactorers, AT&T tells them that if they want their phone sold by AT&T, they have to create their phones in a ceirtain way. The phone makers have no requirement to change thir firmware from time to time to fit AT&T needs because they do not get payed by AT&T to do so.

 

[Spades]

What makes you think it is going to be a "Walled Garden?"
Apple will not want to trouble shoot every app that makes the iPhone not work properly. when they deem an app ready and programed to the SDK then it will be released. And why do you get so angry over some apps that haven't even been written? Lets just wait to Thursday and see what the wizard has to say. My god.

A "walled garden" is exactly what the rumor is about. The rumor here is that Apple will be the sole gatekeepr for what is allowed on the iPhone. That's also what the discussion here is about; the rumor. Of course this entire discussion becomes meaningless if the rumor is false.

If apps make the iPhone not work properly, then it isn't the app that needs to be troubleshooted, but the iPhone OS. Apple doesn't need to and shouldn't try to claim responsibility for the QA of every app created for the iPhone. Their only responsibility is and should be the quality of the OS.

 

[Hooka]

Uhhh....my computer needs to work. And the fact that you have to pay money each month to use the thing is even better reasoning for you to have complete control over what you can and can't install on it.

Just because iPod apps have always been controlled by Apple doesn't make it right. I never agreed with it.

Your computer don't fit in your pocket now does it? It is an Apple product and Apple will decide what and when to do with it. Get use to it. Or break your warranty and jailbreak your phone and be done with it.