iPhone SDK Details, First Look

[Evangelion]

True, but they can CHOOSE their distributor and they can make their own distribution channel. The iPhone policies I listed are extremely restrictive. Even the devil's... Microsoft's offering is far more open and free to developers and users alike.

There's there door. You can CHOOSE to use it.

I really don't see the issue with this. So I don't get porn-apps. Well, boohoo. If I wanted porn on my iPod touch, I would just get online and visit any of those gazillion porn-sites out there. If I had pornographic pictures or movies on my computer, I could easily move those to my iPod for some on-the-go porn-sessions. What exactly are these porn-apps people are glamoring for? Custer's Revenge? Yeah, a big loss that is for sure.

What about the other limitations imposed by Apple? Well, those are understandable as well. I bet that the operators wouldn't like apps that flood the network with data. Spyware? Why should Apple faciliate distribution of spyware?

What about using only the App Store for distribution? How is that different from current system where everything goes through iTunes? If you hate the App Store, I bet you could still use jailbroken iPhone/touch and use zillion other apps that are delivered outside the App Store.

This is just whining for the sake of whining.

 

[knightlie]

It's also frightening that Apple will censor what kinds of programs are acceptable. This stifles creativity and is a consequence of the first problem. If apps can only be distributed through iTunes, Apple would not want to be seen as responsible for something "obscene." Naturally, if Apple didn't chain their developers to iTunes distribution, a much wider range of apps could be created. So much for freedom...

I guess you'll have to get your mobile porn from somewhere else....

 

[priller]

Since I can't download the SDK till tonight, can somebody confirm that your developer username is embedded in any apps you build with it?

 

[mr_flibble]

Do you think it's right that many companies charge $3 for a 30 sec ringtone? This is incredibly overpriced, but people accept it. Should Apple get a free pass for charging you twice for a ringtone because the whole business is a mess for the consumer? I think they should not. Moreover, don't assume that anything restrictive or seemingly wrong is due to AT&T. There are limits to their involvement and Apple had to agree too.

Now with Apple censorship I don't think we will see any application for iPhone that would make a ringtone of your own music. Apple is playing dangerous game and people who loved Apple can quickly start to hate it. It is closer than you might think. People hate M$ but they have to stay with them, Apple is much more vulnerable company.

 

[garty]

I'm not sure that anyone else has noticed.. the $99 cost for the standard publication of applications for the iPhone/iPod Touch will be an annual charge.

That's right.. if you write a nice little useful, free application such as, say, a terminal with ssh capability, which will benefit all sysadmin kind, it will cost you, the developer, $99 per year for others to use it.

The alternative is to charge the people to download it. Hmm.. Doesn't seem as such a good deal for Open Source software developers or those porting open source apps to the platform.

The only recourse would be to have a foundation acting as a virtual developer under the scheme, paid for by dontaion. However, this is probably already banned by the licensing agreement.

This is likely to kill any small (hobbyist) developer community at birth.

So get like 10 hobbyists together as a group and it will only cost you $10 a year.

 

[Evangelion]

Do you think it's right that many companies charge $3 for a 30 sec ringtone? This is incredibly overpriced, but people accept it.

If they accept it and are willing to pay that money for the ringtone, then it is not "overpriced". Capitalism, have you ever heard of it?

Should Apple get a free pass for charging you twice for a ringtone because the whole business is a mess for the consumer?

The deal with ringtones is that they carry different royalties than normal songs do. So when Apple charges twice for the ringtone (first when you download the song from ITMS, and again when you convert it to ringtone), you are actually paying for two different things. The first cost is just for using that song for personal enjoyment, and the royalties of the song reflect that. If you want to use the song as a ringtone, you need to pay for additional set of royalties, since the original royalties didn't cover the songs use in ringtones.

I think they should not.

Complain to the parties who collect the royalties then.

 

[Parky]

No it isn't because it's not just porn. There are a lot of useful programs that I expect Apple will block if they have similar offerings or for other reasons. Their clause allows them to block any program they wish. Given that they block external distribution, this does matter.

I find this accepting attitude to Apple's actions strangely ironic. No complaint about being forced to pay twice for a song if you want a ringtone (clearly wrong). No complaints about way too many things. What if Microsoft decided that ALL Windows programs can ONLY be distributed through Windows Update and developers MUST pay Microsoft 30% of their profits? To add, developers must pay an ANNUAL FEE just for PUBLICATION. Moreover, Microsoft can reject any program from inclusion, if it wishes. Bye NeoOffice, bye Firefox etc. Would you be so quick to accept that? The truth is that this is a terrible bureaucratic (slow too) model if it is FORCED upon developers rather than made attractive enough that they will want to use it. It stifles innovation, cuts consumer choice and restricts freedom. However, since sheep think it's perfectly normal and OK, companies get away with it. This same sheep mentality allows politicians such as Bush to get away with turning the US into something not so far from a police state (in powers, not application) with documents like the "Patriot Act" (we have Orwell's doubletalk here). The more you accept, the more will be taken away.

And who is exactly forcing you to develop for the iPhone.

If you don't like the terms then **** off!

 

[goosnarrggh]

The key question for me is whether it will be possible to develop an open source app without paying $99. In other words will people who download the free SDK be able to:
(1) install the app that they write on their phone without the $99 fee,
(2) be able to put up the source code for the app on the internet so that others can do #1. Or is this against the license agreement?

The answer to question (1) is crucial. It seems to me that access to the on-phone debugger will be necessarily to anybody who has legitimate access to the SDK, for testing purposes. However, for those of use who don't have access to the Beta SDK, it is not yet obvious just how much flexibility the developer has for "installing" those apps for real-world testing. That would be be critical in determining whether question (2) can be answered.

As for question (2)... If the answer to (1) is a resounding YES, then I honestly don't see what leg Apple would be able to stand on in terms of restricting registered SDK users from sharing their source code amongst each other. I mean, with a good working knowledge of Objective C and Cocoa Touch, it ought to be possible to whip up your open source code totally independently of the SDK itself, and therefore, totally independent of any licensing restrictions imposed by the SDK.

However, once the code has been converted into a binary form (ie. compiled within the SDK) Apple's license provisions would undeniably come into force, restricting the ability to redistribute the compiled code except through the $99 subscription program.

So I can see open source being potentially perfectly practical, without paying Apple 1 red cent, depending on the answer to question (1) - but with the caveat that it would be source-only redistribution; binary redistribution would be prohibited.

 

[Parky]

Now with Apple censorship I don't think we will see any application for iPhone that would make a ringtone of your own music. Apple is playing dangerous game and people who loved Apple can quickly start to hate it. It is closer than you might think. People hate M$ but they have to stay with them, Apple is much more vulnerable company.

Grow up!

 

[Konstanty]

Apple is under contract with AT&T to secure the phone from unlocking. Even if you disagree with this, nothing can change this. They _have_ to prevent unlocking in anyway they can. Otherwise, they can be held liable.

And this applies to the iPod Touch...how?

 

[Torajima]

Supported languages?

Is python supported? Or is it c++/java only?

I'd really prefer to develop in python...

 

[Evangelion]

And this applies to the iPod Touch...how?

Um, what exactly is there to "unlock" in iPod touch?

 

[Sky Blue]

This is just whining for the sake of whining.

This is MacRumors, dude.

 

[jviphone]

I would like to develop some small apps that would help me organize myself at work, I have programmed in Java before, what books would one reccommend for learning Cocoa and do you think there will be some specific books on programming for the iphone using cocoa touch and the other core api's

 

[goosnarrggh]

Is python supported? Or is it c++/java only?

I'd really prefer to develop in python...

Cocoa is only available in Objective C. (It has never been supported in C++ IIRC.) It used to be supported in Java too, but Apple has deprecated that option.

But, it'd certainly be possible to write a Python interpreter in Objective-C. Having done that, you might be at risk of running awry of the SDK's "no-unlocking-a-method-of-app-distribution-outside-iTunes" restriction because a Python interpreter could potentially be used to run just about any Python source code you choose to throw at it.

Then again, anything written in Python would be an interpreted app, more comparable to JavaScript which is already allowed via WebApps, rather than a native app, so maybe Apple's restriction wouldn't strictly be applicable.

 

[ftf]

Some people on here have been questioning the model apple has chosen.

The apple model is excellent. I am not a developer, but if I was I would be writing an app right now.. the potential to make money and get your app onto everyones iPhone is incredible. Anyone who cannot see the potential here is seriously deluded.

Successful developers will see this as a great opportunity and will take it with both hands and make some serious money. I cannot imagine another situation where you could get your app in front of millions of people for $99.. it is just a no brainer..

About percentages.. i'd happily let apple take 30% of my revenue - especially as I'd get to choose the price.. therefore all you need to do it write an app with a figure in mind that you would charge for it.. then mark it up by 30% for apples commission.

It annoys me also when people think everything should be for free. Apple give you free software to build the apps and you pay $99 to submit them to the App Store. What more do you want? Oh yeah .. you want to distribute them yourselves, because you think iTunes is evil. Well I wish you luck at finding millions of potential customers instantly.

For the end user this model is a dream. Instal apps straight to your iphone, some free, some pay for. When they get updated they are updated on your iphone. But the genius is... like with iTunes movies and music.. you know they'll work. Most iphone users just want their phones to work, they don't want jailbroken phones because they are not techies - they have paid £269 for a phone, so a few apps at a few pound would be great thanks!

As for the iPod touch.. anyone who complains that this is a paid for update needs their head examined. When you bought the ipod touch it had the apps on it you wanted, so you bought it. That is what you bought.. not a product in the future. It's like buying a car and then a turbo version comes out and being pissed off that you have to pay for the upgrade..

Well thats my moaning over with.

Good luck to all the devs on here who are going to write some awesome apps... and hopefully make some serious money along the way!

Good post and I agree. Goes along with you have to spend money to make money. In this case you don't have to spend a lot.

 

[Torajima]

Then again, anything written in Python would be an interpreted app, more comparable to JavaScript which is already allowed via WebApps, rather than a native app, so maybe Apple's restriction wouldn't strictly be applicable.

Thanks for the response.

Unforntunately, even if a python interpreter is not technically 'restricted', python development without built-in support would be a waste of time (since the portion of iPhone customers that would manually install a python interpreter is miniscule).

 

[samab]

Apple are so far ahead of anyone else out there that its unreal.

Except that every single mobile phone platform works the same way --- Apple is copying everyone else.

When you buy a ringtone or a game for you mobile phone --- do you take out your credit card? No, the carrier charges you on the monthly bill and then splits it with the developer.

 

[lordgaino]

Except that every single mobile phone platform works the same way --- Apple is copying everyone else.

When you buy a ringtone or a game for you mobile phone --- do you take out your credit card? No, the carrier charges you on the monthly bill and then splits it with the developer.

Sorry I dont understand what you are getting at here. The difference with apple and its implementation of itunes is in the attention to detail. The integration between my desktop pc and my phone, between multiple computers and my purchased music/tv. The quality of the interface. The whole experience is totally different class from the clunky and comparably low-tech online stores offered by the other mobile phone companies.

 

[pflau]

Allowing every independent software developer to sell their own products through the itunes shopfront is going to make all the genuinely good developers out there a fortune, and raise the profiles of everyone else. And the end users get total peace of mind that the products they upload to their phones are clean and reliable.

Yes, this is great news for small developers who otherwise do not have the resources to compete against the big boys with big money backing. The distribution model puts EVERYBODY in equal footing. And I am sure there are many developers who just like to do this as a hobby (or as a side business for tax write-off) who just want to put their apps in front of as many people as possible without the hassle of actually running an advertising/distribution business.

 

[pflau]

Another excellent thing I see with the iTune store app distribution is the potential to prevent piracy and to offer try and buy - just like how movie rental is distributed. An app purchased is always attached to a particular iPhone, and an app can expire after say 30 days if not paid for.

This is great great news for all the small developers who otherwise don't have the resources to develop or purchase anti-piracy scheme or try and buy installation software.

Yeah I can see the big money big boys with the fancy websites and bannar ads might be a little unhappy.

 

[asdavis10]

I guess people will just complain regardless of what Apple does. How is iTunes distribution bad? Yes it will restrict some of the content that could be provided but its a good way to filter content that could be dangerous for Apple, AT&T, and consumers. But if developers don't like it, find another platform to code for. What other distribution channel will give you app immediate access to EVERY iPhone AND iPod Touch user? There is NO OTHER channel that can do this. And as for Apple taking 30% and charging $99, we are lucky that its not more. There are no recurring fees and you don't have to worry about maintenance and distribution. This is a sweet deal and I don't understand how people can say otherwise. But hey, even a fool is entitled to their opinion.

 

[samab]

Sorry I dont understand what you are getting at here. The difference with apple and its implementation of itunes is in the attention to detail. The integration between my desktop pc and my phone, between multiple computers and my purchased music/tv. The quality of the interface. The whole experience is totally different class from the clunky and comparably low-tech online stores offered by the other mobile phone companies.

I am talking about the business model itself, which is not new.

Also, the important point is that there are billions of those low-tech cell phones around the world. Do you want to spend $20 million to develop the top of the line PS3 game or do you want to spend $2 million to develop mini games for the wii that will make you a lot more money?

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Installer deleted my XCode!

After installing the SDK, I rebooted and XCode is gone... just totally deleted without a trace. This happen to anyone else?

 

[AquaVita]

Oh god, I just read on another site that Apple is restricting each app to only run while on screen. Once you change screens or take a call, etc...the app quits! What the hell? Every single phone, even the dumbphones can multi-task. What the hell, apple?

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/07/iphone-sdk-some-of-the-details-arent-great/

Users can only run one application at a time, and if they leave an application it quits. That doesn’t seem like a big deal, but it means that you can’t switch away from an application and have it continue to do things. That’s a big issue with the current support for websites on the iPhone - as soon as you leave the browser the connection is broken. With the iPhone, the hope was that an installed application could continue to run in the background and, most usefully, gather and send information from and to the web.

Only one iPhone application can run at a time, and third-party applications never run in the background. This means that when users switch to another application, answer the phone, or check their email, the application they were using quits. (p. 16)