iPhone SDK Reactions and Ongoing Questions

[OS X Dude]

You would have to look at the license and see if it's GPL/LGPL/MIT/etc, but I would assume absolutely not. At least not firefox, but you could use the code base and make your own browser based on Gecko/XUL and probably charge for it, except you would need to contribute back source modifications you make to the components. As far as one individual porting something like that, I say good luck.
Mozila is working on a mobile Firefox already, and I'm sure they'll be porting it to the iPhone very soon. I would see if you could officially contribute to their project.

Yeah, thanks Apple contribute back to FreeBSD in much the same way I think, as much of the Darwin core is modified BSD.

And of course this is on the assumption that Apple don't simply censor it on the grounds that "it could let viruses in or endanger the stability of the network" lol.

I would quite like to see ol' Foxy on the iPhone/Touch.

 

[OS X Dude]

Ok, but I've been known (fondly called that gal with no life!) to stay up as much as 24 hours working on client projects.

So my taste may differ.

BTW

I find apple tv to be a great self training tool.

I went through the quantum physics university series they had on Itunes last summer.

I tried it, and it was quite relaxing - gentle voices, code, no surprises, no zombies p) lol.

And to cap it all, I had Depeche Mode's "When the Body Speaks" in the background - more zen than a buddhist's temple last night!

 

[OS X Dude]

OK I messed about with the SDK for a bit and there's some things I need help with:

1. Can I remove any components of XCode (like the UNIX command line bit that is 512MB) to get some space back? If so, how?

2. I have never programmed before and I do not know what bits of code to enter first, like where to start you know? Any info on absolute beginner's programming (either in Cocoa or not doesn't matter) would be ace.


Thanks guys!

 

[yyy]

Sorry if this has already been asked before but I was wondering if it is possible to develop an application using the iPhone SDK and test it on the iPhone without joining the iPhone developer program. Obviously, it wouldn't be possible to debug it in real time but would it at least work on the device?

 

[dicklacara]

I was just pointing out to the original poster that there are such things as "reasonable" editorial control.

arn

Or, more succinctly:

"reasonable" control.

... even:

"reasonable"

 

[lemoose]

The real point about the SDK is: a new PLATFORM

I really think the biggest thing is not that we have an iPhone SDK and that people are gonna be able to develop apps for the iPhone.
It's way bigger than this, "bigger than the personnal computer" as John Doerr, Partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, said when he introduced the $100,000,000 iFund initiative.
I've developed this opinion over at the hardmac.com blog, come and read it.

 

[friekunater]

As I recall, Steve said SDK will be released late February and now he's making developers and iphone users wait until June. They are taking existing SDK Apple developers use and releasing to general developers so I'm not sure why he's making everyone wait for next Firmware update.

they're probably waiting to give people time to develop their apps

 

[lemoose]

Well, the SDK IS being released now, which means like a couple weeks late. Of course the delay until June is only for actual DISTRIBUTION of the apps, but hey!, people still need a bit of time to develop their apps, submit them and then get them approved by Apple.

 

[MikeTheC]

Here's my question:

What happens when/if OSS/FSF developers decide to have a go at this thing? Say, for instance, VideoLAN decides to do a port of VLC to it. Or someone else decides to write a really good terminal client for it. Or what-have-you. Is Apple simply going to quash all these efforts and just say "no" ?

Naturally, there's some kinds of software who's functions just aren't suited to the iPhone, like working on large, complex scientific analyses, or on spreadsheets, or doing musical scoring, and the like, but there's certainly going to be an interest in getting a lot of software that's already out there to the iPhone.

 

[speakerwizard]

Here's my question:

What happens when/if OSS/FSF developers decide to have a go at this thing? Say, for instance, VideoLAN decides to do a port of VLC to it. Or someone else decides to write a really good terminal client for it. Or what-have-you. Is Apple simply going to quash all these efforts and just say "no" ?

Naturally, there's some kinds of software who's functions just aren't suited to the iPhone, like working on large, complex scientific analyses, or on spreadsheets, or doing musical scoring, and the like, but there's certainly going to be an interest in getting a lot of software that's already out there to the iPhone.

the iphone is a consumer electronics product that despite how close it is to an actual computer, the video and audio playback will be very tight but work very well and 99.9% of consumers do not know what unix is, we are looking at games and productivity tools, not terminals and divx playback.

 

[joneled]

ok

Im sure it will be great. Im exited to see what applications people think of. I was kind of pissed that we have to wait until June though

 

[dgdosen]

The new gold rush...

If you sell 150 apps a month that's 1800 apps a year at £5 each meaning apple takes £9000 off customers for your app. they keep 30% of this (£2700) and give you £6300 out of which you pay £50 leaving you £6250 (£520/month)

that in itself is not bad but to aim for only 150 downloads a month is very low. lets say by the end of 09 there are 25 million iphone/ipod touch users, if your app is decent then maybe 1%, hell let's say 0.5% of them get it that's 125,000 sales lets even call it $5 (£2.50) per app then you're looking at £218,750 NET.

clearly the incentives and potential for developers of all sizes is huge


Edit: ok you said 150 apps a year
so 150x£5=750 750-30%=£525 £525-£50=£475
but surely even a really crap app would get more than 150 downloads a year! 25 Millions users and only 150 people buy it? the hello world app would sell that many!

Ahh, this is like a new gold rush - only in the digital world. Everyone has $$$ in their eyes, but I'd think only a few are going to get rich off it.

Here are some key points I think you should all consider:

- People are cheap. They don't spend much money for apps for their PCs, they sure won't spend much for apps on their iPhone. Sure, they'll spend some, but for every revenue generating app that's out there, I'll bet there will be five apps that might do the same thing (games, to do list managers, etc.)

- AppStore only distribution won't last. While really coveted applications might fall subject to bittorrent/piracy, I think it will be more prudent for Apple to include a licensing framework into the iPhone SDK and allow developers to leverage it, or not. Distribution should (and will) be easier - like subscribing to a podcast.

- How will "try before you buy" work in this model?

That all said, $99?! Sign me up!

 

[dgdosen]

Anyone have an idea if a hijacked phone can run the SDK? If that capability is built into the hijacking software, I'll hijack my phone - or buy a touch...

Charging $99 just to deploy an iPhone app to your own iPhone - that just doesn't make sense. I think Apple fears if that were free, there'd be no way to stop people from freely distributing apps and installing them through some SDK hack...

 

[gwangung]

Charging $99 just to deploy an iPhone app to your own iPhone - that just doesn't make sense. I think Apple fears if that were free, there'd be no way to stop people from freely distributing apps and installing them through some SDK hack...

That's a downside for users if that were the case, you know...

 

[MikeTheC]

the iphone is a consumer electronics product that despite how close it is to an actual computer, the video and audio playback will be very tight but work very well and 99.9% of consumers do not know what unix is, we are looking at games and productivity tools, not terminals and divx playback.

No, that's not what I was getting at.

What I meant was, first off, do the SDK T&C rule out GPL'd software as a category; and second, would Apple have any kind of bias against the OSS community producing software which: 1. Would potentially compete with Apple's own supplied apps; and 2. Would try to add or unrestrict the users' abilities to perform certain kinds of tasks that Apple would otherwise keep restricted, not so much as a willful act but due to the inherent nature of the OSS/FSF software development mindset?

Like, for instance, if the MPlayer or VLC projects were to be ported, or other media-capable software which, for instance, would intercept an inbound call's CallerID data and play a user-selected sound as a ringtone, instead of said user being limited to iTunes-only supplied ringtones. There are probably other such examples others here could point out, but these are the ones which most immediately come to my mind.

 

[Mac Rules]

Just a quick one, I've watched teh presentation and read as much as I can, but I've still one question I hope you guys can help me with. All this talk of enterprise features, do they ONLY get given to corporate users, all will ALL iPhones get the features with the 2.0 update? It's just that my uni uses a Cisco VPN which isn't fully supported by the iPhone currently, but would with the new features...

Also, with the new ActiveSync technology, is there any chance this means hotmail email could be pushed to your inbox?

Cheers

 

[galaxysoccer717]

so can we get ipod touch apps now?? im not here to develop them i just want the apps! i just dont get what this means!?!?

 

[sleepingworker]

so can we get ipod touch apps now?? im not here to develop them i just want the apps! i just dont get what this means!?!?

Watching the quicktime video and reading through this thread will give a complete answer to your question. The apps you want will not be available before June. After that, apps will be able to be downloaded from the iTunes App Store. I hope that you are no longer confused.

 

[chickenninja]

so about this iFund anyone got the scoop on how much overseight will be involved and exactly who will really be running the show, as a developer im not sure i want to have a big company reminding me who pays the bills.

 

[gnasher729]

What happens when/if OSS/FSF developers decide to have a go at this thing? Say, for instance, VideoLAN decides to do a port of VLC to it. Or someone else decides to write a really good terminal client for it. Or what-have-you. Is Apple simply going to quash all these efforts and just say "no" ?

That is a weird question. Why would they?

 

[gnasher729]

- People are cheap. They don't spend much money for apps for their PCs, they sure won't spend much for apps on their iPhone.

People here in the UK buy ringtones for "just £3 a week" which they end up paying until they manage to stop the seller from taking more money out of their account. I think software that is sold through Apple (that is from a source where you can be confident that the money side of things is handled correctly) will sell very well.

 

[gnasher729]

What I meant was, first off, do the SDK T&C rule out GPL'd software as a category; and second, would Apple have any kind of bias against the OSS community producing software which: 1. Would potentially compete with Apple's own supplied apps; and 2. Would try to add or unrestrict the users' abilities to perform certain kinds of tasks that Apple would otherwise keep restricted, not so much as a willful act but due to the inherent nature of the OSS/FSF software development mindset?

If Apple didn't want any GPL'd software, then they wouldn't have shipped the iPhone SDK. They wouldn't have shipped XCode. Not ever. Because - the iPhone SKD uses the gcc compiler, which is shipping under the GPL license. And it uses the gdb debugger, which is shipping under the GPL license. And tons and tons of other stuff that is shipping under the GPL license.

Apple doesn't care if you compete with their apps. If you produce something that is better than their own apps, they will thank you because it will sell more iPhones!

 

[gnasher729]

You would have to look at the license and see if it's GPL/LGPL/MIT/etc, but I would assume absolutely not. At least not firefox, but you could use the code base and make your own browser based on Gecko/XUL and probably charge for it, except you would need to contribute back source modifications you make to the components. As far as one individual porting something like that, I say good luck.

Actually, there is nothing that says you cannot charge as much money as you like. You can port Firefox and charge $999 for it. However, I can then buy one copy, ask you politely for the source code (which you have to give me, because it is licensed under GPL), compile it, and sell it for $899. At which point someone else does the same thing and sells it for $799, and you can imagine how this ends. And one of the quirks of the GPL license is that as soon as you have distributed _one_ copy, _everyone_ can ask you for the source code without having bought the software.

So legally you can charge, in practice it won't work.

 

[gnasher729]

sorry if this has been asked, but does anyone know when Apple will be adding in the Interface builder update to the iPhone SDK?

The current version does not update the Interface builder application to have mobile/iPhone interface stuff.

No idea, but I think Interface Builder is less important for the iPhone, because more things are laid out automatically. And because you have much less space, there is much less potential for rearranging things. Still nice to have Interface Builder, but you can live without it.

 

[aksojourner]

And one of the quirks of the GPL license is that as soon as you have distributed _one_ copy, _everyone_ can ask you for the source code without having bought the software.

That is not entirely true. The GPL/LGPL licenses requires that you make the source code only to those to whom you have distributed the binary form of the program. Here is the applicable part of GPLv2:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

I think option "A" could easily be full filled by including the source code as a resource within the application bundle.

I am more worried that requiring the software to be signed before it can be installed/run on a device conflicts with the spirit and possibly the letter of the licenses.