Um, it's still a computer with an OS. It's just happens to be a tightly controlled proprietary computer which generates revenue for Apple - which is a good thing don't you think?!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone SDK Reactions and Ongoing Questions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Um, it's still a computer with an OS. It's just happens to be a tightly controlled proprietary computer which generates revenue for Apple - which is a good thing don't you think?!
Short of BREW, what other phones that run general apps are locked down where you can't load unsigned apps? This security angle is a red-herring designed to hide the true motives which are either driven by contracts with AT&T or greed in squeezing their iphone/touch customers who are the latest cash cow for apple.
People should be allowed to choose between signed apps in the iTunes store ( what most people will do ), and loading unsigned applications directly off their computer ( what SOME tinkerers will do ).
Actually, I've been thinking that, from the perspective of the small-time developer, it is beneficial (with some caveats) for the App Store to be the Exclusive App-Loading method for the iP/iPT.
Think about it. On the internet, while there are thousands and thousands of download sites for you to visit (some legal, some not so), there is no one site that every user must visit (and due to language barriers, you could argue that there is no one site that every user can visit).
However, with this method being exclusive, Every.Single.iP/iPT.User must come here to get an app, which means that everyone will have access to your app. I mean, really, you can't buy that type of exposure (well, I guess you can... it'll cost you 70/30
). Think about it people, you can make an app that reaches 10% of the soon to be 10 million world-wide users (which will explode even further when Apple penetrates the Asian market) and sell your app for $.25, you'd earn $175K. If you extrapolate those numbers out a bit, you will see that very times in history have so many people had such a clear opportunity to literally become millionaires. (McDonald's stock in the 60's, drug dealer in the 70s, computer stock in the 80s, dot com boom and real estate in the 90s, and now the ability to release your app to millions of app starved individuals who have already been conditioned by iTunes to throw aways $.99 at a time like it's a drop in the bucket).The are only possible (realistic) problems you can have are two things:
1 - How slow will this gatekeeping process be? Well, you can't gripe about this one until sometime after the SDK is released and we get real world times and complaints to look at.
2 - How restrictive will this gatekeeping task be (NES emulators, porn for those of us addicted, etc.)? This is almost moot, because sooner or later, the hackers will find a way for the power user elite to bypass the exclusivity of the app store (most certainly, probably).
Sorry to be so long winded, but I haven't yet seen anyone argue in favor of the exclusivity of the App Store.
This might be true if a) Apple were not similarly tight fisted about their other products, b) if Apple's terms were significantly higher than all other platforms and c) if Apple didn't deliver substantial advantages for that exclusivity (and frankly, there are some decent arguments to be made for that).
I know millions have probably already said this but why is it all us iPod Touch users get blagged off with paying for all the decent updates, especially in the UK, we had to pay $26 for that stupid update, and I bought it, for £12.99 I expect to get every future update free. I paid £270 for my device like almost every other iPhone owner, why should I have to pay for updates.
Well if the installer.app folks are as truly into free software as they claim, then they should have no problems releasing their source code precisely for this purpose. Actually not being sarcastic here (ok, maybe I started out that way.)
$99 for all the porn apps you want? (I seriously doubt you need to renew yearly if all you want to do is compile code to your own iPhone. Doubt that the Dev kit blows up after a year.)
Might be a model here.
I'm telling ya'...
Come up with a keyboard with a dock connector that you can snap your iPhone/touch into, throw a little brains and memory into the keyboard, DVI (for a full monitor) and USB, and you have enough processing power for 99% of most users' needs.
A) Last I checked I could load whatever I wanted on my laptop, no signature required. I can load music from other online stores like Amazon MP3 and eMusic onto my iPod. Would you like them to prohibit that as well?
C) Yes, they do, but you missed the whole point. They don't need to force exclusivity for developers to choose the iTMS for delivery.
Snap Ons!!!
Little external with docking connector, good DSP and stereo mic, battery and speakers if desired.
iPhone/touch as core of expandable digital swiss army knife.
I know millions have probably already said this but why is it all us iPod Touch users get blagged off with paying for all the decent updates, especially in the UK, we had to pay $26 for that stupid update, and I bought it, for £12.99 I expect to get every future update free. I paid £270 for my device like almost every other iPhone owner, why should I have to pay for updates.
I'm not saying this is the right way of doing things or not, but I'm sure it has to do with the fact that iPhone users not only payed for the phone, but are basiaclly (indirectly) paying a monthly revenue stream to Apple.
It's kinda like iPhone users are paying a subscription, while iPodT. users bought an as-is package.
this isn't that new of a business model. For example you can buy business objects enterprise, and crystal reports, as individual products. Or you can buy the products and you can pay for annual technical support, the technical support while being a separate plan typically includes software upgrades to future versions, where as those that buy the stand alone product pay separately for the new features.
The reality is that both users had to pay for the updates, just one paid directly, while the other paid indirectly.
I think the big question is, was the iPodT. worth what you paid for it at the time you paid for it. If so, and I'm assuming iPodT. users thought or they would 't have purchased it in the first place.
what about transferring data?
Will there be any way to transfer data (other than what already syncs with iTunes) between an iPhone and a computer? For instance, could a "Notes" app allow syncing text notes with a computer? Or what if I just want to load a bunch of html pages onto my iPhone for viewing offline in Safari, for speed and/or viewing when out of EDGE range?
And what about cut/copy/paste?
Will there be any way to transfer data (other than what already syncs with iTunes) between an iPhone and a computer? For instance, could a "Notes" app allow syncing text notes with a computer? Or what if I just want to load a bunch of html pages onto my iPhone for viewing offline in Safari, for speed and/or viewing when out of EDGE range?
And what about cut/copy/paste?
The difference is that (ironically) we're looking at the flip side of the 'big target' argument that Windows loyalists make against Mac safety.
There is little target for mischief in the type of phones you're referring to. Just too little saturation in the overall picture.
iPhone is generally being credited (even by critics) as a game changer for the platform and the industry.
As such IT now becomes the big target, and I (for one) applaud Apple for locking this thing down until we understand the threats better.
Its easier to loosen things up (e.g. the SDK) than it is to get the toothpaste back into the tube.
no. jailbreak it and run away all the code you want at no cost. when you bought the device nobody promissed you free legit development for it.
the same the EU commission is saying about the game consoles for which you cannot run your own code unless you pay the heafty fees for licensed development: nothing.
there's not difference between the two devices development-rules-wise.
Not sure if someone has already answered this, but this is my concern. I signed up yesterday and downloaded the SDK. Haven't paid the $99 yet (obviously), but would like to know if I have to upload my unfinished app online in some sort of forced beta or if I can load it onto the phone and test it. Granted, the 2.0 update is not out yet and all testing until it's out will be done on the emulator, but when it's out, it would be nice to have some way of testing it on a real iPhone/touch before it's ready for release.
This is right on. I am a doctor and the only thing keeping me from buying an iPhone is the lack of Epocrates. I will buy one the day after that program is released (hopefully also 3G) and say good bye forever to my Palm, Verizon cell phone, and pager in favor of one device.
Your A) is a non sequitor. Your C) misses actually misses MY point. Though I sympathiize with the urge for direct control, I am less than convinced that it's worth fighting for. In many ways, you are being compensated by Apple for giving up control over distribution.
They don't own the ATT network. And I can see in the near future all smart phone apps requiring to be signed...its just a matter on time.
Is there a mirror anywhere or a direct download link to the SDK, I'm dying to start developing some apps on it, but all I get is "We are processing your request, please try again." Even when I try to login now.
Please could someone post the direct link or a mirror? Thanks.
Please could someone post the direct link or a mirror? Thanks.
I believe once you pay your $99 you will be install and test your apps on your phone...but this up in the a little until people start getting their certs and beta testing 2.0. I can't see anyone not testing apps on the real thing before releasing them into the wild
$99 gets you certificate (for accountability) and the ability to test on a physical device. You won't be able to submit to Apple for approval/sale without the certificate.
The App store Boutique within the iTunes Store is a way for Indie Developers to monetize their creation/content. It has relatively few restrictions, low entry cost and relatively high profit (to the Indie Developer) when compared to other methods of promoting/publishing/distributing their work.
I suspect that it would quite easy for Apple to offer similar Boutiques for writers, composers and other performers.
Maybe this is the future of how creative people will get their stuff "out there" & make a fair return....
Of course it would really piss off the record labels, but they are a dying breed!
The iTunes Store is at (or soon will attain) critical mass-- so it doesn't matter what the labels want!
