Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
To me, this is the crux of the matter: Apple wants me to think of the iPhone as a phone. But I don't.

Bingo, that's exactly the same for me. Actually, I hardly use the phone functionality at all. It's just a cool tiny computer to me.

For example, this morning I installed lighttpd onto it, and can now view pdfs that I transfer to it offline without emailing everything to myself. Sure, Apple might be able to add this ability to the phone later on with this new webkit "SDK", but I have it today. Apple might be good at predicting people's needs, but it is great having 3rd parties to fill in all the parts they miss.
 
Did you see the stats?

1880 people hacked their phone.

Out of a million + iPhones.

So yah, a minority.

and yes more people will vote and some people hacked their phone but have not been here today for the poll but that number is not going to get to 500K thats for sure.

wow....
great post
are you serious??!!
 
re: the pull of 3rd. party apps?

Oh, wow.... Do you have AC power in that cave of yours?

Seriously, the 3rd. party apps I'm using on my iPhone are mostly *excellent* additions to the phone.

For starters, I installed a book reader package - so my iPhone now doubles as one of those hand-held electronic book reader units, complete with user-selectable font and font-size while reading e-books.

I also have a VNC client, which lets me remote control the desktop of any of our servers at work, in case I need to remotely reboot one or do some basic maintenance on it. No need to carry around a notebook computer or sit down at someone's desktop PC to do it anymore.

Beyond that, there's an application that lets me email someone a full-size photo. (The iPhone will automatically scale down any photo you try to email using its built-in mail program. That's nice in many cases, but not ALWAYS what you want to do.) There's a really nice dictionary/thesaurus app that accepts one of *many* downloadable dictionary databases. (You can grab ones for everything from "law" to "jargon" to concise version of the encyclopedia Brittanica to carry around with you on your phone.)

And the 15-day free trial of Navizon was slick too. (Not sure I'm willing to pay for it yet - but thinking about it.) It finds your location and then brings it up using Google Maps. Even though the iPhone has no GPS capabilities, it manages to accomplish the task using the strength and location of whatever cellphone tower you're currently on, plus any location data it has based on wi-fi access points you might be picking up at the time.)

There's also a port of "ncftp" - a fully-featured ftp client, and a tool that lets you email individual songs from your music library on the phone.

None of these even touches on the "fun but not necessary" apps people wrote, like the "Tap Tap Revolution" game (a little bit like "Guitar Hero" on game consoles), or the Tetris clone, or the Super Nintendo game system emulator.


i'm having trouble understanding the pull of running 3rd party apps off the iphone. to anyone that has done it, what kinds of apps did you install, and what did you use them for?
 
this may be a bit of too little too late for apple.

They are getting the reputation of being a hard company to deal with.

Lets examine recent news:
1- NBC / Universal states they cannot work with Apple on licensing/sales terms
2- Fox said it would be difficult to negotiate with Apple, but they would do it and keep content up
3- Valve Software head states Apple occasionally talks about games, but really does not do anything to support it. (something I agree with, they don't have imac or midsized towers with great graphics cards as an option which user can upgrade)
4- iPod and iPhone are locked to iTunes in a manner which outside companies can't get in there to work
5- iphone cannot work with most if not all ipod accessories. even car kits for charging and audio playback even with the same.
6- Record companies have stated they want to work with apple on DRM to allow them to copy protect content, yet allow it to be easy for consumers. Hell this could have been an opportunity for Apple to create an open source DRM standard that would play well with consumers


Well... i could go on but time and time again it looks like Apple is really becoming more and more like Microsoft used to be.

you tell me ... i want a kinder and gentler Apple who plays well with others.
 
this may be a bit of too little too late for apple.

They are getting the reputation of being a hard company to deal with.

Lets examine recent news:
1- NBC / Universal states they cannot work with Apple on licensing/sales terms
2- Fox said it would be difficult to negotiate with Apple, but they would do it and keep content up
3- Valve Software head states Apple occasionally talks about games, but really does not do anything to support it. (something I agree with, they don't have imac or midsized towers with great graphics cards as an option which user can upgrade)
4- iPod and iPhone are locked to iTunes in a manner which outside companies can't get in there to work
5- iphone cannot work with most if not all ipod accessories. even car kits for charging and audio playback even with the same.
6- Record companies have stated they want to work with apple on DRM to allow them to copy protect content, yet allow it to be easy for consumers. Hell this could have been an opportunity for Apple to create an open source DRM standard that would play well with consumers


Well... i could go on but time and time again it looks like Apple is really becoming more and more like Microsoft used to be.

you tell me ... i want a kinder and gentler Apple who plays well with others.

Couldn't agree more. For a company that prides itself on being "different", I find their actions to be highly ironic.
 
I don't think it's about the phone. This whole situation reeks heavily of what most of us hate so much about other computer/technology companies. Apple was different, but that difference is starting to disappear and this is the first time in the almost 3 years that I have been a customer that I have been really questioning my relationship with Apple as a company.



me too.
 
Did you see the stats?

1880 people hacked their phone.

Out of a million + iPhones.

So yah, a minority.

and yes more people will vote and some people hacked their phone but have not been here today for the poll but that number is not going to get to 500K thats for sure.

Thats not 1880 out of a million its 1880 out of the sample of everyone who voted
 
this may be a bit of too little too late for apple.

They are getting the reputation of being a hard company to deal with.

Lets examine recent news:
1- NBC / Universal states they cannot work with Apple on licensing/sales terms
2- Fox said it would be difficult to negotiate with Apple, but they would do it and keep content up
3- Valve Software head states Apple occasionally talks about games, but really does not do anything to support it. (something I agree with, they don't have imac or midsized towers with great graphics cards as an option which user can upgrade)
4- iPod and iPhone are locked to iTunes in a manner which outside companies can't get in there to work
5- iphone cannot work with most if not all ipod accessories. even car kits for charging and audio playback even with the same.
6- Record companies have stated they want to work with apple on DRM to allow them to copy protect content, yet allow it to be easy for consumers. Hell this could have been an opportunity for Apple to create an open source DRM standard that would play well with consumers


Well... i could go on but time and time again it looks like Apple is really becoming more and more like Microsoft used to be.

you tell me ... i want a kinder and gentler Apple who plays well with others.

Definitely.

In my case, I have been trying in vain to find a car solution I like. My ipod-aware Alpine stereo falls short in many respects.

I walked into Car Toys just a few days ago, iPhone in hand, and simply said to them, "I want this iPhone to work with my car stereo. I want it to play music through the stereo, and I want the stereo to handle phone calls hands-free."

They had no good solutions to this simple, obvious problem. No stereo does it. Not through a dock connector and not with a bluetooth pairing. You can 'kinda' do it with some add on devices that add a couple hundred extra to the total price tag, but these carry extra annoyances and nothing close to a simple, polished "just works" user experience.

Why has apple not partnered with a stereo manufacturer to do this? It's like none of the manufacturers got started on it before the phone was in stores.

ps
Things I hate about my Alpine car stereo:
o It takes over the controls of ipods and iphones, so you have to use the awful controls on the stereo's head unit.
o Most labels are too long to read on the stereo's screen.
o Buttons are confusing, and the same function might be on two different buttons depending on what screen you're looking at.
o Podcasts are really hard to navigate, and it doesn't show you those marks that indicate a new, un-listened-to episode.
o Inexplicably, every time I connect an ipod or iphone, it decides to turn on the device's 'repeat' mode.
o The nano doesn't stop or pause when the car is turned off. If you don't stop it yourself, it will play on until its battery dies.
o When the nano is disconnected, the apline logo is still there on the screen, keeping the ipod's controls locked and unusable. I have to reset it every time I disconnect it from the stereo.

I could go on...
 
I think the ultimate truth here comes down to a couple simple points:

1. Apple believes that a rock-solid consistent experience is their key selling point compared to most phones, and will continue to be.

2. Apple believes the best way to ensure that they will be able to keep delivering this is to keep the platform closed. In a sense, I understand where they're coming from; I know countless people that think Macs are crash machines, because their only experiences were back in college labs in the 90s, machines overloaded with 3rd-party extensions and the like that caused all kinds of stability issues. This is a stigma that exists in the world of the casual user much more than we realize, and is only now, slowly, being overcome.

3. Apple ultimately believes the future of the iPhone is not in selling to us, the users that would hack a phone, or to those that like to dig under the hood. It is to to the people that have no interest in dealing with the technical know-how of their devices, and simply want them to work as well and as consistently as their toasters. Because there are a whole lot more of them than there is of us. They are the ones that have made iPods so successful.

I can't say I disagree with Apple on this last point, either. If Apple is able to listen to their users and integrate new features as the actual users want them, I don't see Apple being challenged in this space anytime soon. Ringtones will be something they need to address eventually, as that is a feature people want, and is a common-sense feature, and I'm sure we'll see them develop along the way, but as for the rest... Nokia can spend as much money as it wants promoting how open its platform is -- the customers that care about that are not Apple's target, and haven't been from day one.

Even casual users want an IM application. And even if what you say is correct, no one is going to force these users to install a bunch of third-party apps, so why not at least make the option available to the rest of us?
 
... Seriously, the 3rd. party apps I'm using on my iPhone are mostly *excellent* additions to the phone.

For starters, I installed a book reader package ...

I also have a VNC client, ...

Beyond that, there's an application that lets me email someone a full-size photo. ...

And the 15-day free trial of Navizon was slick too. ...

There's also a port of "ncftp" ...

None of these even touches on the "fun but not necessary" apps people wrote, like the "Tap Tap Revolution" game (a little bit like "Guitar Hero" on game consoles), or the Tetris clone, or the Super Nintendo game system emulator.
I can't argue with you since you are just stating your opinion, but you must also see how *not* like the average user you are here. :)

The whole point is (as you yourself intimate), what is necessary, and the things that are necessary to you are not necessary for most other people. The apps that make it onto the phone should be the apps that people need to perform the things they want/need to do with the iPhone. You must see that almost no user wants to do the things you do, and that the things you need to do are "techie" things.

The book-reader is something that most people could use, but every other thing you name falls directly into the "interesting but not necessary" category for almost all users.

The perfect example is Navizon. The purpose of the app is presumably to find out (accurately) where you are so the iPhone can give you directions to where you want to go. But the iPhone already does that, and it works great. Sure Navizon is a performance jump on that behaviour, but for most people an unnecessary one. There is no army of users out there saying "Gee, I wish the iPhone could give me more accurate directions, it fails all the time." How would Navizon even market this thing when there is no "problem" it addresses (at least in the minds of consumers). The real purpose of "Navizon" is that it's basically just a technology demonstration. Again, something that would basically only appeal to a techie like yourself.
 
Apple = Hypocrite.

"Other possible improvements include deeper access to iPhone functions via JavaScript and home screen icon placement."

So Microsoft creates their own extensions to Javascript and people burn them at the stake for deviating from standards. But hey, it's an iPhone, so it's ok for Apple to do the same.
 
The perfect example is Navizon. The purpose of the app is presumably to find out (accurately) where you are so the iPhone can give you directions to where you want to go. But the iPhone already does that, and it works great. Sure Navizon is a performance jump on that behaviour, but for most people an unnecessary one. There is no army of users out there saying "Gee, I wish the iPhone could give me more accurate directions, it fails all the time." How would Navizon even market this thing when there is no "problem" it addresses (at least in the minds of consumers). The real purpose of "Navizon" is that it's basically just a technology demonstration. Again, something that would basically only appeal to a techie like yourself.

I disagree. If I want directions to a spot using the iPhone map, I need to input two locations: where I am, and where I'm going. It defaults to the last place I looked at, which is not necessarily where I am now.

With something like Navizon, I can cut that in half. I just tell it where I'm going, and it can do the rest.
 
What they could do...

With the iPhone's OS set the way it is, all apps run as root user. This has some to do with their reluctance to open to 3rd party devs, I'm sure. But, this is something they could fix. Add a second, non-admin user for 3rd party apps to run as. Granted this would prevent some of the current 3rd party apps from running, but most of them would run just fine as a non-admin user. Then they could restrict root access apps to those "approved" by Apple and distributed through iTunes.

Once an API is documented, you'll see these developers produce much better, much more powerful apps. As it is right now, they're very limited on knowing how to use the new frameworks. Most of them are going to be the same as OS X for Mac, but right now they're just guessing (with much more trial-and-error than trial-and-success) at things like:

Celestial.framework, CFNetwork.framework, CoreTelephony.framework
(although they may want to have devs leave these alone)

CoreSurface.framework, DeviceLink.framework, IAP.framework, ITSync.framework, LayerKit.framework, MobileBluetooth.framework (can anyone say BT GPS Integration?), and a few others.

Not everybody that wants to run apps want the deep, deep, under-the-hood apps (although I still would) that dig into the unix core, like Terminals and on-board Apache and PERL and such, so a "sandbox user" approach should work just fine.
 
Apple = Hypocrite.

"Other possible improvements include deeper access to iPhone functions via JavaScript and home screen icon placement."

So Microsoft creates their own extensions to Javascript and people burn them at the stake for deviating from standards. But hey, it's an iPhone, so it's ok for Apple to do the same.

I think if you have a new device with new capabillites (eg "Read Gesture event", "Make phone call"), it should be ok to add extensions in a generic way so that other devices with analogous features would also be able to take advantage of the same extensions.

It should fit well with the philosophy of what has been designed already, of course. Apple has been good about this with the iPhone's web browser so far. For example, they recommend CSS that checks the screen size, not CSS that checks for some "iphone=true" property.
 
I think if you have a new device with new capabillites (eg "Read Gesture event", "Make phone call"), it should be ok to add extensions in a generic way so that other devices with analogous features would also be able to take advantage of the same extensions.

It should fit well with the philosophy of what has been designed already, of course. Apple has been good about this with the iPhone's web browser so far. For example, they recommend CSS that checks the screen size, not CSS that checks for some "iphone=true" property.

..,.Except that Javascript is a standard. In order to take the high road Apple would need to get their new objects, whatever, added to the ECMAScript standard and not as proprietary extensions supported only by Safari.

How many ActiveX objects can Safari use? Why add more proprietary pollution to web?
 
..,.Except that Javascript is a standard. In order to take the high road Apple would need to get their new objects, whatever, added to the ECMAScript standard and not as proprietary extensions supported only by Safari.

How many ActiveX objects can Safari use? Why add more proprietary pollution to web?

For some new capability you want to add that a current standard can't support, the alternatives would seem to be extending the standard, waiting for a (potentially very slow) standards process, and not supporting the new capability at all. None of those are ideal, really.
 
How many ActiveX objects can Safari use? Why add more proprietary pollution to web?

But, ActiveX is not designed for any one specific hand-held device. It's meant to be broad-spectrum (although still limited to Windows, I guess)...

iPhone specific JS calls are a different beast... These things will not be "designed for any and all web browsers on any and all platforms". They'll be limited to iPhone/iPod Touch. Who cares if it doesn't work on FireFox? It's not meant to run on a desktop computer. Make a real app for that.

Sure, you might want to check things out on a computer during development, but they could certainly release an "iPhone Developer's WebKit" browser/app for developers to test stuff out before porting to phone status.
 
Now we're talking. This is what it should have been in the first place. I guess they didn't get it done in time. Sounds like souped up Widgets.
 
iPhone specific JS calls are a different beast... These things will not be "designed for any and all web browsers on any and all platforms". They'll be limited to iPhone/iPod Touch. Who cares if it doesn't work on FireFox? It's not meant to run on a desktop computer. Make a real app for that.

So, it's ok for companies to write applications that are tied to Internet Explorer and IE only?
 
I reassure myself that Jobs is only as stubborn as success allows, and if he knows what's good for him and Apple, Inc., he won't let the company spiral into the toilet for the sake of integration. I doubt this is a case of too little too late. I'm pretty sure Michael Dell thought the same thing in the 90's, and he couldn't say that now.
 
So, it's ok for companies to write applications that are tied to Internet Explorer and IE only?

If MS were to put a "special version" of IE on the Zune, for instance, and they made additions to JS for THAT version of IE, and that version only, then sure, that's ok. Assuming "that special version" of IE was intended to be used for custom apps designed for Zune.

I'm agreeing that ActiveX for the Internet-At-Large is bad. Some Web Site developers (not looking at app developers) are using ActiveX and either don't know better or don't care that their site won't work outside of IE on Windows. That's not good. I agree with you that ActiveX in that mode is "Web pollution".

But, we're talking about Apps here for iPhone, not Web Sites.

Don't get me wrong here... I want native apps as much as anyone else. But the example of iPhone specific JS being as bad as ActiveX is not a fair comparison... With an ActiveX web site you don't know where a user is coming from (what platform / browser)... With an iPhone WebKit app you know where they're coming from... the touch screen of an iPhone or iPod Touch.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.