You really mean the opposite. Apple has always been controlling. Just ask the Mac clone makers.
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" To Receive Improvements, Remain Web-based
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You really mean the opposite. Apple has always been controlling. Just ask the Mac clone makers.
we should be reminded that "Apple" is intended to be an "all-in-one" package for the most part, in all there products. Obviously we use 3rd party apps, becuase apple can't produce everything! I can understand why apple would want to keep it closed, security, blah blah... if they do allow anyone to do anything on it, 1) they are not responsible (when i think, from a political standpoint they really want to be responsible - helping out the innocent customer) and 2) they run the risk of being seen as a slow developer (because everyone that would need anything would find it on a 3rd party app and not an apple app).... the downside ofcourse is having a underperforming machine with your name on it, especially one with a lot of potential. So in the end, ofcourse there are a lot of things wrong with the iphone, the first being it is locked, but this will evolve as competition has improved (you don't want to go tooo far out ahead of the competition, do you?)
Whatever.
Just, whatever.
I've been fairly anti-iPhone all along, and have mostly perceived it as one of the bigger corporate tangents Apple could take. But, when folks started doing all the stuff on their iPhones that I've only dreamed about with my Motorolas and Verizon, I thought, "well, maybe this is worth reconsidering. Maybe this really is something I should look at. This is neat, and has the grace and stability of OS X behind it. OK, maybe I will check this out, especially if there's going to be a growing constellation of applications that use OS X in the palm of my hand."
But I've got to say, since the last firmware update that took away the very thing that interested me in the iPhone (its potential for growth and expansion) and in return Apple offers this BS Safari-based Webkit pseudo-SDK thingy, I'm back to where I started in my opinion of it.
Though not for everyone, for a great many people the ability to add on custom native applications to their Palm, Windows Mobile or other portable device is a huge consideration. I've got a cell phone and PDA, and when I re-up my cellular contract, the iPhone was a contender to replace both of these with a single device. What Apple's doing with the iPhone is very akin to what M$ does with Windows and Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player. Except, Apple doesn't have a virtual monopoly to bully people around with.
So, as other phone manufacturers respond to the iPhone, I've now got a choice with my next purchase: Buy the iPhone and be completely slaved to Apple to let me add applications similar to, say, Pocket Quicken, or even add my own damn ringtones free of charge; or, check out the competition. And if the competition has caught up to the iPhone, they'll probably be the ones who get my money.
When the iPhone goes the way of the Newton, Apple will hopefully have ample opportunity to reflect and wonder why they chose this course of action.
Just, whatever.
I've been fairly anti-iPhone all along, and have mostly perceived it as one of the bigger corporate tangents Apple could take. But, when folks started doing all the stuff on their iPhones that I've only dreamed about with my Motorolas and Verizon, I thought, "well, maybe this is worth reconsidering. Maybe this really is something I should look at. This is neat, and has the grace and stability of OS X behind it. OK, maybe I will check this out, especially if there's going to be a growing constellation of applications that use OS X in the palm of my hand."
But I've got to say, since the last firmware update that took away the very thing that interested me in the iPhone (its potential for growth and expansion) and in return Apple offers this BS Safari-based Webkit pseudo-SDK thingy, I'm back to where I started in my opinion of it.
Though not for everyone, for a great many people the ability to add on custom native applications to their Palm, Windows Mobile or other portable device is a huge consideration. I've got a cell phone and PDA, and when I re-up my cellular contract, the iPhone was a contender to replace both of these with a single device. What Apple's doing with the iPhone is very akin to what M$ does with Windows and Internet Explorer or Windows Media Player. Except, Apple doesn't have a virtual monopoly to bully people around with.
So, as other phone manufacturers respond to the iPhone, I've now got a choice with my next purchase: Buy the iPhone and be completely slaved to Apple to let me add applications similar to, say, Pocket Quicken, or even add my own damn ringtones free of charge; or, check out the competition. And if the competition has caught up to the iPhone, they'll probably be the ones who get my money.
When the iPhone goes the way of the Newton, Apple will hopefully have ample opportunity to reflect and wonder why they chose this course of action.
Absofrigginlutely.
The market Apple wants is not all the Mac cult folks who will (and DID) buy the iPhone already. They want real market share and the real market share of average Joe and Jane could care less or even understand these 3P apps. Their wants and needs are much more simple and the iPhone will suit them quite well.
The clock on my iPhone is ticking.....
Heh. You failed your word for the day... Ironic is mis-used, although I didn't know that, and would have totally agreed until I saw this video on YouTube.
Just had to throw that in there.
No, it still makes sense. The company says they support being different, when (based on the video's explanation), Apple is lying by omission or by concealment of true intent, in this case they know they are not being different, but use that marketing campaign to conceal their true intent of being the same. The irony is their false advertising.
After hearing Apple's response to buy a new phone if yours was bricked; a new sdk does not seem that important. This sounds like a product to stay away from.
You shouldnt have hacked the phone then, or you shouldnt have updated. Apple has every right to cllose down there platform if they want to. Its not up to you how they should react.
as long as it gains offline capabilities, I'm cool with that. No need for stand-alone apps, just apps that work where the internet isn't available.
I agree, that is all i really want, apps that arent internet oriented. I would also like to be able to download pictures and movies from the internet and save them to the ipod or picture viewing app thing.
not cache ... database
It provides for a client based relational database for storing data. This database automatically syncs with the server version of the same thing. If that's the case, then providing a parameter that iPhone users can set as to how big they want this database to get will be the answer and it will operate outside of the cache.
This might even accommodate "Disc mode" in that this database could store anything at all really. A simple web-based utility that acts like FTP for this user-accessible storage space would work well for that. In this case, not only the apps, but the users files would be sand-boxed.
As far as I understand the Google Gears thing....
It provides for a client based relational database for storing data. This database automatically syncs with the server version of the same thing. If that's the case, then providing a parameter that iPhone users can set as to how big they want this database to get will be the answer and it will operate outside of the cache.
This might even accommodate "Disc mode" in that this database could store anything at all really. A simple web-based utility that acts like FTP for this user-accessible storage space would work well for that. In this case, not only the apps, but the users files would be sand-boxed.
widgets
Sounds to me like Apple just said they're going to allow only widget development for the iPhone. That might not be so bad in the context of specialised apps.
In addition, I'm predicting down the track Apple might make mac and iphone widgets interchangable - ta da! gesture based screen input on your mac! And a whole dev community used to it in a small way before it starts to Take Over The World(tm)
Sounds to me like Apple just said they're going to allow only widget development for the iPhone. That might not be so bad in the context of specialised apps.
In addition, I'm predicting down the track Apple might make mac and iphone widgets interchangable - ta da! gesture based screen input on your mac! And a whole dev community used to it in a small way before it starts to Take Over The World(tm)
No, it still makes sense. The company says they support being different, when (based on the video's explanation), Apple is lying by omission or by concealment of true intent, in this case they know they are not being different, but use that marketing campaign to conceal their true intent of being the same. The irony is their false advertising.
Given that explanation, then yes, I'm back to agreeing with you. I guess I just sort of stepped through your OP while concentrating on my other posts.
Hopefully we're in for a surprise when Leopard comes out and they'll announce a true SDK at that time, with the explanation that working with it alongside Tiger either just wouldn't work or would have been severely crippled for some reason.
But, I'm not holding my breath on that thought. Just wishing.
I would love to see this. Then you'd have anything javascript with a database can do, whether you're connected to a network or not. At that point the remaining issues are the speed of executing Javascript and the features of the phone exposed to the Javascript interpreter (multitouch? network connectivity? camera? audio in/out? bluetooth? etc)
God Bless Us All!!!
Companies do what they have to do- make products and sell at a profit and gain market share. Apple is doing all these things.
Your company would do what?
Actually, lots of posters here have this thing about Apple being this anti-MS, anti big business, pro the little guy company and get pissed off when the company is perceived to be what it is--- realistically NEVER the above. It has been about consistency, integration, user-friendliness, excellence, innovation and "thinking different." If that imparts a hint of "greeness" fine: but Apple is a company answerable to its share-holders and so it can't be a bleeding heart.
SJ needs to ease up a bit and listen to the public debate. Not all criticism about him is right or wrong but when the hornets get stirred up its time for evasive action or else get stung.
For those willing to never buy an Apple product because it is seen as a controlling force, keeping your mitts out of its innards-- well you have issue with father figures and need counseling. Your rants are therefore as hollow as a cream puff-- with all the substance as well.
The way to make Apple pay attention is to work with it-- write emails galore. Avoid MacWorld if all else fails.
Companies do what they have to do- make products and sell at a profit and gain market share. Apple is doing all these things.
Your company would do what?
Actually, lots of posters here have this thing about Apple being this anti-MS, anti big business, pro the little guy company and get pissed off when the company is perceived to be what it is--- realistically NEVER the above. It has been about consistency, integration, user-friendliness, excellence, innovation and "thinking different." If that imparts a hint of "greeness" fine: but Apple is a company answerable to its share-holders and so it can't be a bleeding heart.
SJ needs to ease up a bit and listen to the public debate. Not all criticism about him is right or wrong but when the hornets get stirred up its time for evasive action or else get stung.
For those willing to never buy an Apple product because it is seen as a controlling force, keeping your mitts out of its innards-- well you have issue with father figures and need counseling. Your rants are therefore as hollow as a cream puff-- with all the substance as well.
The way to make Apple pay attention is to work with it-- write emails galore. Avoid MacWorld if all else fails.
This makes a lot more sense than the more conspiratorial conjecture that seems to dominate discussions on the iPhone firmware. If Apple was diverting resources away from Leopard to get the iPhone to market in time for the June launch, obviously there was a big last minute push just to get the iPhone out in the first place, and a lot corners got cut just to get a reasonably functional and stable product out by the release date. (OS X was certainly far from a finished product in its 10.0 version) It might simply be the case that v1.1.1 is closer to what Apple would prefer to have released from the outset. That blog link seems to indicate that v1.1.1 is still a work-in-progress that needs a lot of work, even though the firmware was already a rewrite.
Just like a badly coded app on OSX, Windows ... any other platform.
If an Application is unstable then the user can freely uninstall.
The iTunes App Store is actually a pretty good Idea. And I believe Apple could even make it to were it is profitable for them.(Companies exist to make money, right?) Possibly like a one time charge for each app and you get a "Page" on the iTunes store that you design(mini website). So even if you are giving the App away for free....there are the perks of getting an Official iTunes Description page. If you know what I mean?
At work we all use web and/or server based apps that run better outside our computer and have very large database access.
A lot of people think this is the future. If you have a very fast interface (like your laptop or iPone) to new server and web based apps (not the little crippled web 2.0) then you have a small supercomputer without the hassle of native data storage, ram limitations, etc. Maybe this is the Think Different that we all are missing while we whine about the lack of silly little 3rd party native apps. IMHO
A lot of people think this is the future. If you have a very fast interface (like your laptop or iPone) to new server and web based apps (not the little crippled web 2.0) then you have a small supercomputer without the hassle of native data storage, ram limitations, etc. Maybe this is the Think Different that we all are missing while we whine about the lack of silly little 3rd party native apps. IMHO
Some people who didn't hack their phone also had their phones bricked due to firmware v1.1.1.
My gf's iPhone glitched on the update (2 weeks old, never hacked) and I had to try several times (restarting etc.) to get it to restore. I thought it was bricked, but it finally restored.
My iPhone, which I lightly hacked (iphoneringonemaker, iphonetastic)
had no problems at all. Updated without a restore and works better and faster than ever now.
Hmmm, I like it.
This does seem to be a unique opportunity for apple to push forward the state of the art on network applications beyond the Javascript headaches of today, if they really land on a good design.
This could finally be what Java was hyped to be 10 years ago - software pushed over the network to little devices without the need to compile on a device's particular processor.
If we get that, with a good language (as opposed to, say, Javascript) and a good design that can be extended to devices of all kinds of sizes and capabilities - the kind of forward-thinking design that adheres to the spirit of the web - then I say it will have been worth the wait.
web based applications? - thats like dry humping
web based application is like the kiddie pool, the beginners slope...
apple, cut the CR**, give us real apps or we will continue with app.tap and you can stick all updates after 1.02 you know where....!
web based application is like the kiddie pool, the beginners slope...
apple, cut the CR**, give us real apps or we will continue with app.tap and you can stick all updates after 1.02 you know where....!