Does concentrating application development on web based only applications allow Apple to remain flexible on processor choice? Do they not want to open the iPhone because of planned future changes to the architecture?
I know security is one reason to limit third party apps, but if they do plan to switch chips to intel from samsung, are they just trying to get momentum behind web base applications so that they can build a library of titles that do not have to be recompiled and rewritten when new hardware comes out, similar to the games on the iPod problem they have now?
Obviously they are concerned about future architecture with battery life and 3g, the technology is just maturing now, maybe they are hedging their position to remain neutral so they can be nimble with the hardware.
If you do some more research into Intels upcoming hardware, you'll realize the iphone will NOT RUN x86 for at least 3-4 years and probably Never. The only way that will work is if they had some type of hybrid solution because even an Intel 45nm silverthorne sucks battery like CRAZY compared to an ARM architecture chip. A Silverthorne in an iPhone with a similar size battery as it has now would NOT last more than 8-11 hours standby and 2-3 hours talktime on a charge. They would have to have some type of ARM running the phone radio and then the x86 (well x64
) running OSX. Go speak to any expert in embedded development and they will tell you the same thing.
Besides, even if it was a though for the future, that is no excuse to completely stifling *REAL* software development on the iPhone. "Web 2.0 Apps" are a complete joke on such a powerful phone. CASE IN POINT, why did Apple not use WebKit for any of THEIR applications, especially google maps?
Oh, right because Javascript/HTML "apps" are SLOW, Have crap interfaces, Can't use accelerated graphics, etc etc etc.
To the guy who says he's going to make Ajax apps that are close to native apps, I say SHOW ME. If you are talking about a form-based To-Do list or a Flickr viewer... fine. Anything more complex is NOT going to happen. Have you tried to write/debug/maintain a large javascript/html application?
This is VERY good news actually. ... the fact that web-based will be substaintially improved...
With more access to the iPhone functions, some great web apps can be developed that really do look and feel and function like native apps.
The ability to have a phone number on a web page dialed or added to a contact is so far removed from "developing apps that look and feel like native" it's not even funny. Again, if someone is making a cookbook or a Todo list, an AJAX web app will indeed look like it's native equivalent, minus the accelerated graphical interface. Anything more complex than an interactive form will be NOTHING like a native application. You lose the fast performance, responsive interface, graphics rendering, cool transitions, speaker and microphone access and most importantly the ability to manipulate the incredible multitouch interface. These features I have listed are WHAT MAKES THE iPHONE an iPHONE. Without them you are left with uninspiring, unresponsive and sluggish javascript based applications without use of an accelerated graphical interface. In other words, you are left with the equivalent of an old PALM OS platform. YUCK!
If everyone would stop being an Apple apologist and DEMAND them to open the platform, it WILL happen. They will have no choice. Otherwise, no sales.
Would it be too much to be able to add the ability to save save attachments (images, at least) as well as save images from web pages?
u can't save attachments or pics from the web? are you kidding?
Safari has enough of a job being my web browser believe me.
but if that's the route they are taking, then they also need to more fully implement support for Java, Flash and Quicktime.
* Java - we have no support, but support on some decent level would go a long way.
* Flash - I don't think I need to say a whole lot here.
* Quicktime - Ok so iPhone has some quicktime functionality, but it is pretty limited compared to what quicktime is actually capable of. We are missing Quicktime VR support (I think the finger motions lend itself to Quicktime VR almost perfectly) and we are missing basically everything that has t do with interactive quicktime support.
* Copy+Paste
* Save images from emails into Photo's
* Small storage area [disk mode space] for downloads from email, internet, etc.
If Apple insists that there will be no "true" third party native iPhone Apps, then I would sure hope that they will make the web path as robust and versatile as possible.
If apple supported Java in safari, then obviously they could easily support fully-java based 3rd party apps. One other thing to mention is that the iphone ARM processor natively supports Java bytecode without having to JIT. (I believe at least)
would be nice if Apple designed a sort of "container" storage on the iPhone where the programs were underneath so that they could be removed etc if they messed up your iPhone, or have a temporary home on the iPhone.
its called a sandbox, and yes they could easily implement it.
While power users would be more concerned about third party applications, you really should consider what kind of user each person is. I'm willing to bet that most people do not care about putting third party applications in their phone.
Most people? are you kidding. Go like at Palm OS, Symbian, and Windows mobile users. A large minority at LEAST uses 3rd party applications. And for the ones who don't run them now, it's only only because they are ignorant of the possibilities. If you show them what is possible, and then take it away, they would be furious. Thats like saying your average Windows user doesn't care to run Mac OSX. However, if they tried it, they'd love it and never go back.
OMG. I just checked out the poll on the front page and even on macrumors (which should have a much much much higher percentage of people "hacking" their phone) and the majority of people do NOT hack their phone.
Loud, loud subset of people in the grand scheme of things.
WTF? I just looked at it, and when you remove the people who don't have an iphone, its
EASILY over 50%. .
And actually, it should not have a "much much much" higher percentage as I personally know more "non-techie" people that have installed 3rd party applications than those that are technical. Its gotten to the point of a nice-looking GUI with a button to transfer apps. Its no longer some obscure, highly-technical, command line process.
I think the ultimate truth here comes down to a couple simple points:
So you are the authority for "ultimate truth" now? puhhhlease...
1. Apple believes that a rock-solid consistent experience is their key selling point compared to most phones, and will continue to be.
Indeed, why they should still maintain
*SOME* control of their platform and not let it be a free-for-all. They could sell approved applications (from any registered 3rd party developer) that are
quality-checked through Itunes and everyone wins. This would allow them to keep crap off the device, allow the Devs to write innovative apps, Allow customers to extend the functionality of their device, and introduce hesitant people to the great wonders of open development in an easy, no hassle, apple mediated way.
There is just no way to dispute this. It's entirely feasible and is a win-win-win.
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.
I don't know how old you are, but I am 24 and have no idea what you are talking about. At least in my generation, I think there is MUCH MORE of an "Macs are great and stable -- window's is terrible and buggy" attitude. I am not a mac evangelist as i don't even own one right now. Every lay I talk to always say "so and so my friend/aunt/coworker/etc has a mac and I just love them. They are so nice looking and seem easy to use."
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 would agree if they were selling the iPhone for $99 or $149 with a contract. At $400 or $500 with a 2-year contact, no way in hell are they attracting the "I just want a phone" people. Look at the Ipods, the main sellers are the Nano and shuffle AJA the cheap price points. Even with the success of the Ipod, Apple needs the loyal enthusiasts to sell the products to the masses.
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.
Just remember how fast the cell phone market moves. Although I think the iPhone is a superior device to any HTC, Samsung, or Nokia, Not everyone, ESPECIALLY the mass market type people feel that way, and those companies are going to start closing in on Apple fast. Again, I Love the multitouch and especially the mobile browser experience. But for the majority of people who don't need to be online all the time, they will be much more interested in picture messaging their friends, adding ringtones, customizing their background and theme, etc etc etc.
Apple seems to be so schizophrenic in their target demographic. On one hand they aim at the tech/smartphone enthusiasts, but lock the platform and don't offer essential features. They tout it as an incredible internet and messaging device, but then they don't offer enterprise wifi security or corporate email synching. You say they are targeting the mass market 16 year old. But then why the focus on high technology and not on MMS, video recording, interchangable backgrounds and themes, screensavers, record-your-own ringtone etc etc.
If Apple doesn't get out of their own way on this and open the platform, it's going to be an unprecedented situation of shooting yourself in the foot.
