iPod touch SDK update... as expected, it may not be all that you expected

[bnizzy]

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/29/iphone-software-development-to-be-locked-down-by-apple/

check it out.

All I can say is shame on me and shame on those who actually believed for a second that the SDK would be a full version that would give developers all the tools needed to make kicka$$ apps.

this may not be fully confirmed yet, but it makes total sense.

hA. who were we fooling. Apple is a business.

steve jobs = not your friend.
steve jobs = shareholders' friend.

 

[razorianfly]

I'm sorry, but I have to say I am GLAD by this move Apple has chosen. It was to be expected. They have two products which are entirely huge for them, those being the iPod touch, and the iPhone.

Now with Apple acting as 'gatekeeper' and approving applications for the touch platform:

1. Malicious software developed and disguised as an application, which would therefore run on the touch platform, and possibly cause havoc - wouldn't be a threat/issue

2. Apple can maintain what it originally was known for. Quality.

By taking the option to 'screen' applications before they are permitted to the platform and acting as 'gatekeeper', Apple lets through only applications that:

a) They solely approve of security wise
b) They deem stable enough for the platform
c) They believe people want (if an application flops/doesn't sell, they'll replace it with one that will)

Without Apple, the touch platform could turn out to be a harvest field for malicious software, or software which is simply unstable.

I think once everyone sees what this SDK can potentially offer to the future of the touch platform, only then will they understand the reasoning behind Apple's decision to act as 'gatekeeper' through iTunes.

R-Fly

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/29/iphone-software-development-to-be-locked-down-by-apple/

check it out.

All I can say is shame on me and shame on those who actually believed for a second that the SDK would be a full version that would give developers all the tools needed to make kicka$$ apps.

this may not be fully confirmed yet, but it makes total sense.

hA. who were we fooling. Apple is a business.

steve jobs = not your friend.
steve jobs = shareholders' friend.

I never once thought there would be free apps flowing in from all over the Internet. This makes complete sense.

 

[bnizzy]

tru tru tru.
all great points.

I'm just glad I dont have to do another JB! haha

i'm stickin with 1.1.3 JB woohooo!

 

[antibact1]

I'm sorry, but I have to say I am GLAD by this move Apple has chosen. It was to be expected. They have two products which are entirely huge for them, those being the iPod touch, and the iPhone.

Now with Apple acting as 'gatekeeper' and approving applications for the touch platform:

1. Malicious software developed and disguised as an application, which would therefore run on the touch platform, and possibly cause havoc - wouldn't be a threat/issue

2. Apple can maintain what it originally was known for. Quality.

By taking the option to 'screen' applications before they are permitted to the platform and acting as 'gatekeeper', Apple lets through only applications that:

a) They solely approve of security wise
b) They deem stable enough for the platform
c) They believe people want (if an application flops/doesn't sell, they'll replace it with one that will)

Without Apple, the touch platform could turn out to be a harvest field for malicious software, or software which is simply unstable.

I think once everyone sees what this SDK can potentially offer to the future of the touch platform, only then will they understand the reasoning behind Apple's decision to act as 'gatekeeper' through iTunes.

R-Fly

The whole gatekeeper thing is ridiculous. Sure there are security concerns surrounding any application distribution, but it's up to the user to be aware of this, as they likely are by having a computer in the first place. As a response to a) and b), how can they determine if an application is secure or stable? Many developers would be unwilling to provide source code which is the only certain way to guarantee an application is not malicious. And without this, what would stop me from writing a seemingly useful application that is a timebomb waiting to go off. The time is set far enough in the future to get through the approval process and we're off to the races. Sure Apple could reverse the applications to take a peek, but this is against the law and a direct violation of the DMCA. As a response to c), applications people want, I don't want Big Brother restricting applications to what they think I may want. Look at the success of the Mac platform as a whole, where anyone with a Mac can download Xcode and create a great application. Some of the greatest applications would surely have been thought of as something that people wouldn't want. Then they get released, get momentum and are something that many people want. Don't get me wrong, iTunes would be a great distribution system. A consolidated source to find applications would be incredible. Them being incredibly discerning about what goes on, less incredible.

Who even knows what they are going to do though. They may let everyone do whatever they want

 

[aethelbert]

This is what I expected. Some people were just expecting to get everything that they want as that is where the world is going these days.

steve jobs = not your friend.
steve jobs = shareholders' friend.

Me=shareholder
Steve Jobs=friend

But maybe not for much longer as I've already sold half of the stock at $180 and I'm considering letting the rest go...

 

[arn]

lengthy thread on it

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/444620/