Why Did Apple Break 3rd Party Apps?

Discussion in 'Jailbreaks and iOS Hacks' started by cah87, Sep 28, 2007.

  1. cah87 macrumors regular

    Jul 7, 2007
    I know these questions and things have been floating around but i would like a solid answer. I've called apple and i can't get a reason. My view point is this. They sell the iPhone which comes with hardware and software Correct? They also sell the iMac (and many other macs) which also come with hardware and software. They completely allow third party apps to be installed they even give you the tools to make them for free. So my question is why not the iPhone?
  2. MarkMS macrumors 6502a

    Aug 30, 2006
    Macs and phones are different in their own ways. Yes the iPhone is pretty much a pocket-sized computer, but it has limitations.

    No one on here knows for sure why they don't want 3rd party apps. My guess is they don't want a possibility of a program to access the network and possibly bring it down.

    Before you flame me, hear what I have to say. Imagine if there was a real SDK and people were able to write apps. There are many of us who would want to check out new apps and would download without hesitation and install. What if one of the apps was maliciously coded to bombard the network? Could there be a possibility that the network would go down? I think that is why they don't want 3rd party apps. That or AT&T just doesn't it one there for financial reasons. Why SMS, when you could iChat for free on WiFi?

    But then again, I keep thinking to myself ... the new iTunes WiFi can only be accessed via WiFi. Why can't Apple release an SDK and just have apps written for the iPhone or iPod Touch just access WiFi as well. Apps written by Apple themselves should be the only ones to access EDGE.

    I really don't know the reasoning behind it, but I would like 3rd party apps, just not though AppTapp. If Apple built up something similar to it and tested the apps before they went live, then I would be all for it.
  3. cah87 thread starter macrumors regular

    Jul 7, 2007
    I'm so not in the business of internet flaming. I do see your point partially. Of course someone could write malicious code and cause some problems but still, edge is slow and i really do not think it could bring down a network. It is the same with computer viruses, hackers could write code to ddos attack websites and other things but that shouldn't prevent forward progress and expansion. Do you agree?

    I just think big corporations bullying people around and preventing people from customizing items they purchased is wrong......:)

    Anyway still love apple and will continue to buy their products:apple::apple:
  4. linshiwen macrumors member

    Aug 19, 2007
    They are probably ashamed that developers have put out programs that are so vastly superior to their paltry offerings.

    Wifi music store... useless. Who has ever needed a song so badly that they couldnt wait to get home to DL it? How can it even begin to compare with the genius that summerboard, NES, TTR, Apollo... hell, Ill take minesweeper over wifi music store any day.

    /1.0.2 for life, if necessary
  5. cah87 thread starter macrumors regular

    Jul 7, 2007
    same here there are some new cool features but in all honesty not worth losing my apps.
  6. rmh macrumors regular

    Sep 12, 2007
    All I have to add is that if someone was going to try to "take down the network", couldnt they already do so with a program for the large number of Windows Mobile devices already out there?
  7. QuarterSwede macrumors G3


    Oct 1, 2005
    Colorado Springs, CO
    I hate to say it but I've wanted an instant music search a lot of times simply because I know I'll forget to look later.
  8. vga4life macrumors 6502

    Jun 16, 2004
    That argument would make sense if there werent millions of PalmOS, Windows Mobile, and Symbian smartphones out there already with free SDKs that run any 3rd party app you'd care to install!

    In other words, that argument is complete cobblers and anyone who believe it is seriously deluded. It makes me angry every time I hear it repeated - it's deeply bogus. Not a valid concern.

    There's hope for you after all. This is much closer to the real reason - IM eats into SMS profits - and imagine if you had free VOIP while connected to wifi? Totally unacceptable to AT&T, and thus to Apple (who's getting a cut of your monthly bill.)

    The whole iphone situation stinks. Apple's image as a firm that delivers products its customers wants is crumbling rapidly.
  9. Sayer macrumors 6502a


    Jan 4, 2002
    Austin, TX
    Instead of whining about what Apple does with the product it created and maintains (via software updates) and has contractual obligations to support with AT&T (and other carriers) how about you NOT BUY an iPhone.

    There are tons of "smart phones" that certain people seem to think smoke an iPhone, don't use EDGE, have third-party apps and don't cost that much.

    Steve Jobs could really care less what you think of no-3rd party apps, you already bought the iPhone and activated service (giving Apple a recurring revenue stream even if you never buy a ringtone or iTunes download ever again).

    The only way to make a point with a company that makes money by selling products is to NOT BUY THE PRODUCT.
  10. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Jun 25, 2002
    Gone but not forgotten.
    The odd thing is that Steve Jobs already said that Apple couldn't care less if you wanted to install applications on an iPhone.

    Obviously, they cared about their monthly cut and didn't want unlocked phones since you can't get money from a company with which you have no agreement.

    It just seems odd that they've had this complete reversal only weeks after the mention.

    Most applications aren't likely to cause any problem for them, so they should be allowed to exist, but protecting the stability of the operating system has to be a difficult goal with people hacking it.
  11. Sbrocket macrumors 65816


    Jun 3, 2007
    Copied from another thread I wrote:
    "3) Apple intentionally disabled third party applications!

    This is the big one. Of course I can't be sure, but I seriously doubt that Apple is going to maliciously go after third-party apps. They have to do it for unlock methods or AT&T gets on their case, but for third-party apps they have no reason. I believe that Apple added the new signing and encryption that is making the new software so hard to re-hack not as a direct method to disable third-party apps. They had already said publically that they weren't going to go after them, but they weren't going to make sure that they didn't break either - why go against that now? It doesn't make any sense. The third-party iPhone developers just got caught in the crossfire between Apple and the people trying to carrier unlock it."

  12. bentup macrumors member

    Sep 8, 2007
    San Francisco
    BINGO! 3rd party apps are a blessing to Apple! BUT: They must stop anything and everything that undermine their product. This includes ringtones, music, and their exclusive deal with AT&T. 3rd party apps are collateral damage. I am sure part of the AT&T deal includes Apple doing their best to prevent SIM unlocking (not jailbreaking, opening, unshackling or what have you).

    Not that I support what Apple is doing, but their deal with AT&T allows for a lot of services that other carriers don't have yet. So, hooray for that, and other carriers having to get their **** together.

    Sadly, 3rd party apps have to take a hit... I cried. a tear. Here's to the work of hackers!
  13. bbydon macrumors 6502a

    May 18, 2005
    I think its as simple as the SDK isnt ready yet so its not released.

    They are improving the security in it making it smoother so developers can use it and it wont be a security risk to the phone.

    All resources are back to leopard to finish it for october...i'd imagine a SDK by jan or the next developers conference in june.

    ...but then again im guessing at all this.
  14. MarkMS macrumors 6502a

    Aug 30, 2006

    This seems the most accurate.
  15. Sbrocket macrumors 65816


    Jun 3, 2007
    Well sure, but no one wants to hear that when there's such a false popular sentiment that Apple is really at fault. They just pass it by without a second glance and go about reinforcing their ignorance.
  16. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Dec 25, 2003
    Northern Virginia
    I think it is about revenue streaming. By the end of year I expect Apple to offer apps that we can download through iTunes like games for the iPod.

    In the end I think they are "testing" the market for the apps that make the most sense. I doubt though that an instant messenger app will see the light of day without an added fee from AT&T. For SMS is a money maker for AT&T.
  17. SpaceJello macrumors 6502

    Dec 2, 2006
    In all seriousousness, there are many ways to messenging without using SMS - i.e. just through email, set your account to check the mail every 5 minutes or less. Tell that to all your friends, so you can reply to them ASAP. That being said, if you think this method is slow, you would have called your friend already in the first place.

    As for programs, I am sure Apple is working with EA for games, and other companies for programs that you can only get through iTunes. I think if Apple limit program installation only through iTunes, it can verify any other third party app before posting it on the store.
  18. joeconvert macrumors 6502

    Nov 18, 2003
    I don't see this point. You can put Apps on Treo, both Palm and Windows Mobile versions..... same with the Blackberry. (Although the Blackberry is much more locked down).
  19. riverfreak macrumors 65816


    Jan 10, 2005
    Thonglor, Bangkok
    How available is the network in the SDK for those devices? Danger (the manufacturer of the Sidekick) released and then pulled an SDK exactly for the same fears Apple/AT+T purportedly have: poorly designed bandwidth hogging apps. Tragedy of the commons.
  20. woode macrumors newbie

    Oct 2, 2007
    Scary thought: Apple gives us an open SDK, people write crappy bandwidth-hogging apps, AT&T implements connection throttling on accounts that use more than a certain amount of bandwith (like Hughes does with satellite internet).


    As for people railing against Apple for not letting them do what they want with their iPhone, well, the thing is you CAN! Hack it to your heart's content! No one is stopping you! Just don't expect Apple to code around those hacks that may or may not be correctly twiddling the system's bits. Just like if a third-party Tiger "enhancer" breaks in Leopard, Apple is under no obligation to dirty up their code to make a hack work in Leopard.
  21. DotComCTO macrumors 6502

    Aug 17, 2006
    I'm in agreement with the idea that 3rd party apps just got caught in the unlocking crossfire.

    Now, to add onto that theory, I believe that Apple is holding out on delivering more apps until they can be sure they've properly locked the phone down. For example, let's say that Apple included features like MMS, iChat, landscape support in all apps, copy & paste, etc in the 1.1.1 firmware. Now let's say that 1.1.1 wasn't as locked down as they thought and people could still easily unlock the phone. Users wouldn't have any incentive to upgrade beyond 1.1.1, right? They'd have the "missing apps" + unlocking + 3rd party apps, and Apple & AT&T would be unhappy.

    In our current situation with 1.1.1, Apple has time to measure what the hacking community can/will do. They can even respond with additional firmware changes to lock things down even further. Now, if the hacks die down, Apple could slowly start to release a 1-2 new apps/features and see if new hacks pop up. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    Well - that's my theory for the day!


  22. indraunt macrumors newbie

    May 18, 2007
    Here's what I think happened - until the iPod touch there wasn't so much of an issue, aapt would whinge, but apple would just say "hey, we're doing what we can". Then the touch comes out, aapt see that its locked up much tighter than the phone and say to apple, "hey man, WTF are you trying to pull here?" So, to avoid any potentially harmful conflict, apple has responded by trying to lock the iphone up tighter than initially hoped by apple.
    Essentially I'm saying apple has messed things up because of the iPod touch, rather than out of some kind of spite.

Share This Page