No Third-party Apps on iPhone Says Jobs

wyldeone writes "In an interview with the New York Times, Steve Jobs confirms reports that the recently-announced iPhone will not allow third party applications to be installed. According to Jobs, 'These are devices that need to work, and you can't do that if you load any software on them.' In a similar vein, Jobs said in a MSNBC article that, 'Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up.'"

Right...

Right. So Sprint's network is going down every day because of some poorly written application on my Treo? This kind of absurd argument merely clouds the issues. This is about Jobs' control issues, not anything technical. I would be fine if they just released an sdk saying, essentially, anyone who wants to install 3rd party applications is on their own. The best, most stable programs developed could be accepted into Apple's Special Developer Program, which would make "official" releases. I have a problem with the status quo as described by Jobs (i.e., where only "approved" applications make it onto the iPhone) because it leaves the fate of potentially very useful applications to the political realities of Apple's relationship with Cingular (this means no VoIP). On my Treo, however, (if it supported WiFi, that is) there would be no way for Sprint or any carrier to stop me from installing a VoIP application; or, more dangerously, an application that allows me to convert an mp3 into a ringtone with out shelling out something ridiculous for the cell phone company's ringtones. It's these sort of applications that are made completely impossible through Jobs' program, and the biggest flaw with it. Another major flaw is that this sort of thing usually cuts out the small timers. PDA programs do not take an enormous amount development effort, therefore making them perfect for small developers; it's one of the few environments left where big development studios don't have a huge advantage. However, any sort of program (which likely would have a closed, expensive development platform as opposed to the cheap, open PalmOS and Windows Mobile SDKs) would almost certainly be prohibitively priced to anyone but these large development houses. In any case, much of the glamor of the iPhone has worn off since it has become clear that third-party applications were out. The device itself is beautiful, but it is the unexpected uses that make these devices so powerful and useful. On my Treo, I control my IR utilities using universal remote software, I have an instant-messaging client, a voice-activated launcher. All applications developed by third-parties and probably uses of the phone unexpected by Palm. I can only hope that Jobs realizes that he does not see perfectly into the minds of all consumers and does not know what we all want or need.

Re:Right...

> nor the iPod were conceived for the purpose of being able to install 3rd party applications

The iPod is pretty neat straight out of Apple, but the true possibilities of the device aren't really reached. Take a look at the Rockbox firmware for iPods -- it adds tons of features that Apple said were "technically impossible" or that "nobody wants". Right now I'm listening to a gapless FLAC album with a bit of crossfeed, and it's wonderful. Fuck you, Jobs. You don't know what I want. Stop telling me what to do!

With respect to phones, I think the iPhone is going to be a flop. When it's all said and done, it's a $3000 phone (can't get one without 2 years of Cingular's worthless service) that plays mp3s and has a calendar with pixmaps borrowed from OS X.

I'm holding out for Trolltech's Greenphone. It runs Linux, and the point is openness... you can recompile the kernel if you want! Paired with KDE 4, I think it's going to blow the iPhone out of the water... at least for people that want a useful, hackable mini-computer and not a $3000 status symbol.

Re:Right...

Links: OpenMoko [wikipedia.org]; pics and details [openmoko.com]. It will be out soon, at $350. Basically it's a GTK+-based smartphone (as opposed to the Greenphone which is Qt).

2007 looks like an interesting year for smartphones: the iPhone on the one hand, and OpenMoko and Greenphone for open Linux-based platforms on the other.

Re:Right...

The iPhone is aimed squarely at the US market. They'd have to make an iPhone 2 to sell it in Europe anyway.. No 3G, No MMS, Mediocre Camera, Camera on wrong side of phone (so you can't make video calls)..

So expect an iPhone 2 in about 12 months time with these features if they want to launch in the Europe/Asia (which is a larger market than the US by a long way so they'd be stupid not to).

(The Apple TV is also aimed squarely at the US market also, given that itunes doesn't support video downloads in any other country (and 'a selection of pixar short films' does *not* count) - sensing a pattern here...)

Re:Right...

No you can't - the itunes store checks the billing address. You'd need a US credit card to do that, which is hard to get without a US address.

Re:Right...

Because it's beautiful.

I realize many here would happily take an ass-ugly black brick if it ran linux, had a full array of ports (USB and serial, oh yeah!). However, unless you've been asleep since the iPod rolled out, you may have noticed that people seem to really dig the simple interface and gorgeous industrial design. People don't want whizzy features. They want a phone that makes a good status symbol, and this will fit the bill nicely.

Re:Right...

While EDGE is certified by the IMT-2000 initiative as "3G", it's seen as a transitional technology for 2G networks, networks that have EDGE are better than networks without them, but over-all, a 2G network enhanced with EDGE is still 2G. Or 2.5G if you want to get really into the marketing terms (2G with packet switching.)

The 3G version of GSM is called UMTS. HSDPA is an enhancement to two of UMTS's air interfaces (W-CDMA and TD-CDMA.) This offers better bandwidth and far lower latency than EDGE. Call quality, thanks to higher bit rates, is good too.

So... why wouldn't the iPhone sell in Europe? Because most GSM operators have UMTS networks as well as 2G GSM networks, and most people want a phone that isn't limited to 2G GSM. Tariffs encourage use of 3G services - as an example, the only unmetered mobile Internet access option in the UK is from T-Mobile, where the tariff requires use of T-Mobile's 3G network.

If you're selling a device one of whose primary advantages is Internet access, selling one that doesn't support UMTS in Europe is ridiculous.

Now, in the US, Cingular are trying to roll out a UMTS network but have been hampered by lack of spectrum. The only other major GSM network in the US is T-Mobile, and they've specifically waited for spectrum, planning to launch 3G in the next few months. That'll take time to deploy too. So releasing an EDGE phone is acceptable here, because a UMTS phone would be more expensive, would probably operate on the wrong frequencies initially, and offer few advantages given the lack of a viable network to use the UMTS side on.

That argument cannot be made for Europe, and it's going to bite Apple in the rear if they don't put UMTS in the European version.

Apple thinks it can make 10 million sales of this thing in a year. Unless they take the rest of the world seriously, recognizing that 3G is big outside of the US, that people outside the US are used to unlocked, carrier-neutral, phones, that the smartphone market is actually under active development outside of the "free cheap phone with two year contract" US market, they're going to have to make almost all those sales in the US. I don't think they can pull that off, especially given they've locked their fortunes to Cingular's.

Re:Nail on the Head.

Then perhaps you should read this link in the Toronto Star (time limited) [thestar.com] and see that the iPhone is nothing really innovative and is in fact still behind the offerings in Asia. Also, it states that the iPhone is only able to utilize the 2G network, rather unimpressive when you realize that Telus in Canada has 3G available. Lastly, with that price tag, only fools with too much money will buy it.

The article below in case the link dies.

Japan far ahead of iPhone

Cellphones there used for everything from buying milk to booking a train
January 12, 2007
Bruce Wallace
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

TOKYO-Tomoaki Kurita presides over racks of cellphones lined up outside his shop on a busy sidewalk in Harajuku, Tokyo's catwalk of youth street culture where people attracted by the riot of phone options can stop to flip open and fondle the latest models of what the Japanese call a "keitai."

From behind his busy counter, Kurita giggles when asked about the excitement in the United States over the arrival of Apple's iPhone cellphone that also could be used to download music and surf the Internet.

"Sounds like business as usual," he says.

As stock markets swooned and techies buzzed over Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs' long-awaited entry into the cellphone market, Japanese consumers could be excused for wondering: Why the fuss?

Many Japanese had a hard time buying Jobs' hype about "reinventing" the phone. The revolution is well underway in Japan, where cellphones are used for everything from navigating your way home by GPS to buying movie tickets and updating your blog from wherever you are.

Oh yeah. Japanese cellphones also download music, surf the Net and make phone calls.

They've been a natural extension of daily life the past few years, spurred by the Japanese decision to be the first country to upgrade to third-generation cellphone networks, or 3G, which increased broadband capabilities and allowed for greater, faster transmission of voice and data. Apple's iPhone, by comparison, will operate on a 2G network.

It was 3G that sparked the boom in music downloads that makes it common for phones to be used as portable digital music players here.

And it is 3G that has led the Japanese into a world where they can watch live TV on their phones, use the phone as a charge card to ride trains or buy milk at the corner store or take a taxi, and conduct conference calls between as many as five people. Ticket Pia, Japan's major entertainment ticketing agency, has been selling email tickets to cellphones since 2003.

Most observers contend the U.S. has begun to close the gap on cellphone use in Japan, South Korea and Europe. Music downloads by cellphone are rising in the U.S. - and the long-term threat to iPod's lead in downloads was a major force behind Apple's entry into cellphones. Other functions are following.

"We plan to introduce one-way video conferencing in the U.S. this year," says Melissa Elkins of LG Electronics MobileCOMM, referring to a function that would allow one person to be visible to the other during a phone call. Two-way telephony has been available in South Korea for about 18 months, Elkins says.

But the biggest difference between the U.S. and countries like Japan is the culture the keitai has created. To wait for a light on a Tokyo street corner or ride a train these days is to see crowds of people with their heads down, thumbs pumping as they send photos, text message or play online games on their phone. Increasingly, they are reading books and manga comics on their phones, too.

The keitai has become an extension of personality.

There is software to create a personalized home page on the cellphone. Young men and women customize their phones, hang posses of tiny dolls off them, cover them with stickers and paints.

"I like it because it's cute," says Mami Nawa, 23, as she shows off the dial pad she has painted in purple and pink to

Re:Right...

You guys all seem to be forgetting the browser on the iPhone... Couldn't you use and / or write a 3rd party AJAX application? What about JAVA? Yeah, I know you wouldn't get direct access to the hardware, but there's still a ton of stuff you can do.

Re:Right...

OPENSTEP, from which OS X is directly descended, ran quite happily on a 25MHz Motorola 68K. The kernel has had a few tweaks since then, but isn't actually all that different. The GUI has actually been replaced by one that's easier (CPU-wise) to render; Quartz instead of Display Postscript (which was a Turing-complete language used for drawing view objects). Much of the resource cost of OS X comes from double-buffering on every window, which isn't needed on the iPhone because it uses a Maemo-style GUI where only one application is visible at a time (thus, no overlapping windows and no partial redraws).

Re:Right...

I'm holding out for Trolltech's Greenphone. It runs Linux, and the point is openness... you can recompile the kernel if you want! Paired with KDE 4, I think it's going to blow the iPhone out of the water

Well, I have a Trolltech Greenphone on my desk because we develop software for it. And while it is hackable, Linux based, and a nice geek gizmo, there is no way I'm going to use it as my primary mobile phone. Teeeeny stuff to hit with the stylus. Lots of buttons that you don't really know what they do. Difficult to enter text. (It's a development platform after all.)

Personally, I'm using the cheapest Motorola cellphone available (monochrome display, does nothing more than phone and SMS), and I'm holding out for the iPhone to hit Europe. Because I don't WANT to hack a device to use it as a phone/PIM, even if I COULD.

Re:Right...

I don't think the iPhone is going to flop because of its closed-ness. It's neat that I can install all manner of junk on my Windows Mobile device, but the main reason to do so is to replace the standard software because it is poorly designed. If Apple can deliver a phone / iPod / PDA device that "just works" and has a good user interface, I could live without the ability to add or replace software on it, And I suspect that there are many consumers like me, who do not want a hackable mini-computer.

What might kill the phone is its price and lack of features. No GPS, no G3, poor battery life, and a camera with yesterday's specs; so much for being 5 years ahead, Steve. It looks cool, but I'm not paying around $500 for a pretty case and a slick user interface, when my current WM5 phone (with GPS) costs $150 on a cheap 2 year plan.

Re:Right...

Fuck you, Jobs. You don't know what I want. Stop telling me what to do!

And yet you still bought an iPod. I think that's the kind of "Fuck you" Jobs can live with.

Re:Right...

Then why did Apple deem it necessary to compare the iPhone to the "usual suspects" of the Treo and other smartphones at the keynote and call it "5 years ahead of anything out there" when apparently the only thing now it has in common with them is it's also a phone?

So that's it? The iPhone saved space by not having a plastic keyboard? Please tell me after two days after the keynote that's not the only advantage it actually has.

Re:Right...

"5 years ahead of anything out there"

Well, because the iPhone will not be available for another 6 months I guess it really is 4 1/2 years ahead of anything out there.

Re:Right...

The summary is fine. It's a closed platform, unlike every other smartphone and most other cell phones.

You see, real smartphones let you install whatever software you want onto your phone. Hell, even many (most?) non-smart phones can run Java apps. That's certainly the kind of functionality Cingular customers are used to.

What Apple's doing with the iPhone, OTOH, is what Verizon customers are used to: the carrier tells you what you can do with your phone. You buy it, but you don't really own it. They say it's about quality assurance, and to some degree it might even be, but what it's really about is making sure you pay for extra features, instead of downloading freeware or writing your own. They think that if you're getting extra value out of their service, you owe them for it. But even Verizon doesn't go that far with their smartphones!

There might be apps written by third parties on the iPhone, but who writes them is pretty much irrelevant, because you can't write or install them without going through Cingular and/or Apple. They'll charge for the SDK, for testing apps, and for making apps available to users, and those costs will be passed onto the end user in the form of (1) paying to download apps and (2) limited selection because amateurs can't afford to develop.

Re:Right...

I think Jobs hit on an important fact: The 1% that he is looking to buy the iphone is not the same 1% that installs java apps or is interested in VOIP and custom apps for their phones.

Jobs is looking for the top buyers who will pay nearly anything for a phone that just plain works and has simple email/text messaging and maybe a web browser. In this market, the iPod is really just a bonus.

My only question is, is this a GSM phone that will let me change out the chip so I can use it around the world? Unfortunately, I don't think so. Anyway, my dad will surely buy it in the next year. He's slowly converting to the entire Apple line (First an ipod, then 2 imacs, now this).

Re:Right...

Jobs is looking for the top buyers who will pay nearly anything for a phone that just plain works and has simple email/text messaging and maybe a web browser. In this market, the iPod is really just a bonus.

Jobs is not an idiot, and it is just barely possible that Apple has done a little market research on this subject, so your statement is probably correct. This is not a phone for the average /. reader. It is a phone for the VP of Sales and/or Marketing at the company the average /. reader works for. People like that wouldn't know how to install a 3rd party app, but they sure as hell want to impress everyone else in the boardroom with their slick new phone.

If Apple follows the iPod legacy, they'll produce a device with stupidly high usability and a narrowly defined feature set that serves the objectively-identified desires of their target customers: wealthy, style-and-trend-conscious technophiles who don't actually know anything about technology. Pre-iPod, MP3 players were like those 19th century automobiles that you steered with a tiller rather than a steering wheel. The iPod didn't add any new functionality, but it made existing functionality vastly easier to use. If the iPhone does the same thing it'll be a major hit. Open or closed really doesn't matter, because that's not something that the target purchaser cares about.

Re:Right...

See, Apple wants to ensure that the phone maintains a great user experience.

You believe that? Then I guess you'll also believe Verizon just wants to ensure that their customers have a great user experience, which is why you have to buy high-quality, professionally selected ringtones, games, and utilities from their store instead of uploading files of questionable quality on your own. It's just a coincidence that selling ringtones is a billion dollar industry, right?

Imagine the customer support nightmare for Apple and Cingular if third-party applications have problems. They do not want that! It's the same as opening and releasing Mac OS X to the masses of beige-boxes.

Er, no... it's the same as opening a cellular platform to the masses of developers, which every carrier has already done, because that's the whole point of a smartphone!

Perhaps you don't realize it, but you can go out today and buy a cellular device from any US carrier that does run third-party apps, without having to get them signed or tested by the carrier or manufacturer. The world hasn't ended, the networks haven't been crashed by rogue apps, and customer service desks aren't overwhelmed with calls from idiots who broke their own phones by installing something.

Re:Right...

Wow. Yours is certainly the most absurd statement I've read this week.

I mean, FFS. This is Slashdot, and you're glad that the most revolutionary electronic device in years is moronically shackled, and you get modded up? What is this, is your brain terminally fried by the reality distortion field?

Do you by any chance also believe Vista's DRM stack is good for everyone because it allows us to watch movies in an orderly manner?

Re:Right...

Unfortunately Apple is keeping one of the worst aspects of most current cellphones--the closed systems--for selfish reaons.

I was pretty excited about the iphone. It looked like a pocket computer with phone capabilities to me. But this news makes it just a high priced gizmo. It would be nice to be able to stick a shell in there and ssh into other machines. Or drop in a checkbook app. Or an encrypted notepad for the ever expanding password list. Being able to install software that you want would turn it into an extremely useful portable computing device and well worth the $600 price tag to me.

As you say though, closing off those choices turns it yet another expensive phone, albeit w/ a slick UI. Frankly, I want a tiny useable computer which doubles as a phone -- not a phone which mimics some aspects of a computer. I wish Apple understood that.

As the first post said, Apple shot themselves in the face with that limitation. No way in hell I'd pay $600 for a device crippled to prevent 3d party apps. Note, I write this with the recognition that I'm also pretty much an apple fanboy (I have 4 apple laptops of various makes and models, plus two pre-g3 machines that still work -- though their only use is for show-n-tell time when company come over).

Re:Right...

(I have 4 apple laptops of various makes and models, plus two pre-g3 machines that still work -- though their only use is for show-n-tell time when company come over).

That must be one crazy party.

Re:Right...

Basically hackers will have to find their own way to run code on the device, rather than getting a leg up from Apple. It won't take long before YouTube has videos of Linux emulating Newton's OS on one of these.

Just because he won't officially allow it doesn't mean it won't be done, it just means it won't be commercial (No iJamster).

Re:Right...

This is only partly about Jobs' control issues. It's also about Cingular's control issues. The wireless carriers are all scared shitless of a device like this - it could actually run a VoIP wifi app, several of which already exist for OS X, and thus leave them on the bad side of convergence. Also ringtones - again a carrier revenue stream.

So I'd attribute this more to carrier paranoia than to Jobs' control issues.

In any case, for me this is a deal-breaker. I was in love with this device yesterday. With no third party apps, I'm entirely uninterested until somebody hacks it.

Correction

The wireless carriers are all scared shitless of a device like this

The US- wireless carriers are all scared shitless of a device like this.

Sorry, you just don't have this kind of shit dictated by European phone networks. Phones sold here (with and without plans) have no such restrictions.

They also don't have any restrictions in uploading your sounds, images, movies or (in case of smartphones) applications.

They also don't come with criplled Bluetooth stacks or some of the other stunts of which US carriers seem so fond of pulling off.

Re:Correction

Since some have disagreed with the parent's statement, I can say that at least in Finland no carrier does this kind of shit. If you buy a plan that includes a phone, then that may be locked to the carrier, but that's about the extent of limitations we have. In my case, I bought a plan from a smaller carrier, and the phone is not even locked. To me it's incomprehensible that anyone would even do business with a company that screws you like that.

Re:Correction

The Motorola SLVR L7 "with iTunes" I got from Cingular (via Best Buy for $35 vs. Cingular's $150 price) supports all of that stuff you've mentioned out of the box. I can upload and download sounds, images, videos, and applications to and from the phone via USB or Bluetooth quite easily. I can throw an MP3 up there in the audio directory and my phone will let me select it for use as a ringtone if I want. I can use my phone as a wireless Bluetooth modem via its DUN profile, etc.

The carriers that you're thinking of that restrict all that stuff are Verizon and Sprint (at least the Sprint phone I had), but the GSM providers here like T-Mobile and Cingular seem to be much more open about what you can do with your phones, which is why this iPhone restriction is so strikingly odd IMHO. It just seems natural that you could use third party apps on your horribly expensive iPhone, but they've really reduced the reasons I'd even be interested in it because I saw no instant messaging application for instance.

What if I want to use Jabber to my private Jabber server? What if I want to view and edit Microsoft Office documents? I saw no way to even view Word docs or Excel spreadsheets on this unlike the Blackberry. This is an overpriced toy, nothing more. Paris Hilton will have one and so will the other materialistic bubbleheads, but until it supports third party apps it couldn't lick a Blackberry or Treo's taint, much less be years ahead of it in functionality.

Re:Right...

Cingular already features the BlackBerry on their Edge network, and that allows installable apps.

Nope, this is about Jobs' control issues.

Re:Right...

This is only partly about Jobs' control issues. It's also about Cingular's control issues. The wireless carriers are all scared shitless of a device like this - it could actually run a VoIP wifi app, several of which already exist for OS X, and thus leave them on the bad side of convergence. Also ringtones - again a carrier revenue stream.

I'd say it has more to do with the trademark suit. Apple can't claim their two devices don't converge if people are able to use the Apple iPhone to do VoIP, which is the only function the Cisco product can do. Right now the iPhone has a laundry list of features and abilities, but VoIP calling is not one of them. So, technically, the Apple iPhone and the Cisco iPhone are not in the same markets.

If development of the iPhone was opened up, I'd wager the very first third party app would be Skype. With a device that connects to WiFi networks so easily and VoIP, who needs a big bucket of Cingular minutes?

We still have six months before the device ships, the policy could change depending on how things go in the trademark dispute and the wireless carrier world as well. T-Mobile starts building their 3G network this year, and that will have an impact.

Hah, things never change!

And AT&T didn't want to see their network go down because someone connected an evil non-AT&T phone to it.

The proper translation of this statement of course is "We don't want anybody do be able to do anything on our network unless we're making money from it apart from the fee we charge for the bandwidth."

Stupid telecom companies will never learn. They don't want to create a free market of any kind. Anytime they make any protest involving having a free market, they're being rank hypocrites.

Actually, no.

Actually, no. The proper translation of this statement of course is "Our network security is so poor that we cannot take the risk of anybody connecting to it in a programmatic fashion".

Openmoko.com.

Wow, the apple has fallen far from the tree

The word "irony" is way overused, but these words, coming from a guy who started his company with money earned by selling blue boxes to defraud the phone company, belong in irony's fucking dictionary entry.

I won't buy your phone if I can't write code for it, Steve. I'm sure you're heartbroken. Me and Woz will just be over here in the corner, crying in our beards.

Re:Wow, the apple has fallen far from the tree

I'm not going to spend $450 on a phone that doesn't come with an API, regardless of whether it can be hacked. I'd much rather be running ARM binaries on a Unix-like OS than dealing with stuff like MIDP 1.0 (which doesn't even offer float math), but I'll reward the company that provides me with the interface I need. If I have to void the warranty to run the software I feel like running, I don't have any intention of paying for the experience.

I'm sure this thing will be useful to someone, somewhere, with only the bundled functionality, but for me, Steve's just announced a really expensive brick.

3rd party applications...

yeah, sure, that's bad and all, but what about 3rd party widgets? i mean, are they *completely* shooting themselves in the foot?

What they probably mean...

What they probably mean is "no applications unless you pay through the nose to Cingular or Apple for them." And they probably painted themselves in that corner with the price.

Let's face it, the fact that cell phones so far did less is _not_ because Nokia and others are stupid. Psion alone has quite a lot of experience in making stuff that goes from phones to good PDAs (including some decent office tools, for a PDA) to a sort of a micro-laptop. They figured out by now what the users want, and believe me, the thought of using a touch-screen _did_ occur to them before too. (The Psion 5 did a great job of using both touch screen and keyboard, for example.) Anyone who thinks it took Jobs to show everyone how to scroll a map on a touch screen, needs a bit of a reality check.

The reason why cell phones were limited devices has to do with cost, power consumption and "how much do we think the market would pay for it" issues. Most of the market wants to get their phone almost for free, and in fact often get some other stuff with it too. Then the contract recoups most of that, but then it means the phone itself can't cost thousands, because even with the contract and fleecing them for ringtones and SMS, there's only so much money you'll have to pay for phones _and_ the telco infrastructure _and_ other operating costs _and_ hopefully make a small profit, or at least not make a big loss.

So the more money you want a telco to pay to subsidize your phone, the more hope you must give them that they'll actually get that money back one way or another. E.g., you pack an IRC client on it to give them some hope that some idiot kid will rake up a huge phone bill while spending hours on IRC with a crap number pad as a keyboard. Or you give them an exclusivity contract, in which they practically pay you advertising money for a reason for people to switch to their network. That's worth more money, but even that has a limited upper limit. Or you try to lock it down and give them a "see, but they'll have to buy this and that only from you" hope. Which is obviously what Apple is doing here.

So at the end of the day, that's about how much a traditional phone can cost. That's why you can only pack so much CPU, RAM and everything in it.

Why the iPhone does more is probably because it costs an arm and a leg to produce. Being launched with an exclusive contract and still be left with a huge price tag anyway already hinted at that, but it's details like these that hint at exactly how huge the price must be. Cingular probably ends up paying a heck of a lot to subsidize Apple's gizmo, and they needed a heck of a reason to do that. Enter the "what if we completely locked it down, so people have to buy _everything_ from you?" factor.

An application bringing down the network?

That argument makes no sense. If a poorly written application running on one mobile phone has the potential to bring down the west coast network then logically a malicous hacker should be able to bring down that same network. Anything a malfunctioning application can do a mean nasty coder can do much more reliably. If there is the possiblity that an application can do that by -accident- then it should be relatively easy for a skilled engineer to do it deliberately.

It sounds to me like he was just fishing for excuses about why hes not allowing third party apps. It isnt necessarily a bad thing that they arent allowed but that excuse is bogus.

He didn't say "no" to more applications though

What he was saying "no" to is having a plethora of buggy software out there that would endanger the user experience of the phone. I still expect to see non-Apple and non-Cingular developers having access to the tools to build applications for the iPhone. Now it's just a matter of sorting out the protocol (as in "administrative process") for getting the application that I write for my 100 users, installed onto the iPhones that we're going to buy, for the purpose of using them as small tablet computers.

One easy way is to provide the ability for user-added applications to run with lower privileges (just like they can already under Mac OS X - I can run my own programs as me, but not as "root" or any other user). Though that opens up the avenue for local root escalation vulnerabilities to be exploited.

Of course, for my immediate needs it would be enough to have some way to scan barcodes and interact with web pages. But then, Steve is pushing the line that it's the phone reinvented, not a tablet PC.

Re:He didn't say "no" to more applications though

No he isn't talking about buggy software, he's actually talking about ANY more software. He's saying that in order for the phone to function as well as it does it cannot have ANY other software competing for time on the processor when the included software needs a piece of it.

No, he's talking about buggy software.

FTFA: "These are devices that need to work, and you can't do that if you load any software on them," he said. "That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn't mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment."

I'm guessing that software is going to be sold through iTMS and be checked out by Apple before being sold. Kinda like how the iPod is right now. Yeah, Electronic Arts makes iPod games, but you better damn believe that Apple makes sure they work and makes sure that they work well.

The whole thing about Apple is that for better or worse now, they are big on vertical integration. They successfully vertically integrated the MP3 player market before anyone else, and they are looking to do the same with smartphones. iTunes, iTMS, and iPod work so well due to the vertical integration and the fact that Apple has control over the whole experience. This not only makes it easier to use than a non-integrated setup, but also increases consumer lock-in. They seem to be trying to do the same with phones, and very well may succeed. If they do, it will be great for them.

Re:He didn't say "no" to more applications though

What he was saying "no" to is having a plethora of buggy software out there that would endanger the user experience of the phone. I still expect to see non-Apple and non-Cingular developers having access to the tools to build applications for the iPhone.

Sure, but that doesn't make it any more open.

For example, you can go right now and download the BREW SDK, which is used for writing apps that will run on Verizon phones. It's totally free.

But you know what? There aren't really all that many apps for Verizon phones--certainly not as many as for other carriers' phones that run unsigned Java apps--and none of those apps are free. If you want a game or utility, you have to buy it for $5-$10 or pay a monthly subscription. And if someone hasn't written the thing you have in mind, forget about writing it yourself, unless you think you can sell it to a big audience.

See, you can get the SDK and write apps for free, but if you want to run it on actual hardware, you have to get a new phone and send it away to be authorized for debugging. Ka-ching! If you want others to be able to run your app, you have to pay to get it tested and signed, then strike up a deal with Verizon to get them to put it in their store. You can't really release it for free, of course, because you've just invested hundreds of dollars in it.

End result: only mass-appeal apps get written at all, and there's no open source or even freeware.

Oh, and one more thing: it's not really about quality assurance. People are smart enough to realize that if they install a crappy app, it's their own fault, and they can uninstall it. This is really about the carrier (Verizon/Cingular) and manufacturer (Qualcomm/Apple) seeing a chance to make a buck by crippling their hardware.

No third party apps?

I suppose that makes it quite final then: no iPhone for me.

Granted I'm not the prototypical candidate for one of these:

1. I'm from South Africa and
2. I'm a Geek,

but added to the fact that it doesn't have 3G [wikipedia.org] (which all of it's competitors at this price-point does have) this becomes a no-show for me at least.

Deal Breaker

This is a critical issue for me. There's no way I'm spending $600 for a piece of hardware with that many capabilities if I can't run any software I want on it and develop for it myself. This COULD HAVE been a revolution in computing, but instead, it'll just be another phone, and a crippled one at that. While it might be a fantastic phone, I don't spend $600 for a phone. I do, however, spend $600 for a general purpose portable computing device that happens to feature cell phone capabilities, with beautiful design, all the hardware I need, and running a great OS.

Jobs brings up the issue of running apps that will interfere with the phone capabilities, but I'm sure a bright engineer over at Apple (or maybe two if that's what it takes) could figure out how to give priority to the phone process, and make sure it gets attention when it needs to. This is just BS. I guess I'm getting myself a "free" S-E w800i for a couple more years until Jobs comes to his senses. iPhone, we hardly knew ye...

iWhatever, next!

I already hacked my RAZR V3i to do more than the iPhone will supposedly be able to do -- a FREAKING YEAR AGO. Don't believe me? Head over to the Motox forums and see what we can do with Motorola phones. iWhatever, I don't care and havn't since 1996 when Apple screwed me and a few million folks over regarding Rhapsody.

Re:Vorbis

You seem to have little to no experience with Apple's handheld devices. The entire iPodLinux project was started because, among other things, there is no native support for Vorbis or FLAC in the iPod firmware. If people do not hack the devices and write the code, there won't be any support for unpatented free formats. There will only be locked AAC audio and MP4 video. MP3 will appear (with the inferior Fraunhofer codec) because of popular demand, but that's it.

(Note: Fraunhofer is ironically not the highest quality encoder for MP3s anymore. LAME is considered much higher quality.)

Plain and simple, this sucks

OK. As the information about the iPhone has started to come in after the announcement, I am decidedly off the bandwagon at this point.

This is stupid. Why do people put up with Apple and these games? If MSFT or Sony pulled this crap, the entire Slashdot universe would reign fury on these companies. But Apple? I'll read 1000 posts about "wait and see" and about how Steve Jobs is protecting us from ourselves.

Apple needs to get over it and open this up. At $600, if you can't even get the geeks excited, this product has 0 chance of succeeding.

Re:Plain and simple, this sucks

This is stupid. Why do people put up with Apple and these games? If MSFT or Sony pulled this crap, the entire Slashdot universe would reign fury on these companies. But Apple? I'll read 1000 posts about "wait and see" and about how Steve Jobs is protecting us from ourselves.

I don't think so. I think the people who don't put up with Sony's crap also don't put up with Apple's crap. It's only the Apple fanboys who do. As for MSFT, the problem with them is that they're a monopoly, so anything they do is subject to much greater scrutiny. If you don't like Sony's stupid policies, buy a different TV or game system. If you don't like Apple's stupid policies, buy a different MP3 player or phone or computer. But if you don't like Vista's new content protection, you may be stuck with it if your work or certain necessary applications requires you to use it.

Apple needs to get over it and open this up. At $600, if you can't even get the geeks excited, this product has 0 chance of succeeding.

Personally, I think this product will succeed brilliantly. Not because of any great features or whatever, but because of the hordes of morons out there that will think it's "so cool" to have a combination cellphone and iPod, and will happily shell out the cash for it regardless of what actual value it offers. After all, look at the MP3 player market. There's still lots of choice for the smaller flash-based players (8GB and under), but for the larger hard drive players (20GB+), the iPod has pretty much killed most of the competition. iRiver had some nice units with far more features than the iPod, but they threw in the towel. But there's still people out there who want players like these: check out what used iRiver H340 players are selling on Ebay for. The only decent alternative I see in the new market now is the Cowon X5.

Arrogant bastard

Arrogant bastard

Quick !

Please could you shutdown the Internet right now before some poorly written application destroy it ?

It seems Jobs think his users and followers are idiots...

OK, but you can't call it a "smart phone" then.

If you had to pick one single aspect that separates a "smart phone" from a "phone", the best indicator would probably be the ability to run arbitary software. Smart phones can do it: Treo, Symbian, WindowsCEPocketLiteWhatever, and various Japanese ones can all run user-installed software. Dumb phones can't; they just run a closed OS and usually just run that same software until the user throws away the phone and gets a new one.

The iPhone does appear to be a dazzling reinvention of the dumb phone. It does the same things my RAZR does: pictures, email, sorta browse the web, SMS, etc. I don't use, or just barely use, any of these features on my RAZR because the RAZR sucks at all of them. I junked my Treo 650 and got the RAZR because I wanted something that just made calls. So, in a limited way, it is cool that Apple is apparently going to best crappy phones like my RAZR, and make such features work reasonably. It even adds like 3 more features, such as google maps. So I'm sure they would dominate the dumbphone market with the iPhone, if it weren't for the fact that it has that smart phone price tag.

But, despite what anybody (e.g., Jobs) might say, smart phones are a hell of a lot more like computers than they are like iPods. After reading (ahem!) the article, I think we are kind of getting a glimpse of the hubris of the old Steve Jobs who wanted to see trucks full of sand coming in one side of the factory, where Apple would make its own silicon and assemble 100% Apple computers. Closed, proprietary systems can work for something like the iPod, but the reason is that iPods are only for doing one thing: playing media, mostly music.

A "smart phone", on the other hand, does many things. It is able to not only browse the web, but also, on a case-by-case basis, SSH into remote machines, view PDF content, view Flash content, run flash-card software for studying, run English-to-Japanese-Chinese-Arabic-Whatever dictionary software, count calories, time events, serve as a podium-top teleprompter for making speeches, record bibliographic data while researching in the library, play retro Missile Command and Dig-Diug clones, play MahJong, display recipes and cocktail how-tos, track ovulation, and so on, and so on.

Apple might be cool, but there is no way in hell that any single company can fill the software needs of a diverse user base.

So there are only three real potential outcomes here:

a.) Apple keeps it locked tight and is content to sell a very expensive but very elegant dumb phone.

b.) Lobbying by users, developers, and corporate purchases convince Apple that they need to offer a way to load third-party software... third party developers will certainly fill the void, and quickly if the iPhone's OS is really anything remotely like the developer-friendly Mac OS X.

c.) Some kind of middle ground is reached whereby developers pay Apple for the privilege of compatibility--like what they've managed to do with the iPod dock connector.

As a potential customer, I can say that I was 100% ready to buy some of these initially, until I heard about this very surprising position taken by Apple. Now, I don't know. It's possible I would buy one, but $600 is a lot to spend for what is an admittedly elegant but extremely limited feature set.

Although I do have a dollar here that says hackers will figure it out whatever Apple does...

But the executive summary is that this is a bummer for users and has legitimately dissipated the bulk of the excitement that surrounded the iPhone launch. I think most users naturally assumed it would run a diverse set of applications, so at first it seemed like an ultra-portable mini-Mac. Now, it's more like an ultra-portable mini-Mac that only runs iLife. The former is a lot more exciting than the latter.

Cisco is pressuring Apple on this.

Cisco, which owns the iPhone trademark, has announced what they want for it. [cisco.com]

An "open approach". Interoperability.

Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen--it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want. Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating collaboration with Apple. And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony. That's it. Openness and clarity. - Cisco's general counsel.

Yaeh, that's our job!

'Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up.'

"We don't need outside help," a Cingular spokesperson added, "Our in-house programmers are perfectly capable of bringing down the network all by themselves. But thanks for asking."

Classic, this one

Thank Heaven these people only have 5% share of PC market. If they had the power, they would be worse than MS!

Apple shouldn't be called Apple anymore...

Maybe Pear or something...It was a long time ago when they actually published the full schematics and source code of their Apple II ROMs. Of Course, if Jobs had any real say, that would have never have happened. He constantly was trying to close the systems more and more (the Apple III was closed). Woz told him to stick it in the early days, but then he left and we got the Mac. In every case, the closed systems flopped while the old, but open, Apple II kept the company afloat for years until they convinced everyone that open was bad. Well, they did a good job. No one seems to really care that their iPods are completely unprogrammable, and that their phone can only run software from JAMDAT. Meanwhile, the whole idea of making computers work for you instead of the other way around has gone the way of BASIC interpreters. People are being USED instead of being USERS. It is a real shame, and I think it bodes very poorly for the future of computing. I dread the day that ALL systems are closed and only a privileged few will be able to program them in any meaningful way.

It is such an incredible shame that such an enticing machine is all look, but no touch. It's like being given a piano and told that you can't try and play it, only look at it. It's just wrong in so many ways.

Well, I guess Jobs thinks that I should be happy that he is saving me from myself. Unfortuntely, it seems the rest of world IS happy about it and that just makes me even more depressed.

I never liked that guy... he still owes woz some money for breakout...

Thanks,

Mike

I had no idea...

That something would come along so soon and make the PS3 look like a sound investment.

Then why mention "Desktop Apps" during the keynote

I mean, where are these "Desktop Class Apps" touted in the keynote? All I see on the phone is Calender, Maps, Notes and a Web Browser. That's it? And we're supposed to be excited it took OSX to run those? How can this phone *not* be considered a tablet PC/phone?

Argh.

I call BS

The story that was cited neither states nor implies that 3rd party applications will not be permitted on the iPhone.

The relevant quote...

But it's not like the walled garden has gone away. "You don't want your phone to be an open platform," meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the provider's network, says Jobs. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."

Still, since the iPhone runs a full version of OS X, the operating system of the Macintosh computer, it's reasonable to expect the device to take advantage of that power by running lots of applications, even if Apple has to vet them to make sure they won't compromise the integrity of the network. In the version we saw last week, there aren't a whole lot--the notable ones include SMS text messaging, the Safari Web browser, e-mail, iPhoto, Google maps and two mini-applications (known as widgets) for weather and stock prices. Jobs says we can expect more apps on the phone by the time it ships in June. (For instance, one might expect the iPhone to allow users to view Word documents, something that the prototype doesn't do today.)

In other words, the reporter doesn't know squat about the actual circumstances regarding third-party apps and is blowing farts in the wind, making speculative and general statements in the hope that someone will imagine that he's right when something he says turns out to vaguely resemble the truth.

OpenMoko

The obvious answer to iPhone closedness is OpemMoko's openness. Vote with your dollars: go buy an OpenMoko when they hit the market in a few months. http://openmoko.com/ [openmoko.com]

If it has a web browser

So how powerful is the inbuilt web browser?

If it can run java applets near full-screen then I don't see why you can't implement a whole
heap of stuff that way. Sure, no VoIP or offline games, but I can't see why you couldn't run
SSH clients or custom internet based apps that way.

Sure I'm not interested in a device costing that much that I can't write stuff that runs offline for (and in NZ
it'll cost $unfeasible to use our shitty mobile networks), but there looks like *some* ability there
to run custom apps.

- MugginsM

Not quite the whole story, but most of it.

In the very same article, however, he goes on to say:

"That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn't mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment."

Steve's obviously playing control freak here, but I can understand his reasoning. Sony does the same thing for the PlayStation platform. An SDK ~is~ available, if you pay the huge fee for it, and Sony still gets to decide if your title is good enough to get their PlayStation branding. If the iPhone is going to work as a product for Apple, it really does have to work just as smoothly as its demo. Just like Sony, Apple gets to vet/check software before it goes out into the wide world.

The hacker geeks aren't going to like it, but, hey, it didn't stop Sony from owning the world with this very same model for the PSX and PS2.

Oh, and you can bet your bottom dollar this isn't the only device in this area that Apple will be bringing out. Expect to see this techology in a more hackable, computer-like form very soon.

I say let the iPhone be an iPhone -- that's what's it's going to be good at.

Happy feeling gone :(

After the initial elation, I'm crashing back down to reality.

The price tag didn't seem that scary at first. My brand new Nokia N70 costs 400E off the shelf.* With a 2-year plan, that came down to 55E, pretty damn affordable for a near-Smartphone. I didn't understand, at first, that the iPhone's price (500$ or 600$) included the 2-year plan! As I fully expect Cingular to charge for services (the very services the iPhone is so cool about) on top of that, the price has suddenly leapt straight out of my potential budget (and I'm a gadget lover with a good pay!).

No 3G? Well, there's no camera on the iPhone, so you won't be suffering bad video-conferencing. And if you're only use text e-mails, that's OK. Too bad for the "our browser isn't crippled and text-only!" hype. At those speeds, you'll want to go back to WAP.

And now no 3rd party apps? Their lame excuses don't even surprise me. I guess they're perfectly understandable for the mid-to-high level risk-averse manager. Whatever. However, I expect they'll catch up by selling apps for the iPhone. This is the final straw that confirms the iPhone beyond "barely affordable but classy social symbol" the iPod was so good to hit, and right into "outrageously priced executive toy".

Happy Feeling's gone :(

I'm not predicting a flop or anything. I think it'll revolutionize the way we use "phones" if other companies can get the hint, and I sure hope they'll do it quickly. All of a sudden the interface of my N70 seems awfully clunky...

*Yep, I live in Europe, which means the iPhone won't be available to me anytime soon anyhow.

rtfa people

The title of this story is BS.

Jobs is explicit quoted as saying:

That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn't mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment.

Nowhere does it say there will be no third party apps available.

Good Jobs, Bad Jobs

We see both sides of Mr. Jobs here.. The perfectionist that drove the absolutely wonderful user interface of the iPhone. The attention to detail, and unwillingness to stop at "good enough" just drips off that interface.

Then, we see the arrogant Jobs, insisting on a closed platform, locking out third party software. His statements about it being more like an iPod than a computer are ludicrous. The input capabilities of an iPod are non-existant, making third party software almost irrelevant. A closed iPhone will be hamstrung from the start.

I really like the UI. But, I'll probably wait a bit for the Video iPod version, with no phone features. The inability to load my own software (i.e. have full control of the device I pay for) is a big drawback, as is the two year commitment to Cingular. (And, no.. I'm not an Apple nay-sayer. I own two iPods and three Macs. I'm just not a fan of completely closed systems.)

it's Apple, not Cingular

You can use lots of programmable third party phones with Cingular: the Treos, the Nokia E61/E62, etc. The E61 even runs VoIP, and you program it in C/C++.

The source of the restriction must be Apple, not Cingular.

holy CRAP...

Okay, so just about every single response to this post ranked "5: Insightful" can be summarized as this: "I'm not going to buy the iPhone because Steve won't let me write my own programs!" Sure, fine, great, whatever. Sorry you're disappointed, hope you find another solution that works for you. But after reading this same general attitude a couple dozen times, I am compelled to respond with an alternate perspective: Contrary to Commander Taco's (much quoted) original assessment of the original, the iPod has indeed gone on to become the most popular MP3 player ever produced, to the point that its impact has risen to impacting the music retail business itself. (iTunes now sells more music than Amazon, etc. etc.) All this not only *without* many of the more sophisticated features many Slashdotters may have wished it had - but *because* it doesn't have those features! I for one am glad to have an MP3 player with a simple interface, and innovative (click-wheel) navigation. And while I have no intention of buying the current iPhone - ...because it's out of my price range ...because I hate Cingular's customer service (and have grown quite loyal to my new carrier because of theirs) ...because I want something a little more rugged and less "precious," and ...because I frankly don't need to read the New York Times Online on my phone.... I *will* be *quite* happy, in a year or so, when I can get a nice touch-screen driven, visual-voicemail equipped cell phone in my price range, perhaps called something like an "iPhone Nano" - whose technology was made possible by this initial market entry model! Sheesh, call me flamebait if you want, but I don't get this tone of entitlement in some of these posts! Cingular (whom I HATE), had to re-jigger its infrastructure to make visual voicemail possible, not to mention committing to the iPhone sight unseen. Frankly, if they demand Steve not let users upload ringtones for free because they'd rather make money selling them, I simply won't buy any ringtones, but I won't feel like Steve/Apple/Cingular is "ripping me off" for not providing me everything for free. Sure, you buy the phone, you own the PHONE. Crack it open, get out your banana clips and soldering iron and do whatever you want to it. But if a "closed system" is what Steve/Apple/Cingular decide for whatever reason *including making money* is what they require to bring this tech to market, so be it. Your palms, et al are still out there for you. Enjoy. And enjoy trying to motivate them to produce a comparable device like the iPhone. I'm sure it'll be any day now. /rant

Mac OS X should protect it...

If Mac OS X is truly the foundation of the iPhone, buggy apps shouldn't be able to do the things you and Steve are warning against. Stability of the phone or network shouldn't be jeopardized by renegade user-installed applications because the OS and the networking protocol should lock them down to acceptable behavior.

I was fully going to switch to this phone in June. No joke. But this statement by Jobs has certainly installed boundaries for my imagination running wild with this device's potential. Specifically, I'm betting Apple will restrict 3rd-party-apps to prevent skype-like apps from being installed. Don't want to give the consumer TOO good of a deal.

Seth

Re:Horrible.

"When it comes to the European market, they have already done that through their lack of 3G support and text messaging client."

um, it does have SMS-client. As to 3G.... Who cares? I use my phone for lots if things, including websurfing and email. And my service includes 3G. And my phone supports 3G. And I switched it off withen 12 hours of getting the phone. Not because it costs money (my employer pays my bills), but because it sucks battery-life.

Right now, 3G is just a tickbox-feature. Operators and customers "want it", when in real life they have no use for it.