iPhone To Allow 3rd-Party Development

Anarchysoft writes "In an exciting shift from previous statements, Apple CEO Steve Jobs revealed at the D Conference that 3rd-party development will be supported on the iPhone. Questions remain as to whether the opening of the platform, slated for later this year, will be through Dashboard-like widgets or a separate SDK."

A much better link

This has been covered better and in more detail [arstechnica.com] by Ars' John Siracusa. In short, Apple actually wants to allow third-party apps on the iPhone, and developers are salivating at the thought, since (beside it being sexy) it'd be much easier to develop for the "real OS X" that runs on the iPhone than some kludgy mobile phone OS. The problems are two-fold:

1. Cellular networks are fragile. Much more fragile than the larger internet. They tend toward monoculture and proprietary systems, and haven't had the shakedown that standard internet network hardware and protocols have had. So Jobs' quote about him 'not wanting third-party apps bringing Cingular's network down' actually makes some sense (some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past). And

2. Apple simply doesn't have the design tools, and more importantly, the user interface guidelines, ready for developers.

So, third-party apps on the iPhone will happen. Just in a very measured way.

Here's Siracusa:

Not only does Apple have to figure out what makes a good iPhone application, it has to actually create the APIs to produce such a thing. Okay, so no scroll bars, but surely there will be some standard way of scrolling, some standard gesture recognition engine, and so on. Apple has to create all this, if only for its own internal sanity, before it can really get cranking on iPhone application development.

And like the Mac GUI before it, there will be fits and starts, dead-ends, and bad ideas to shake out in the first few years. Also, an IDE would be nice. Xcode, sure, but some sort of simulator or remote debugger system would help. And, whoops, let's keep revising all those APIs and that IDE to match the best practices as they evolve. Oh, and by the way, we need to ship something that works by June 29th.

Viewed in this context, the calls for third-party iPhone development, and Apple's reaction to them, start to make a bit more sense. It's the prototypical fanboy mistake to imagine that the mothership has infinite resources and skills, and any lack of satisfaction is malicious. The fact is, Apple could not provide a comprehensive third-party iPhone development environment on par with what Mac developers have come to expect by June 29th, even if it wanted to do such a thing--and there are many sound reasons not to. This stuff all needs time to cook.

In the meantime, Mac developers will have to be happy with some simple, widget-like WebKit-base development at WWDC this year. That'll also be a nice gesture of good faith from Apple.

One approach

One thing Apple could do is allow software development, but only allow HTTP calls out of said apps - that way it would allow Cingular to shape traffic and not risk wonkiness from raw TCP handling by applications.

I'd be happy enough with an API that let me develop a simple interface that could store some data locally and sync with a computer, so even no network access for applications at all would be of some use (though obviously as the device is very network centric it would not be nearly as fun).

Re:One approach

Why would applications on an Apple-phone accessing the internet via tcp-ip sockets be more harmful than all the existing phones that enable just that?
On my sony-ericsson W810 I've installed things like a webbrowser, a Google-earth-like app, a ssh/telnet-client, a gps-map software, a ICQ/MSN/etc-IM app, all of which access the internet via tcp-ip, none of which has ever brought down the mobile network.

I can see how they'd be nervous about letting 3:rd party software talk directly to the mobile network, but tcp-ip access for 3:rd party software is already common stuff in mainstream, middle-end mobiles via J2ME MIDP 2.0 [sun.com].

Re:A much better link

So, third-party apps on the iPhone will happen. Just in a very measured way.

Ballocks. The saw the intense negative criticism the original decision produced and changed their minds. The reason a sdk isn't available is because they'd never planned for one originally.

Re:A much better link

The reason a sdk isn't available is because they'd never planned for one originally.

Yes, you're a troll. But let me be clear about the kind: you have identified yourself as a gum-flapping moron who's never shipped code worth a damn in your life, especially an SDK for external developers. (And before anyone asks, yes, I have done both. In the same product, even.)

It's VERY hard to ship a new embedded platform in a timely manner with an SDK that supports arbitrary third-party development for a new product. So hard, that it's almost never the right answer to hold off ship to wait for an SDK. An organization is much better off shipping the working, robust 1.0 product into customer's hands and use that experience to build a quality SDK and toolchain. The platform itself is a sea of unknown problem domains ("arr, here be dragons!") for a "version 1.0" product like the iPhone.

developing the SDK

You're right on target. Furthermore, Apple has a long history, going back to the founding of NeXT, of being exceedingly careful with the publication of new API and SDK. They typically develop at least one application which makes extensive use of the new API, and ship that application first. Then they get feedback on the application, go through another app development cycle, improve the API, etc. Finally, after they are very happy internally with the API, they might publish a public version of it in a developer release of the next release of the OS, and get feedback from developers, incorporate that feedback to the extent possible, and then ship the API. Then, they sometimes go through that cycle again with the next release of the OS before the API has really settled.

This is a somewhat painful process for those of us on the outside, and it normally takes a couple years before the API is published. However, it has resulted in API which, on the whole, are widely respected by talented developers with experience on multiple platforms. Some of those API have evolved only modestly since initial creation, some of those over 15 years ago, and are still regarded as advanced and modern.

It's also clear that Apple will need to accelerate this process a bit for the iPhone, simply because they want to develop *several* applications internally. They need the API and developer tools themselves. The good news is that this will also give them the experience with making different kinds of apps which will help round out and debug the API faster. We won't need to wait two years for the first version of the API. There is a non-zero chance we might see it, or at least hear about it, at WWDC 2007, the Cocoa API, not merely the Widget API.

It's clear that Apple has legitimate reasons for wanting to get the application development stuff "right" on the iPhone. The app market on most of the other cell phone platforms is really a disaster in the making. In addition to zillions of apps that are utter crap, which drag performance of the device down to unbearably slow, which crash and which feature generally poorly integrated UI, there is the looming threat of malware. There have already been a few malware incidents, and one of these days there will be a big, big malware incident. Apple doesn't want to be the platform that got nailed first. They don't want to get nailed at all.

Apple was intentionally vague about the SDK at the announcement of the iPhone because they didn't have all the answers lined up, really, none of them. But there will be a 3rd part app market at some point. And it will be huge.

Re:A much better link

And with that one post all of Apple stories on Slashdot is summed up nicely with the Troll mod.

The sad thing is that his comment is probably the most accurate interpretation of events. Apple stated in no uncertain terms that there would not be third-party apps on the iPhone, except through Apple. This is a complete 180 from their original statement. He is probably correct.

You're half right

It got a lot of public ridicule, but they still sold out their pre-orders in many places.

I think the reason this change happened is because someone at Apple ran the numbers and realized they could find themselves in a position to make simply UNGODLY amounts of money off businesses of every size from mom-and-pop outfits to multinational conglomerates if they could find an effective way to create a software ecosystem around the iPhone. Now everything from your stupid little cash register applications all the way up to massive CRM systems can talk to the iPhone, and the iPhone can talk to them.

This is the first real, commercially-viable UNIX-esque cellular device out there. Apple also has a chance to place themselves in the position of being THE SOLE PRODUCER of a standardized, next-generation UNIX handheld.

This was a very, very good move on their part. Even the price won't stop the iPhone now.

Re:A much better link

"1. Cellular networks are fragile. Much more fragile than the larger internet. They tend toward monoculture and proprietary systems, and haven't had the shakedown that standard internet network hardware and protocols have had. So Jobs' quote about him 'not wanting third-party apps bringing Cingular's network down' actually makes some sense (some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past)."
Not really. Cingular offers several SmartPhones like the Treo and the Samsung Blackjack that run both Palm OS and Windows Mobile. You can add software for both those with little effort. You can even write your own.
I would say your statment is "optimistic" at best.
A far more likely idea is simply that AT&T and Apple wanted to make a lot of money from selling software for the iPhone for a while. Good choice on Apples part to decide that making the developers happy would pay off more in the long run.

Re:A much better link

Embedded Visual C++ 4.0 [microsoft.com] is free. It works with the Windows Mobile 5 SDK [microsoft.com]. Knock yourself out.

But don't stop there.

Series 60 [nokia.com]
Palm OS [access-company.com] (Treo SDK [palm.com])
BlackBerry [blackberry.com]

Re:A much better link

Cellular networks are fragile. Much more fragile than the larger internet. They tend toward monoculture and proprietary systems, and haven't had the shakedown that standard internet network hardware and protocols have had. So Jobs' quote about him 'not wanting third-party apps bringing Cingular's network down' actually makes some sense (some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past). And

Bullshit. Utter crap. Why is there this paranoia about the iPhone, when Symbian, Windows CE/Mobile have allowed this for years? There is no way an application on a device should or could bring down a base station, let alone a cell network.

Oh, and as for this gem:

bringing Cingular's network down' actually makes some sense (some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past)

Cite. Go on. I would so so love to see a citation of any evidence of this. Any, whatsoever.

Re:A much better link

Cite. Go on. I would so so love to see a citation of any evidence of this. Any, whatsoever.

I can't give you a cite since it wasn't public, but I was there when the company had to roll out a quick release for an email client that was hitting the network at the same time every morning, from some tens of thousands of handsets. With cell time synchronization, that meant exactly the same time every morning, which was bringing down the C******* server that handed out data connection contexts.

Like you, I wouldn't have believed that you could bring down a cell network, but there you go. I suppose it wasn't really the whole network, but whatever.

Maybe they have more than one server handing out contexts now. Maybe not.

cell network incidents exist, like Pluto

There have been a number of incidents with cell phone networks like this. The service providers are really freaky paranoid about updating software on the switches and other network components, and are utterly loathe to update the firmware on the cell phones partly because they live in constant fear of unintended consequences of change. The change control procedures on the software systems for the network devices are mind numbing.

These incidents don't get published, just like most worm outbreaks in large corporate and government networks don't get published. I know a lot of them happened because I saw them first hand. Can't prove them to some random snit on Slashdot, however. The victims are often more afraid of the bad publicity than anything else that could result from an incident, and they eschew publicity. (The world would probably be a better place if they did share these experiences more widely, because lessons could be learned, software and procedures improved, etc., but that's not how managers of bureaucratic organizations operate just yet.)

To those demanding to see a link, I say: Well, since most of the people who actually know things like this are restricted by NDA agreements and also have the integrity to honor those agreements, perhaps first, you prove to us that pluto exists. I'm not talking about some white dot that could be a pin prick on a slide. You don't really know that Pluto exists, and nobody here has time to educate you in both epistemology and information technology so that you understand enough that we can "prove" everything to your pathetic satisfaction. Before mouthing off and demanding a link as though that constituted proof, maybe you should start by asking yourselves, "hrm... why would he lie about this?" If there are no compelling motivations for a big lie, then maybe, just maybe, he's not lying. Or maybe you don't believe him because you yourselves lie so often that you don't believe anyone else? What a sad life that must be.

Re:The big question..

More importantly, once it's running vista, can you run a virtualized instance of linux on that, on which you run an emulator of a 6 year old version of palm OS. That way you can play DopeWars in all of it's 4 shades of gray glory. Of course, that's still worthless unless you can do all of the above from a terminal window on your powerbook, ssh'd into the iphone while it's still sitting in your pocket.

One Word:

Skype.

If this critter has WiFi, and someone ports Skype to it, a damned fine radical shift in cell communications is very possible. While it wouldn't work outside of large metro areas (ones with lots of free WiFi, anyway), it would make phone companies, contracts, and all the BS that goes with 'em rather obsolete, methinks.

(then again, we'd likely see folks like Verizon et al start lobbying city councils to stop putting in free wifi, like Qwest and Comcast did when Utah began it's UTOPIA project of multiple city-funded fiber-to-the-doorstep projects all linked together).

Either way, it'd be damned cool, IMHO.

/P

Two words:

802.11 sniffer
That's what I've been waiting for in iPhone news. Sure, there's the Oqo and some Axim-type devices that work for this, but very few that can harness the power of a terminal window, which I've been told (by an Apple higher ed employee) we'll be able to do on the iPhone.

Re:One Word:

a forced 2 year voice and data plan will stop that.

Re:One Word:

You are, uhhh, aware that Skype is already available to several mobile devices, right?

Its not an exciting shift

Its an embarassing climbdown. Apple are notorious for tying to control everything, the negative feedback from the marketplace has obviously influenced this 'shift'.

Announcement may make some change their mind

I, for one, balked at the idea of having such a sweet platform to develop nifty apps for, but no 3rd-party development allowed?? Either they release a full API for garage developers or I won't consider buying one. I still think the 2-year commitment to #%^&! Cingular is a bad enough 'deal'. I'm just freaked out at what the battery life is like. I can't see getting more than 2 hours of full use from it before charging again.

This guy is a developer?

"I can understand their concern where they don't want after-market apps taking down the whole phone network," said iClip developer John Casasanta, who called last week's comments by Jobs "fantastic."

Wait... did this guy just insinuate that an app on one guy's iPhone is enough to take down all of AT&T/Cingular's network? Or did someone add the word "network" afterwards? Suddenly I have a lot less faith in iClip (whatever it is) being a quality app...

Steve Jobs = Modern P.T.Barnum

Apple CEO Steve Jobs revealed at the D Conference that 3rd-party development will be supported on the iPhone.

In modern marketing Steve Jobs has no equal. I think you'd have to go back all the way back to P.T. Barnum to find a similar exec in a similar industry (entertainment) who marketed his wares so effectively with personal announcements.

ssh client would be nice

#EOF

This is because Apple wants control

The reason Apple is opening up to third party developers is that Apple does want to retain whatever control they can over the platform. The iPhone will be opened up anyway whether it's some very skilled h4x70r or a professional is the only difference. By releasing a dev kit (they'll all but have to) they can retain a modicum of control over what is developed and how it will be deployed. This isn't to say that there won't be hacks available but at least whatever useful programs are written will be part of the Apple marketplace and not something from the evil tubes that they had no input or control over.

OpenMoko

I know Apple is all trendy and hipster-friendly, but I'm much more excited for the OpenMoko [openmoko.org] platform.

i never even considered...

When the iPhone was announced and later after i had a quick play with one, I had made the assumption that there would be a development env for it. I guess part of that stems from owning a palm pilot, etc you just make the assumption that you'll be able to write your own applications for it.

So to me the supprise factor of this article was more "oh, i didnt realise there was a question about that in the first place", but its good to know it'll be capable of it for sure.

Suprisingly, this article actually made me less excited about the iPhone and a little disappointed. The way the article reads, it makes it sound like apple will only throw an SDK at 3rd parties they choose and trust which is a bit of a shame really.

Well..

Steve Jobs revealed at the D Conference that 3rd-party development will be supported on the iPhone

Maybe I'll get one after all then.

What is the point of a portable computer as powerful as the iPhone if it can't run 3rd party apps?

J2ME?

Will I be able to run / develop Java (J2ME) apps on the iPhone?

It is all about control

All along Apple has planned to support 3rd party apps on the iPhone the same way they support them with iTunes/iPod: you can't get the SDK without signing a restrictive contract. A contract that gives Apple the final say on whether or not you can ship your application. Enforced through copyright; your app, when linked to their SDK, has stuff that Apple has exclusive rights over so you can't just get a copy of the SDK from a friend and avoid signing the contract. Some people are happy with that but it's a far cry from the software freedom that Slashdotters profess to support.

Ever wonder why there is only one music store that integrates with iTunes? Why all attempts to integrate anything fun and useful for consumers into iTunes are quashed? Because Apple is an extremely conservative organization that uses all of its power to suppress anything it doesn't like. Expect the same thing with iPhone.

Forget trying to ship anything for the iPhone that is innovative, contrary to the status quo, or competitive with Apple.

Dashboard, duh!

Has anyone seriously believed that there wouldn't be third-party development for the iPhone? I was under the impression that the answer to that question was pretty obvious. The only question has been what form it would take, and even that is pretty obvious if you just look at the thing: Dashboard!

For starters, the interface has a lot of the same visual elements as Dashboard. The grille/tray, rounded-glass squares, identical icons. Hell, identical set of apps as the default set of Dashboard widgets. Dead giveaway. And why shouldn't it be the same set of apps? Apart from email, the main reason to have an internet-connected phone is for quickly fetching bite-sized chunks of information: exactly the sort of thing that widgets are good for.

Consider also that typical widgets take up very little memory and about the same amount of screen real estate as is available on the iPhone. On a Mac, this is because it is expected that you'll be looking at a bunch at the same time, but on the iPhone it's a perfect fit. For existing widgets, it's trivial to either modify the interface to fit the iPhone's screen or load a different interface depending on the platform.

There's no reason why every existing widget couldn't easily be made to run on iPhone, something that isn't true for existing desktop applications. That means thousands of applications available as soon as Apple allows it. Hell, developers don't even need to own or have access to an iPhone to be able to write applications for it. And before anyone screams "JavaScript Sucks", remember that Dashboard widgets can work with Cocoa, too. Off hand I can't think of much that you can't do in a widget. (For a good time, open up the Quartz Composer template included with Dashcode and ask yourself how much fun it would be if you could touch the cube.)

I know there a lot of doubters, but I think that iPhone is going to become the easiest mobile platform to develop third-party apps for.

dashboard widgets now

If you want Dashboard-like widgets for your phone, there's WidSets [widsets.com]. They're designed from the ground up for cell phone usage, including cell phone screen sizes and keyboards, and they work on many different cell phones.

Whoa there people

> iPhone To Allow 3rd-Party Development

I'm waiting for the " but "

Linux running on iPhone by June 30?

Is 24 hours too long for first hack?

Time to Buy More

Is it time to buy more stock?

This might be the most exciting change I have heard about the iPhone in months of Hype!

Look this isn't news here.

This is not news. Not at all. Jobs had originally said that the iphone will only support third party apps that Apple approves of. That's still what will happen. TFA practically said it outright, look:

"We're working through a way [to support third-party development]," Jobs said. "We've got some pretty good ideas that we're working through, and I think sometime later this year we will find a way to let third parties write apps and still preserve security."

And what "idea" will he pick? Later on in TFA:

NPD analyst Rubin sees iTunes as being one possible vehicle for delivering applications to the iPhone. Besides giving users a familiar interface, it will also give Apple the chance to certify applications for the device.

In other words, we'll get exactly what control-freak Jobs said we'd get. The iphone will be closed. You can't put a third party app on the phone if apple doesn't put it on itunes.

Maybe Ballmer was right...

Developers Developers Developers Developers

Developers Developers Developers Developers

[lather rinse repeat ad naseum]

Repeat After Me: It's a PHONE.

I am not a programmer by trade.
I am a phone user, however.

Those of you who have "smartphones" (the term may get blurry as the iPhone debuts) have had crashes in apps, or even the phone itself as you added software or hardware. My Treo is OK, and hasn't given me problems, but its not a very robust thing, either.

Aside from probably not having a true SDK ready, Apple is trying to avoid Terrible Things. The iPhone isn't a computer per se. It's not only an information device as computers are, but a life-saving device for 911 calls and such. The last thing Apple or AT&T want to see is a news report like "Man Dies When iPhone Crashes" after he installed some "nifty" gadget that some third party made that caused a serious failure for the guy's phone in the middle of nowhere, causing him to burn or freeze from exposure. Phones must just work.

The webapps solution was a good compromise (which is also why PC users got Safari to aid in this). Hopefully there may be less regulation on more complex app development, but for now, less is more.

Re:GPS

Does the iPhone have a GPS or not?

No, it does not have a GPS. Lots of people wish that it had one. Lots of people wish it had 3G. I wish it had more than 8GB of storage (like maybe a 100 GB hard disk).

There is always next year.

Re:GPS

GPS can be added in quite a nice way to Bluetooth devices. Devices such as the Holux GPSlim 240 (my preferred choice) are under $100, the size of a memory stick, and have one of the bets GPS chipsets on the market (works inside a glove compartment), and relays the GPS data to a Bluetooth device. Works perfectly with my UTStarCom 6700 Phone (Windows Mobile 5) and TomTom Navigator. One added benefit is that you can stick the bluetooth GPS device in a handy spot (on a dash, up on deck on a boat, etc.) to increase reception, while having your phone anywhere within reasonable bluetooth range.

FAKE

I checked out the link, which has a poor supposed copy of a page from the end of the book. The page has at least two glaring errors, that I won't point out, because I don't want the idiot who made it to fix them.

But if anyone reads this, don't worry. It's not legit.

Re:GPS

I don't believe so. But I'm curious whether the E911 system could be used in the phone in order to determine your location? There are rumors talking about this...

Re:omgz its da jesus (in phone form)

Seriously, can we cut down just a bit on the iphone articles. We won't really know what it is or what it can do until it's been out for long enough to get over the initial inevitable noise-and-lack-of-supply issue.

To what extent can all iPhone discussion be replaced by citations of the appropriate paragraph of this page [misterbg.org]? Other than the long delay between paragraph 9 and the actual availability of the product, to what extent does that not describe the iPhone product cycle so far?