Slashdot Log In
No iPhone SDK Means No iPhone Killer Apps
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jun 12, 2007 02:49 PM
from the dang-no-photoshop dept.
from the dang-no-photoshop dept.
iPhoneLover/Hater writes "Gizmodo is running an article analyzing the potential failure of the iPhone as a truly revolutionary platform. The reason: no SDK to harness the true power of Mac OS X and the frameworks contained in Apple's smart cell. From the article: 'According to Apple, "no software developer kit is required for the iPhone." However, the truth is that the lack of an SDK means that there won't be a killer application for the iPhone. It also means the iPhone's potential as an amazing computing and communication platform will never be realized. And because of this and no matter how Apple tries to sell it, the iPhone won't make a revolution happen.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
well.. (Score:5, Funny)
Revolutions... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Revolutions... (Score:4, Insightful)
revolution
-noun
3. a sudden, complete or marked change in something
Sometimes, words mean more than just one thing. I don't think anyone's referring to a violent overthrow of the cellular phone government. I think they meant a sudden, marked change in cellular phones. I mean, sure, you have good ideas and everything, but I think you're overreacting on this one. Not that I disaprove of overreacting. I enjoy it as much as the next guy.
Also, you shouldn't be a 21st century man. You should be a 21st century digital boy because it sounds so much better.
Parent
Re:Revolutions... (Score:5, Interesting)
Asterisk [asterisk.org] on a cell phone. Now *that* would revolutionize my cell phone experience.
Heck, i would even write a cell phone suitable PBX myself if i had sufficient access to the internals - most processors in the current generation of cell phones are more than capable of handling the overhead associated with a low call volume (personal) PBX.
Fat chance of anything like this happening anytime soon, however
Parent
Re:Revolutions... (Score:5, Funny)
You know the usage of the term "revolution" to describe political affairs just makes me sad as a 17th century man. The fact that this is what we apply the term to nowadays shows our supreme lack of imagination or want for something better. If we could have the type of revolution our forefathers had using timber logs, potter's wheels, the ability for criminal corporations roll their carriages, politicians that adhere to big business's needs for more mobile cannons, that'd be really doing somethin.
Parent
Re:well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure if it's a willingness to publish anything that contains the word "iPhone" or a legitimate interest in development. But unless you're interested in turning your iPhone into a wifi scanner. (Something probably best left to the laptop anyway since it's got a fair few more MHz to waste.) Then I'm finding the SDK really unnecessary. The iPhone isn't a computer replacement, it's got a lowly powered set of hardware which is ideal for a phone, but not for a complex application. If you want to develop strong apps for the road use a laptop.. If you want to develop referencing apps, lookup programs etc, then just use AJAX on the iPhone.
I don't think anyone is going to get an icon on the main screen for a long time. (I don't think it's necessary either.)
With all that said, I have seen some very fun hobbyist applications for mobile platforms (e.g. like the palm programmable remote.) However I think it's the hobbyists that will hack away at the iPhone (with knowledge that it's just OSX) and figure out how to make their own mini-apps anyway.
Parent
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then I'm finding the SDK really unnecessary. The iPhone isn't a computer replacement, it's got a lowly powered set of hardware which is ideal for a phone, but not for a complex application. If you want to develop strong apps for the road use a laptop.. If you want to develop referencing apps, lookup programs etc, then just use AJAX on the iPhone.
Not all apps need to be "killer" powerful apps. One thing I would like on my phone is a decent ebook reader. After all if the iPhone is good enough to read the web with it should be good enough to read a book on. Its unlikely to happen however given their stance. Such a simple app, really nothing more than a glorified text reader, would be trivial to make given a basic SDK. (I wouldn't have to carry around the Palm anymore which would be nice) An app like that isn't really a good fit for AJAX either, you don't want to use airtime to read an ebook.
I can think of a couple others off the top of my head. An encrypted password manager such as KeyPass would be useful (you don't really want to be passing passwords and whatnot across the net if you don't have to). Also a decent text editor, or simple notebook/list app, would be another (as opposed to the pure reader you would have in an ebook app).
However its sounding like Apple, like every other wireless carrier, wants to have the phone completely locked down. I tend to agree with the article, no SDK is just going to limit the phone's potential.
Parent
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The tragedy here is that the iPhone provides even more opportunities for real innovation. With thousands of developers (the world over) building on top of the work Apple has already done we would have seen truly stunning advances in both the functionality and the form of the iPhone.
The iPhone may not be a computer replacement, but that doesn't mean it's not a computing device with immense potential.
Parent
Re:well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, things that any decent system should have been able to do out of the box, and nary a one a "stunning" advance. And, near as I can tell, the iPhone already all of these things out of the box. And, from what I've seen, does most of them extremely well.
I agree that the iPhone has immense potential. But I also think that forecasting doom-and-gloom before the first one has even been sold is as equally shortsighted as you're making Apple out to be.
If I had the time, I know I'd be looking hard at what could be done NOW with an always-on always-connected phone/internet device and making that a "killer-app", instead of wasting time crying over the tools I could have had...
Parent
Re:well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. That's just silly. There's plenty of firepower there. However, Apple definitely wants that 8gig of hard drive space filled up with music and movies from iTunes and NOT the latest bloatware from Adobe or Microsoft. I think that's one of the major reasons for this move. However, I also think that this could also be akin to getting rid of the disk drive in the iMac. Yes, other smart phones have SDKs for developing software, but then, none of those other phones have a decent enough UI or a browser totally capable of running web 2.0 apps. And Look! It's only been 2 days since the announcement and already there are 2 web apps out for the iPhone:
Onetrip (Only viewable with Safari):
http://www.mrgan.com/onetrip/help.php?browser=fal
Digg:
http://davidcann.com/iphone/ [davidcann.com]
That was quick. Maybe all you compile code junkies need to start brushing up on your XML, SOAP, and AJAX.
Parent
It's just a phone... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's just a phone... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask any Verizon subscriber how "easy" it is to move address book contacts in and out of the handset. Or music. Or videos. Or any other kind of data.
There are only two effective ways to break this control. One is legislative. (You can stop giggling now.) The other is for a handset maker to create a handset so powerful and compelling that people fall all over themselves to try and get one, and then for the maker to stand firm and refuse to give control of the handset to the carriers. Eventually, market pressure will force at least one carrier to cave in and take the phone as sold, after which, all the carriers will follow suit.
Apple has an opportunity to help this happen, but it's not clear if they're interested in that outcome.
Schwab
Parent
Re:It's just a phone... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some people who appear to believe corporate interests are always and necessarily opposed to social responsibility. This is bullshit, and these people do damage to their own purported cause by setting up this false dichotomy.
Parent
Re:It's just a phone... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I would argue that only companies who do not adhere to the whims of the shareholders are the most successful ones. Usually these are companies with "dictators" at the helm or a small group with a vision.
Take Steve Jobs and Bill Gates for example. Some of their decisions go straight against earning the company money in the short term.
Not to mention Google's decision to not split the stock in order to keep it in a small set of hands. Appeasing the stockholders is a moot point if you have complete control over the direction of the company and you are free do whatever you feel like.
This could involve dumping money into non-profitable game console which later only becomes profitable in its second generation system or doing crazy things like ripping all ATI cards out of your computers because they made a good with a press release.
Most companies who had to comply with the average corporate share holders could not do such things and get away with it. However, since these companies are controlled by a small set of persons they can usually stick with their vision.
Parent
"Just a phone"???!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:It's just a phone... (Score:5, Insightful)
It helps that the phone has a real browser and supports Ajax, but it's still limited. And how much fun will it be when you're important apps aren't working because you're in a tunnel, or the middle of nowhere where edge service is spotty. Eventually they'll need to provide a way for people to write apps for it.
I think once they've established the credibility of the phone and that it's reliable, they'll be better positioned to open the platform up a bit more. Hell, they could put together a certification program that would get third party apps access to the Itunes store, or some such. They could make sure the apps are solid, and take a cut of the money at the same time.
Parent
No killer app? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who's to say that Apple can't/won't write that killer app?
Funniest Thing I've Read All Day (Score:4, Insightful)
The way that mobile phone industry works is the network provider is the only innovator. Perhaps the most famous example of this is music download service on mobile phone networks.
Oh wait, what about all the java-enabled phones? Outside of games, there isn't much of an API to do anything else with it. And it's not like mobile java apps actually run everywhere.
Parent
Network providers don't innovate sh*t (Score:5, Insightful)
BS.
Anything innovative in that market is almost always created by a third party and proposed a network provider. And network providers usually find a way to botch those things by turning them into restrictive billable services or features.
The only innovative things network providers create are fees shorty, fees.
Parent
Re:No killer app? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No killer app? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the phone has already been invented. The iPhone needs a killer app to keep from being a phone with an "up to 5 hours" battery, in which I (and probably a lot of people) have no interest. An SDK would let some clever person who doesn't work at Apple come up with something even the clever people there haven't thought of. Everything shown on the Apple site for the iPhone's software abilities (web browser, calculator, notes, clock, etc) are already done by other phones on the market now. So maybe the iPhone does those tasks in a more user friendly way; so what? Not enough to get many people to switch to such an expensive device. No, the killer app for the iPhone has yet to appear.
Parent
Re:No killer app? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Another one? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not out yet.
We *are* using the Firehose responsibly, right?
Re:Another one? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Lets be honest here: (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Never!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
fully agree (Score:5, Insightful)
This just in... (Score:5, Funny)
They're canceling the iPhone, disbanding the dev team, and selling the entire production run at Overstock.com and everyone gets a free Clio while supplies last.
Oh, and you're invited to a party at John Dvorak's house.
You have to bring the Tostitos, Shaw Wu's bringing the Dr. Pepper.
Parent
Security != Calls from Javascript! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Article Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
YouTube was written without an SDK (Score:5, Insightful)
The notion that something has to be compiled into machine language to be a killer app is kind of wonky, if you ask me. Everyone out there already making clever web apps might have something to say about that.
Re:YouTube was written without an SDK (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that it also uses Flash, which includes ActionScript. That's an SDK of sorts.
The iPhone can't do Flash.
So, no one is going to be coding up a mobile YouTube on the iPhone (as if it would even be useable over a GPRS connection).
Parent
Horse, cart, etc. (Score:4, Interesting)
The biggest limitation I see is not the lack of a killer app(s), but the lack of free, easily accessible WiFi everywhere. You'll need a connection to something to use these apps, and with only a few cities and towns in US with decent WiFi blanketing, this may end up being a huge problem.
But hey - if enough people buy the thing, and enough developers show that you can make it a viable platform, then we'll see some real innovation. Personally, I would love to see someone build a rich web app that could run as well on EDGE as it does on WiFi - and then spread that data efficiency over to the rest of the web.
No SDK? Call MacGyver! (Score:5, Funny)
Right, 'cause it's impossible to develop software (and/or quality software) without an SDK. I guess we'll have to pull a MacGyver: get me Emacs, a compiler, some libraries, a pack of gum, some yarn, a can of WD-40 and some Hot Pockets...
There's Also No iPod SDK (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There's Also No iPod SDK (Score:5, Insightful)
The iPhone is essentially a handheld computer and is going up against other handheld computers, like the Treo and the Blackberry. Being able to write an arbitrary application that can access the phone's data and functionality is possible on those two devices (and has lead to some very useful applications), so naturally we're a little disappointed that the iPhone won't allow the same functionality.
Parent
Is this article a troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems like a good way to go IMO. You don't need to learn yet another SDK. If you can program with Javascript, HTML, you can make apps for the iPhone. If there is a bug in your app, you don't have to create a new installer and get that new version out to millions of people. Just update the code on your server and now all users have the latest-and-greatest.
Through Safari, you will be able to do tons of things with the iPhone and web 2.0/Ajax stuff, all the core functions of the iPhone are available to you.
Re:Is this article a troll? (Score:5, Interesting)
But, here are my complaints as a programmer:
(1) I hate Javascript. This isn't a language flame war. I've met very few people who like javascript. It takes a lot of effort to put together something that resembles a real-world app. Yes, google purchased several office tools that manage, but it doesn't mean its easy, and it doesn't mean its the right way to go about things. Also, those tools (as many have point out) still don't work properly under Safari.
(2) If you do have to go through Safari, you don't get to write a First Class app. You still have to work around the interface elements of Safari. It will always look something like a web page running under Safari, even if the widgets look decent. Morever, if the app isn't stored locally (it could be, so this might all be irrelevant for the discussion), if you lose a connection, you are in trouble.
Also, if I remember correctly, you can only 'browse the web' when you aren't talking on the phone. Will these apps suddenly become unavaiable because you receive a phone call?
(3) There are a ton of apps you cannot do properly with AJAX. Things that require an interface + database can work fine. But, what if I want to write a game for the iPhone (I can imagine motion sensitive controls + dual touch screen can given room for some exciting possibilities)? As others pointed out, Jobs made a big deal that Google Maps was a real-app, and not from the web. Obviously he thinks there is an advantage. What if I want to make a scribble-pad for making drawn notes for myself? Personally, I would love a Python terminal. I can imagine a useful calculator program you could acheive with Python + matplotlib (actually, this you might be able to write with AJAX, though I think think it would be very pretty). Or howabout ssh? If it doesn't come with GPS, can we hope for anyone to write software that would allow a bluetooth GPS device? The ability to take pictures with GPS data, and mark up google maps would be great.
It seems to me if Apple really wanted to control security on the IPhone, they would create a tiered layer for what interface an app is allowed to use. This way they could even allow TCP/IP, but throttle the I/O so that your device couldn't take down any networks.
If I remember the keynote properly, Jobs didn't say there would be no SDK. Only that there would be no need. But, again, as others have pointed out, we knew about AJAX already. He's talking to *developers* at the WWDC. He has to know that most of the people there would know that AJAX was possible. So what was he really saying? (1) that the webkit was available, and (2) that you could access components of the IPhone using javascript.
I suspect third-party developers will be allowed at least to make games. They have a few select games for the iPod, so it's not a wild conjecture. It's strange that Jobs would stress how the iPhone has OS X running underneath it, if it doesn't actually matter to the end user.
Most people I know people who have palms have third-party apps for them, and in many ways I think its something that kept the Palm ecosystem going. Palm knew its income came from selling hardware, rather than licenses. If you look at the success of the Newton, it was largely that you *could* write apps for it. Phone companies have the opposite motive, where they may lose money the hardware, but make it back by charging for everything else.
It seems that Apple is set to make their money selling hardware, so if anything, they should encourage third-party apps. Perhaps AT&T is planning on selling software/services for the IPhone, but somehow that seems unlikely for me.
Which leads me to several different conclusions: (1) either Apple really
Parent
It's True of The Whole Mobile Space (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of thing is why mobile networking in the U.S. and many other countries is a total and unmitigated disaster. All of the networks have tried so hard to make sure they get all the profit potential out of the networks they have made it very unattractive for third party developers. As a result, the mobile networking space just rots waiting for a competitor or new form of getting data to mobile points that make the existing mobile networks obsolete (this is hard because of governmental regulation and selling of exclusive rights to frequency bands, so it is also a regulatory disaster). This is why all the services you hear prognosticators in Wired and other magazines rhapsodize about never materialize. It's also ironic in that the carriers would be making more money if they had opened up to the killer apps and therefore increased the overall demand for networking.
In short, through the regulatory processes and lack of fair trade enforcement, the U.S. has sold its mobile networking potential and commons into the hands of thieves, whose greed and hubris have essentially delayed progress in mobile networking for at least a decade. If I could make that statement in stronger terms, I would. The mobile space is essentially what happens when you have the complete antithesis of 'network neutrality' and, though network neutrality might not be a great regulatory strategy in the fixed-network space, the complete opposite of it is surely well-nigh catastrophic as can be seen from the mobile space.
Re:It's True of The Whole Mobile Space (Score:4, Interesting)
Providers have to create or cross license their infrastructure, and that is massivly expensive. The only reason that there is lock in to undesirable providers is that they have premium or exclusive coverage areas. This is especially true in non-dense populations. Verizon sucks donkey balls when it comes to getting anything without an added fee, but they have good coverage where other providers (like at&t which, while also evil, at least offers gsm/3g) have little or none.
Take all those towers, switch them to gsm, consolidate the bands, put the infrastructure under better, tigher regulation owned by a (network of) (possibly gov't overseen) corps. Forbid those corps from selling any direct services except the infrastrucutre access, then provide standard per user/per packet rates to all providers. It won't happen, but it sure would help if it did.
Parent
It doesn't do what I need (Score:4, Insightful)
Jobs made a very nice toy. Unfortunately, I need a tool - and the iPhone ain't it.
Further hobbled by not including flash (Score:4, Interesting)
Please stop the handwringing, already. (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, go refer to the D5 discussion with SJ and BG. Pay special attention to the part where Steve talks about iPhone apps, particularly why it was felt that a native Google Maps app was more appropriate than a web app.
Second of all, "No SDK required" != "No SDK available". The SDK already exists, but is not required to develop apps targeted to the iPhone. It's called Mac OS X+XCode+Dashcode. Curious that the "Webclip" feature coming in Leopard was conspicously demo'd by Steve, and yet is missing from both versions of the Safari 3 Public Beta...hmm? Safari for Windows exists because of the iPhone, plain and simple.
The "Mystery 12th App"? Obviously the "Movies" widget that Steve demo'd. Just as that came on, I realized one of the most commonly accessed apps on my Palm phone, my Nokia 770, and my other cell phone (Samsung SPH-m610), is movie listings. Of course Apple, with the largest movie preview site on the Internet, would provide such a feature for the iPhone.
It's been obvious since the first intro of the iPhone to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that all the apps on the iPhone are the exact same things that run under Dashboard on Mac OS X. Why would anyone think that Apple would reimplement already existing code when they've already shown that the iPhone and AppleTV both run Mac OS X, especially given the extreme emphasis put on the fact that the iPhone runs the same WebKit engine as the regular desktop OS?
I going to laugh to see all the naysayers tripping over themselves to get ahold of an iPhone and a Mac in a few months once they realize they've missed the boat
They don't want binary apps on the phone (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not the phone is "really" running OSX is debatable, but keep in mind that many of the CPUs used in embedded devices like phones don't have nearly (or sometimes any of) the memory protection offered on a desktop or laptop CPU. You're also dealing with a much lower-MHz device (for battery consumption reasons) and chances are 100% of the code on the phone runs in Ring 0 (assuming other rings exist) for performance reasons.
So for them to allow third parties to run binary apps would pretty much allow unlimited circumvention of their DRM for the iPod portions (which would violate their agreements with record and movie companies), and as Jobs mentioned publicly would allow any poorly-written or malicious application to completely destabilize the phone or potentially interact with the cellular network in some disruptive or destructive manner (probably violating their agreement with AT&T). I have a Treo with PalmOS on it, and I can attest to the validity of at least the phone stability concern.
So there are a few very legitimate reasons to sandbox third-party code. That being said, there are features sorely lacking on the phone that won't fit in a sandbox - the first of which (for me and my customers) is a VPN client. The last thing I want is a phone running POP3 or IMAP "transparently" connecting over insecure WiFi infrastructure. I'd also like an SSH client, a Terminal Services client, an X Client, and a unicorn - so the iPhone probably won't be for me (dammit).
I would imagine that down the road they will find a better way to provide said sandbox (maybe a Java or Ruby or Python runtime environment?) but in the mean time I respect their desire to provide a phone that emphasizes reliability, even if it means it won't work for me (at least in the first iteration). The wife will probably get one, though.
X-Code!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, what then IS the killer app from others? (Score:4, Insightful)
These devices all allow custom programming. They have been out for some time. So then, what is the "Kller App" for those devices that has come from third parties?
When I owned a Palm, I did buy a few applications, but they were just nice utilities, never apps I could not live without (evidenced by my not owning a Palm anymore once it died). Even today I don't see what is so compelling about the third party market that I must have on my phone that could not also be served by a well-written web application.
The Palm itself was a killer app when it came along, because of the totality of the device. The same COULD be true of the iPhone, we don't know yet - but it would not be a third party application that would cause it to rise or fall, even if it would allow lower level development. With consumer devices its the package as a whole that makes or breaks it.
Heck even game consoles today rest firmly on a foundation of first party titles to help buoy them up. Why should a phone be any different? Remember it's not that NO developers will get lower level access, Apple had already talked about things like the games the iPod offers today. It's only the wider market that has to use AJAX for application development on the iPhone, a tired development model that still allows for truly custom iPhone applications - and thus the potential of the mythical "Killer App".
Re:Unless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
802.11 (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Unless... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Also means less likely virus corruption (Score:4, Insightful)
AT&T and Cingular already sell smartphones running Windows Mobile, Palm OS, and Series 60, and BlackBerry, and those all provide SDKs for anyone who wants one.
So, either you're full of shit, or Apple is too incompetent too implement the security features that would make AT&T comfortable.
Parent