Slashdot Log In
Steve Jobs Announces iPhone SDK
Posted by
Zonk
on Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:50 AM
from the independent-thought-coming-soon-to-a-phone-near-you dept.
from the independent-thought-coming-soon-to-a-phone-near-you dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It finally happened. Steve Jobs announced an iPhone SDK today. The plan is to release it in February, and the suggestion is that apps will need to be digitally signed (not unlike digital signing in Leopard). Here's hoping that developing for the iPhone/Touch will be cheap (or free) enough to allow the folks who have been writing apps to continue doing so. Says Jobs: 'It will take until February to release an SDK because we're trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once--provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc. This is no easy task.'"
Related Stories
Submission: Steve Jobs Announces iPhone SDK by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.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.
February is kind of a long time, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, it could also be that it's taken them this long for events to prove to AT&T that resistance was ultimately futile and counterproductive. Hard to say, with that crowd.
Re:February is kind of a long time, isn't it? (Score:5, Interesting)
I do wonder how much of the resistance was AT&T, how much was Apple and how much was legitimate worrying about how to do things right.
I hope the signing requirement will be a verifiable registration of your key with Apple and not a large fee of some sort. I've got a lot of third party apps on my iTouch that are excellent quality and free. Apple would be depriving themselves of most of that developer community by limiting things to large companies.
Parent
Hear hear! (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that the truth! It would be even better if Apple provided a glide-path to current developers to becoming "legit" so that they're encouraged to engage rather than fight. Apple really has no reason to be a jerk about it except spite. Unfortunately, Steve has proven that he's occasionally prone to that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
+1, Understated!
Re:February is kind of a long time, isn't it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on, I'd say it's pointless and whinning until it is released and the final terms are known. It reminds me too much of the "no-SDK" whinning. A decent SDK takes time. You run the risk of getting this kind of whinning: "Yeah, they released this SDK along with the iPhone, but it's beta software at best, the API keeps changing, there are a lot of system updates, my iPhone keeps crashing and OMG there are exploits in the wild. They should have waited until it was ready, sheesh."
Observe, know the facts, react accordingly.
dani++
Parent
Re:February is kind of a long time, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
AT&T is not involved with the iPod Touch or with European iPhones at all. Apple made a point out of saying this SDK is for both the iPhone and the iPod Touch. That's meaningful.
My prediction is that it'll be a lot like some Java handhelds. There will be a key repository. It will come with the public key of Apple and, for iPhones, for the carrier from which you currently get service. Developers will be issued a key pair, one to go onto the device they use for development, and one to sign the apps they're developing, but installing the pubic keys onto arbitrary devices will be non-trivial.
My prediction based on that is, anyone who cares about running a wide variety of apps will register as a developer and get a key pair, and freeware apps will have to be open source, because in order to get them signed correctly, people will have to compile them from source so that they're properly signed for their own devices.
If registering as a developer is cheap/free, I am not sure that's a bad thing...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple announced today the deal they made with Orange, in France, and this deal requires they sell unlocked phones. While it means unlocked phones provider-wise, not app-wise, it may start a trend which combined with the current trend of hacking each firmware release within 2-3 days, may prove bad for iPhone's image as a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe they was even affraid that people would break the subscription lockin if it was available from the begining.. but uhm.. that strat failed anyway
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever thought that there could be incremental plans at work? You know, doing one thing at a time, considering that the vast, overwhelming majority of iPhone owners know or care approximately zero about the whole third party app issue?
Or would they have had to announce this back at the iPhone intro in order for it to be believed that it had been planned all along?
Seriously, Apple is a pretty secretive company, and this is a major pro
Digital signing (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the quote that may have misled:
So, what they're really saying is that they're hoping to do something along the same lines as signing, but not signing per se. This actually may be the most interesting part of their announcement, in that it could signal the next step forwards in indicating trust and providing clarity of who worked on what. Here's hoping it's not just repackaging.
Re:Digital signing (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Digital signing (Score:5, Informative)
I'm just going to point out that Windows has had digitally-signed apps since (at least) Windows 98, and that nearly every system library and executable in Windows XP and Windows Vista is signed. Vista even checks the signature before you see the UAC dialog, and the dialog for signed apps looks completely different (and has different keyboard shortcuts).
Windows Mobile also has signed apps.
Of course, I'm sure that some Mac fan is going to point out how this is another Apple innovation.
Parent
It IS an Apple innovation! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple already has a system for developer registration that they use for distributing pre-releases.
Security (Score:4, Interesting)
Jobs made several comments about securing iPhones and the network from malware, and the route Apple takes to do this is a big question mark. He mentioned application signing as a step in the right direction, with regard to other companies. Leopard brings support to OS X for both application signing and native sandboxing of applications for security. I wonder if Apple will employ either or both of these technologies to lock down the iPhone and, if so, how locked down they will be.
Security weakness of their own making (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA - quoting Steve Jobs:
The risk of damage would be a lot less damage if every app on the iPhone didnt run as root [eweek.com].
Re:Security weakness of their own making (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, I know it would be unheard of for an issue to be addressed or fixed on an OS that is clearly undergoing active major change and development (as is evidenced by internals and framework changes between 1.0.2 and 1.1.1) in four months...
Could the things that Jobs says Apple is working on to make the iPhone platform secure possibly include things like this, or does Jobs need to explicitly say they're addressing this exact problem in order for you to believe Apple might actually be working on the security of one of the most important and visible products in their history?
Parent
Re:Security weakness of their own making (Score:5, Informative)
They made the apps run as root due to lack of time to figure out the security properly. This is the same reason they didn't release a SDK.
By February, we'll have a firmware with reengineered OS and apps that don't run as root. The SDK will only support this firmware and newer.
Parent
SSH and a keyboard. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
1. Real IM client. If it disconnects when the screen isn't on, or the app doesn't have focus, it isn't worthwhile.
1. SSH2 client
2. Better bluetooth support and accessories. Specifically, stereo BT headset, and BT keyboard.
bug report (Score:5, Interesting)
I've recently become a complete Apple-convert. I used to hate Apple, and came from a Linux background. I have to say, though, that from a development standpoint their XCode environment is great, their libraries are well thought out, and it comes with a good number of advanced features that keeps coding fun. If you're wondering why people are so excited about developing for the iPhone, these are a few of the reasons.
At one point I played around with the toolchain that was previously being developed by the community hackers. It was relatively easy to put together a simple iPhone app, as the iPhone is running a simplified version of Cocoa. However, the more complex stuff (and interesting parts, like gestures) were not up to par because of lack of documentation.
With the introduction of the SDK, I think we're going to see a batch of really nice 3rd party apps. The current ones are extremely good for what resources are available, but I think everyone would agree there is room for much improvement.
Hopefully Apple will do the right thing in opening up their platform as much as possible. I wouldn't mind getting a free key to sign my code (Google did a similar thing when they opened up their search API). I wonder if they will limit all things internety to WIFI only, as AT&T might complain about random packets flying over their EDGE (even though other phone companies already allow this). I'm still not sure I fully get the malicious code issue, as the iPhone is essentially a dumbed down Macbook with a harder-to-use keyboard. How is the iPhone any more dangerous?
Malware (Score:5, Insightful)
media players that support additional audio and video codecs,
anything that lets you install ringtones for free using your own licensed music,
anything that lets you make calls on alternative networks.
How useful (Score:5, Funny)
Now the iPhone will have 30 different ways to check stock prices, get weather updates and read RSS feeds!
Hopefully someone makes a Diet Calculator / Calorine counter as well!
Pricing model? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, how long before Java? (Score:5, Informative)
It exists for PalmOS, it exists for Windows Mobile, it exists for other handhelds, and I imagine that both IBM and Sun would explode with joy at the possibility of getting it onto the iPhone and iPod Touch.
For those who don't know, this is IBM's J2ME/JavaME runtime for small systems. If you have Java on your PalmOS, Windows Mobile, or even many Linux handhelds, it's probably due to this being loaded on or embedded into it.
If we don't get that, maybe we'll get a port of the open-source reference implementation of JavaME:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhoneME_(software) [wikipedia.org]
It already builds for both ARM (current iPhone) and x86 (rumored future iPhone) instruction sets.
Either way, looks to me like once there's a general dev kit, a JVM isn't going to be too far off. Anyone want to make predictions about how long it'll take or what form it'll come in?
Misdirection (Score:4, Interesting)
Just wait... there will be some sort of costly compromise to be met for developers to use this SDK. Perhaps certain applications of the SDK, such as creating a VoIP app, may be considered a breach of contract. Maybe something more draconian, such as zero freedom to distribute an app without Apple as a middle-man, including a mandatory Apple tax for the privilege. (After the whole pay-to-play 802.11n firmware upgrade fiasco, I put nothing past what Apple might do if it means an extra buck.)
Needless to say, the former "crazy ones" are now committable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
I love all the people who are now going to say that Apple is only doing an SDK because the brave, innovative hackers who just want us all to be able to free our hardware have forced their hand.
Kind of like the only reason they have a battery replacement program for iPods was because of the Neistat Brothers' video, right?
Except that it would be wrong, on both counts.
For a device like the iPhone, Apple probably had SOME kind of SDK/third party development planned all along. But the iPhone's OS is still a wildly moving target, and it's not appropriate to have an SDK before things have calmed down with the OS APIs, frameworks, etc.
But if you want to believe that a statistically insignificant (yes, really - most people don't care, much less even know, about this) group of hobbyists and hackers have "forced" Apple to scramble to release an SDK, go right ahead.
Parent
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
There were lots of other little clues people found that the iPhone had either had plans for a third-party SDK which was scuttled, or had a third-party SDK in the works but not yet announced. So I admit, I am with the folks who are saying that Jobs probably had this planned from day one, but held off on the announcements until closer to the SDK/security methods being sorted out for marketing/publicity/spin reasons.
3 months after the phone was released is not a huge waiting period, but if he'd announced ahead of time that the iPhone would have a native SDK in February, lots of folks would have waited both on buying phones and on doing iPhone development. Instead, now we have hackers who have already worked on third-party native apps, there's all kinds of web-apps to keep those who won't jailbreak busy in the meantime.
Love him or hate him, one thing Jobs knows how to do is build anticipation, and manage publicity. He'll take bad press for a while simply so that he can sit on some announcement to greatest spin effect.
Parent
I love him. (Score:4, Interesting)
- he brought the Apple II to me when I was in highschool
- he brought the Macintosh to me when I was in College
- he brought the NeXT to me when I was just starting my career
- he resurrected Apple from the Dead
- he created OS X from NeXT Step and OS 9
- he brought the iPhone to me last summer
And last:
- he has the ability to change his mind when he's wrong.
Many people can't do that. Jobs wanted a closed iPhone. Remember his announcement at WSJ? At the dev conference? His recent "cat & mouse" comment? For whatever reason (alienating his developers, lost AT&T revenue is lass than increased sales, iPhone developers can't be stopped, some other reason...) he's changed his mind.
For this I love him.
Parent
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you want to believe that a statistically insignificant (yes, really - most people don't care, much less even know, about this) group of hobbyists and hackers have "forced" Apple to scramble to release an SDK, go right ahead.
I don't believe that the hackers were solely the cause for the SDK, but make no mistake, market pressure forced Apple to capitulate. They weren't planning this. They were blindsided with negative press and pressure from their customers and potential customers. At first they attempted to lay this at the feet of AT&T saying that AT&T was concerned with network stability, but that proved to be a big pile of BS, as evidences by AT&T's software development site assisting in software development for every phone in it's lineup except Apples.
And to say that the Apple battery replacement program wasn't directly influenced by that video... well, I see you've drank a little too much of the Steve Jobs Kool-Aid. Enjoy the dreams that he's told you will come.
Parent
Just about the right timing (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Their OS works well and will have passed QA before they shipped. Like any humans, Apple make mistakes, but they generally at least try to adhere to "it just works".
They ported their (stable) OS to a new architecture. The internal developers put up with the codebase (with any extant foibles), and they wrote a completely new UI framework (based on, but different to, Cocoa). They did sufficient QA to get the built-in applications working correctly, and then shipped the device, hitting their target.
Now that it's out, and there's less pressure, they've been tidying it up, and polishing the UI framework, the compilers, any OS routines, and they've announced they're opening it up to 3rd parties. Presumably this means they've been patching the areas they worked around internally.
There's nothing too surprising in any of the above, in fact I'm surprised the "official" SDK will be available so soon. Porting an OS and writing a good accelerated UI framework is a non-trivial task.
Simon.
Parent
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that Apple is a ~15k person company with a massive variety of products means that there must be focus. In part this slim headcount and focus is what allows Apple to produce really great products. (For comparison - Apple is now roughly worth the same, by market cap., as IBM, which employs around 300,000 people worldwide).
Think for a moment what a considerable development the iPhone is. Particularly the software, there is an ungodly amount of work and rework that has gone into producing the final product that you can pick up at the mall. The last thing that Apple was thinking about during the development phase was a clean documented publically available and stable API. No, you can bet that the iPhone API twisted and turned through the development cycle, massive rewritings, refactorings, and changes over a number of years. For Apple to release an SDK and API they have to be clean, stable, unlikely to change and break existing code - all of the things that during the development phase the internal API was not.
When releasing an SDK and an API, massive resources must be put into considering flexibility and change 2, 5, 10 years down the line. These things take time. Apple decided, rightly, to release a finished device this Summer. All the whining in the world (and I believe we got close to that) could not push Apple's internal API into a publicly usable stable state at that time. I think, considering that this is a brand new phone platform (not something like Symbian etc. which has been around a long time), waiting 9 months for an SDK is nothing, in fact, I'm amazed they've done it in less than a year. Mark though - Apple would have been mad never to have provided one, and personally I expected this announcement for WWDC'08, but I have found it astoundingly ridiculous how people have cried and whined about the lack of an SDK without thinking for a single minute. For crying out loud, it's been only three months. The only thing 'long overdue' will, hopefully, be the shutting of the mouths of all the incessant whining.
Parent
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
Steve could have announced the SDK for February 2008 from the very beginning and you'd not see the bitter remarks you rant about.
The strategy Jobs uses for announcing products only when 100% done has its benefits with consumers, but developers hate when you cut them off and don't give them a clear roadmap for what to expect ahead.
Learn from this, don't just add another rant to the thousands.
Parent
Misinformation (Score:5, Informative)
The iPhone essentially runs a cut and trimmed version of OSX, so getting an SDK for it is NOT some massive undertaking
I mean, look, despite Apple's attempts to keep people from using their own phones, random hax0rs got a working SDK up within days
A iPhone SDK would use a gcc cross-compiler (since the iPhone isn't running PowerPC or Intel chip -- by the way, gcc makes it easy to build a cross-compiler so this isn't a big deal)
Not a massive undertaking at all.
No, that's trivial mate. Tell you what, we'll do you two, in case one breaks - have it to you next Tuesday... Not.
Writing whatever they needed for the initial (general public who don't give the shake of a rat's tail about the SDK) release, then writing/polishing a general developer release is so obviously the way to go, I can't believe people are still talking about it. And if you expected 'The Steve' to lay out all his plans ahead of time, you've obviously been in a coma for the last decade. Welcome to the new century.
Simon.
(*) I think this is actually resolved in version-3 of the compiler. I'm still stuck with v2 because I can't get the LLVM part to compiler on my mac for some reason.
Parent
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Informative)
I'm personally happy to have the device now, as it's extremely useful in a variety of ways (hence the fanboi status). But an SDK is only one of many things that are a tad overdue.
Parent
Say it... SAY IT! (Score:4, Funny)
I wanna hear him 'say' it.
Parent
The Security that Apple can make money :-) (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously though, with the announcement of an unlocked iPhone in France, I wonder whether Apple will still go after the SIM unlock hacks so vigorously.
Parent
Re:Ipod touch (Score:5, Informative)
Yep - FTA:
Parent
Re:Ipod touch (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Waiting for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's great. Best gadget ever. Hacking the touch is pure software too, so you can just restore it with iTunes if an update you have to have comes along.
Re:final pieces ... (Score:4, Informative)
Have a look at FileMark Maker [insanelygreattees.com]. It is an app that that runs on the Mac and lets you sync and store any
It's a joy to use on my Touch, and I've tried it with a 100 page PDF. However long filenames screw up the bookmark display seem to be a bit of a problem, so trim them down a bit before syncing.
I'm just surprised that more people don't seem to know about this app.
Parent
Re:Rebels always find a way to rebel (Score:4, Interesting)
If a developer is totally independent and has no resources, they can easily set up their own CA and ask users to add that. It's a pain-in-the-ass, but would probably greatly reduce malware (as long as the process of adding/deleting a CA isn't just "Please click OK"). Those indie developers who can't afford the $50 (or whatever cost) certificate probably are targeting hackers/modders, not normal users anyway.
If Apple plays their cards right, they will be able to get more devs to be "legit" without totally abandoning the mod crowd who isn't scared to alter their keychain. If talented devs can work on producing great apps instead of getting unsigned ones to work, it's a good thing for Apple.
This assumes, of course, that Apple is a rational being and not a controlling corporation. Big assumption.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if it doesnt cost anything to sign an application (assuming the signature is only to establish who wrote the code and not actually certifying that it wont fuck with your iPhone or the network) then there is no reason to create unsigned apps unless you are writing viruses.