Apple Targeting Business World for the iPhone

The New York Times is running a couple of stories about the future of the iPhone in the business world and Apple's plan to maintain control of application development. Now that the iPhone SDK has been released and the "App store" has been demonstrated, Steve Jobs is pushing for the adoption of the iPhone as a standard business tool. In addition, a venture capitalist named John Doerr has launched a $100 million "iFund" to spur development of applications for the iPhone. From the NYTimes: "Mr. Jobs was upfront that there are limitations on what applications can do. He talked about bans on pornography and malicious programs. He also said Apple will not allow any application to be installed on the machine other than through the iTunes store. Nor will applications be permitted that enable an end run around Apple's deals with wireless carriers. Many questions remain unanswered. How much streaming video will Apple allow, because the iPhone is such an interesting video device? Mr. Jobs did say that the application development environment will have a lot of capabilities for video playback. Will Apple allow a service like Last.FM to offer streaming music on the iPhone?"

What Apple is doing

[downix (84795)]

Right now Apple is proving the market for such a device, and then products like OpenMoko will come in and claim it, using the iPhone as R&D to prove concept but without encumbering themselves as Apple is doing.

Re:

[LingNoi (1066278)]

I don't think a phone without a camera, 3G, only tri-band and no wifi is going to make as big of a splash as you think.

No, grumpy old farts on slashdot that "just want a phone" don't count.

Re:What Apple is doing

[SkyDude (919251)]

No, grumpy old farts on slashdot that "just want a phone" don't count.

Hey, us grumpy old farts resent that and we don't want "just a phone". What we want is for you whippersnappers to stay off our lawns!!

Re:

[jbrw (520)]

It'll be like the market for portable mp3 players all over again!

Erm...

OpenMoko? Android? It's all about the ECOSYSTEM!

[StCredZero (169093)]

Right now Apple is proving the market for such a device, and then products like OpenMoko will come in and claim it, using the iPhone as R&D to prove concept but without encumbering themselves as Apple is doing.

Is OpenMoko/Android going to eat the iPhone's lunch? It's all about the ECOSYSTEM. If Apple's ecosystem is open enough, then it will eat OpenMoko/Android's lunch. If Apple's ecosystem is too closed, then OpenMoko/Android is going to prevail. No one can beat market forces, though you can subvert them to your ends like Microsoft (Windows) and Apple (iPod/iTunes) has. If someone's stranglehold on the platform is too big a price to pay, you will enable the competitors.

Limitations

[imamac (1083405)]

Those limitations aren't really limitations. They're just no-brainers. There is almost nothing you can't do with the SDK.

Re:Limitations

[imamac (1083405)]

As I mentioned in another post, Apple said they would announce a way for companies to release applications internally.

Re:

[lurch_mojoff (867210)]

What about a 5-person company? What about a 1-person company?

What about them? If you are a 1-person company you pay $99, get a vendor key, and write and deploy your app(s) to your hart's content (alternatively you can start selling those apps on the AppStore with the same key). If you are a 5-person (or 50,000-person for that matter) company you pay $299 and you are again set. How fucking hard is to comprehend this?

Re:Limitations

[keytoe (91531)]

You cannot install any apps on the actual phone without a certificate. Period. XCode will throw a build error if you try. I'd provide a link to the relevant section in the documentation, but you have to have the SDK to read them. For proof, look in the 'iPhone OS Programming Guide'. In the 'Development Environment' chapter read the 'Working With a Device' section.

Re:Limitations

[noidentity (188756)]

This means that there is also only a SINGLE VENDOR from which software can be obtained. Forget about competitive bidding, negotiating the best package price, etc. Forget it. Medium-to-Large companies will NEVER go for this.

You're right, these companies will probably stick with Microsoft.

Re:

[bizard (691544)]

So all of those corporate blackberries out there are a myth? There it's even worse since all of their e-mail (read sensitive data) is passing through a single third party's servers. And as for competitive bidding, that will still come down to the software vendor and the vendor can make a specific deal with the corporation and give it to them to load through their corporate App Store.

Re:Limitations

[Serious Callers Only (1022605)]

that requires applications to be installed exclusively through third-party servers (iTMS) that they have absolutely no control over.

Would that be as bad as using an email solution that requires all sensitive email to be sent via third party servers in Canada?

Would that be as crazy as using one operating system and browser from a SINGLE VENDOR and locking all your in-house apps, and even your web-apps, to that platform. Forget it. Medium-to-Large companies will NEVER go for this.

Apple already answered...

[daveschroeder (516195)]

...one of the major questions. Jobs was explicitly asked if VoIP apps would be allowed. Jobs explicitly answered that they would be via WiFi, but not via the carrier connection.

So I think the question of how much data usage will be "allowed" for heavy use applications is essentially unlimited via WiFi.

As carriers continue to build out their data networks, as competition continues, and as higher bandwidth (e.g., 3G) iPhones become available (which has already been confirmed by Apple and AT&T several times), then we may see the landscape change for apps that use the carrier's network. It seems right now a common sense approach will be applied.

But it also seems clear that anything (as long as it's not specifically for porn, illegal, etc.) will be allowed via WiFi.

Re:

[Andy_R (114137)]

I don't know about the USA, but here in Britain, all iPhone contracts have unlimited data built in, so call charges are always higher than data charges for us. I'll give you stupidly redundant, but as for stupidly expensive, skype calls to the USA look mighty appealing compared to what O2 would charge for a voice call.

Who is John Doerr?

[chiph (523845)]

In addition, a venture capitalist named John Doerr

If you don't know who John Doerr [wikipedia.org] is by now, you need to turn in your Silicon Valley geek credentials.

Chip H.

Re:Who is John Doerr?

[kellyb9 (954229)]

Who is John Doerr?

Doesn't he make tractors?

Developer fee = unlock for OSS?

[Andy_R (114137)]

As I understand it, the SDK is free, but apps made with the free version can only be run on the iPhone simulator. If you pay $99, you can compile apps and beta test them on an iPhone connected to the dev machine with the standard cable, as well as sell your apps through Apple.

The big unanswered question for me is 'can I unplug my iPhone and still use my beta App?'. If the answer is yes, then open source software can be spread without going through Apple simply by sharing the source code. If this is the case then paying the developer fee amounts to unlocking the phone's app restrictions.

Has anyone tried this yet?

Re:

[teh kurisu (701097)]

Not quite. As I understand it, the SDK is free, and you can compile apps and beta test them on an iPhone connected to the dev machine with the standard cable. If you pay $99, you can sell your apps through Apple.

But your big unanswered question still stands, and is one I'm going to be putting to the test once I get to grips with the SDK.

Re:

[keytoe (91531)]

I downloaded the SDK yesterday. You cannot even BUILD a deployable target without the key. It throws an actual build error indicating that it cant find your key in the Keychain.

The only thing you can do without the key, from what I can tell, is run apps in the simulator (which sucks, by the way).

You need pornography on portable devices!

[FuzzyDaddy (584528)]

A few years ago, a couple we know was going through infertility treatments. Part of these treatments, of course, required the husband to go in and produce a... well, a sample. He found the porn provided unsatisfactory, so he downloaded a bunch of pictures onto his PDA.

And now Steve Jobs wants to stand in the way of all those infertile couples who want to have children!

Anyone watched the keynote?

[gnasher719 (869701)]

Steve Jobs presentation from yesterday is available on the Apple site. Could anyone who complains about the lack of Microsoft Exchange compatibility please watch the keynote first. Most of the posts so far can be answered by saying "You may not have watched the keynote yesterday, but..."

John Doerr

[Mark_in_Brazil (537925)]

In my opinion, John Doerr is much more than "a" venture capitalist. Let me explain that statement in detail. Bear with me- I'm verbose, so it'll take a few paragraphs.
Doerr is a really sharp guy who saw potential in companies like Compaq, Sun, Symantec, Netscape, Amazon, and Google. The thing is that Doerr knows how to look at a business plan, understand the market opportunity a company wants to try to exploit, and have an idea of how likely the company is to be successful at doing it. So yes, Netscape, Amazon, and Google were "internet companies," but they were also companies with business plans that had not-entirely-ridiculous paths to profitability. Keep in mind that VCs typically have an awful "batting average" and invest in a lot more duds than eventual superstars, but the really big successes are generally good enough to make the overall average ROI, including the flops, quite positive.
A big part of the problem in the late 1990s is that a lot of VCs looked at Doerr's investments and basically came to this conclusion: "Doerr made a load of money for Kleiner Perkins by investing in the internet, so we have to invest in the internet." So in the late 1990s, many businesses that were basically "just like [whatever], but on the internet) were given ridiculous amounts of funding even when there was no clear path to profitability in the business plan. Yes, it's true that a VC firm can still make money in an environment like that of the mid-to-late 1990s by funding a company and taking it public as soon as it starts to show revenue growth, getting a big ROI on something that is never going to be profitable. But eventually the house of cards falls and then there's an overreaction as people say "oh, we lost all this money investing in the internet, so now we should avoid such investments," even when a good business plan appears.

I worked at a software startup in 1999. We had tests done with major retailers that proved we could increase the profitability of a given category anywhere from 25% to over 100%, depending on what the retailer's strategy was for that category (read up on "category management" for more info on category strategies). In the meetings with arrogant moron VCs, the founders would tell them about this and show them the actual data that supported the claim, plus testimonials from executives in the (multi-billion dollar) retailers where the tests were done, and the VCs' eyes would kind of glaze over. As soon as the founders stopped talking, the VCs would say something like "uh huh... so, what's your internet story." I suggested to the guy who had the original idea for the company that we should change the name to "e-[original name of company].com" and we'd be swimming in money.
The saddest thing was that apparently one such moron was from Kleiner Perkins Caulfield and Byers, which was widely seen as the VC firm at the time, in no small part due to the remarkable business vision of John Doerr. It would have been more accurate, from what I heard from very reliable sources, to say that Kleiner Perkins was a good VC firm with VCs of varying quality (yes, a high average, though), and John Doerr was the venture capitalist.

I'm not a fan of VCs in general, but I have a lot of respect for John Doerr. And if he's setting up a fund this big for iPhone app development, that makes me think very good things are coming for Apple through the iPhone. Very good things.
As always, YMMV.

Re:When?

[imamac (1083405)]

So how can you be targeting businesses with this product then?

In the announcement Apple said they were working on a way for buisiness to release applications internally. They seemed to imply without the need for iTunes.

Re:When?

[Andy_R (114137)]

If you download the SDK, you are offered the option of joining the standard programme for $99 or the enterprise programme for $299. As the page says "The Enterprise Program is for developers who are creating proprietary, in-house applications for iPhone and iPod touch." ...and as for you being able to run apps on "every other piece of hardware I own", you sure do have a lot fewer games consoles, phones, routers and vehicle engine management systems than most slashdotters.

Re:Exchange

[imamac (1083405)]

Watch the video of the announcement yesterday. The Exchange compatability is the best I've ever seen.

Re:Exchange

[RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647)]

Watch the video of the announcement yesterday. The Exchange compatability is the best I've ever seen.

You mean outside of Windows Mobile DirectPush, which does everything that the iPhone does and more?

I'm glad to see Exchange support on the iPhone, but let's not pretend here. The things they licensed from Microsoft were already supported by Windows Mobile anyway, and have been supported for some time now.

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum

[rho (6063)]

I'm sure Apple is worried a lot about something that "looks like" a "potential", "future" winner.

Re:

[Angostura (703910)]

they can make Android a success all by themselves

Not really. The success will come with the successful cooperation between Google, handset manufacturers and carriers.

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum

[rho (6063)]

It looks like google wants this, and they can make Android a success all by themselves.

Google couldn't make Google Video a success so they gave up and bought YouTube, dumping their paid service.

Google does search pretty well. For now, anyway. With all the focus on these non-search related businesses, I wonder how much longer Google's dominance in search will continue. Anybody else notice that Google doesn't return as many relevant answers as they used to? I now spend a lot more time than I used to tweaking searches to get what I really want and not googletroll sites. The other businesses that Google gets involved with aren't all rousing successes, even when they're intrinsically related to searching, such as Google Maps. Mapquest still dominates that market, IIRC.

Google has a lot of money, but that does not guarantee success. Microsoft has a lot of money too, and they can't even get their search off the ground.

Finally, PRODUCT > !PRODUCT, almost every time.

Re:

[rho (6063)]

The iphone DOESN'T look look like it will be a future winner.

So, a wildly popular handset doesn't look like a future winner, and a completely productless handset does?

You should go into the venture capital business.

Don't compare current products to future products.

[LKM (227954)]

I think you're missing the point. Sayin that "current product X will lose because potential future product Y will be much better" practically always assumes that current product X will not improve until future product Y appears. There are no Android phones available. Mobile 7 is not available. The iPhone is. When the other two are here, the iPhone will be in a different place, too, and if it turns out that absolutely open development is better (so far, this does not seem to be the case for mobile devices),

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum

[beelsebob (529313)]

I'm curious as to what you think they're dropping the ball on. Which of the limitations is a problem?

The one thing I can see as a problem, is that enterprises are not going to like not being able to distribute internal software to them.

Bob

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum

[CrackedButter (646746)]

In the press conference, Phil Schiller actually mentioned the opposite and there will be a system in place for enterprise software to be distributed outside the App store.

Re:

[Wingsy (761354)]

If I'm not mistaken the App Store is going to have a private page accessible only to employees of a business for exactly that purpose.

The flip side...

[shmlco (594907)]

The flip side tp all of this is the "App Store". By providing developers with an audience willing and able --and required-- to actually pay for their software, Apple is going to encourage the development of an avalanche of applications for the iPhone platform.

No more hoping that more than one user out of a hundred will pay the shareware fee or make a "donation". No more playing whack-a-mole with crack sites and serial numbers. And by promoting that development, and by providing the marketplace, Apple stands

Re:

[iluvcapra (782887)]

I must agree. One of the reasons I never bothered writing an app for my Treo (a timecode calculator in this case) was on account of the copious amounts of "IR Beaming" piracy of titles. I knew only about one in a few hundred users of my program would ever pay me. At least on the iPhone platform, I can be assured that every user has to pay it, thus I can charge a very low price.

Cell phone companies make a tidy bit of change selling apps to kids on their sidekicks and corporate people who want the Good su

Clearly.

[by Anonymous Coward]

With Android looking like a (potentially future) winner, Apple are losing the chance to build up momentum as an open mobile platform for developers to experiment on.

You state that with such unapologetic conviction I almost have to laugh. What market share does Android have right now? And why exactly are Apple losing momentum? They are offering an outstanding platform that is rapidly approaching maturation and has gotten fantastic adoption rates. Furthermore, the iPhone will soon lose the last barrie

Re:

[CrackedButter (646746)]

Actually you can put it on your phone, just through the the SDK as they showed last night in the QT stream. So you can develop apps for yourself if you want, just not for others.

Re:Cold, Steel Grasp...

[TheLostSamurai (1051736)]

Not to mention that many (independent)developers will probably offer their apps as open source, which will allow you to compile and load them onto your own phone via the SDK. And even forgetting about that for the moment, there will be a hacked App loader developed within the first week of the June firmware's release anyways.

Re:Cold, Steel Grasp...

[pev (2186)]

since it is *MY* phone, why can't I do whatever *I* want to it?

You can do whatever you want with it - it's just that Apple won't make it easy for you as that's their perogative. If you don't like it, don't whinge, buy an open platform instead. If you don't like the platforms that are available, get involved and create what you're looking for yourself. Once you've done that you can decide yourself what rights others have to do what they want with your device. If you've invested lots of time and money creating it maybe you might find that you want to look at things differently in order to recoup your costs...

Re:Android

[CrackedButter (646746)]

Does this touch screen phone have a shiny Apple on its back though? Until then it isn't an instant replacement is it? :-P

Re:Android

[shmlco (594907)]

"Slap Android on a pure touchscreen phone and what do you have?"

A phone that's not available? That has no supporting infrastructure? No stores that sell it? No support staff ready, willing, and able to help? No iTunes? No backing from any major carrier? And no one, other than a few geeks, who care if it's "open", closed, or just cracked ajar?

Re:Android

[ad454 (325846)]

I agree that Apple has decided to cripple the iPhone to the point that even with the SDK, it is useless, especially for business.

However, Google's Android OS is not and will never be a replacement for the iPhone or any other powerful smartphones, especially those running Windows Mobile. Consider:

http://code.google.com/android/kb/general.html [google.com]
Q: Can I write code for Android using C/C++?
A: Android only supports applications written using the Java programming language at this time.

Google has decided that developers cannot write powerful native binary applications for Android phone, which is important for high performance cryptographically secure applications. How is Apple any worse than Google which only allows interpreted programs, when since the launch of the iPhone, developers could always write Javascript interpreted programs, and now even some native ones as well through the iStore?

As a Unix (NetBSD, Linux, & MacOSX) person, I hate to say this, but so far Microsoft is the good guy here, since their smartphones and Windows Mobile devices have the least restrictions for third party applications and developers.

Another problem with Android is that all of the proposed new phones (none of which have been released yet) for it will only have low-resolution QVGA (240x320) displays, which is literally half of the HVGA (320x480) display of the iPhone which has been available for more than half a year. This will make Android much harder to use for web surfing, office apps, etc. than the iPhone, or even Microsoft Windows Mobile phones, some of which have WVGA (800x480) displays.

Toshiba G900 [toshiba-europe.com]
Softbank X01T [softbank.jp]

Don't get me wrong, I love the look, feel, shape, sleekness, GUI, and interface of the iPhone and iPod touch. It blows everything else away. But as a business tool, Apple has decided too crippled its devices to the point that of being useless, especially when compared the uglier and bulky Windows Mobile phones.

Re:

[radish (98371)]

I agree that Apple has decided to cripple the iPhone to the point that even with the SDK, it is useless, especially for business.

Why do you say this? I don't think the iPhone is "useless", in fact it's the most useful phone I've ever owned. As for the business perspective, I work for a "large company", and I carry a blackberry (the defacto business-oriented mobile device). I don't see anything that my blackberry does that the iPhone won't be able to do with the new sdk & exchange integration.

Google has

Re:Android

[MidKnight (19766)]

Let's take a look at a few reasons why Apple is currently doing pretty well in the smart phone market:

• Exquisite User Interface. I'm sure you can do a lot with Android (haven't looked at the SDK myself yet, but am curious), but the fact is that Apple's UI is the result of a significant amount of R & D. They have a head start on anyone else attempting to do something similar.
• iTunes Store/Music/Videos. With the iPhone, you get an iPod as well. Show me any other mobile device that has so clearly dominated its market in the last 10 years. If nothing else than a digital distribution channel, this is a huge advantage over any Android-based phone.
• Visual Voicemail. Apple's requirement that their carriers tear apart their voicemail systems is a boon for the consumer. Some might even call it innovation :) While Android-based cell phones could mimic this, again Apple has a big head start.
• Experience in the mobile hardware space. Apple is taking what they learned from their years of building iPods and leveraging it to build better phones. Using a strategy they are very familiar with, Apple controls the entire user experience. Android-based phones will be collaborations between companies, which may dilute the user experience. If you look at the desktop analogy, would you say a Windows Vista desktop is an "... Instant replacement ..." for a Mac?

Look, I think Android will be a good platform, and that Google is going to put a lot of muscle behind it to limit Microsoft's reach in the mobile space and push their own interests instead. But saying "... Slap Android on a pure touchscreen phone ... [and you get an] ... Instant replacement for the iPhone ..." is a big, big stretch.

Re:Porn!

[Andy_R (114137)]

It's only porn apps that are banned, the built in iPod video player will happily show fullscreen 480x320 porn just fine, same goes for the photo app, which supports both pinching and expanding with multiple touches!

Re:They're certainly going to need help. Consider

[aarond (38076)]

Wow, even though I should know better after reading comments on slashdot for years the ignorance does still surprise me.

1. the phone is not 3G, a 3G model should be out this year. Non multitasking? Meaning what, you want your phone to compress video for you while u talk? I can take notes, and use apps while on the phone so not sure what you mean. But you did throw the words bling-bling in to look like you are hip and know what you are talking about so i must be wrong here.

2. So since other organizations can't get developers, you do not think that Apple can? People want to develop for this platform so much that they are doing whatever they can to get on it, see http://www.modmyiphone.com/ [modmyiphone.com] . Not to even mention the 100 million dollar venture capitol fund for iphone apps that was shown off too.

3. So its so popular that people will do anything to be able to use one. Apple might not make the extra $ each month from these users but they are making money on each sale, and all those sales are just adding to marketshare.

4. Huh? Do you mean that a developer won't be able to make money writing iphone apps? You are seriously saying that the average developer would do better just putting up a web page and marketing their apps themselves rather than have it shown on a store dedicated to the iphone? Joe Schmoe can get the same exposure on the store as Adobe if they write a good app, thats very powerful for developers.

5. So what? Seriously, But also lets look at it the other way, did you watch the video from the event? Check the 5 developers that had 2 weeks to build apps. That was damned impressive. In some cases they started from scratch, and in some cases they just modified their existing code.

6. Not quite sure what you mean here, do you mean apple buying the companies/people that do the best apps? Or what?

It seems like people just want something to bitch about rather than using your heads.
Ducky

Re:They're certainly going to need help. Consider

[shmlco (594907)]

"... your code will need lots of adaptation to be used on other phone substrates..."

Well... I guess that flip side of that equation is that your code is Cocoa and Objective-C, which means that existing MAC developers have a leg up in porting versions of their applications to the iPhone. And that any iPhone application you create can have it's code moved over to the mothership OS relatively easily.

How many Symbian applications can I write that, with a few changes here and there, run just fine under OS X?

Re:No Exchange Push, No Deal

[Andy_R (114137)]

Given that we are discussing the presentation where Apple specifically announced "that the iPhone can accept pushed mail from an exchange server" with version 2.0 of the firmware, what's your point?

Re:

[Andy_R (114137)]

I heard an even worse rumour, that the software you make with it will only run on an Apple phone! Now developers will have to buy TWO Apple machines!