Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

iPhone SDK Rules Block Skype, Firefox, Java ...

Posted by Zonk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 09:23 AM
from the nothing-you-wanted-to-use-anyway-right dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Apple's iPhone software development kit is already drawing complaints due to the strict terms of service. Voice over IP apps like Skype that attempt to use the cellular data connection will be blocked. Competing web browsers Firefox and Opera are forbidden. Even Sun is now backpedaling on its recent announcement of a java port, noting that there are some legal issues. Critics are already comparing Apple's methods to Comcast's anti-net neutrality filtering, and Microsoft's Netscape-killing antitrust tactics. Could Apple face government regulators?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Developers: Sun Is Porting Java To the iPhone 275 comments
krquet notes an InfoWorld article on Sun's plans for the iPhone. After studying Apple's newly released SDK docs for 24 hours, Sun decided it was feasible to develop a JVM, based on Java Micro Edition, for both the iPhone and the iTouch. An analyst is quoted: "I think going forward, with the SDK, it takes out of Apple's control which applications are 'right' for the iPhone." The article doesn't speculate on how Apple might to react to such a loss of control. "Apple had not shown interest in enabling Java to run on the iPhone, but Sun plans to step in and do the job itself... The free JVM would be made available via Apple's App Store marketplace for third-party applications."
This discussion has been archived.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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by hypergreatthing (254983) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @09:28AM (#22715842)
    And don't buy it. It's that simple.

    It's not like comcast which is a monopoly in certain areas. There are hundreds of other cell phones to buy. Whoever wrote the summary is an idiot.
  • by Oxy the moron (770724) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @09:29AM (#22715852)

    Look, I know the iPhone is all "snazzy" and "cool" and "trendy," but I think it's been known for a while that Apple would do this, yes?

    If you're looking for a platform with more open SDK access, just don't write for the iPhone. Go for a mobile device with a Linux-based OS, or even Windows Mobile. That gives you a lot more flexibility in terms of writing your own software (I write C# on a Moto Q, myself) and you usually end up paying less, too.

    Apple has a choice as to whether or not they open up their hardware just as you had the choice of buying the phone in the first place.

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @09:29AM (#22715854) Journal

    Could Apple face government regulators?"
    If possible regulation is the result, Apple would be better off saying "fuck it, opening up was a mistake, we are not going to do it, sorry."

    What other cell phone company might be facing government regulators over their extremely locked down software choices?

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Oxy the moron (770724) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @09:35AM (#22716010)

      I was thinking this exact same thing. The Motorola Q has some really great features, and it turns out a lot of them are masked or outright disabled (Java support) if you use Verizon as your carrier versus a different carrier. If anything, Apple is being more generous than the likes of some cell phone companies.

  • It's their party (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Badbone (1159483) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @09:29AM (#22715872)
    How is this an issue for regulators? If Apple if determined to make their product not work, its not the regulators job to change their mind. If Apple decides they want no Opera and no Java and nothing else, its their decision. Let them make it and face the consequences.
  • by neonmonk (467567) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @09:30AM (#22715888)
    Could Apple face regulators for restricting third party development on THEIR SOFTWARE which is on THEIR HARDWARE which does not in any sense of the word have a monopoly.

    Somehow.. I doubt it.

    People seem to forget that Apple don't need to make it easy for people to develop for the iPhone. They don't have to assist at all. At. All.

    Whilst I may disagree with their tactics, I'm certainly not going to tell them how to run their business. And whilst the Microsoft comparisons will be coming out of the woodwork like hungry mutant termites, it's simply not the same. Windows & Office locks people into a platform by being an established monopoly, it also uses this established monopoly to lock people into their other products. What this is, is simply Apple giving people a piece of cake and not letting them eat it. Sure it sucks, but you know what - don't like it; don't develop for it. Simple.
  • by mzs (595629) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @09:36AM (#22716014)
    borne shell, etc:

    "no interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."
    • It's not their phone. It's MY phone, bought and paid for. (Assuming I had one, of course. :P) As a consumer, it's not up to Apple to decide what programs I can and can't run. Keeping software from the app store is one thing. Restricting use of the cellular network is also understandable. (Why would you want to run Skype over GSM/EDGE rather than WiFi anyway?) But keeping users from running Java or an alternate browser by way of licensing? Sorry, that's not going to fly.

      My device, my decision. Apple should control only their store, not license away the competition.
          • Re:It is their phone (Score:5, Informative)

            by samkass (174571) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @10:51AM (#22717524) Homepage Journal
            I have never seen an SDK that so blatantly locks users out of common usage like this, have you? Maybe I've managed a decade and a half in this industry without noticing that it's normal practice to use legal force to ensure that an SDK is only used a particular way?

            Which industry? This isn't atypical in the embedded industry at all. It is very unusual in the general computing industry. I think the issue here is that the iPhone and iTouch span that divide moreso than any device that came before it.

            If you wanted to develop for the PlayStation, for instance, you had to sign all kinds of agreements. And they were relatively open compared to some embedded device makers.
    • by tkrotchko (124118) * on Tuesday March 11 2008, @09:32AM (#22715954) Homepage
      "Why can't Apple dictate what gets put on their device?"

      It's "their" device right until I pay for it. Then it's "my" device.

      Let me turn the question around. Why can't I dictate why software gets loaded on "my" device?
      • by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @10:09AM (#22716672) Homepage Journal
        Incidentally, you can load whatever you want on it, through the jailbreak system. If the device is screwed up because of what you did, then the device maker has no obligation to help you.

        You can choose not to buy it. A lot of devices are like that, consoles are a very popular example. If you don't like the limitations of the system, that's fine, don't buy it. The rules don't change just because someone buys it.
    • Complicated Issue (Score:4, Insightful)

      by keirre23hu (638913) <keirre@adams.gmail@com> on Tuesday March 11 2008, @09:31AM (#22715910) Homepage
      On one hand, this reeks of the same type of behaviour microsoft have engaged in for the past two decades, and was rightfully sued over and over and over again about. At the same time, how is Apple's behaviour different from retarded mess that Verizon puts on its cellular phones to lock out developers and cripple the functionality. Noone goes after the cellular carriers and their enablers (handset makers). Also, where is the Zune SDK (not that Zune == IPod Touch/IPhone, but still)?
        • Re:troll bait (Score:5, Insightful)

          by peragrin (659227) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @10:14AM (#22716772)
          because on the surface the SDK and new software is awesome. It is when people started reading the legal fine print and found out if you develop apps for the iPhone apple owns your soul and IP.

          Okay a slight stretch there but that is basically the point. I can make firefox for the iPhone but legally I can't install it. It isn't for technical(except for the skype over edge which is just a bad idea) reasons just legal.
        • Re:troll bait (Score:5, Interesting)

          by bnenning (58349) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @10:21AM (#22716910)
          Why is it that 99% of the developer reaction I've seen has been enthusiastically positive, and yet the spin here is so negative?

          For established Mac developers it's a great deal. Apple handles the distribution and payment processing, and they don't have to worry about competing with open source weenies. But hobbyists get shut out (apparently even if you try to pay Apple for a certificate, there's no guarantee they'll give you one), and end users get nickeled and dimed for apps that would have free equivalents in a competitive market.

          When the competitive landscape in the cellphone world changes and the carriers just become dumb pipes, Apple will be the first to drop stupid restrictions

          That would be nice, although I'm skeptical since lots of other AT&T phones don't have these kinds of restrictions.
            • Re:troll bait (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Achromatic1978 (916097) <robert AT pennyonthesidewalk DOT com> on Tuesday March 11 2008, @12:21PM (#22718978)
              Re the Nokia N-series. Nokia had "figured out how to put a decent screen on a device" way back in 2005 - The N90 [wikipedia.org] had two screens, an exterior 128x128 and an interior main screen of 352x416 resolution. That would seem to imply the lower resolution screen of the N95 was a deliberate choice. It's DPI that matters, really, more so than absolute pixel count.

              It's a little amusing that you throw out "wasting time on MMS" when I would view MMS as one of the least important apps on my N95 (and yes, I've used an iPhone, too). If you've not seen the latest [nokia.com] version of Nokia Maps [nokia.com] on an N95, you would be impressed. I agree with your assertion that XMPP is on the "must have" list of a fraction of a percent of users. But to suggest that there's something "irrational" about not being all gooey inside about the iPhone when my phone is smaller, is 3.5G, has a 5MP camera, has 8GB of internal storage, Bluetooth 2, Exchange Push email, GPS, etc. But I'll stop there, lest I be branded as an irrational Apple hater.

        • Re:Complicated Issue (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Tuesday March 11 2008, @10:15AM (#22716790) Homepage
          The iphone in providing an sdk is considerably more open than it's competition.

            The symbian SDK is free. You can get a developer certificate for free (Apple charges $100/year), you can distribute in any manner you choose (Apple insist on using itunes), you can use background apps, you can do VOIP over 3G/Edge....

          So in what way is the iphone 'considerably more open'.
    • by armada (553343) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @09:31AM (#22715920)
      I agree. I am a fan of most of the industrial design and ui design that comes out of Apple but if they lock this up I will be buying an Android or an Openmoko instead (i've been wating for a 3g Iphone and the release of the SDK). However, unless the government forces us all to buy iphones or all the other manufacturers go out of business because of it's leet crunchy goodness, I dont see how this could warrant antitrust sanctions and government involvement. If you don't like it. Buy ze other one.
        • by vijayiyer (728590) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @10:59AM (#22717700)
          Your Honor, I will refer to exhibit "A", a Slashdot post. Note that it was moderated "+5 insightful". Courtroom: The defendant, Apple Corp, is found guilty as charged!
        • by ContractualObligatio (850987) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @12:48PM (#22719354)
          Two logical errors there:

          Microsoft's illegal abuse of its monopoly position is not from simply having a mere "advantage" in the browser market. A browser requires an OS - whoever controls the OS has strong control over the browser. The OS is itself the distribution mechanism for the new browser. Conversely, iPod owners do not suddenly find themselves in possession of a free iPhone. These are quite obviously completely different situations.

          Secondly, for a post to get +5 Insightful only requires a few moderators to mark it up. It does not mean the post is agreed to by the majority, or even makes a valid point. There's many a groupthink post that gets a +5 rating. It's actually kind of pathetic you think a point shouldn't be argued simply because of a +5 rating in another thread.

          "I'm sure /. hypocrisy will see me modded down for point at cracks in Apple's armor though."
            - The passive aggressive schtick is kind of lame, as well.
        • by itsdapead (734413) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @02:20PM (#22720862)

          Apple uses its legal monopoly in portable music players and online music sales to extend that dominance into the phone market.

          If and when

          1. Apple engages in anti-competitive practices to force all portable music players to come bundled with iTunes software, forcing lots of existing music players and online music services into oblivion
          2. Apple gimmicks iPods so that they will only play music from iTunes (or so they need to be re-booted between playing iTunes and regular MP3s)
          3. The music industry finally throws in the towel on DRM - which is the main reason iTunes tunes won't play on non-Apple players, and why many of the competitors to iTunes won't play on iPods...

          then, maybe you can start to compare Apple's role in the music player market with Microsoft's role in the operating systems market.

          Meanwhile, I'll keep using my iPod Nano to play MP3s made from my own CDs (and, slowly, MP3s bought online as decent services such as Play.com start offering unencumbered legal downloads for sensible prices) with absolutely no compulsion to buy from iTunes and absolutely no compulsion to buy another iPod unless I happen to prefer Apple's design.

          What's more - I can buy a Symbian/Windows Mobile/Brand X phone and it still accepts incoming calls and texts from an iPhone! - so I can choose not to buy an iPhone too!

          So, please explain again how the Apple "monopoly" (which doesn't force anybody to buy an iPod and/or buy from iTunes unless they like the product) remotely resembles the MS operating system monopoly (which means that many Mac and Linux users are pretty much obliged to dual-boot or run emulation software - usually requiring us to buy a copy of windows & MS Office - in order to interoperate with the masses)?

    • by llamalad (12917) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @09:38AM (#22716034)
      You've got it exactly right.

      I've been planning on snagging an iPhone as soon as the next model is released.

      Unless a) this situation plays out differently than currently seems likely or b) I come to decide that a phone is just an appliance and I can live with Apple's constraints... I will not be buying an iPhone after all.
      • by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris.beau@org> on Tuesday March 11 2008, @10:32AM (#22717144) Homepage
        > decide that a phone is just an appliance and I can live with Apple's constraints...

        Why the docile obedience? Just because it is Apple?

        You buy it, you do whatever the hell you want with it! Isn't that the mantra here at Slashdot? Except when it is Apple.

        I want to see someone port Iceweasel to the damned thing, post a torrent up on a server somewhere anonymously and watch Apple suffer the PR nightmare of trying to ban it. If we can't outright outlaw stupidity we can certainly make it painful.

        Adn if Sun actually had a pair of dangling between their legs they would port Java and double dog dare Steve to sue. Come on, they stared Microsoft down over their mistreatment of Java, why be scared of Apple when, again, this is a case they can't lose. Because it won't ever make it to a court of law, Apple would get their asses handed to them in the court of public opinion years before the wheels of justice could turn.
    • I got modded all to hell for saying this in the last article, but whatever: Apple's decision regarding the SDK and iTunes distribution model have assured that I will not be buying an iPhone. I was holding out, waiting to see what the SDK had to offer, and I've come to the conclusion that it's better to wait for Android than to lock myself into Steve's phone. The Mac is probably the best development platform I've ever used, but the iPhone is useless to me. It flies in the face of the hacker/tinkerer ethic.
      • by e4g4 (533831) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @10:29AM (#22717092)
        Bah, you're so far off it's not even funny. I'm running a native terminal on my iPhone. It's got Ruby, Python, and (horrors) Java running on it - each with Objective C bridges (except Ruby). I have root on my phone, for the first time ever. So, yeah - the iPhone does not officially support the hacker/tinkerer ethic - so fucking what? Unofficially supporting it is good enough for me - it is by far the best *nix based phone on the market (oh wait, it's the *only* *nix based phone on the market - that actually works).

        The 2.0 software may break the current jailbreak methods, but again, so what, I've already got 3rd party apps on my phone.
      • by demachina (71715) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @12:18PM (#22718950)
        ...and Apple doesn't care one little bit about you because 99.99% of their market is people who are completely happy with iTunes and iPhone like they are.

        Something slashdotters need to get a grip on is you are a tiny, extremely hard to please, demographic. Most companies recognize it will cost them a lot in one form or another to satisfy you, and the revenue they get off you wont make up for it. The only impact you have in this particular arena is Apple apparently wants geeks to develop apps for their phone. But there are probably going to be about a million geeks doing that even with the restrictions in their terms of service.

        I like Linux and the myriad options it gives personally, but Apple wants to maintain a coherent and stable software ecosystem for their phone. They really don't need to have 5 different browsers, and a bazillion apps designed for geeks instead of polished standards conforming apps that fit in to their phone experience. The iPhone works pretty well the way it is now, if they can grow their software ecosystem some they will be happy. I'm pretty sure they don't want to turn it in to a confusing train wreck, kind of like the Linux desktop with 10 different window managers, a half dozen GUI toolkits, 20 different browsers, some awesome apps and a lot of brain dead broken ones, none of which adhere to the same set of UI guidelines.
    • by sitkill (893183) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @10:08AM (#22716642)
      This slashdot post is entirely sensationalism at its worse. If anyone had read the articles attached: Skype banned: "Apple To Allow VoIP on iPhone But...", it doesn't talk about Skype being banned, but being restricted. The firefox issue seems to be dealing with the fact that no interpreted languages are accepted (javascript I assume), and no plugin arch. are allowed. Actually, I'd gladly accept a no-plugin firefox. No more bloated firefox. And really, how many other mobile browsers allow plugins? (I'm honestly asking...). For sun, it's some legal issues that have come up. They haven't BLOCKED anything. To go from the article (which is entirely positive on Apple), and turn it around to be negative is doing a disservice to the original author. Saying that everything is being blocked is silly. If you want to play in the game, you gotta follow the rules. If you don't, well, there's always hockey.
      • by Ultra64 (318705) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @09:38AM (#22716054) Homepage

        "how dare Apple tell their customers they can't run the apps they want on the phones that they *OWN*,"
        is more like it
          • by b96miata (620163) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @10:04AM (#22716554)
            Which phones are you referring to?

            With the exception of Verizon, who does a similar lockdown deal with BREW, most phones have a J2ME VM on them and are quite capable of running just about anything.

            I've got Gmail/Gmaps/Opera mini among others running on my plain old (non-smart) phone. They were all free and the only way my carrier impeded my installing them right over the air was with a single warning screen about installing 3rd party apps.
          • by recoiledsnake (879048) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @10:12AM (#22716728)

            It could be like all other cell phones and not allow you to put anything on it.
            Drinking koolaid much? A wide array of phones, including Windows Mobile phones allow you put everything on them. Windows Mobile itself has more than 5000 software titles available for it with none of the BS restrictions or 30% revenue 'sharing'.
                • by godawful (84526) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:19AM (#22718036) Homepage
                  I'm not sure where in the history of apple would lead people to believe something would be different this time. Apple has "their way" of doing products, mac os x only on apple computers (despite it working out other hardware), just to give an example. They've never been about "completely open", and this is going to put off a portion of potential customers (the actual number is arguable), but the vast majority won't care, in fact, the vast majority might not even mind, or actually _like_ apple's tight control over things.

                  As an iPhone owner myself, I was really excited to see what was possible with the apps people were writing for jailbroken phones, and it was really cool.. some were quite buggy, but there was definitely potential, even in this unsanctioned way. Now there will be an official SDK and even better apps i am really excited. Now sure, these apps may already exist for winmobile or rim or palm even, but that is taking out the very most important factor, the interface and interaction with an iphone. some folks may not like it, or want one, but I've found it to be incredibly useful with myself using for more features on it then i did on any previous phone.
                  • by fanningj (942469) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:22AM (#22718056)

                    They have a 6.5% share of the worldwide market after one full year.... they maybe are not in the lead but they are doing good enough to bumb Motorola's smartphone sales to 4th.
                    No they haven't, there was over one billion phones sold last year, they haven't sold over 65 million phones. Unless you are talking about Smartphones, then you are wrong again. There were 77.3 million Symbian based phones sold last year, without allowing for all the other manufacturers they haven't done 6.5%
            • That's insightful? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by snowwrestler (896305) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @12:12PM (#22718868)
              There's no SDK for a microwave, not even a limited one.

              No one's stopping people from running whatever the hell they want on their iPhone either. Apple has not sued, attacked, harassed, or taken any legal action whatsoever against the jailbreak folks. Even the "bricking" software updates were announced ahead of time and could be refused by the owner. They haven't helped them--true. But neither has my microwave manufacturer.

              If you don't want the restrictions, don't use the official SDK. You will face no legal action whatsoever for doing whatever you want to the phone you own. But Apple is not legally obligated to help you do anything to the phone you own either. There is absolutely no legal duty for a company to make any electronics device a software platform. If you want to hack your phone, go right ahead, you have every right, but don't expect a helping hand. Can't have it both ways.
                • Speculation (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by snowwrestler (896305) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @12:34PM (#22719144)
                  If Apple starts suing people who hack their own iPhone, I'll be at the front of the line complaining. I doubt they will though, because that is very shaky legal ground. Your property rights have nothing to do with Apple being "anticompetitive." They are based on common law principles that go back hundreds of years. But as I noted, those rights do not extend to forcing Apple to provide the SDK you want.
      • by b96miata (620163) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @09:42AM (#22716134)
        ....available to all
        (all who already have or can afford to buy an intel mac with leopard)
        , and easy to program
        (to anyone who knows objective C)
        and port apps
        (so long as they don't do anything apple doesn't like, since they control the sole distribution channel)
        without using java which is all but a dead language
        (that happens to run on the majority of cell phones sold today, as opposed to ObjC which is apple's baby just as much as java is Sun's)
        • by jinxidoru (743428) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:24AM (#22718092) Homepage
          Why must everyone focus on the negatives? I have been playing with the SDK for the past few days and have found it to be wonderful. Sure, there are some limitations, but I can understand that. Apple is stuck with a difficult task. They have to balance their desire to provide an open platform for development with privacy and economic concerns. The strength of the iPhone as well as the iPod is that it is this easy to maintain device. I just plug it into my computer and it works. If they are not careful, then they may hinder said benefit. Think of facebook. We were excited about the third-party applications, especially since they had almost no restrictions. Who among us is now not wishing for restrictions, because of all the crappy annoying applications out there?

          I for one am pleased with what they have offered, especially the 70/30 store. That is unprecedented. It also provides a great mechanism for selling open source, which has been very difficult in the past.

          Lastly, as a side note, one big realization, as I have played with the SDK, is actually how unnecessary it is. I also was among the people who was really frustrated with the iPhone SDK is Web 2.0 garbage last year. Now that the power of the iPhone has been unlocked before my eyes, I'm realizing that the majority of the functionality you want to give in an app is completely suppliable by Web 2.0. As I've thought about what I should write, I keep realizing, "No, there's no point in doing that natively, because it could be done in a Web app." Granted, I am not a game developer.
        • , and easy to program
          (to anyone who knows objective C)
          The horror! You will have to learn a programming language in order to write a program! What's the world come to? :-)
        • by dloose (900754) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @11:02AM (#22717754)

          If Apple really wanted to open their platform up to innovation, they'd open it up to Java.
          I'm a full-time Java developer and I find this statement to be absolutely ridiculous. First of all, Apple released a Java-Cocoa bridge with a very early release of OS X (not gonna go out on a limb here -- it was there in 10.2 when I started using Macs). It made Java applications look and feel almost exactly like native Obj-C apps and it was widely shunned by the developer community. It has since been deprecated for exactly that reason. The developers did not want it; they learned Obj-C instead. Does that mean that developers won't want Java on the iPhone as well? Maybe not, but I'm willing to be that most iPhone developers will also be Mac developers (i.e., people that previously shunned Java). Actually, they'll have to be since you need a Mac to develop for the iPhone.

          You seem to portray learning Obj-C as some huge undertaking. If you come from a Java background, learning Obj-C is like learning to play stud poker when you've only played draw poker before. Some of the mechanics are different, but there's a lot of overlap. Anyway, how is Java more conducive to innovation than Obj-C? Because it has better IDEs (which is probably debatable, but I'll cede the point anyway)? What can you do in Java than you can't do in Obj-C? Sure, Java has more frameworks built around it (and frameworks built around those frameworks, with more frameworks layered over them, and frameworks built on top of those, etc.), but Apple has some pretty decent libraries too. I've only dabbled in Cocoa programming, but I find the syntax of Obj-C to be rather nice. I like that there's at least some way to implement delegation. It may be a bit sketchy, but it's better than Java's system, which amounts to "Ahh, fuck it. Let the IDE generate some code. That's good enough."

          You have one thing right: Objective-C will probably never be nearly as popular as Java. Ok, two things: Too much java makes me have to poo-poo. I don't see why that means Apple must support Java on the iPhone though. I'm sure the platform will do just fine without it.

          • by alan_dershowitz (586542) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @12:06PM (#22718748)
            Apple DOESN'T have to support Java on the iPhone. Sun didn't ask for Apple to maintain a Java Cocoa bridge on the iPhone, they wanted to port Java and maintain it. But they had to back off because of Apple's restrictive licensing. So with regards to developer preference, had Java been ported that would have been Sun's problem so why would Apple even care? I'm also a full time Java developer and I have an Intel Mac, and I don't give two shits about Objective-C, I just think it would be cool to take my Java cellphone app and run it on the iPhone.
          • by Glock27 (446276) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @10:28AM (#22717052)
            Yes everyone learns it, but aside from a few web apps no one uses it.

            Says falcon5768, who's an authority because of...?

            As opposed to monster.com, where "Java developer" returns "> 5000" hits, "C++ developer returns 2457 hits, "Perl developer" which returns 1134 hits, or "Python developer" which returns 300?

            Java is undoubtedly the most widely used language for current development. So much for "no one".

            It's really not too bad, just not ideal for the highest performance and real time niches. Even so, gcj (for instance) comes close.

    • by Durzel (137902) on Tuesday March 11 2008, @10:00AM (#22716498) Homepage
      It's only "AMAZINGLY flexible and unrestricted" if you've been living in a cave.

      Windows Mobile and Symbian have far more unrestrictive terms of use, in fact - simply being able to write an app in the relevant programming language is the only barrier to entry. There's no third-party enforcing distribution control, no ridiculous $99 sign-up fee - yet, ironically, some people justify the licence fee as "getting rid of the chaff". Unbelievable.

      I try to credit people with intelligent reasoning for the most part but it's tough to argue in favour of people who advocate draconian control the likes of which Apple is putting into effect with its SDK, when if it was Microsoft or some other less-favoured darling at the helm there would - justifiably - be outcry.

      Disclaimer: I own a Macbook Pro and an iPod.
    • The "No Competing Browsers" I understand as well. You see, on the iPhone, the browser really isn't ordinary, but the keys to the kingdom of usability and utility. Apple wanting to protect that makes sense.

      Actually, that makes no sense. If it's the most important thing to have work well, why wouldn't they welcome competition? If iPhone Firefox ended up being better than iPhone Safari, why wouldn't Apple be happy about this situation? Their customers get better utility out of the device, and Apple doesn't have to lift a finger.

      What is probably the MOST annoying is "No GPLv3": Apple won't distribute GPLv3 code because it means giving aways the signing key for that app (the anti-TiVoization clause), and since all distribution is through apple, GPLv3 is out.

      I guess this can be the first documented case of the GPLv3 actually working, and working well. I'm sorry, but a version of an app which you can't modify without paying $100 for a "developer key" is not free software.

      However, for all the griping, this is actually an AMAZINGLY flexible and unrestricted platform, compared with say game consoles or other PDAs.

      And amazingly locked down, compared with Android.

      And for $100 to get a developer key (which allows you to directly run on your own devices), who cares about the distribution restrictions if you are some l33t haxor type who just HAS to run firefox on his iPhone.

      In what way is this OK?

      If Microsoft wanted to charge you $100 to run Firefox on Windows, you would burn them at the stake. The only thing that makes Apple different is that they aren't a monopoly... yet.