No iPhone SDK Means No iPhone Killer Apps 657
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.'"
Another one? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not out yet.
We *are* using the Firehose responsibly, right?
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.
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).
Further hobbled by not including flash (Score:4, Interesting)
Please, please (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's just a phone... (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, it doesn't help that so many products were touted as "revolutionary" and were nothing of the sort. "Ginger", anyone?
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
Re:Unless... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Is this article a troll? (Score:3, Interesting)
I give it one week before someone has found a hole in the browser that permits them to make a phone call without your knowledge or permission.
Apple's iPhone, bringing the power of the internet DDoS to phone systems worldwide.
Note that several remote exploits have already been found in safari for windows...
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.
Re:It doesn't do what I need (Score:2, Interesting)
So, while you might think it unreasonable for me to expect a touch based handheld computer with a cellphone radio to manage my critical data, I certainly don't Or better put: that it doesn't suit my needs is reason enough not to buy. Regardless of whether my expectations are "reasonable."
Security != Calls from Javascript! (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:No killer app? (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that Photoshop came five years after the Mac was introduced.
Whatever (Score:4, Interesting)
The bottom line cell phones are just expensive paperweights you can make phone calls on without an open platform (or at the very least, a common platform) to run software on. What is the point of spending money on games/apps for your phone with the next one you get probably won't be able to run them?
That is why I am anxiously waiting for the Neo1973 [openmoko.org] running OpenMoko [openmoko.org]. The OS runs on a Linux kernel with telephony services running on top of it. Apps run on GTK and so you can run and develop apps natively in your X11 session. The hardware itself works with GSM networks (quad band), and has integrated bluetooth, GPS, Wifi, and a 2.8" touchscreen. Since everything is open source on it, if it doesn't have all the software capabilities the iPhone does, it can be made to have them. And at half the cost. Not to mention it's not married to any cell network, unlike the iPhone.
If the Neo1973 is as awesome in the flesh as it looks on paper, it will revolutionize the cell phone industry.
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
Re:well.. (Score:4, Interesting)
The platform is Safari. The development community can make web 2.0 apps. Google Maps, Flickr, Digg, Yahoo Pipes, Delicious... these ARE the killer apps of the last 5 years and iPhone will run them all and allow them to interface with the phone and the user's data. Nothing more to see here.
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...
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.
Re:No killer app? (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, the "killer-app" is something that you see and you need. Personally, I think Apple has put lots of useful stuff into the iPhone that will be great for everyone. So the "killer-app" for the iPhone would be killer for a niche rather than for everyone.
There are some interesting iPod examples. Consider Griffin's external microphone for the iPod. If it wasn't for them, we'd still be waiting for Apple to come up with one. Do most people care about having a microphone to record stuff for their iPod? I know I don't. But Griffin probably makes decent money on it, from those who want an iPod but need the ability to leave themselves voice memos.
On the flip side, consider the FM Radio attachment. Now you and I can probably both agree that it's not really necessary but there's a small group that would like it. It took Apple quite awhile to actually do it. If it'd been open to third-parties, you would have had an AM/FM/Shortwave/TV Tuner for your iPod in six months.
You're right in that the iPhone doesn't really need Yet Another Address Book, Personal Organizer, or e-mail program. But how long will we have to wait for Apple to include an iChat that works with Yahoo and MSN? Heck, that might be somebody's killer app. Or to have it work with a Bluetooth Heart Monitor so I could monitor my heart rate? Or have it work with a Bluetooth GPS so I don't have to keep telling the stupid device where I am?
Re:Revolutions... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nokia have released a python build for their Series 60 Symbian smartphones. Could you do it with that?
I haven't played with python on my Nokia, but they do provide libraries for phone functions.
And, heck, you can download VOIP apps for Symbian (for when you're connected to open WIFI networks), so it doesn't seem automatically impossible..
stable SDK not ready yet (Score:2, Interesting)
iPhone comes with 4 killer apps, who needs you? (Score:3, Interesting)
First, iPhone comes with four killer apps built-in. All a device needs is one. The iPod is a sensation and it has one killer app: seamless integration with your iTunes audio video collection which enables on-the-go playback of same anywhere, anytime.
The iPhone has:
1) Calls - the killer app from phones
2) iPod - the killer app from iPods
3) Web (Web 2.0 even) - the real full-featured Web, the killer app from the last decade of mainstream computing
4) Email - the killer app of the Internet some say
Notice that Apple put these four along the bottom of the iPhone's display. The other 11 apps are chachkis. You can do Google Maps or calendaring online.
Some have called the iPhone's UI a killer app. If you have been frustrated by a phone UI before you may agree.
OK, but what if that isn't enough for you? What if you are considering an iPhone but you really don't need it for the phone, iPod, Web, or email features? (Please read the previous sentence again while considering the absurdity of it.)
Then for you, the iPhone has many avenues for third-party accessories:
1) Ajax applications
2) iPod dock connector applications
3) Bluetooth applications
4) Wi-Fi-n applications
5) custom hardware modifications (this is huge in phones already)
6) iPhone-related Mac/PC apps
7) cases, holders, mounts, etc.
The funny thing is, with the original Mac you could install software on it, and developers complained about not having any accessory slots to put hardware. Now iPhone has a slot that is being ignored and everybody wants to install software on it.
The consumer market is all about zero configuration. Installing and updating software is configuration. Nine out of ten people fucking hate it. It's why most people still do not have PC's. People will make outrageous sacrifices to avoid having to configure something. They'll use lab computers at school, surf the Web only at work, or use online productivity apps that suck, just to avoid owning their own computer or installing software on it. Among Mac users, the majority do not install software, and it has been reduced to dragging and dropping one icon from some other storage to your hard disk
Everybody wants to know, what is Apple's secret? What makes their stuff so easy to use, what makes people like it so much? It is zero configuration. When Apple did Mac networking in the 1980's the Macs networked themselves, you just had to physically connect them. When they rebuilt their OS for the 21st century they re-built the zero configuration networking as well, this time around TCP/IP. There were 20 years of "configuration TCP/IP" before Apple switched from AppleTalk to TCP/IP and created zero configuration TCP/IP. Why didn't somebody other than Apple build zero conf networking first? Apple is the only computer company in the consumer market. All others are in the mainframe replacement business. So it is no wonder that non-technical people like Apple's zero configuration products, because non-technical people fucking hate configuring things.
Oh, they hate it. They hate it worse than taking an exam, they hate it worse than going to the doctor. If your business plan involves consumers configuring things, then get out of the consumer industry now.
It is amazing to me in 2007 that the PC industry a) still exists, b) hasn't gotten a clue yet. ZERO, I mean ZERO configuration. You turn it on, it works (built-in apps). You plug it on, it works (dock connector). You click it, it works (Web/Ajax).