Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Handhelds Businesses Programming Communications Apple Hardware IT Technology

Steve Jobs Announces iPhone SDK 467

Posted by Zonk
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Steve Jobs Announces iPhone SDK

Comments Filter:
  • by hypermanng (155858) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:55PM (#21012517) Homepage
    It makes me suspect that Steve was caught a bit flat-footed, if it'll take until then. If this was the usual Apple release, it would be a total surprise and be available Friday or something.

    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.
    • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:59PM (#21012593)
      Apple often announces things that matter to developers long in advance. Most of the developer-relevant features of Leopard were announced two years ago, for example.

      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.
      • Hear hear! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hypermanng (155858) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:05PM (#21012697) Homepage

        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.


        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.
        • by ceoyoyo (59147)
          Apple is already providing for all apps to be signed in Leopard, which would indicate that they're setting up a way for small (freeware) third party developers to sign their apps. Apple wouldn't dare mess with the independent development community for OS X. If the iPhone uses the same system it would be awfully nasty to suddenly require large payments when they've already got the system set up without.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by russotto (537200)

          Apple really has no reason to be a jerk about it except spite. Unfortunately, Steve has proven that he's occasionally prone to that.


          +1, Understated!
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Angostura (703910)
        I suspect (but really hope it doesn't) come to pass that Apple arranges things so that the only legitimate way to get apps on to the iPhone/Touch is through the iTunes store. It would gel with the way that they have done things in the past with iPod games and would give Apple the power over what was considered a safe, legitimate app. e.g No Skype for you.
    • No, not really (Score:2, Insightful)

      by daveschroeder (516195) *
      Considering that the iPhone's OS is a moving target, and the majority of the frameworks and private APIs have changed from 1.0.2 to 1.1.1 (which is why many third party apps broke between 1.0.2 and 1.1.1), I don't think it's unreasonable to wait until things on that front have stabilized before you start providing developers with an SDK.

      I knew that most of the negative responses to this would be along the lines of saying that Apple was "forced" into doing an SDK because of the third party hacking community,
      • Perhaps, but why would they have waited until now to announce it?
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by aliquis (678370)
          Because they hadn't figured out how it would be done yet?

          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)

          by daveschroeder (516195) *
          This is probably Apple's most significant product launch since the Macintosh.

          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
        • by MightyYar (622222)
          I suppose it could be related to the announcement of Leopard... we know that at least some of the same folks work on the OS and the iPhone since they delayed Leopard to get the iPhone out on time.
    • by dave420 (699308)
      The lack of an SDK had nothing to do with AT&T, btw.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by goofballs (585077)
      no, it's not hard to say; this had nothing to do with at&t- they've long allowed 3rd party apps across a wide range of their phones.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by suv4x4 (956391)
      It makes me suspect that Steve was caught a bit flat-footed, if it'll take until then. If this was the usual Apple release, it would be a total surprise and be available Friday or something.

      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
    • 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.

      I highly doubt it. If you have any java-enabled phone, any palm based phone, any blackberry phone, any symbian phone and you're using it on the AT&T network, you already know that you've been able to install ANY kind of app - networked or otherwise - on your phone.

    • Jobs:

      It will take until February to release an SDK because we're trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once-

      Allow nearly open software development but completely restrict the ability to use VoIP (and upset ATT).

      There. Fixed that for you.

      (Side note: I live in Oakland County - home of a county-wide wireless project [oakgov.com]. If residents could run VoIP on an iPhone, then cellular revenue would plummet here. I suspect that would catch on like wildfire, once proven. This is RISKY bus
  • Digital signing (Score:5, Informative)

    by PlatyPaul (690601) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:56PM (#21012531) Homepage Journal
    TFS got it wrong: Apple did not in fact say that digital signing was going to be a part of the SDK or making sure that apps are kosher.

    Here's the quote that may have misled:

    Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example, is not allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known developer. While this makes such a phone less than totally open, we believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on an advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively program the iPhones amazing software platform while at the same time protecting users from malicious programs.

    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)

      by ceoyoyo (59147) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:01PM (#21012629)
      Possibly. One of the new features in Leopard is digitally signed apps though, and Apple is setting up some kind of infrastructure so you can verify the signatures. It would seem likely they'll use the same system on the iPhone.
      • by PlatyPaul (690601)
        Actually, I'm hoping it's something more open than simple signing. For instance, the addition of something like a Web of Trust [wikipedia.org] might make for a faster/easier way to do signature distribution, with the added bonus that the grantor is now held partially responsible for approving the grantee's work, including the power to cut off the chain if misuse is detected further down. That way, third-party developers don't have to try to get things approved by someone at the top.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ceoyoyo (59147)
          Sounds complicated. How about just registering a developer account with Apple, including your credit card, and if Apple starts getting reports that your app is evil they yank certification for your signature plus turn you over to the cops.

          Apple already has a system for developer registration that they use for distributing pre-releases.
      • by Altus (1034)

        I cant seem to find that much detail on the signed apps feature of leopard but it looks like you will be able to run unsigned apps. Even if they use the same system for the iphone that would be different from the nokia system described which wont allow you to run unsigned apps.

        I wouldnt be surprised if it was the ability to sign apps that has held apple back from releasing an SDK for the iPhone, you don't want users running old versions of the phone OS running unsigned apps. The iPhone version of the os i
      • Re:Digital signing (Score:5, Informative)

        by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:52PM (#21013403)

        Possibly. One of the new features in Leopard is digitally signed apps though, and Apple is setting up some kind of infrastructure so you can verify the signatures. It would seem likely they'll use the same system on the iPhone.


        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.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Scudsucker (17617)
          Of course, I'm sure that some Mac fan is going to point out how this is another Apple innovation.

          I don't know, you've set quite a high bar of snobbery for that person to top.
        • by Mahjub Sa'aden (1100387) <msaaden@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @05:33PM (#21016691)
          The Steve, 6000 years ago, created signed apps with the rest of the iWorld. However, as he is a vengeful God, he gave this innovation to Microsoft, for the greater glory of Apple, may it live forever.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Of course, I'm sure that some Mac fan is going to point out how this is another Apple innovation.

          Sure, Artie MacStrawman will, but the sophisticated fanboy will make two points:

          1) Sometimes Microsoft actually gets stuff right before Apple. For example, until 10.4, OS X only had UNIX-style permissions, which are inferior to NTFS-style permissions. But,

          2) How things are put into practice matters, too. Microsoft has had a good permissions system in place since, what was it, NT 4.0? However, it wasn't until Vis

    • by gad_zuki! (70830)
      They might go the route of the sidekick and make all apps pre-approved and limit distribution to apple. I dont see why they wouldnt. Apple fans are used to central control and this item is so hot that they'll put up with anything. Its like going to a nice restaurant where the waitstaff is somewhat rude. You expect them to be rude. If they were nice you would think less of the place as it would seem they need you as customers.

      Apple has the added incentive of not pounding AT&T's EDGE network too hard eit
  • Security (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:56PM (#21012537)

    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.

  • Interestingly, by enforcing digital signing Apple is guaranteeing the survivial of an iPhone developer's "underground" -- instead of writing hacks to jailbreak and unlock iPhones, they'll be writing hacks to get unsigned apps running on the iPhone.
    • by bockelboy (824282) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:09PM (#21012751)
      Why? There's no need to have unsigned apps - if Apple is smart and enables the end-user to sync their computer's keychain with the iPhone. This way, users who trust the DOEgrids Certificate Authority can run apps signed by the DOEgrids CA. I'm surprised there isn't a freely-available SourceForge CA that devs can use to sign their binaries. As long as the end user can control which authorities they trust (I suspect enterprise admins will want to control this, at the least), there is no need for a unsigned app!

      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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Altus (1034)

      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.
  • Ipod touch (Score:2, Interesting)

    by $1uck (710826)
    Will this apply to the ipod touch as well? I really would like to be able to read maps/books offline on one. If there was an app to let me take websites or google maps and pdfs and store them locally to an ipod touch it might be my next mp3 player.
  • by Saunalainen (627977) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @12:59PM (#21012597)

    From TFA - quoting Steve Jobs:

    Some claim that viruses and malware are not a problem on mobile phones--this is simply not true.

    The risk of damage would be a lot less damage if every app on the iPhone didnt run as root [eweek.com].

    • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:14PM (#21012827)
      Wow! Perhaps that will be one of the things that is addressed by the time third party apps are allowed, considering that they're not now? Could this perhaps be part of the reason (among many others) that third party apps aren't currently allowed?

      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?
    • by godawful (84526)
      I think you've discovered why they don't support 3rd party apps right now.. gotta get the iphone OS up to snuff still.

      but thats not as sensational.
    • by suv4x4 (956391) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:31PM (#21013101)
      The risk of damage would be a lot less damage if every app on the iPhone didnt run as root

      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.
  • I was telling someone that the 2 things I wish the Touch had were a PDF reader and an SSH client. Hopefully, the dev. environment will allow these and many, many other goodies. If that _IS_ the case, the Touch very well become my new home computer ...
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ceoyoyo (59147)
      My Touch has a PDF reader, SSH client AND an SSH server. ;)

      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)

      by Angostura (703910) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @02:57PM (#21014395)
      Well, I can solve one of them for you, without hacking the Touch.

      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 .doc, .xls, .rtf, .txt, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .gif, .pdf, or .html on the Touch (or iPhone) for offline viewing via Safari. It seems to encode the document actually into the bookmark datastream, which seems a bit hackish - but it works.

      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.
  • by neo (4625) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:01PM (#21012627)
    The only thing i want to add to the I phone is SSH and an external keyboard. Then it would be pretty much the ultimate laptop... if you had a really tiny lap. But it would then serve all my mobile computing needs.
    • Almost the same list as mine. I want:

      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.
    • Then it would be pretty much the ultimate laptop... if you had a really tiny lap
      Or perhaps a regular size lap and a Beowulf cluster of iPhones...
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by gEvil (beta) (945888)
        Or perhaps a regular size lap and a Beowulf cluster of iPhones...

        Now that would be an awesome utility belt...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by johnkzin (917611)
      Frankly, Apple missed the boat on this one. If they had had a supported ssh, and supported external keyboard, back in early September, bluetooth on the 'Touch (keyboard, headsets, and tethering to any bluetooth DUN/PAN phone), Mail on the 'Touch, and Notes on the 'Touch, I'd have bought a Touch.

      If the iPhone had those missing pieces (including publicly stated support for tethering a laptop via bluetooth DUN/PAN), but the Touch did not, then I'd have seriously considered buying an iPhone. But I knew that t
  • bug report (Score:5, Interesting)

    by abes (82351) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:05PM (#21012691) Homepage
    Apple also sent the same information to anyone who bothered to file out a bug report about a lack of an SDK. I mention this only to point out that it's nice that Apple actually took the time to listen to its developers (and not just people who pay an annual fee) and respond. So next time if you're wondering whether your bug report gets read, it appears at least in cases like this it does.

    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?
    • by NickCatal (865805)
      It would be nice if you could sign your own stuff (with a free signature from apple, like google) to run in a sandbox-style mode on the iPhone with just Wifi & Bluetooth, and then with Apple's signature the app could use the EDGE network (if that is approved for the app.) Perhaps allow, with the user's permission, the app to use xyz amount of space.

      Before that I wouldn't mind a freaking flash player for Safari. That would be a GREAT start.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Guy Harris (3803)

      I wonder if they will limit all things internety to WIFI only, as AT&T might complain about random packets flying over their EDGE

      Yeah, it's not as if AT&T sells cards for PC's that support EDGE [att.com], so that any packet your PC could send out over Wi-Fi could also be sent out over EDGE.

  • Malware (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aqua OS X (458522) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:05PM (#21012695)
    To further clarify, "malware" will consist of:
      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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by GodWasAnAlien (206300)
      Correct. It has little to do with viruses.

      Says Jobs was thinking: '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 from users that would have the phone do things that our profit model and/or contract demands that we prohibit.'"

      Being open and closed at the same time is hard.
  • So sometime after February I'll be able to buy/download and install an ActiveSync client for the iPhone? That changes quite a lot...
    • by bwalling (195998)
      That's the hope. I don't get why Apple haven't done it themselves. It is important to a lot of potential customers.
  • How useful (Score:5, Funny)

    by JeremyGNJ (1102465) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:12PM (#21012791)
    Nice!

    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)

    by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @01:22PM (#21012963)
    I'm worried about a Windows CE-like business model. Unlike traditional certificates, with CE you don't purchase certificates but use a signing "service." While that might seem cheaper, you have to sign EACH of your binaries EVERY time a modification is made. That's incentive for developers to NOT release patches. Fortunately, it's not being enforced by many OEMs, but heaven help our wallets should that happen. There are a lot of small mobile shops our there that can't absorb these kinds of costs.
  • Remember how unwillingness Steve had been about native apps? He even went out on a leg to try and make Web Apps easy to get to by creating that apps repository.... Well it seems that the _large_ number of people who are jailbreaking their iPod Touches and iPhones to install third party apps have been heard. They probably weren't planning on releasing an SDK until Steve realized how popular native apps are/would be.

    I never really understood the resistance to third party apps in the first place. The iPhone co
  • Signature Backups (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @02:05PM (#21013647) Homepage Journal
    Digital signatures offer security only when all IPC (including kernel/system calls) is signed, and when signature logs survive an attack by that signed app. Otherwise, after the attack, the signed app can cover its tracks. ActiveX signatures, for example, are worthless.

    Since the iPhone depends on its network for all app installation, and nearly all its operation, it can enforce those policies. Since practically all the data on the iPhone, including voice call data, is private, that enforcement is an absolute necessity. Apple should include a server account that backs up the signature logs, and encrypted key storage to other accounts the iPhone is used to access.

    Once people are used to that minimum assurance of accountability of installed apps and data on their mobile phones, maybe they'll start to expect it on their notebooks and desktops. Apple could leverage the service to those products, too. And maybe that competition will finally force Microsoft to secure the vast majority of the world's private data that their platforms are responsible for.
  • by burris (122191) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @02:22PM (#21013907)
    Every time one of these stories comes out I point out that the situation will be the same as with the iTunes SDK: to get the SDK you'll have to sign an agreement that gives Apple veto power over your application. Every time people flamed me. It still looks like I'm right.

    Anything they don't like, gone. They say its to protect users from spyware and other forms of malware but it'll be used to eliminate anything they don't like. Just like there isn't any decent music sharing functionality in iTunes, there won't be anything on the iPhone that doesn't settle well with the ultraconservatives in Apples Ivory Tower. Instead you'll get crippled functionality, like music sharing with ridiculous limits on the number of people/playbacks per day. As if all of their developers and customers are children who can't be given responsibility. Children don't own copyrights, so they don't need the discretion to share music beyond what Apple believes is "fair enough."

    People are still going to flame me saying that we should wait and see. Well, I've been waiting and I see no way to set an mp3 on your iPhone as a ringtone. Is there any reason not to give this functionality other than to protect Apple's new ringtone business? Why would any reasonable person believe that Apple won't do the same thing when granting ISVs permission to deploy applications on iPhone?

    The argument that phones are somehow more vulnerable than any other network connected computer and need to be controlled by a central authority is specious.

    "Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you..."
  • by DdJ (10790) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @03:06PM (#21014491) Homepage Journal
    So, even if apps require formal signing and they all cost money, I still kinda expect that one thing we'll get is IBM's WebSphere Everyplace Micro Environment.

    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)

    by Bones3D_mac (324952) on Wednesday October 17, 2007 @05:09PM (#21016395)
    There's much to be suspicious about whenever someone like Steve Jobs suddenly has a "change of heart" regarding product policy. Does anyone really believe Jobs wasn't at all planning this back when he asserted that developers would take down the west coast cell networks if allowed to develop native apps on the iPhone? There's obviously more to it than this thinly-veiled blessing announcement that just happened to conveniently coincide with the release of Leopard next week.

    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.

A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...