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.'"
well.. (Score:5, Funny)
Revolutions... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Revolutions... (Score:4, Insightful)
revolution
-noun
3. a sudden, complete or marked change in something
Sometimes, words mean more than just one thing. I don't think anyone's referring to a violent overthrow of the cellular phone government. I think they meant a sudden, marked change in cellular phones. I mean, sure, you have good ideas and everything, but I think you're overreacting on this one. Not that I disaprove of overreacting. I enjoy it as much as the next guy.
Also, you shouldn't be a 21st century man. You should be a 21st century digital boy because it sounds so much better.
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: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..
12st Century (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Revolutions... (Score:5, Funny)
You know the usage of the term "revolution" to describe political affairs just makes me sad as a 17th century man. The fact that this is what we apply the term to nowadays shows our supreme lack of imagination or want for something better. If we could have the type of revolution our forefathers had using timber logs, potter's wheels, the ability for criminal corporations roll their carriages, politicians that adhere to big business's needs for more mobile cannons, that'd be really doing somethin.
Re:well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure if it's a willingness to publish anything that contains the word "iPhone" or a legitimate interest in development. But unless you're interested in turning your iPhone into a wifi scanner. (Something probably best left to the laptop anyway since it's got a fair few more MHz to waste.) Then I'm finding the SDK really unnecessary. The iPhone isn't a computer replacement, it's got a lowly powered set of hardware which is ideal for a phone, but not for a complex application. If you want to develop strong apps for the road use a laptop.. If you want to develop referencing apps, lookup programs etc, then just use AJAX on the iPhone.
I don't think anyone is going to get an icon on the main screen for a long time. (I don't think it's necessary either.)
With all that said, I have seen some very fun hobbyist applications for mobile platforms (e.g. like the palm programmable remote.) However I think it's the hobbyists that will hack away at the iPhone (with knowledge that it's just OSX) and figure out how to make their own mini-apps anyway.
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then I'm finding the SDK really unnecessary. The iPhone isn't a computer replacement, it's got a lowly powered set of hardware which is ideal for a phone, but not for a complex application. If you want to develop strong apps for the road use a laptop.. If you want to develop referencing apps, lookup programs etc, then just use AJAX on the iPhone.
Not all apps need to be "killer" powerful apps. One thing I would like on my phone is a decent ebook reader. After all if the iPhone is good enough to read the web with it should be good enough to read a book on. Its unlikely to happen however given their stance. Such a simple app, really nothing more than a glorified text reader, would be trivial to make given a basic SDK. (I wouldn't have to carry around the Palm anymore which would be nice) An app like that isn't really a good fit for AJAX either, you don't want to use airtime to read an ebook.
I can think of a couple others off the top of my head. An encrypted password manager such as KeyPass would be useful (you don't really want to be passing passwords and whatnot across the net if you don't have to). Also a decent text editor, or simple notebook/list app, would be another (as opposed to the pure reader you would have in an ebook app).
However its sounding like Apple, like every other wireless carrier, wants to have the phone completely locked down. I tend to agree with the article, no SDK is just going to limit the phone's potential.
Re:well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The tragedy here is that the iPhone provides even more opportunities for real innovation. With thousands of developers (the world over) building on top of the work Apple has already done we would have seen truly stunning advances in both the functionality and the form of the iPhone.
The iPhone may not be a computer replacement, but that doesn't mean it's not a computing device with immense potential.
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:4, Insightful)
Well, they're the budget (phone bill) and battery killers, anyway.
I don't get it when people start saying 'it is underpowered to run any real apps.'
Compare it to what Apple was selling as their powerful high-end desktop machine a decade ago.
As was said earlier in the thread, a lot of cool stuff has been rolled for PalmOS, as an example of a similar platform with an open SDK.
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:well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You also have to consider space and heat and battery life, not just specs or GHz.
For example, the AppleTV has a 1 GHz Intel chip in there, but it is supposed to sleep almost all of the time. When a movie is running, it's decoded by the NVIDIA chip in the graphics adapter. If you do something with your AppleTV that makes the CPU run (like decoding Flash video from YouTube with a third-party plug-in) then you are going to have to get some air around that AppleTV, and it's likely it won't last as long as if you only run H.264 through it. That's why part of Apple's YouTube on AppleTV announcement was Google converting YouTube to MPEG-4 H.264.
Same sort of thing goes for iPhone. Although it has a 1 GHz ARM chip which sounds fast, that is not a PC CPU, it lacks stuff we take for granted on PC's, Apple had to use LLVM to emulate some PC stuff, and to get 5 hours of battery and no first-degree burn on your palm, you have to use the device pretty much as Apple intended, so that their optimizations hold, same as AppleTV. As far as I can tell, there is no Adobe Flash in iPhone because Flash video requires a full PC, that is always required to decode a software codec. The iPhone does its H.264 in an H.264 chip. So you can't assume the iPhone can play all video formats because it can play Pirates of the Caribbean in H.264.
If they could run iMovie on there, I think they would. They have 10 years of iMovie development they could leverage. The "iTunes" that is on the iPhone is also not the real iTunes, which is a "Carbon" Mac app, it's 10 years old also, of course it is a little iTunes for iPhone, specifically optimized. No doubt what is in the iPhone is all from OS X, but it's just the minimal shit. It's like the first iPod had the same font as the first Mac, but don't think that the Finder is in there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:4, Insightful)
This SDK argument is a good example of this. The phone isn't even in a consumers hand and we're finding posts like Apple have been denying the tech community through years of closed platform abuse. Anyone who actually has any history with Apple recognise a few aspects about them which has made them a muchly appreciated company in the tech community.
The most important aspect is that unlike a larger portion of the tech community - Apple almost always gives consumers what they demand: From somehow negotiating DRM free music to adding almost every sought after feature into OS X (even old ideas such as multiple desktops). Apple have a long history of giving consumers what they want. If consumers want a particular app for the iPhone(and it's voiced through emails/community) it'll happen. Apple gets most of it's cred from continuing development of their products and software after the sale. I can think of numerous applications that Apple have released for no charge, including much of the iLife suite(iTunes, iMovie & iPhoto started free, free instruments for Garage band), Safari(version 1), iChat, iCal, iPod feature updates including new codec support, YouTube for AppleTV, and i think even the dvd player in the 10.2 days. Plus a few more I can't remember off the top of my head
With Apple's success with the closed iPod they didn't foresee that there would be such a vocal outburst for an SDK so early into the piece. Yet already they have begun to address SDK issues, firstly by promoting the web standards nature of the iPhone (which is really where the trend for apps is right now. Also of note is that they promoted this at the first iPhone keynote, except they called these widgets.) Further down the track, we will no doubt see some incarnation of an SDK for the iPhone. However there are definitely revisioning issues they'll address before that happens. (As we're likely to see more than one model of iPhone, and I doubt they'll have an SDK ready until the 3G model is released in Europe.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The iPhone's video decoder is ISO MPEG H.264 only. It can't decode Ogg. If you were to install an Ogg decoder software onto the iPhone, if there were even a place to put it (no QuickTime), and if you could get full frame full-rate playback, you would probably drain the battery in an hour or less instead of five.
You could potentially make an iPod dock accessory that decodes Ogg in a chip. However if people wanted one this would already exist.
The thing with Ogg is that is scratches an itch that
Re:I love this (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's still a lame excuse.
Bob makes a computer for Mike.
John writes a program for that computer.
Mike loves his computer. As soon as he installs John's program on his computer, it starts crashing.
When he removes John's program, it stops crashing.
Why the Christ would Mike blame Bob for his computer crashing?
All Apple has to do is say from the outset, "we can only guarantee the stability of the iPhone with programs that have gone through our quality assurance process." "Stability" problem solved.
My point is that while people like Slashdotters might understand what's happening on the device, a normal corporate iPhone user is going to blame Apple's POS iPhone when it crashes or doesn't work right. That's just the way the world works. So if iPhone owners go around complaining about how often their iPhone crashes, it hurts Apple even though it's not really Apple's fault. I think it's simply a practical business decision rather than a technical decision.
It's just a phone... (Score:5, Funny)
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:It's just a phone... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some people who appear to believe corporate interests are always and necessarily opposed to social responsibility. This is bullshit, and these people do damage to their own purported cause by setting up this false dichotomy.
Re:It's just a phone... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I would argue that only companies who do not adhere to the whims of the shareholders are the most successful ones. Usually these are companies with "dictators" at the helm or a small group with a vision.
Take Steve Jobs and Bill Gates for example. Some of their decisions go straight against earning the company money in the short term.
Not to mention Google's decision to not split the stock in order to keep it in a small set of hands. Appeasing the stockholders is a moot point if you have complete control over the direction of the company and you are free do whatever you feel like.
This could involve dumping money into non-profitable game console which later only becomes profitable in its second generation system or doing crazy things like ripping all ATI cards out of your computers because they made a good with a press release.
Most companies who had to comply with the average corporate share holders could not do such things and get away with it. However, since these companies are controlled by a small set of persons they can usually stick with their vision.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Just a phone"???!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's just a phone... (Score:5, Insightful)
It helps that the phone has a real browser and supports Ajax, but it's still limited. And how much fun will it be when you're important apps aren't working because you're in a tunnel, or the middle of nowhere where edge service is spotty. Eventually they'll need to provide a way for people to write apps for it.
I think once they've established the credibility of the phone and that it's reliable, they'll be better positioned to open the platform up a bit more. Hell, they could put together a certification program that would get third party apps access to the Itunes store, or some such. They could make sure the apps are solid, and take a cut of the money at the same time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not a knock on the iPhone at all either. It's a fact of life for a decent subset of mobile users. Any phone, from any company, that requires you to use airtime or have a good connection to use an app is not nearly as useful to ma
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Local storage is not an issue. The Web browser stores things locally all the time. With Ajax it is a bit more complex technologically, but not for the user.
Check out Google Gears it is compatible with WebKit v3 (iPhone, Safari 3 for Mac and Windows, Mac OS X Leopard).
The key is the apps you download stay in the sandbox. You don't get access to the user's storage. And they install and update themselves.
However, you have to be carefu
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No killer app? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who's to say that Apple can't/won't write that killer app?
Funniest Thing I've Read All Day (Score:4, Insightful)
The way that mobile phone industry works is the network provider is the only innovator. Perhaps the most famous example of this is music download service on mobile phone networks.
Oh wait, what about all the java-enabled phones? Outside of games, there isn't much of an API to do anything else with it. And it's not like mobile java apps actually run everywhere.
Network providers don't innovate sh*t (Score:5, Insightful)
BS.
Anything innovative in that market is almost always created by a third party and proposed a network provider. And network providers usually find a way to botch those things by turning them into restrictive billable services or features.
The only innovative things network providers create are fees shorty, fees.
Re:No killer app? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No killer app? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the phone has already been invented. The iPhone needs a killer app to keep from being a phone with an "up to 5 hours" battery, in which I (and probably a lot of people) have no interest. An SDK would let some clever person who doesn't work at Apple come up with something even the clever people there haven't thought of. Everything shown on the Apple site for the iPhone's software abilities (web browser, calculator, notes, clock, etc) are already done by other phones on the market now. So maybe the iPhone does those tasks in a more user friendly way; so what? Not enough to get many people to switch to such an expensive device. No, the killer app for the iPhone has yet to appear.
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:No killer app? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your right about Photoshop but a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that Photoshop came five years after the Mac was introduced.
Another one? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not out yet.
We *are* using the Firehose responsibly, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another one? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets be honest here: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't help but notice that a user whose name is 'Applekid' is complaining about Slashdot reporting news that The Jobs himself delivered at the recent WWDC.
So far we know of precisely one way apps will be available to the phone; via the web. It does seem likely that we will also be able to lay down files in the user's directory. But even if we can fullscreen the browser to run our apps, we still become dependent on a web browser and are not free to develop a
Unless... (Score:2, Insightful)
And could write killer App with that.
I hate to sound like a Mac Fanboy but with some good Ajax codeing you could make a program that is as good as most other apps. Google shows that, and the fact you know the iPhone uses a more modern browser there is less multi-browser testing. And heck you iPhone Apps will run elsewhere too making them far more available.
Re:Unless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
802.11 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
<br>
And could write killer App with that.<br>
<br>
I hate to sound like a Mac Fanboy but with some good Ajax codeing you could make a program that is as good as most other apps. Google shows that, and the fact you know the iPhone uses a more modern browser there is less multi-browser testing. And heck you iPhone Apps will run elsewhere too making them far more available.</quote>
<p>
No, AJAX is terribly over
Re:Unless... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google shows that clever use of AJAX and related technologies can be used to create a web app that APPROACHES the quality of a desktop app, but they still haven't caught up 100%, or we'd all be using Google Docs instead of Word and OpenOffice.
On a mobile device with limited CPU power as it is, every layer between the app and the hardware is a significant performance handicap. I'm not seeing the wisdom
Never!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
fully agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This just in... (Score:5, Funny)
They're canceling the iPhone, disbanding the dev team, and selling the entire production run at Overstock.com and everyone gets a free Clio while supplies last.
Oh, and you're invited to a party at John Dvorak's house.
You have to bring the Tostitos, Shaw Wu's bringing the Dr. Pepper.
Security != Calls from Javascript! (Score:4, Interesting)
Article Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you do something stupid like claim that an SDK is unnecessary, you will fail." -- The voice of reason
There, fixed that for you.
You will not have access to the full functionality of the phone through the browser. Period. End of story. There will be things you cannot do. People will want to do those things. They will need an SDK to do them. They will not have it.
Apple is competing at a price point tha
YouTube was written without an SDK (Score:5, Insightful)
The notion that something has to be compiled into machine language to be a killer app is kind of wonky, if you ask me. Everyone out there already making clever web apps might have something to say about that.
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).
WHAT "Killer App?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Killer App? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
No SDK? Call MacGyver! (Score:5, Funny)
Right, 'cause it's impossible to develop software (and/or quality software) without an SDK. I guess we'll have to pull a MacGyver: get me Emacs, a compiler, some libraries, a pack of gum, some yarn, a can of WD-40 and some Hot Pockets...
There's Also No iPod SDK (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We know how terribly the iPod did without custom apps.
Damn, where are mod points when you need them? +1 Insightful.
Re:There's Also No iPod SDK (Score:5, Insightful)
The iPhone is essentially a handheld computer and is going up against other handheld computers, like the Treo and the Blackberry. Being able to write an arbitrary application that can access the phone's data and functionality is possible on those two devices (and has lead to some very useful applications), so naturally we're a little disappointed that the iPhone won't allow the same functionality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And they still don't. Maybe a big part of consumer electronics is managing expectations and not over-promising, by positioning your product in a known niche with high demand and not getting side-tracked by your engineers who seem to want to put a JVM in EVERYTHING, if only because they can. "Do one job and do it well" isn't just for Unix.
Also means less likely virus corruption (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple integrating the browser and the phone services will create a whole new set of security problems.
Re:Also means less likely virus corruption (Score:4, Insightful)
AT&T and Cingular already sell smartphones running Windows Mobile, Palm OS, and Series 60, and BlackBerry, and those all provide SDKs for anyone who wants one.
So, either you're full of shit, or Apple is too incompetent too implement the security features that would make AT&T comfortable.
Color me confused... (Score:2)
I don't remember there being an SDK when Visicalc was created. Just an environment and a need. I think the point that any app could potentially work without specifically trying means the iPhone could be a 'Killer App-liance', rather than a device needing a 'Killer App'.
Unfortunately, there is a kind of an SDK... (Score:2)
I don't see a way that this can be done securely. Jobs says they're secure... but in context he means "it uses SSL". Jobs says they're sandboxed, but if they can place calls and access your local data then everything you care about in the phone is in the sandbox and open for a bad guy to mess around with.
This might keep you from taking over the software radio and hax0ring the cellular system (but it won't keep the real bad guys fro
i must have missed something (Score:2)
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers (Score:2)
Is this article a troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems like a good way to go IMO. You don't need to learn yet another SDK. If you can program with Javascript, HTML, you can make apps for the iPhone. If there is a bug in your app, you don't have to create a new installer and get that new version out to millions of people. Just update the code on your server and now all users have the latest-and-greatest.
Through Safari, you will be able to do tons of things with the iPhone and web 2.0/Ajax stuff, all the core functions of the iPhone are available to you.
Re: (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 window
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
Simple math (Score:2)
Is the barrier to development infinitely high? That remains, too, to be seen. Look how quickly people cracked open the AppleTV and made it into a general purpose computer. But as a potential buyer, I have to add uncertainty to the cost of
It's True of The Whole Mobile Space (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of thing is why mobile networking in the U.S. and many other countries is a total and unmitigated disaster. All of the networks have tried so hard to make sure they get all the profit potential out of the networks they have made it very unattractive for third party developers. As a result, the mobile networking space just rots waiting for a competitor or new form of getting data to mobile points that make the existing mobile networks obsolete (this is hard because of governmental regulation and selling of exclusive rights to frequency bands, so it is also a regulatory disaster). This is why all the services you hear prognosticators in Wired and other magazines rhapsodize about never materialize. It's also ironic in that the carriers would be making more money if they had opened up to the killer apps and therefore increased the overall demand for networking.
In short, through the regulatory processes and lack of fair trade enforcement, the U.S. has sold its mobile networking potential and commons into the hands of thieves, whose greed and hubris have essentially delayed progress in mobile networking for at least a decade. If I could make that statement in stronger terms, I would. The mobile space is essentially what happens when you have the complete antithesis of 'network neutrality' and, though network neutrality might not be a great regulatory strategy in the fixed-network space, the complete opposite of it is surely well-nigh catastrophic as can be seen from the mobile space.
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.
It doesn't do what I need (Score:4, Insightful)
Jobs made a very nice toy. Unfortunately, I need a tool - and the iPhone ain't it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Further hobbled by not including flash (Score:4, Interesting)
Please, please (Score:3, Interesting)
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
They don't want binary apps on the phone (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not the phone is "really" running OSX is debatable, but keep in mind that many of the CPUs used in embedded devices like phones don't have nearly (or sometimes any of) the memory protection offered on a desktop or laptop CPU. You're also dealing with a much lower-MHz device (for battery consumption reasons) and chances are 100% of the code on the phone runs in Ring 0 (assuming other rings exist) for performance reasons.
So for them to allow third parties to run binary apps would pretty much allow unlimited circumvention of their DRM for the iPod portions (which would violate their agreements with record and movie companies), and as Jobs mentioned publicly would allow any poorly-written or malicious application to completely destabilize the phone or potentially interact with the cellular network in some disruptive or destructive manner (probably violating their agreement with AT&T). I have a Treo with PalmOS on it, and I can attest to the validity of at least the phone stability concern.
So there are a few very legitimate reasons to sandbox third-party code. That being said, there are features sorely lacking on the phone that won't fit in a sandbox - the first of which (for me and my customers) is a VPN client. The last thing I want is a phone running POP3 or IMAP "transparently" connecting over insecure WiFi infrastructure. I'd also like an SSH client, a Terminal Services client, an X Client, and a unicorn - so the iPhone probably won't be for me (dammit).
I would imagine that down the road they will find a better way to provide said sandbox (maybe a Java or Ruby or Python runtime environment?) but in the mean time I respect their desire to provide a phone that emphasizes reliability, even if it means it won't work for me (at least in the first iteration). The wife will probably get one, though.
X-Code!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, what then IS the killer app from others? (Score:4, Insightful)
These devices all allow custom programming. They have been out for some time. So then, what is the "Kller App" for those devices that has come from third parties?
When I owned a Palm, I did buy a few applications, but they were just nice utilities, never apps I could not live without (evidenced by my not owning a Palm anymore once it died). Even today I don't see what is so compelling about the third party market that I must have on my phone that could not also be served by a well-written web application.
The Palm itself was a killer app when it came along, because of the totality of the device. The same COULD be true of the iPhone, we don't know yet - but it would not be a third party application that would cause it to rise or fall, even if it would allow lower level development. With consumer devices its the package as a whole that makes or breaks it.
Heck even game consoles today rest firmly on a foundation of first party titles to help buoy them up. Why should a phone be any different? Remember it's not that NO developers will get lower level access, Apple had already talked about things like the games the iPod offers today. It's only the wider market that has to use AJAX for application development on the iPhone, a tired development model that still allows for truly custom iPhone applications - and thus the potential of the mythical "Killer App".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a PocketPC phone; an HTC TyTN. I love the fact that I can install... let me see here...
OK... I have a third party set of networking tools... namely WiFiFoFum (wireless scanner) and VXUtil (includes stuff like IP subnet calculator and so on). Oh, and not to mention a copy of Putty when I need to SSH to a box. Damn that keyboard is nice when I have an urgent need for SSH. Finally, I have a Remote Desktop Client and VNC installed so I can remote control just about an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure others will have different killer apps, and that's part of the point here.
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.
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).
Re: (Score:2)
In all honesty, I'd like to know by what logic one jumps between Apple saying:
"""
no software developer kit is required for the iPhone
"""
To them assuming that it's necessary and we're not getting one.
Ask the iTunes developers. (Score:3, Insightful)
The most important being that you have to be online to use them. So no third party applications when you are on an airplane. And unless there is a WiFi hotspot nearby you'll be racking up A