Apple Targeting Business World for the iPhone

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

What Apple is doing

[downix]

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

Re:

[LingNoi]

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

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

Re:

[Zeinfeld]

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

Actually the lack of a camera is a requirement for many businesses. I can't take a phone with a camera into many of our facilities, it is a very common policy in large companies.

The lack of 3G is a serious problem but it is definitely on the way, it was originally promised for 1Q 2008. This announcement looks to me as if it is either being made in place of the 3G announcement after an

Re:What Apple is doing

[SkyDude]

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

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

Re:

[jbrw]

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

Erm...

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

[StCredZero]

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

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

Limitations

[imamac]

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

Re:Limitations

[imamac]

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

Re:

[lurch_mojoff]

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

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

Re:Limitations

[keytoe]

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

Re:Limitations

[noidentity]

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

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

Re:

[thanasakis]

This means that there is also only a SINGLE VENDOR from which software can be obtained. Forget about competitive bidding, negotiating the best package price, etc.

Forget it. Medium-to-Large companies will NEVER go for this.

OMG! Obtaining software from a single vendor! Never happened before.

Re:

[bizard]

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

Re:

[shmlco]

There's also only a single vendor for the iPhone, as long as you're ranting about inconsequentials. 'Course, there's only a single vendor for Crackberries too.

Re:Limitations

[Serious Callers Only]

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

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

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

Cold, Steel Grasp...

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

I love how apple has declared that their 'controls' are actually 'freeing' the phone. Yes, now that you can put apps on the phone, it is a 'more' open platform. But you STILL have to go through apple, and since it is *MY* phone, why can't I do whatever *I* want to it?

... oh wait ... I can ... apple just doesn't like it ;)

This is the same problem sony has with the psp (although, it has some differences as well) - If I want custom firmware on my psp, who is sony to tell me no?

I don't like where this at

Re:

[CrackedButter]

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

Re:Cold, Steel Grasp...

[TheLostSamurai]

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

Re:Cold, Steel Grasp...

[pev]

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

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

Re:

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

haha, did you read my nickname? I'm certainly NOT a fan of apple business practice, even if their products are interesting.

Porn!

[Chrisq]

He talked about bans on pornography...

Most businessmen will want it. It will save the travelling businessmen from the embarrassment of "pay per view" tv stations appearing on the bill.

Re:

[Constantine XVI]

As opposed to the porn apps showing up on their data bill?

Re:Porn!

[Andy_R]

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

Apple already answered...

[daveschroeder]

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

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

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

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

Re:

[Andy_R]

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

Who is John Doerr?

[chiph]

In addition, a venture capitalist named John Doerr

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

Chip H.

Re:

[UnanimousCoward]

'...a venture capitalist named John Doerr has launched a $100 million "iFund"'

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

Dude, YOU need to turn in your geek credentials: here at /., you should just have left it with your subject title, "Who is John Doerr," and let the crowd relish in the sarcasm/irony/humor/whatever...

Re:Who is John Doerr?

[kellyb9]

Who is John Doerr?

Doesn't he make tractors?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Android

[CrackedButter]

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

Re:Android

[shmlco]

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

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

Re:Android

[ad454]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:

[radish]

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

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

Google has

Re:Android

[MidKnight]

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

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

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

Re:

[Inda]

Are Apple really doing that well? I've yet to see one in the UK. Name me another phone on the market, and yes, I've probably seen it.

I have a 4gb micro-sd card in my phone. How does the iPhone top this? I can bluetooth MP3s to it, use the cable that came with the phone, upload MP3s to my webserver and download them on the phone, MMS them, the list goes on.

Visual Voicemail? My phones have done that via MMS for years. MMS is far more powerful too.

Their hardware experience is so-say. My phone is the size of a

Re:

[foniksonik]

Google doesn't yet have a carrier signed up (yes they are on the working groups), so we don't really know what sort of limitations those carriers will impose. android may be open but the carrier network is not and then OEM or even the distributor of the phones made to run Android may have a different take on it.

If google makes the phone AND provides the service then of course they could open the whole thing BUT that will certainly limit their distribution channels and that would kill the platform before it

Finally

[skinfitz]

It appears the iPhone is almost ready for serious use - add 3G and they have a serious tool rather than just an unfinished toy which is all it's been up to now.

Get TomTom on that and I'm there.

Re:

[Constantine XVI]

You mean like the unfinished toys RIM puts out with EDGE only*?

*Yes, I know the CDMA Blackberrys are EV-DO

Re:

[mdwh2]

Well, if there were multiple daily articles on Slashdot about that product as well, maybe people would complain about that too.

Re:Unfinished toy ?!? Which Functions are unfinish

[skinfitz]

Actually, the phone works just fine w/o 3G

I'd be quite concerned if it didn't actually. Bit expensive for a phone though - they give away handsets if you just want to talk on the phone.

Then, there's WiFi when you're at your home, office, friends' places or congenial coffee shop. Damn sight better'n 3G. All the data you want.

psst - other mobiles have WiFi too you know. The point however is all the bandwidth in the world is utterly useless if the device in question can't talk the protocols you require, such as to use a VPN for example.

And even when you rely on EDGE, it works just great for SMS, maps, weather and other nibbles of the 'net. Even email, as long as you don't expect it'll be faster than Blackberry, the supposed one to beat.

....and in say, Europe where 3G is everywhere and EDGE is relatively rare? Take the UK for example - O2 only has 30% EDGE coverage. That means t

Developer fee = unlock for OSS?

[Andy_R]

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

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

Has anyone tried this yet?

Re:

[teh kurisu]

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

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

Re:

[keytoe]

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

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

You need pornography on portable devices!

[FuzzyDaddy]

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

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

Re:

[MrMickS]

roflmao ... I wish I had some mod points left

Re:

[MindStalker]

HEHE awesome!

Though it does have the full internet, he's not blocking the internet, which has TONS of porn. He's just not going to allow porn software installed, which I guess means no strip poker, etc. Damn. Wonder if I can get cartoon porn through them :/

Unlocking already done

[192939495969798999]

With unlocking already done, 3g and vpn support around the corner, etc. and the 100 million with caveats that unlocking-style edits aren't getting the money, what exactly are they thinking of in terms of development here? I'd just as soon use the 100 million to pay off a distributor, get 100 million in unlocked iphones, sell them on ebay and use the profits to pay off the AT&T/Apple servitude so everyone can just buy the thing straight from Apple already unlocked.

Anyone watched the keynote?

[gnasher719]

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

Re:

[MrMickS]

You must be new here. This is slashdot where the majority of comments are made based entirely on a persons feelings without needing the troublesome task of having to read the articles. They know what is best so just state their ideas.

John Doerr

[Mark_in_Brazil]

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

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

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

Encryption and other features?

[The Second Horseman]

Sure, encrypted connection, but no mention of on-device encryption, which RIM supports and your administrator can require through policy. So that's not going to be a big plus for corporate and government. Then there's the fact that on contract pricing, an organization can get a Blackberry Curve with BES support (some of the discounted consumer units don't support the Blackberry Enterprise Server) for under $100. Are they going to support central logging of IM client messages to/from the device? Again, somet

30% return for a small investment?

[Futurepower(R)]

The Fortune Magazine article, The iPhone gets a $100 million iFund [cnn.com], says:

In typical Silicon Valley hyperbole Doerr summed up the move as the beginning of a new world order. The iPhone, he said, is "bigger than the personal computer..."

The iPhone is locked to one provider. The iPhone will soon have unlocked competitors. It certainly will never be "bigger than the personal computer". The iPhone is basically only another cellular phone, and most people use their phones only to make phone calls.

Appare

Re:

[Andy_R]

The article does NOT say the investing company will get 30%.

You're mixing up Apple's AppStore distribution method (which takes 30%) with the iFund which is run by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Whatever deal a given developer thrashes out with them is their trade secret.

Re:

[spooje]

The iPhone is locked to one provider. The iPhone will soon have unlocked competitors. It certainly will never be "bigger than the personal computer". The iPhone is basically only another cellular phone, and most people use their phones only to make phone calls.

Well, if you're just counting the US, sure. In Japan and most east Asian countries people live on their phones and expect them to do things like: have real e-mail, view webpages, gps and have services like weather, train schedules and whatnot.

Re:

[*weasel]

Whether it's the iPhone or not is debatable; but that sort of handheld-computer-masquerading-as-a-phone is going to be bigger than the personal computer.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that within 10 years, that sort of handheld will be most people's personal computers. Laptops are already edging out desktops, as they're typically as powerful and as expensive for most users - and far more flexible. It won't be long before handhelds edge out laptops for the same reason. And the longer that single-thr

SDK is Intel-only: solution!

[SethJohnson]

My excitement over the SDK was somewhat doused when I read it isn't PPC compatible. Since my best Mac is a G4 powerbook, that would have been my environment for coding my dream iPhone app. I don't have the resources to buy a new Intel powerbook just to code apps for my iPhone.

Exploring options, I found that the OSX86 scene is thriving [osx86project.org] with successful installs on beige box PCs. Now I can turn my quad-core 2.4 ghz intel box into an iPhone IDE! Hooray!

Seth

Apple also licensed ActiveSync

[tronicum]

According to this article [heise.de] Apple also licensed Microsoft ActiveSync to sync iPhones with MS-Exchange Servers.

This would make iPhones a serios competetor to business phones like Blackberrys et al.

Re:When?

[imamac]

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

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

Re:

[e2d2]

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

AKA they don't have a way yet.

A lot of this rings hollow, the whole "BIG DEAL" about the iPhone. It's a nice device sure, but there are a lot of nice devices. I just don't see the appeal to developers considering that the distribution model appears locked down, apple seems hell bent on selling anything it can to developers (ever heard of FREE?), and appl

Re:

[johneee]

Well, the whole thing behind this is that they see how much money they're making from iTMS and want to do the same with applications for the iPhone. I wouldn't be surprised if they set up the same kind of thing for application downloading for the Mac as well - although without the limitation of having to get it from there only.

Re:When?

[Andy_R]

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

Re:Exchange

[imamac]

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

Re:Exchange

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

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

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

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

Re:

[cca93014]

They demonstrated or discussed both of these things yesterday...

RTFA and WTFV

[Mark_in_Brazil]

FTFA:

Apple, which also announced new software to make the iPhone compatible with corporate e-mail systems, plans to open "the App Store" with the next release of iPhone software. The feature will allow people to purchase and download new applications for their phones.

Also, if you watch the video of Jobs's announcement, you'll see Exchange compatibility demonstrated.

Re:

[mattgoldey]

I work for a company that has no competition and runs with a budget surplus every year. I'm not concerned.

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum

[rho]

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

Re:

[jay-za]

I'm sure Apple is worried a lot about something that "looks like" a "potential", "future" winner.
It's good that we agree on this.

Something else that is probably worrying them is that Android is backed by Google. It looks like google wants this, and they can make Android a success all by themselves. It's no secret Google wants in on the mobile market (I know you know this, but there are others out there who are less informed), and with the kind of innovative aggression they've shown with their other p

Re:

[Angostura]

they can make Android a success all by themselves

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

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum

[rho]

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

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

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

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

Finally, PRODUCT > !PRODUCT, almost every time.

Re:

[onion2k]

If you're storming ahead in a particular market the only threats you face are potential future threats. If you dismiss them because they're not a problem for you right now you'll get a nasty surprise in a few years time when they come snapping at your heels devouring that carefully won market share.

See: IBM vs everyone; IE vs Firefox; Windows vs OSX; Windows vs Linux; Microsoft vs Google...

Don't compare current products to future products.

[LKM]

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

Re:

[0xdeadbeef]

What, flip-flopping on having a real SDK doesn't look worried to you?

Re:

[blhack]

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

Well they should be.
The iphone DOESN'T look look like it will be a future winner. Don't get me wrong, they've got a great product, but they are going to have a tough time venturing outside of the teenage "OMG ITS SO CUTE" market with this.

IF and ONLY if they had actually included a full qwerty keyboard with this would they have had a shot. I can type on my blackberry (7520, and nextel can have it when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers) in the dark, without looking at it, with one hand.
Its quick, its

Re:

[rho]

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

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

You should go into the venture capital business.

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum

[beelsebob]

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

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

Bob

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum

[CrackedButter]

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

Re:

[Wingsy]

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

The flip side...

[shmlco]

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

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

Re:

[iluvcapra]

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

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

Clearly.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:

[divisionbyzero]

Uh, yeah, because open source has been such a huge commercial success. I am not saying that there hasn't been modest success but nothing on the scale of proprietary software. When there is a phone that actually uses Android in the hands of consumers we'll have something to talk about until then it's just vapor.

Don't Get Your Hopes Up

[ablair]

Knowing the history of how Apple & corporate IT departments have treated each other (prejudices on both sides), and the steadfast change-averse nature of corporate IT to this day, don't get your hopes up that the iPhone will be adopted much more than the Mac has across the enterprise. That's certainly been the conclusion of clear-deaded analysis [financialpost.com] outside of the RDF, at least. If there wasn't another solution that wasn't just "good enough" we might have a different outlook, but the truth is that RIM (like

Re:

[CrackedButter]

Exploit the customer how? By paying for new software?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[gnasher719]

Ever written code for these "other phone substrates"? It's such a monumental pain in the arse that, assuming developers can be bothered at all, they'll certainly reimplement vast swathes of the application from the ground up due to fundamental (and often archaic) platform differences anyway. This SDK will more than likely clean up if only because it's a derivative of OS X and thus programming for it'll be a dream.

Is very any other phone where the software development VP would go live on stage and demonstrate writing a (tiny) application, compiling it, downloading it to the phone and running it, in front of a live audience?

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

[aarond]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[shmlco]

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

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

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

Re:

[postbigbang]

Mmmmmm. Nice OSX code. Always tasty. Binaries the size of Minnesota.

Sure you can port stuff. That's fine. You can do that (to a certain extent) with Windows Mobile, too. The "leg-up" reminds me of a dog and fire hydrant.

With current OSX frameworks, it's now time to disable lots of stuff you've come to enjoy. READ the docs. Please throw out your multitasking and other delicious inter-app communications frameworks; get lots of your information from your newly rebuilt parsers. Do the type-checking carefully, l

Re:

[postbigbang]

We would agree on some points, not on others:

1) as a rev 1.0, this one was .8 and went for glitz and Apple market momentum rather than any real groundbreaking. Certainly it will evolve. The question is whether to devote time coding for it. Some have values that say yes, others a resounding NO
2) there is little doubt that Steve Jobs can sell shit on a shingle. Nice ideas are then relegated to the scrap heap: good by XServe RAID SAN boxes, just to cite the most recent one
3) if Apple doesn't get the sales cont

Re:

[Dysfnctnl85]

Did you RTFM? The iPhone update will bring full Exchange compliance wrt the calendar and email. Cmon. Geez. RIM should be scared. Their dev tools are 15 levels deep on their website and don't offer anything as glitzy as Apple's SDK.

Re:

[DesertJazz]

As already mentioned above, they announced a plan to have complete compatibility with Exchange. They also announced a number of other enterprise features that should make the phone look much more attractive to corporate settings.

Re:

[Constantine XVI]

Probably the first general-purpose one, but I know there were several GBA games that had a tilt sensor built into the cartridge

Re:

[nevali]

No they don't, because they licensed ActiveSync from Microsoft.

Re:

[Dog-Cow]

And you need to learn to RTFAs, idiot.

Re:

[The Second Horseman]

Push email is huge. And until you've used "real" push email, it's kind of hard to appreciate just how cool it actually is. RIM's integration with corporate IM clients is pretty slick as well, as is the direct device-to-device Blackberry messaging (based on device PIN). The latter is good with folks outside your organization, or in the organization if your Blackberry Enterprise Server (or internal network, or organization's internet connection) is down for some reason.

Re:No Exchange Push, No Deal

[Andy_R]

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

Re:

[Fahrvergnuugen]

As horrible as it may sound, unless the iPhone can accept pushed mail from an exchange server - any hope of breaking into the business market is all but dashed.

Here's some crow for you. [apple.com]

Re:

[Andy_R]

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

You know less than you think

[SuperKendall]

Imagine Microsoft forcing windows users to subscribe to MSN in order to connect to the internet. Imagine Microsoft forcing their users to purchase all software through microsoft.com. Imagine if windows only ran on official Microsoft hardware? Would this strategy have been effective? Is this kind of practice sustainable?

Apple has shown that, yes it is tenable.

When you buy a Windows Mobile handheld today, how many other OS'es can you load on it? What about Palm? All these companies have shown what you claim