iPhone To Allow 3rd-Party Development

Anarchysoft writes "In an exciting shift from previous statements, Apple CEO Steve Jobs revealed at the D Conference that 3rd-party development will be supported on the iPhone. Questions remain as to whether the opening of the platform, slated for later this year, will be through Dashboard-like widgets or a separate SDK."

Comments

A much better link

[Raindance]

This has been covered better and in more detail by Ars' John Siracusa. In short, Apple actually wants to allow third-party apps on the iPhone, and developers are salivating at the thought, since (beside it being sexy) it'd be much easier to develop for the "real OS X" that runs on the iPhone than some kludgy mobile phone OS. The problems are two-fold:

1. Cellular networks are fragile. Much more fragile than the larger internet. They tend toward monoculture and proprietary systems, and haven't had the shakedown that standard internet network hardware and protocols have had. So Jobs' quote about him 'not wanting third-party apps bringing Cingular's network down' actually makes some sense (some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past). And

2. Apple simply doesn't have the design tools, and more importantly, the user interface guidelines, ready for developers.

So, third-party apps on the iPhone will happen. Just in a very measured way.

Here's Siracusa:

Not only does Apple have to figure out what makes a good iPhone application, it has to actually create the APIs to produce such a thing. Okay, so no scroll bars, but surely there will be some standard way of scrolling, some standard gesture recognition engine, and so on. Apple has to create all this, if only for its own internal sanity, before it can really get cranking on iPhone application development.

And like the Mac GUI before it, there will be fits and starts, dead-ends, and bad ideas to shake out in the first few years. Also, an IDE would be nice. Xcode, sure, but some sort of simulator or remote debugger system would help. And, whoops, let's keep revising all those APIs and that IDE to match the best practices as they evolve. Oh, and by the way, we need to ship something that works by June 29th.

Viewed in this context, the calls for third-party iPhone development, and Apple's reaction to them, start to make a bit more sense. It's the prototypical fanboy mistake to imagine that the mothership has infinite resources and skills, and any lack of satisfaction is malicious. The fact is, Apple could not provide a comprehensive third-party iPhone development environment on par with what Mac developers have come to expect by June 29th, even if it wanted to do such a thing--and there are many sound reasons not to. This stuff all needs time to cook.

In the meantime, Mac developers will have to be happy with some simple, widget-like WebKit-base development at WWDC this year. That'll also be a nice gesture of good faith from Apple.

Re:A much better link

[glesga_kiss]

So, third-party apps on the iPhone will happen. Just in a very measured way.

Ballocks. The saw the intense negative criticism the original decision produced and changed their minds. The reason a sdk isn't available is because they'd never planned for one originally.

Re:A much better link

[LWATCDR]

"1. Cellular networks are fragile. Much more fragile than the larger internet. They tend toward monoculture and proprietary systems, and haven't had the shakedown that standard internet network hardware and protocols have had. So Jobs' quote about him 'not wanting third-party apps bringing Cingular's network down' actually makes some sense (some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past)."
Not really. Cingular offers several SmartPhones like the Treo and the Samsung Blackjack that run both Palm OS and Windows Mobile. You can add software for both those with little effort. You can even write your own.
I would say your statment is "optimistic" at best.
A far more likely idea is simply that AT&T and Apple wanted to make a lot of money from selling software for the iPhone for a while. Good choice on Apples part to decide that making the developers happy would pay off more in the long run.

Re:A much better link

[Anonymous Coward]

And with that one post all of Apple stories on Slashdot is summed up nicely with the Troll mod.

The public ridicule the iPhone has gotten since it was announced has been unprecedented for an Apple product. The price is, as usual, way too high. The feature set is laughable compared to other phones.

Apple is scrambling to try to salvage the public perception of the beleaguered product. Selling to only hardcore Apple/Jobs fans would be a disaster. A price cut is most likely the next move to try to get the general cellphone demographic to stop laughing at the iPhone and at least consider it as an option.

Re:A much better link

[drinkypoo]

And with that one post all of Apple stories on Slashdot is summed up nicely with the Troll mod.

The sad thing is that his comment is probably the most accurate interpretation of events. Apple stated in no uncertain terms that there would not be third-party apps on the iPhone, except through Apple. This is a complete 180 from their original statement. He is probably correct.

Re:A much better link

[trwww]

Cellular networks are fragile. Much more fragile than the larger internet. They tend toward monoculture and proprietary systems, and haven't had the shakedown that standard internet network hardware and protocols have had. So Jobs' quote about him 'not wanting third-party apps bringing Cingular's network down' actually makes some sense (some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past).

I have to disagree. I've been using and developing apps for Windows Mobile smartphones for almost two years now and the network has never been brought down with a third party app. All you need to develop an app for these devices is a copy of Visual Studio.NET. With those requirements, I'm sure every windows geek and his brother has written a PPC app.

Cingular sells Windows Mobile devices that people, which allow people to write and use 3rd party apps. Thier network seems to be working fine (in general). So it does work. I'd say that if 3rd party apps on the iPhone bring the network down, that (in general) it is a problem with the device itself and not the 3rd party app.

I think it is 100% the second item you mentioned. Apple just does not have what it takes to get an API available, but Jobs would rather spread fud than be honest.

Re:A much better link

[John Whitley]

The reason a sdk isn't available is because they'd never planned for one originally. Yes, you're a troll. But let me be clear about the kind: you have identified yourself as a gum-flapping moron who's never shipped code worth a damn in your life, especially an SDK for external developers. (And before anyone asks, yes, I have done both. In the same product, even.)

It's VERY hard to ship a new embedded platform in a timely manner with an SDK that supports arbitrary third-party development for a new product. So hard, that it's almost never the right answer to hold off ship to wait for an SDK. An organization is much better off shipping the working, robust 1.0 product into customer's hands and use that experience to build a quality SDK and toolchain. The platform itself is a sea of unknown problem domains ("arr, here be dragons!") for a "version 1.0" product like the iPhone.

Re:A much better link

[tepples]

All you need to develop an app for [Windows Mobile] devices is a copy of Visual Studio.NET. Does the "express" version work? Or would a hobbyist have to go back to school to get a deal on a more capable version?

Re:A much better link

[lmpeters]

An easy start for Apple would be to put a Java runtime environment on the iPhone. Then people could start developing third-party apps for the iPhone right now.

Re:A much better link

[DavidinAla]

You're asserting something as fact. Do you have actual knowledge to back up what you claim to know? Or are you just plain speculating?

I'm sure we know the answers to those questions, but let's see if you'll admit the truth.

David

Re:A much better link

[jesboat]

Who here's written a JRE? Anyone?

Re:A much better link

[VP]

Apple has - they have one as part of OS X.

Re:A much better link

[packeteer]

You have a very insightful perspective on the subject but let me show you a different way of looking at it. You are right that it is very hard to ship the product with the SDK but your advice to ship without the SDK may or may not be a good idea. On some products the SDK won't make or break the product, on others it will. In my opinion the iPhone is a product that NEEDS this SDK. If Apple takes your advice and ships the product with developers far away from creating any applications I think sales will fall short of what Apple needs them to be. Now if the iPhone is a solid product on its own for the price then people will buy it and it will justify the huge cost of developing the SDK.

I can see why a developer would really want to release the product without the SDK just yet but that may or may not be a good business decision.

Re:A much better link

[Anonymous Coward]

If you did your job right the first time, cleaning up for an SDK is trivial.

The absolute bitch is writing the documentation.

Re:A much better link

[Achromatic1978]

Cellular networks are fragile. Much more fragile than the larger internet. They tend toward monoculture and proprietary systems, and haven't had the shakedown that standard internet network hardware and protocols have had. So Jobs' quote about him 'not wanting third-party apps bringing Cingular's network down' actually makes some sense (some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past). And

Bullshit. Utter crap. Why is there this paranoia about the iPhone, when Symbian, Windows CE/Mobile have allowed this for years? There is no way an application on a device should or could bring down a base station, let alone a cell network.

Oh, and as for this gem:

bringing Cingular's network down' actually makes some sense (some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past)

Cite. Go on. I would so so love to see a citation of any evidence of this. Any, whatsoever.

Re:A much better link

[Sandor at the Zoo]

Cite. Go on. I would so so love to see a citation of any evidence of this. Any, whatsoever.

I can't give you a cite since it wasn't public, but I was there when the company had to roll out a quick release for an email client that was hitting the network at the same time every morning, from some tens of thousands of handsets. With cell time synchronization, that meant exactly the same time every morning, which was bringing down the C******* server that handed out data connection contexts.

Like you, I wouldn't have believed that you could bring down a cell network, but there you go. I suppose it wasn't really the whole network, but whatever.

Maybe they have more than one server handing out contexts now. Maybe not.

Re:A much better link

[geekoid]

and if they weren't planning to, it would be harder still.

Your post in no way counters his position. In fact, it supports it.

Oh, I have released systems and SDKs at the same time. It's hard, but not impossible. What it takes is planning and good management processes.

Re:A much better link

[0xdeadbeef]

Don't forget the Treo. People have been running applications on Palm OS-based cell phones for over five years now, on practically every carrier network, and it provides none of the modern security features of Symbian and Windows Mobile.

This security excuse is a massive red herring. Besides, if it were true, it would not be very flattering for Apple, for it would mean one or more of several possibilities:

1. The iPhone is not really running OS X, and lacks the security model of Darwin / BSD.
2. The iPhone is running an old or stripped down version of OS X, and lacks the code signing features of Leopard.
3. The iPhone is fragile, and third-party applications could easily exploit its flaws.
4. The iPhone is running a suite of hand-crafted applications written by experts, without using SDK-quality libraries.
5. Apple is beholden to AT&T, who wants the phone locked down.

Re:A much better link

[0xdeadbeef]

Embedded Visual C++ 4.0 is free. It works with the Windows Mobile 5 SDK. Knock yourself out.

But don't stop there.

Series 60
Palm OS (Treo SDK)
BlackBerry

Re:A much better link

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a feeling they're going to use a JIT Ruby interpreter (with RubyCocoa Cocoa bindings) instead of a Java VM.

Re:A much better link

[lmpeters]

You're missing my point. If there is already a build of the JRE for Mac OS X on PowerPC, and a build for Mac OS X on Intel, would it really be so hard to make a build for Mac OS X on ARM? Maybe it would be hard, but it shouldn't be.

Re:A much better link

[dr.badass]

Apple stated in no uncertain terms that there would not be third-party apps on the iPhone, except through Apple.

If by "no uncertain terms", you mean "very uncertain terms, indeed", then you're right. Clearly, people interpreted earlier statements quite differently. I for one never understood them to mean that there would be no third-party development, and I am not alone.

Re:A much better link

[His Shadow]

You Sir, are an idiot. The ridicule is from the collection of FUDmiesters that have set upon every Apple product since Jobs took back the company. The price, as usual, means absolutely nothing, but most of the types who bitch about the price are not going to buy one anyway. And just to seal the deal, you claim the feature set is "laughable" compared to the useless toys that providers have to give away. Congratulations, you are a complete jackass. Did you even watch the Keynote? Have you read any specs whatsoever? Yes, those questions are rhetorical.

"salvage the public perception". The amount of crow you dipsticks are going eat will hopefully choke you.

Re:A much better link

[Jeremi]

The public ridicule the iPhone has gotten since it was announced has been unprecedented for an Apple product. The price is, as usual, way too high. The feature set is laughable compared to other phones.

You forgot "Less space than a Nomad. Lame".

Seriously, I've seen nothing but praise and high expectations regarding the iPhone in the news. You must be reading different sites than I do.

Re:A much better link

[Anonymous Coward]

And just to seal the deal, you claim the feature set is "laughable" compared to the useless toys that providers have to give away. Congratulations, you are a complete jackass.

Was that statement an attempt to prove a point? You blindly mock "laughable" and follow up with your own generic term of "useless". I'm sorry but you are not Apple, the fact that you take a comment about an Apple product that has not even been released as a personal slam is very odd. I don't know if you realize this or not but you have NO involvement in the company in any way shape or form other then you have the ability to plop down a CC number and purchase their products.

Re:A much better link

[mr_matticus]

What original decision? It was never specified that the iPhone would be completely closed to developers. In fact, the integration with Google Maps points to exactly the opposite--third party services were integral to generating the hype and producing the product.

What was (honestly) disclosed was that no decision had been made about how open the phone would be to third-party developers. Obviously there would be lots of geeks and idiot bloggers howling for a completely open device blah blah. It's not like that outcry has actually resulted in someone opening a product completely, much less a company as control-freak as Apple. Obviously there would be an interest in developing for the iPhone and for the mobile OS X in general. Obviously people would be upset to no end if they decided to keep the SDK to internal developers or licensed partners.

It's not like they needed to wait and see if anyone would actually get mad. They already knew that they would be. It still remains to be seen just how open the iPhone will be to third-party developers. The SDK isn't available because they don't want it to be or it doesn't exist in a nice "small developer" package. It's as simple as that.

It's neither a gift from the holy Apple Inc. nor a flip-flop from the evil MAC [sic] tyrants. It's just a business juggling two different customers with contrary desires in this area: networks and end users.

Re:A much better link

[jesboat]

Quite possibly....

JIT would be different. Assuming they decided to scrap it for v1.0, they'd still need to figure out the UI, which would be very hard, given that the iPhone UI doesn't look anything like a normal OSX UI. If they could port AWT and somehow hack Swing into working nicely, that'd be one route. Another would be to write their own libraries, but that's at least as difficult as a full SDK, since they've almost undoubtedly not written the original code in Java.

(On the other hand, it does occur to me now that they *may* have a JVM there already for applet support...)

Re:A much better link

[LKM]

You're right, SDKs are damn hard, especially since you pay hugely for any mistakes. It took several years for the Mac OS X SDK to stabilize, and they had to keep supporting mistakes for a long time, all while still breaking third-party apps with new releases.

In our own product, we have the luxury of being able to break the SDK with new releases, because our customers don't just update when new versions are out. Apple does not have this luxury, and getting the SDK right is a hard job. Getting the iPhone out was probably their first priority - it even meant a delay for Mac OS X. Creating a proper SDK would have delayed the iPhone, no question about it.

Re:A much better link

[Anonymous Coward]

" I for one never understood them to mean that there would be no third-party development, and I am not alone."

Indeed. I understood the unstated principle that iPhone would not be open for half-assed crapware that blows up or fails to use the UI properly - because Apple has a lot riding on this and won't have iPhone gain a reputation for instability and does want to maintain a consistent user experience. For instance, a map application would be expected to zoom in and out using multi-touch, like Safari, rather than a magnifying glass tool.

Re:A much better link

[drinkypoo]

If by "no uncertain terms", you mean "very uncertain terms, indeed", then you're right. Clearly, people interpreted earlier statements quite differently. I for one never understood them to mean that there would be no third-party development, and I am not alone.

I didn't say that they said that there would be no third-party development. Please reread the following sentence from my comment: "Apple stated in no uncertain terms that there would not be third-party apps on the iPhone, except through Apple." I didn't say from Apple, and that wouldn't be a third party, anyway.

Re:A much better link

[drew]

You are correct, but the "troll" does have a valid point. If Apple had planned all along to release an SDK, either at launch or some time later, why did they spend months saying that they would not support 3rd party application development on the iPhone? Regardless of whether they could have had an SDK ready at launch, their other statements up until this point make this look more like backpedaling and damage control than anything else.

Re:A much better link

[LWATCDR]

This is why monoculture is bad. My guess is that the company that "Rolled out the software" was a cell company or a very large user. BTW had to program a network client one that had to regularly send some data to a server. Since the data was super time sensitive I added a random wait between sends so the clients wouldn't over load the server.
I guess those programmers are a lot less paranoid over bring down systems than I am. Of course if they used the RTC as the seed for the random number they could have still had that problem.

Re:A much better link

[LWATCDR]

True but I think Apple really wasn't going to release the SDK to start with. I think Apple sees the iPhone like it does the iPod. I really don't think they expected the outcry for an SDK for it. While some people have talked about wanting an SDK for the iPod nobody really demanded or expected one. So yes there is a good reason for the SDK to take a while but I do think that Apple did change their mind about 3rd party applications.

What nobody seems to get is that Apple changing their mind was a GOOD THING. That means they actually listened.

Re:A much better link

[glesga_kiss]

What was (honestly) disclosed was that no decision had been made about how open the phone would be to third-party developers.

Stop revising history, that's not what happened. It was quite clear that there would not be a public SDK. The only non-Apple people that would have seen it would have been Apple partners; huge companies like Google.

In fact, the integration with Google Maps points to exactly the opposite--third party services were integral to generating the hype and producing the product.

That's use of a third-party data service, not the development of third-party code. All mobile devices use third-party data services to run the mobile network.

Re:A much better link

[mr_matticus]

"Huge companies like Google" are still third-party developers. If you think history has been revised, please go back to the transcripts or videos of the original announcement and related press releases. Indicate where it says that there will be no third-party development allowed.

If you look at the Google Maps application on the phone, you'd see that it is far more than simply going to the Google maps website. I think you weren't actually present at the conference and you've never seen one in action, let alone discussed the product with its creators. The plan was always to include extensibility in the iPhone--just look at the flippin' interface. The only question was how open they'd leave the gates. Would third party software be released like iPod software, would it be released like Windows Mobile .cab files, or would it be somewhere in between? That's it. There has been no official claim otherwise.

Revisionist history, indeed.

GPS

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the iPhone have a GPS or not? I'd like to just use a phone instead of owning a separate in car navigation device.

Re:GPS

[soft_guy]

Does the iPhone have a GPS or not? No, it does not have a GPS. Lots of people wish that it had one. Lots of people wish it had 3G. I wish it had more than 8GB of storage (like maybe a 100 GB hard disk).

There is always next year.

Re:GPS

[Anonymous Coward]

Always wait for version two - expect 3G, expect more than 8GB of storage and pray for GPS.

Re:GPS

[Anonymous Coward]

But it does have bluetooth and there are bluetooth gps units

Re:GPS

[Anonymous Coward]

My HP 6945 has GPS, Windows Mobile 5 and pretty much every bell and whistle you could want... 1 gig memory card, is actually smaller then the iPhone is proported to be.. the iPhone might be sexy, but it is severly lacking out of the gate.

Re:GPS

[lakeland]

Which is funny, because I only want it to have 2GB... Since 8GB isn't enough to fit a decent percentage of my music collection on, I am going to manually manage what is on my phone (favourites + random selection + a few audio books). An extra gig of five won't be enough to change that so is not valuable to me. Now, if it went up to 80GB that would be a different matter because then I'd be able to use it differently.

Oh, and I do wish it had GPS (for the google maps integration).

3G, I dunno... my wife's phone has 3G and I have free bidirectional calling with my wife so I guess I'd get some use out of 3G if it had it, but I'm not upset by its absence.

Re:GPS

[unconfused1]

I'm not sure why this is the common argument. Is Apple trying to compete with every bell and whistle? Clearly not. In fact the problem with most SmartPhones is that they have nearly every bell and whistle but they aren't really 'smart' nor a very good phone in the end either. I'm not saying that SmartPhones don't have their niche...but Apple's iPhone points out all the functionality that SmartPhones just don't cut it with. The applications, the networks, the speed boost....all that will come to the iPhone, unless the critics abort the idea of something more functional and don't let the iPhone prove its point.

Re:GPS

[PhotoGuy]

GPS can be added in quite a nice way to Bluetooth devices. Devices such as the Holux GPSlim 240 (my preferred choice) are under $100, the size of a memory stick, and have one of the bets GPS chipsets on the market (works inside a glove compartment), and relays the GPS data to a Bluetooth device. Works perfectly with my UTStarCom 6700 Phone (Windows Mobile 5) and TomTom Navigator. One added benefit is that you can stick the bluetooth GPS device in a handy spot (on a dash, up on deck on a boat, etc.) to increase reception, while having your phone anywhere within reasonable bluetooth range.

Re:GPS

[shmlco]

8GB let's me get a good selection of music and audiobooks, a couple of TV shows, a movie, and some pictures on it while leaving space for contacts and for the 2MP camera to do it's thing.

Only having 2GB would cut out nearly all of the wide-screen video capabilities, as there'd be no room at all for the files. One movie is a gig-plus all by itself.

Besides, I'd say there's a slim chance (20%) that it will ship out of the gate with more than 8GB. Underpromise and overdeliver.

Re:GPS

[R3d M3rcury]

I don't believe so. But I'm curious whether the E911 system could be used in the phone in order to determine your location? There are rumors talking about this...

Re:GPS

[Sandor at the Zoo]

Yes, all modern phones have integrated GPS units (in the US, at least), as a requirement for 911 service. Whether it's exposed to the OS for use by applications is another question; one to which I don't know the answer.

Re:GPS

[Mattsson]

Does it have bluetooth? (Haven't been keeping up to date with what will be in the shipping version)
If it does, you can get a BT-GPS-receiver.
And if it has standard J2ME-support, you could use this until someone made a Iphone-native gps-app.

Re:GPS

[bar-agent]

Yes, all modern phones have integrated GPS units (in the US, at least), as a requirement for 911 service.

Not true. There are two ways to do E911: one is to use the phone's GPS chip, the other is to triangulate from cell towers. AT&T can use the latter, which means the iPhone does not need to have built-in GPS. But Verizon requires its phones to have assisted GPS, at least.

But even without built-in GPS, the iPhone seems to be able to tap in to the triangulation data. The commercial shows seafood places clustered around a neighborhood, indicating some location-gathering technique. Alternatively, maybe the user is connected to a GPS unit via Bluetooth.

Re:GPS

[R3d M3rcury]

Well, it's a commercial, so you can't necessarily trust it. Everything looks good in commercials. They just edited out the part where you had to tell the phone where you were...

Personally, I'd be curious about the accuracy of the triangulation data. My bicycle gear consists of a bicycle GPS, a phone, and an iPod. It would be way cool to have an all in one device (I'll even write the bicycle computer part--that would be fun!).

As I've said before, I'm not sure I think this is a good idea--I carry the phone with me for emergencies and I'm not sure I really like the idea of not being able to make a call if I crash because I've been listening to music for the last three hours. But mounting an iPhone on my bike as a bike computer would be really cool, even if I had to drag along a "backup phone" for emergencies.

Re:GPS

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

How About Wifi?

Then I could find my car in 50metres.
instead of just 10.

Re:GPS

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's iPhone points out all the functionality that SmartPhones just don't cut it with. The applications, the networks, the speed boost....all that will come to the iPhone,

Is this a cut and paste from marketing literature and we are all supposed to blindly agree or can you expand on any of this?

The Applications? HUH? You know people have been developing third party applications for years for the smartphones.
The Networks? I have no idea what you are talking about there.
Speed Boost? Again.. What?

Re:GPS

[cthellis]

Yes, I hear lots of people want their phones to be at least twice the size of a laptop hard drive...

o_O

Re:GPS

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people wish that it had one. That's true, if you meant a low, single-digit percentage of the target audience.

Re:GPS

[PseudoLogic]

Thank you Sir. This is exactly the product that I've been looking for. One question I have though is that the product page doesn't list mapping software in the package. What software are you using it with? Google maps maybe? Thanks.

Re:GPS

[unconfused1]

I think that your reply is just bait. But I'll take it.

Applications, huh? I said that the applications will come, just like they do for any viable platform, even the unhealthy ones, which I don't personally consider the iPhone to be. Yes, people have been developing for the Smartphone for years. However the people I know have developed on Windows Mobile v3-6 and they are none too fond of it. Having had a Smartphone I stand by the notion that Smartphones are neither 'smart' nor a very good phone.

Networks? Like other people than AT&T/Cingular. Eventually, especially if iPhone is successful, iPhone will be available for other GSM networks, like T-Mobile's...and on Sprint's CDMA network.

Speed? One of the criticisms of iPhone is that it won't support EVDO. But again...once models are created for CDMA networks, perhaps that will be a possibility. Right now it looks that Apple will target HSUPA in future, but honestly EDGE works really well for the feature-set they have on the iPhone, like e-mail, photos, maps, etc.

Again...Apple is betting that they can sell a product based on great design, ease of use, and solid functionality with a decent feature set. That is a very different mindset from those making Smartphones, which seem to just throw features and storage at a poorly designed device with a moderately adequate functionality.

Re:GPS

[wootest]

It is possible to reasonably pinpoint your position using GSM localization. The accuracy sucks (one order of magnitude worse than GPS at best), but it's more likely to be close enough in areas where you'd want to use maps - unless you are lost in the woods, that is.

Re:GPS

[PhotoGuy]

One question I have though is that the product page doesn't list mapping software in the package. What software are you using it with? Google maps maybe?

No software comes with it. Google maps (free) for PDA works well with it if you have a mobile internet connection with your phone (or laptop with Google Earth Pro, not free). I prefer TomTom Navigator, a commercial third party product, since it has all of North America in amazing detail (even here in the boonies), including points of interest (the smallest pizza parlour in my tiny town is there). Be prepared to get 1G of storage just for the maps, though (I went 2G, to put some tunes on there, too).

Re:GPS

[lakeland]

Interesting. Any chance this will be available for users (i.e. on the iPhone?)
I thought triangulating based on GSM signals was only available to carriers.

Re:GPS

[wootest]

It probably *is* available only to carriers, but wanting your own phone's location is a legitimate request, and I don't see a huge problem in the phone being able to request the estimated position. A service that allowed you to get your current position was launched in Sweden several years ago and I didn't see any mention of infrastructure upgrades on the carrier's part.

Re:GPS

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, well your orignial statement was not clear.

I thought you were implying that the current crop of smartphones do not have the speed, the applications, and the networks. They do and they are using them right now. No comment on the bells and whistles of smartphones, I only tried the Q and returned it to our IT deparment in 2 days and got my Crackberry back. Some people may like it but I am so used to the Blackberrys that I don't want to use anything else.

Re:GPS

[soft_guy]

The hard drive in every laptop I've owned was twice as big as the previous one and they were all far too small. My current laptop has a 200GB drive and I am rapidly running out of space :-(

Re:Goatse!

[moderatorrater]

At least you're being accurate...

One approach

[SuperKendall]

One thing Apple could do is allow software development, but only allow HTTP calls out of said apps - that way it would allow Cingular to shape traffic and not risk wonkiness from raw TCP handling by applications.

I'd be happy enough with an API that let me develop a simple interface that could store some data locally and sync with a computer, so even no network access for applications at all would be of some use (though obviously as the device is very network centric it would not be nearly as fun).

Re:One approach

[ncc74656]

One thing Apple could do is allow software development, but only allow HTTP calls out of said apps

That'd be less than useless...how are you going to do mail, SSH, VNC, or whatever if everything but HTTP traffic is blocked?

Re:One approach

[larry bagina]

CoreJavaScript (the KDE Javascript engine used in OS X Webkit) had raw socket support added a few months back. SSH and VNC might be a little iffy, but email would be trivial. Even more interesting: The google web toolkit allows you to compile java code to a javascript webapp. There were a few bug reports a few months back that alluded to building OS X Dashboard widgets with it. Imagine if you could write/debug java code, then compile it as javascript to run on your iPhone (or OS X/KDE desktop).

Re:One approach

[Mattsson]

Why would applications on an Apple-phone accessing the internet via tcp-ip sockets be more harmful than all the existing phones that enable just that?
On my sony-ericsson W810 I've installed things like a webbrowser, a Google-earth-like app, a ssh/telnet-client, a gps-map software, a ICQ/MSN/etc-IM app, all of which access the internet via tcp-ip, none of which has ever brought down the mobile network.

I can see how they'd be nervous about letting 3:rd party software talk directly to the mobile network, but tcp-ip access for 3:rd party software is already common stuff in mainstream, middle-end mobiles via J2ME MIDP 2.0.

Re:One approach

[ruiner13]

There are lots of applications that don't even need to talk to anything directly. A word processor, for instance. As long as file transfer works (which I assume it does), it can be used for that purpose. If Apple's only real concern was overloading the cell phone network, there would be no reason to not allow this kind of development.

I really think they were just waiting until they had a proper development environment for the phone to allow proper development. Getting Java running on this would be trivial since it runs on OS X already (if it even has it removed from this version). Java alone opens the phone up to a variety of already made phone targeted applications and games.

The big question..

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it run vista?

Lawyers are standing by.

Re:The big question..

[cowscows]

More importantly, once it's running vista, can you run a virtualized instance of linux on that, on which you run an emulator of a 6 year old version of palm OS. That way you can play DopeWars in all of it's 4 shades of gray glory. Of course, that's still worthless unless you can do all of the above from a terminal window on your powerbook, ssh'd into the iphone while it's still sitting in your pocket.

One Word:

[Penguinisto]

Skype.

If this critter has WiFi, and someone ports Skype to it, a damned fine radical shift in cell communications is very possible. While it wouldn't work outside of large metro areas (ones with lots of free WiFi, anyway), it would make phone companies, contracts, and all the BS that goes with 'em rather obsolete, methinks.

(then again, we'd likely see folks like Verizon et al start lobbying city councils to stop putting in free wifi, like Qwest and Comcast did when Utah began it's UTOPIA project of multiple city-funded fiber-to-the-doorstep projects all linked together).

Either way, it'd be damned cool, IMHO.

/P

Re:One Word:

[geekoid]

Yes, and the phone companies know this.

Once easy to access fee wi-fi hit's saturation, the phone companies become an emergency/ foreign access niche.

And even then it would only be to countries that don't have saturation.
A forward thinking CEO would embrace it and make money.

Re:One Word:

[Joe The Dragon]

a forced 2 year voice and data plan will stop that.

Re:One Word:

[blhack]

Unfortunately, the iPhone will NEVER become that great skypable device in the sky that we have all been waiting for for so long now. Apple is a business and a publicly traded one at that. If their phones became that cell-killer device, their contract with cingular would go bye-bye in a big huge hurry. Not to mention that no cell provider would want to come near the phone if that ever happens.

I am really shocked and, frankly, kindof disappointed in you here slashdot. The majority of you seem to have played right back in to the fanboism that you all claim to hate so much. You are excited that apple is allowing third party development of software on their device. It is the same as when apple allowed people to dual-boot windows on their macs.

Somebody please please explain to me why microsoft is hated more than apple....i really really don't understand this one.

Re:One Word:

[filterban]

You're right, and you have to know that Cingular is well aware of this issue.

The minute someone makes Skype for a WiFi cellphone is the minute people start using fewer minutes.

Of course, Cingular's still getting your money because you signed a 2 year contract to get the phone in the first place.

What will be really interesting is if Openmoko takes off. Then, there's no 2 year contract... say goodbye to margins!

Re:One Word:

[Achromatic1978]

You are, uhhh, aware that Skype is already available to several mobile devices, right?

Re:One Word:

[2nd Post!]

Why would you need to port Skype when iChat comes free with the iPhone?

iChat can do video with all other cam equipped Macs and voice with all mic equipped Macs.

On top of that, it can interoperate with the AOL video/voice client.

Re:One Word:

[rice_web]

Once easy to access fee wi-fi hit's saturation

A part of me just died.

Re:One Word:

[fishboy]

Unfortunately, the iPhone will NEVER become that great skypable device in the sky that we have all been waiting for for so long now. Apple is a business and a publicly traded one at that. If their phones became that cell-killer device, their contract with cingular would go bye-bye in a big huge hurry. Not to mention that no cell provider would want to come near the phone if that ever happens.

But it won't be because of some little contract with Cingular. You think that something Skype-like is going to kill the cellphone industry overnight, or even ever? Reliability is worth more to people than free calls on Skype, and what you're talking about is more than five years off. And it's not as though Apple is chained to Cingular, in fact, quite the opposite. Cell-phone companies will be falling all over each other to try and carry the iPhone after the exclusivity agreement runs its course. The current arrangement will be extremely profitable to Cingular, and others will be clamouring for a piece of the action, placing Apple in the position of delivering customers to suppliers, just like how the iPod delivers customers to the record companies via iTunes.

And, uh, MS is hated here more than Apple because they fight for more DRM, because their products suck and stifle innovation, because they create redundant industry standards and break them continually, and because they make hella money off everyone with illegal business practices.

Re:One Word:

[jesboat]

Mod parent up. (He's pointed out, if you haven't noticed, that the more people start using things like iPhone for Skype, the less cell service they'll be using even though they'll still be paying monthly fees. Or, in Slashdot terms,

<perspective of="cell phone companies">
1) Spend less on providing customers service.
2) Charge them the same amount
3) ???
4) Profit!
</perspective>

)

Re:One Word:

[Anonymous Coward]

What will be really interesting is if Openmoko takes off.

Not with a name like that.

Seriously.

Re:One Word:

[metamatic]

I've got Google Talk and Gizmo on my Nokia N800, which can be picked up for about half the price of an iPhone. It has a much better screen for web browsing, and pairs with any Bluetooth mobile phone if you want to do wireless data.

Re:One Word:

[Breakfast Pants]

"The current arrangement will be extremely profitable to Cingular"; how do you know this, without knowing how much Cingular had to pay?

Re:One Word:

[Nurgled]

OpenMoko is the name of the operating system and platform. The initial phone model that will use it is the Neo1973. That isn't a brilliant name either, but at least it's better than OpenMoko!

Word has it that the company making that phone -- FIC -- is already a big manufacturer in China, despite the fact that not many people have heard of them in the US or in Europe.

Re:One Word:

[XxtraLarGe]

Somebody please please explain to me why microsoft is hated more than apple....i really really don't understand this one. O.K., how about THIS?

Re:One Word:

[enderai]

Umm... This is totally false at the moment. There is no iChat as of yet, not even instant messaging, just SMS messages in a chat-like interface. Besides, although iChat is nice, Skype lets you talk to more people

Re:One Word:

[sootman]

Doesn't Skype already work on Windows phones? I know it works on my Axim PDA.

Re:One Word:

[blhack]

So you're mad because they started following apple's lead?

Re:One Word:

[XxtraLarGe]

What Think Secret did and what the developer in the Microsoft case did are entirely different. Did you even think before you replied, or do you hate Apple so much you let your fervor overtake your reason? BTW, I don't HATE Microsoft, I simply prefer Apple products and Mac OS X in most instances. MS Does make some good hardware & software that I like and own (Intellimouse Explorer, XBox, MS Office for Mac).

Re:One Word:

[Kazoo the Clown]

Somebody please please explain to me why microsoft is hated more than apple....i really really don't understand this one.

It's about adapatability. Mac OS X & Linux are at opposite ends of the adaptability spectrum. Windows is somewhere in the middle. And it's not simply due to open source, though that certainly helps. It's more about what sort of assumptions are or are not made in the software. The Mac universe too often confuses "limited options" with "ease of use."

omgz its da jesus (in phone form)

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, can we cut down just a bit on the iphone articles. We won't really know what it is or what it can do until it's been out for long enough to get over the initial inevitable noise-and-lack-of-supply issue.

Re:omgz its da jesus (in phone form)

[Guy Harris]

Seriously, can we cut down just a bit on the iphone articles. We won't really know what it is or what it can do until it's been out for long enough to get over the initial inevitable noise-and-lack-of-supply issue.

To what extent can all iPhone discussion be replaced by citations of the appropriate paragraph of this page? Other than the long delay between paragraph 9 and the actual availability of the product, to what extent does that not describe the iPhone product cycle so far?

Two words:

[MacEnvy]

802.11 sniffer
That's what I've been waiting for in iPhone news. Sure, there's the Oqo and some Axim-type devices that work for this, but very few that can harness the power of a terminal window, which I've been told (by an Apple higher ed employee) we'll be able to do on the iPhone.

Its not an exciting shift

[Timesprout]

Its an embarassing climbdown. Apple are notorious for tying to control everything, the negative feedback from the marketplace has obviously influenced this 'shift'.

Re:Its not an exciting shift

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah - real "notorious" when you've got BSD behind the lickable gloss.

You want to talk about trying to control everything, let's talk Microsoft.

Re:Its not an exciting shift

[Avor]

Apple encouraged developers to write for their systems. They even allow people to help with the OS. The only thing Apple has been controlling about is the use of their software on their hardware.

Re:Its not an exciting shift

[fishboy]

Its an embarassing climbdown. Apple are notorious for tying to control everything, the negative feedback from the marketplace has obviously influenced this 'shift'.

Right. You think that Apple hadn't anticipated a market demand for third party apps? Apple pays a lot of attention to the upgrade path and lifespan of their products, in addition to looking at competitor capabilities-- you think they are building in the capability of third-party apps as some sort of afterthought on one of the most anticipated product launches in history? Apple isn't some garage-shop start-up, some fly-by-night operation that responds to nerds on Slashdot.

Given that we all knew Apple itself would be releasing future software upgrade apps for the iPhone, it isn't hard to imagine they've thoroughly thought through having third-party developers on board. What Apple really is is notoriously mum on future products and capabilities, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to understand why Apple doesn't show its cards all of the time in scenarios such as this. History shows that Apple is not a market follower, but a market leader. Pandering to markets is very different from creating them.

And believe me, Apple is still going to control everything on the iPhone. There is no way this is going to be open season on the iPhone, not without taking over the device completely Amarok-style (which would result in a huge loss of system integration, the very feature that most poeple are willing to pay for). Apps are going to be added and removed via an iTunes-like interface just like games on the iPod, and Apple is going to stand in the middle taking its cut, but most importantly controlling/defending the quality of the iPhone experience, which is their most valuable asset.

Re:Its not an exciting shift

[Overly Critical Guy]

Uh, no. Apple is just secretive. They never confirmed nor denied any third-party support in the first place because they were probably toying with a public SDK to get ready in time for WWDC. Hardly an "embarrassing climbdown" at all.

By the way, Apple's control over their mass-market devices is what makes them so stable and appealing.

Re:Its not an exciting shift

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry you got modded flamebait for just telling the truth (and I say this as someone who is a Mac only person (iBook, intel iMac, iPod)). Apple certainly loves to cripple their products for no good reason (see the Quicktime limited functionality as a good example. In this day and age, what excuse does any company have to ship a video product that won't even do fullscreen unless you're willing to pay for the "Pro" upgrade?).

I just wish that, for once, Apple would let their products live up to their full potential.

Re:Its not an exciting shift

[DrRotwang]

Right. You think that Apple hadn't anticipated a market demand for third party apps? Apple pays a lot of attention to the upgrade path and lifespan of their products, in addition to looking at competitor capabilities-- you think they are building in the capability of third-party apps as some sort of afterthought on one of the most anticipated product launches in history? Apple isn't some garage-shop start-up, some fly-by-night operation that responds to nerds on Slashdot. Oh right, so it was all part of his master plan when Steve said third party apps are bad and the iphone won't support them. He decided to get some bad publicity from his developer base... for fun? Rather than saying "some third-party development will be allowed, more info later," which would have negated the bad vibes?

Re:What A Disaster

[Anonymous Coward]

> So much for the Apple fans who really believed that the world was waiting around to buy anything other than iPods from Apple.

I don't think so.

I am sure Apple fans are furiously mod bombing away at anything remotely negative about Apple, Jobs, the iPhone, or anything else related. And I am sure they actually believe the public desperately, droool!!!, wants an iPhone, Apple TV...

even if they don't know it.

Announcement may make some change their mind

[thoughtlover]

I, for one, balked at the idea of having such a sweet platform to develop nifty apps for, but no 3rd-party development allowed?? Either they release a full API for garage developers or I won't consider buying one. I still think the 2-year commitment to #%^&! Cingular is a bad enough 'deal'. I'm just freaked out at what the battery life is like. I can't see getting more than 2 hours of full use from it before charging again.

Re:Announcement may make some change their mind

[Kenshin]

That was a pretty good troll up until this point:

Any software not written by Apple will invariably suck.

Re:Announcement may make some change their mind

[geekoid]

oh noes! 100 people won't buy the iPhone! failure is sure to follow!

Re:Announcement may make some change their mind

[divisionbyzero]

Nice sig.

- Divisionbyzero

Re:Announcement may make some change their mind

[Therlin]

I'm also afraid about the battery life, which is the reason why I'll wait for user reviews before I consider it. I find it interesting that, as far as I know, Apple has not officially released any battery life numbers.

Not what Jobs said...

[SuperKendall]

At lauch, Jobs sais that there would be third party applications, but the reelase of them would be tightly controlled by Apple at first (he spoke of the iPod games as an example). Perhaps the wider availaiblity of an SDK is something new, but not the presence of third party applications or some kind of SDK at all...

If you think about it, the notion that there was "no SDK at all" before is ludicris. After all, Apple has to develop applications for the phone, right? Therefore there always has been an SDk, it's just a question of access to that and the ability to load new applications on the phone.

This guy is a developer?

[SilentChris]

"I can understand their concern where they don't want after-market apps taking down the whole phone network," said iClip developer John Casasanta, who called last week's comments by Jobs "fantastic."

Wait... did this guy just insinuate that an app on one guy's iPhone is enough to take down all of AT&T/Cingular's network? Or did someone add the word "network" afterwards? Suddenly I have a lot less faith in iClip (whatever it is) being a quality app...

Re:This guy is a developer?

[slumberer]

"I can understand their concern where they don't want after-market apps taking down the whole phone network," said iClip developer John Casasanta, who called last week's comments by Jobs "fantastic." Wait... did this guy just insinuate that an app on one guy's iPhone is enough to take down all of AT&T/Cingular's network? Or did someone add the word "network" afterwards? Suddenly I have a lot less faith in iClip (whatever it is) being a quality app... Um, where exactly did he say that "one guy's iPhone" would take down the whole network. I think the point is that the same app on everyone's phone has the potential to take down the network if implemented badly which sounds like a valid point.

Steve Jobs = Modern P.T.Barnum

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Apple CEO Steve Jobs revealed at the D Conference that 3rd-party development will be supported on the iPhone.

In modern marketing Steve Jobs has no equal. I think you'd have to go back all the way back to P.T. Barnum to find a similar exec in a similar industry (entertainment) who marketed his wares so effectively with personal announcements.

Re:Steve Jobs = Modern P.T.Barnum

[SashaMan]

Bullshit. I keep seeing all of these business articles talking about how Jobs is such a great salesman, and while he is, that is not the reason for Apple's resurgence in the past 7-8 years. More than his salesmanship, Jobs fanatical focus on building great products is why everyone is talking about Apple. People are excited about the iPhone not just because it's flat and shiny, but because it provides a level of functionality and user experience (at least as its been depicted so far) that no other cell phone provides. I want to by an iPhone not because it's cool (I don't even own an iPod), but because I believe it will offer an integrated set of features I can't get anywhere else.

Remember the Motorola ROKR? Not even Jobs could put lipstick on that pig. Jobs is a great salesman, but only when selling products that truly offer a better user experience than other products.

Re:Steve Jobs = Modern P.T.Barnum

[p0tat03]

Agreed. Apple (and Jobs) has consistently for the last few years been able to walk the walk and talk the talk. When they say something is going to kick ass, it generally does. Where some companies come up with overhyped crap, or under-marketed gems of technology, Apple seems to have mastered both sides of the spectrum.

HUH? WHADIDJASAY?

[ShrapnelFace]

This just in: More FUD. Steve Jobs admits he has no idea what to do next, makes contradictory statements that have nothing in content but are highly subjective to interpretive conspiracists.

One source is quoted as saying "Steve then turned and looked at his handlers and said 'Can you believe these Apple people? They're so stupid that they'll buy anything. Hey Tom! Green light on the iPOD Pet Rock'

In other news, Jobs, announced a new product call the iRock, a pet rock that sits on your desk and can play iTunes....

ssh client would be nice

[drfrog]

#EOF

Re:ssh client would be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks man, you just made me jizz... now I have to wash my boxers... again...

Details on "network fragility" please...

[jbn-o]

Cellular networks are fragile. Much more fragile than the larger internet.

What backing do you offer for this claim? Other posters on /. seem to be taking it as fact with nothing standing behind it.

The rest of what you're getting at is really no different from any other non-free software—the proprietors set the allowable limits of development via development kits.

FAKE

[Reality Master 101]

I checked out the link, which has a poor supposed copy of a page from the end of the book. The page has at least two glaring errors, that I won't point out, because I don't want the idiot who made it to fix them.

But if anyone reads this, don't worry. It's not legit.

Re:FAKE

[Anonymous Coward]

The page has at least two glaring errors, that I won't point out, because I don't want the idiot who made it to fix them.

I'm sure J.K. Rowling would appreciate it if you did.

Re:FAKE

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm sure her editorial staff has a lot of trouble with obvious typos.

Re:FAKE

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake. I can tell from some of the pixels and having seen quite a few shops in my time.

Re:FAKE

[Anonymous Coward]

You're referring to "rimulus," I assume. He's a new character. R.A.B.

This is because Apple wants control

[fishthegeek]

The reason Apple is opening up to third party developers is that Apple does want to retain whatever control they can over the platform. The iPhone will be opened up anyway whether it's some very skilled h4x70r or a professional is the only difference. By releasing a dev kit (they'll all but have to) they can retain a modicum of control over what is developed and how it will be deployed. This isn't to say that there won't be hacks available but at least whatever useful programs are written will be part of the Apple marketplace and not something from the evil tubes that they had no input or control over.

Got one of those already

[Namarrgon]

And so does my wife.

Hers is from Nokia, mine is from HTC (I'm posting from it). They both have wifi and run Skype (and SIP, which IMO is better). They both have 3G too. Mine also has a full touchscreen and keyboard.

What you're asking for has been available for years. All Apple has done is put a (very) slick UI on it. It's nice, but I'm still waiting for the paradigm shift to kick in.

Re:Got one of those already

[Telvin_3d]

"All Apple has done is put a (very) slick UI on it. It's nice, but I'm still waiting for the paradigm shift to kick in." ...said everybody when the iPod came out. Is anyone reasonable expecting a market change as big from the iPhone? I know I'm not. All the same, it is hard to underestimate the value of a good UI. There is a huge distance between having a feature and having the same feature intelligently implemented and easy to use. Personaly, if a feature is inconvientent enough to use, it may as well not be there.

If the iPhone can do only half of what the most 'feature rich' phones can do now, but implements those features powerfully and sensibly in a good UI, you'll see your paradigm shift.

Re:Got one of those already

[Paradise Pete]

All Apple has done is put a (very) slick UI on it.

And a better OS underneath it. And a better computer inside it. And a better screen on it. And a better browser in it. etc.

OpenMoko

[cxreg]

I know Apple is all trendy and hipster-friendly, but I'm much more excited for the OpenMoko platform.

i never even considered...

[pjr.cc]

When the iPhone was announced and later after i had a quick play with one, I had made the assumption that there would be a development env for it. I guess part of that stems from owning a palm pilot, etc you just make the assumption that you'll be able to write your own applications for it.

So to me the supprise factor of this article was more "oh, i didnt realise there was a question about that in the first place", but its good to know it'll be capable of it for sure.

Suprisingly, this article actually made me less excited about the iPhone and a little disappointed. The way the article reads, it makes it sound like apple will only throw an SDK at 3rd parties they choose and trust which is a bit of a shame really.

Well..

[skinfitz]

Steve Jobs revealed at the D Conference that 3rd-party development will be supported on the iPhone

Maybe I'll get one after all then.

What is the point of a portable computer as powerful as the iPhone if it can't run 3rd party apps?

Re:Well..

[SuperKendall]

What is the point of a portable computer as powerful as the iPhone if it can't run 3rd party apps?

Having preloaded applications that are actually good enough that you want to use them instead of third party apps?

Apple has managed this with OS X, would it be so hard to believe they could manage with the iPhone?

Sure it's nice to extend functionality, but the apps the iPhone ship with already offer a lot of useful features - including a web browser which goes a long way to obliviating the need for many third party apps.

Re:Well..

[Mattsson]

OS X doesn't come with applications that do more than a very small subset of the functions I want.
When I use OS X, most applications are 3:rd party.
So, no, I do not think I'd trust Apple to preload the Iphone with the applications I would want it to have.

Re:Well..

[skinfitz]

Having preloaded applications that are actually good enough that you want to use them instead of third party apps?

That is assuming that the included apps will cover every possible use of such a device, and that any third party apps will only be duplicating the built in functionality. I don't care how good a built in photo or map app is, it isn't going to help with language translation or give me the ability to make VoIP calls.

Apple has managed this with OS X, would it be so hard to believe they could manage with the iPhone?

Absolute rubbish. You are suggesting that OSX covers every conceivable function out of the box which is simply untrue. The words 'Photoshop', 'Spreadsheet' and 'Backup' immediately spring to mind.

Sure it's nice to extend functionality,

'Nice'!? I've seen some Apple apologising in my time but to seriously refer to the ability to run third party applications is 'nice' is quite something!

Re:Well..

[SuperKendall]

You blew any point you might have had by not choosing to address my point that many applications you might otherwise develop or buy for a PDA can be delivered over the web. Web 2.0. Perhaps you've heard of it? As in...

That is assuming that the included apps will cover every possible use of such a device, and that any third party apps will only be duplicating the built in functionality. I don't care how good a built in photo or map app is, it isn't going to help with language translation or give me the ability to make VoIP calls.

Google language tools.

As for a Voip app, I don't know if you knew, but the iPhone is kind of - a Phone! That you have to buy with - A plan! So an exciting feature is that by buying the device you also buy the capability to speak to others, via this "phone" feature.

And of course there are VOIP gateways that will forward VOIP calls to your real phone or initiate a call to you and your desired party - all from that darn web browser again, seemingly out to dismiss any argument you can come up with.

Absolute rubbish. You are suggesting that OSX covers every conceivable function out of the box which is simply untrue. The words 'Photoshop', 'Spreadsheet' and 'Backup' immediately spring to mind.

You miss what I said, which is that Apple has managed to cover a lot of useful ground and have good apps already included, I never claimed is was comprehensive for every need. Even your cherry picking of applications does not strickly hold up, as iPhoto is a far better choice for many people than the complex Photoshop. Wait a second. Wasn't Adobe going to also do a Web version of Photoshop? There's that Web thing again! Doesn't Google have a ewb based spreadsheet? Why I think they do.

'Nice'!? I've seen some Apple apologising in my time but to seriously refer to the ability to run third party applications is 'nice' is quite something!

Well I've seen some Apple critiquing in my time, but yours is only average and uses the same old tactic of verring off on wild tangents and blowing up some small point like it's the end of the earth if Apple cannot deliver feature X on device Y. Do you guys get a script? Can someone please update it? To at least include recent computer history in your meanderings?

Re:Well..

[skinfitz]

You blew any point you might have had by not choosing to address my point that many applications you might otherwise develop or buy for a PDA can be delivered over the web. Web 2.0. Perhaps you've heard of it? As in... ...as in lets screw our customers for data charges? Plus you blew any point you were going to make by comparing iPhoto to Photoshop below.

So your Apple apology is 'it's ok to not allow third party development on a device because... *drum roll* it has a web browser'? Perhaps you have heard of applications? You know - code that runs on the box and isn't dependant on things like, network infrastructure, service availability, data contracts?

Google language tools. Oh can Google language tools now play back audio samples of the pronunciation of words like the software I have for my Windows Mobile device can? Can they work offline? No doubt you will refer to Google gears, however wouldn't that require third party apps on the phone?

I used language translation as an example of something iPhone doesn't do.

As for a Voip app, I don't know if you knew, but the iPhone is kind of - a Phone! That you have to buy with - A plan! So an exciting feature is that by buying the device you also buy the capability to speak to others, via this "phone" feature. Yeah I don't know if you are aware, but sometimes we people who know there are countries other than the USA travel to them, and we don't like paying through the nose for international roaming, plus we sometimes would like to patch into our Asterisk boxen at our work places and make calls for free.

And of course there are VOIP gateways that will forward VOIP calls to your real phone or initiate a call to you and your desired party - all from that darn web browser again, seemingly out to dismiss any argument you can come up with.

You miss what I said, which is that Apple has managed to cover a lot of useful ground and have good apps already included, I never claimed is was comprehensive for every need. Even your cherry picking of applications does not strickly hold up, as iPhoto is a far better choice for many people than the complex Photoshop. Wait a second. Wasn't Adobe going to also do a Web version of Photoshop? There's that Web thing again! Doesn't Google have a ewb based spreadsheet? Why I think they do. I'm sorry but web apps simply do not cut it in the Real World. Perhaps at some point in the future, but as you appear to be unaware, there are a number of issues preventing this from being feasible for a lot of people - performance, bandwidth and why-the-fuck-do-I-need-an-internet-connection-to-u se-my-computer to name a few.

Well I've seen some Apple critiquing in my time, but yours is only average and uses the same old tactic of verring off on wild tangents and blowing up some small point like it's the end of the earth if Apple cannot deliver feature X on device Y. Do you guys get a script? Can someone please update it? To at least include recent computer history in your meanderings? Well perhaps you might want to read this story again, as your god has mentioned that third party apps will be supported on the iPhone, which is what my original comment was referring to. You have now revealed yourself as the know-nothing pompous zealot that you are by arguing about something Apple isn't doing, and as for tangents, you will actually find it was you who 'verred' off on a tangent.

Re:Well..

[SuperKendall]

..as in lets screw our customers for data charges? Plus you blew any point you were going to make by comparing iPhoto to Photoshop below.

You blew away your point of blowing away my point by thinking everyone needs Photoshop.

So your Apple apology is 'it's ok to not allow third party development on a device because... *drum roll* it has a web browser'?

The thing that blinds people such as yourself is the constant thought that workarounds are the same as apologies. I said I would like more ability to program - but I also said, that as a practical matter, much of what you might do with custom apps can also be accomplished through having a real web browser, with full Javascript functionality.

Are you so technically dense, or filled with hatred, you cannot acknowledge this practical fact of use? It would seem so.

You know - code that runs on the box and isn't dependant on things like, network infrastructure, service availability, data contracts?

In a device that you can only purchase with a plan, and is oriented towards continuous data access, those requirements do not seem onerous to myself.

You are obviously thinking of a PDA, not a phone. Why you are trying to turn the device into something different is your own problem, but really in the end irrelevant.

Oh can Google language tools now play back audio samples of the pronunciation of words like the software I have for my Windows Mobile device can?

Wow, that's not a specialized use or anything. But frankly I wouldn't be surprised if some web based translation engine offered audio conversion as well at some point. If you really need that - then I guess the iPhone is not for you, as it would not be for the other
people unable to understand how to pronounce words.

I used language translation as an example of something iPhone doesn't do.

It doesn't work as a blaster either. Another iPhone shortfall! How will it ever survive unless it can peel onions, or act as a minesweeper?

Yeah I don't know if you are aware, but sometimes we people who know there are countries other than the USA travel to them, and we don't like paying through the nose for international roaming, plus we sometimes would like to patch into our Asterisk boxen at our work places and make calls for free.

So what you'd like to do is buy a phone and an monthy plan and then not use them. Brilliant. What I do for international calls because American phone companies suck, is I have a phone I bought in the UK and then I just buy minutes on it when abroad. A lot less hacky than your solution.

I'm sorry but web apps simply do not cut it in the Real World.

Spoken like someone who has not used many PDA apps! Those are not exactly shining examples of greatness either.

Perhaps at some point in the future, but as you appear to be unaware, there are a number of issues preventing this from being feasible for a lot of people - performance, bandwidth and why-the-fuck-do-I-need-an-internet-connection-to-u se-my-computer to name a few.

You are mixing worlds here. The iPhone is a phone. It's not a little desktop in your hand. Buy an ultraportable, it appears nothing less will suffice for your complex and ever expanding needs.

Well perhaps you might want to read this story again, as your god has mentioned that third party apps will be supported on the iPhone, which is what my original comment was referring to. You have now revealed yourself as the know-nothing pompous zealot that you are by arguing about something Apple isn't doing, and as for tangents, you will actually find it was you who 'verred' off on a tangent.

Apple is not my god. But whatever dark master drives you to post things that make you look like an overexcited highschooler, will be pleased that you have continued your fight against "The heathen Apple Owners" that secretly control the universe. Seems like Zeoltry is more in being against s

Re:Well..

[skinfitz]

You blew away your point of blowing away my point by thinking everyone needs Photoshop.

Actually you are the one making the ridiculous claim by inferring that OSX does everything out of the box. Just because you might not need to do anything else other then check your email and use iPhoto does not mean everybody else doesn't.

The thing that blinds people such as yourself is the constant thought that workarounds are the same as apologies.

No, actually it's the constant 'no matter what the problem is Apple must be right' mentality.

I said I would like more ability to program

No you didn't...

- but I also said, that as a practical matter, much of what you might do with custom apps can also be accomplished through having a real web browser, with full Javascript functionality.

No actually you what you did was patronise me. Secondly you cannot get every app available running in a web browser, and anything that does run in a browser is totally dependant on network infrastructure which is simply not feasible and not to mention slow and expensive.

Are you so technically dense, or filled with hatred, you cannot acknowledge this practical fact of use? It would seem so.

It isn't practical.

In a device that you can only purchase with a plan, and is oriented towards continuous data access, those requirements do not seem onerous to myself.

Have you even USED a PDA / phone? Are you aware of the simple fact that you have to PAY for data? Are you aware of the concept of not being able to get service as you are out of range of signal?

You are obviously thinking of a PDA, not a phone. Why you are trying to turn the device into something different is your own problem, but really in the end irrelevant.

The iPhone IS A PDA which also runs phone software that can call to the cellular network.

Wow, that's not a specialized use or anything.

Imagine it! Someone having specialised needs! Hey wait - maybe there is a market for people with specialised needs, and hey - you know what? Maybe someone could like, write some specialised software that runs on a PDA or SmartPhone and sell it to people like that!

But frankly I wouldn't be surprised if some web based translation engine offered audio conversion as well at some point.

No doubt it will at some point.

If you really need that - then I guess the iPhone is not for you, as it would not be for the other people unable to understand how to pronounce words.

Really? And why is that as Jobs just announced that iPhone will run third party apps, meaning it's very likely someone will fill the demand for such software (more then likely it will be ported to iPhone from an existing platform). As I say - you are actually arguing for something Apple has just announced they are not doing.

It doesn't work as a blaster either. Another iPhone shortfall! How will it ever survive unless it can peel onions, or act as a minesweeper?

Actually my original post was about Apple saying that it will run third party apps, not that I wanted an imaginary weapon...

So what you'd like to do is buy a phone and an monthy plan and then not use them. Brilliant. What I do for international calls because American phone companies suck, is I have a phone I bought in the UK and then I just buy minutes on it when abroad. A lot less hacky than your solution.

...again with the 'I don't want or understand it therefore nobody does'.

Spoken like someone who has not used many PDA apps! Those are not exactly shining examples of greatness either.

And this statement said by someone who is seriously, and one imagines with a straight face, telling me to use 'Web2.0' apps on a PDA? Which planet are you on please?

You are mixing worlds here. T

Re:Well..

[SuperKendall]

Actually you are the one making the ridiculous claim by inferring that OSX does everything out of the box. Just because you might not need to do anything else other then check your email and use iPhoto does not mean everybody else doesn't.

As I said, I didn't say it does everything. I said what it does, it does well, and it has most things people need.

No, actually it's the constant 'no matter what the problem is Apple must be right' mentality.

Nor do I think Apple is always right. I don't think they are right to close the iPhone off to all development. But that doesn't mean I cannot or will not work around that as a problem.

No you didn't...

Read my posts in this thread. Yes I did. In fact I just did there.

No actually you what you did was patronise me

My natural response to unchecked arrogance.

Secondly you cannot get every app available running in a web browser, and anything that does run in a browser is totally dependant on network infrastructure which is simply not feasible and not to mention slow and expensive.

But you can get most of them. And how is it "Slow or expensive"? You obviously have not used Google stuff. You obviously have no idea the iPhone has WiFi. Is it any wonder I am patronizing when your posts are full of such basic, glaring errors?

Have you even USED a PDA / phone? Are you aware of the simple fact that you have to PAY for data? Are you aware of the concept of not being able to get service as you are out of range of signal?

You seem to be unaware of unlimited data plans, or (once again) the ability to use WiFi from the iPhone. Why do you think WiFi would be metered? You are too used to old crippled phones with trickle data plans, which indeed are not practical and not meant to be used as series network based devices. That's why I dislike so many other phones I have used.

No signal for data is a problem that EDGE addresses, being more widespread than any other standard. But 80% of my day I am around or near a WiFi signal, even if 95% of my days are spent within my home city which has edge coverage everywhere.

The iPhone IS A PDA which also runs phone software that can call to the cellular network.

Exactly right. So why are you talking about a PDA with network access being impractical to use as a network centric device?

Imagine it! Someone having specialised needs! Hey wait - maybe there is a market for people with specialised needs, and hey - you know what? Maybe someone could like, write some specialised software that runs on a PDA or SmartPhone and sell it to people like that!

And for the iPhone they will. Just not right away. And in the meantime, they can eitehr code or connect to a web app to meet a lot of specialized needs (including google translation services).

And this statement said by someone who is seriously, and one imagines with a straight face, telling me to use 'Web2.0' apps on a PDA? Which planet are you on please?

A planet that's about to get a phone with a web browser that makes such thinking feasable?

People once thought as you do now about desktops.

'Potential' for workarounds - I'm guessing you don't have a job where you actually have to implement solutions.

Then you'd be just as wrong as you have been so far. When delivering solutions to people, being practical is more effective than being too theoretical about edge cases. Deliver fast and often you know, rather than perfecting the Swahili translator before you ship.

So what you are saying is that because Apple decides that 'the general population' could only ever want apps X Y and Z that I will only need those too?

Given that you understand APple will eventually allow third party applications, I'm not even sure why you are still arguing. Apple has decided what base level of functionality is needed to be of enough use to enough people to sell. No more or less. Until we ca

Re:Well..

[skinfitz]

As I said, I didn't say it does everything. I said what it does, it does well, and it has most things people need.

No actually you said, and I quote:

Having preloaded applications that are actually good enough that you want to use them instead of third party apps? Apple has managed this with OS X, would it be so hard to believe they could manage with the iPhone?

You are clearly saying that Apple has managed to supply OSX preloaded with applications that are 'actually good enough that people want to use them instead of third party apps', meaning that people do not need third party apps. This is so wrong, we may need to invent a new word and re-calibrate the English language.

I said I would like more ability to program

No you didn't...

Read my posts in this thread. Yes I did. In fact I just did there.

I have and you didn't.

But you can get most of them. And how is it "Slow or expensive"? You obviously have not used Google stuff. You obviously have no idea the iPhone has WiFi. Is it any wonder I am patronizing when your posts are full of such basic, glaring errors?

I don't know how better to explain this to someone of your obviously severely limited comprehension capacity other than to point out that actually WiFi is not available everywhere for free, and as for 'most of them' I'm afraid you simply do not know that, because to know that information, you would have to know every possible third party application for a PDA and to also know of every possible web app. Admittedly there are only around six web apps, but still... wait a minute though - are you actually suggesting that you pay for a data plan and don't use it? Isn't that kind of like your 'I don't understand VoIP therefore you don't need it' argument?

You seem to be unaware of unlimited data plans, or (once again) the ability to use WiFi from the iPhone. Why do you think WiFi would be metered? You are too used to old crippled phones with trickle data plans, which indeed are not practical and not meant to be used as series network based devices. That's why I dislike so many other phones I have used.

WiFi is not available everywhere for free. Not everyone can get unlimited data plans. Data service coverage is not possible everywhere. Also I would dearly love to see any data plan that is free and unlimited in a foreign country.

No signal for data is a problem that EDGE addresses, being more widespread than any other standard. But 80% of my day I am around or near a WiFi signal, even if 95% of my days are spent within my home city which has edge coverage everywhere.

Oh well why didn't you say so in the first place?! Obviously as you spend '80% of your day around or near a WiFi signal' then this clearly means that I don't even need a data plan!

You are obviously thinking of a PDA, not a phone. Why you are trying to turn the device into something different is your own problem, but really in the end irrelevant.

The iPhone IS A PDA which also runs phone software that can call to the cellular network.

Exactly right. So why are you talking about a PDA with network access being impractical to use as a network centric device?

And now you are contradicting yourself? Make up your mind.

And for the iPhone they will. Just not right away. And in the meantime, they can eitehr code or connect to a web app to meet a lot of specialized needs (including google translation services).

..but isn't your whole point that people don't need extra apps, even though Apple have said they will allow it?

A planet that's about to get a phone with a web browser that makes such thinking feasable?
People once thought as you do now about desktops.

Yes you see those people are called realists...

Then you'd be just as wrong as you have been so far. When delivering so

Re:Well..

[SuperKendall]

I Said: Having preloaded applications that are actually good enough that you want to use them instead of third party apps? Apple has managed this with OS X

You are clearly saying that Apple has managed to supply OSX preloaded with applications that are 'actually good enough that people want to use them instead of third party apps', meaning that people do not need third party apps. This is so wrong, we may need to invent a new word and re-calibrate the English language.

Perhaps you need a word in the english you are using, which is quite different than the one I wrote in. "use THEM instead of third party apps" means just what it says - the applications loaded, over many third party equivilents (not ALL third arty equivilents) - such as many people being OK with iPhoto over Photoshop for what simple editing and organization they may need.

Your comment here was just so astoundingly wrong, that I didn't bother to read the rest of your post - who knows what other thoguhts sprang into your head unbidden, and unrelated to my actual words? You cannot discuss or argue with a madman, for whatever I say will simply turn into what you wish to see.

Re:Well..

[skinfitz]

Perhaps you need a word in the english you are using, which is quite different than the one I wrote in. "use THEM instead of third party apps" means just what it says - the applications loaded, over many third party equivilents (not ALL third arty equivilents) - such as many people being OK with iPhoto over Photoshop for what simple editing and organization they may need. Ah but you said those things in response to my original statement which was what is the point of something like the iPhone if you can't run third party apps? You were defending Apple's (old I must point) position that they were not going to allow third party development by clearly stating that one wouldn't need third party apps on the iPhone because the built in apps did everything you needed, and that Apple had 'managed this with OSX'. You said the web browser could be used for anything it couldn't do, which is fair comment, however simply not realistic at the moment because this makes some assumptions that data is going to be available, reliable, fast enough and affordable wherever the phone is used. Sure not everyone needs Photoshop, but then not everyone will be happy with iPhoto either.

I used an example of something the iPhone doesn't do which is a high end language translation app I have on my Windows Mobile device. You patronised me and said I could use Google language tools. Again I point out that this is not going to be better than an app on the device for several reasons including but not limited to the availability and cost of data charges. Your argument goes that because you personally can get free data or WiFi '80%' of the time where you live, for some reason this means I don't need third party apps.

Thinking of my language translation app, can you think of some particular places where one might use such a thing? I'll tell you - foreign countries and aircraft.

Allow me to summarise some reasons that immediately spring to mind why third party apps on a device like a PDA phone are preferable to online equivalents:

• Not everything you could want is available 'online'. Sure new things appear all the time, but how long are they going to last? Do we have service level agreements with these people?
• Data services (including WiFi in a number of cases) must be paid for
• I have yet to see the data tarrif that was even remotely affordable when used in foreign countries
• Data services are not ubiquitous
• Data services cannot be used on aircraft, (which is a great time to brush up on language translation incidentally, and often needed if one is reading a foreign language publication)
• 'Free WiFi' is actually quite hard to find in my experience. Sure you would 'war walk' until you found someone's wireless, however that simply isn't practical (and indeed is actually illegal in many cases).
• Privacy. Take a password manager app that I also use on my Windows Mobile device for example - only a fool would trust sensitive passwords to an online app.
• Performance. Using an online app is not going to be as fast as something installed on the PDA (unless your app is something that needs huge amounts of data and processing - an online map program is a good example of this - but that is beyond the scope of this argument).
• Reliability - ok you are on the train 'typing' something into your online web app, and you go through a tunnel and the connection drops. You just lost your data.

I didn't bother to read the rest of your post Oh I bet you did.

J2ME?

[jbarnum]

Will I be able to run / develop Java (J2ME) apps on the iPhone?

Re:J2ME?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it. When originally asked about Java on the iPhone Jobs responded, "Java's not worth building in. Nobody uses Java anymore. It's this big heavyweight ball and chain."

Re:J2ME?

[Paulrothrock]

Will I be able to run / develop Java (J2ME) apps on the iPhone?

You'll be able to develop apps, and users will be free to ignore them for apps that actually "run" rather than "amble."

Anyone who's ever used a Java app in OS X will understand. There's a reason I use Xcode rather than Eclipse to write Spring apps. And it's not because it's got a pretty interface. (Okay, well it's not JUST because the interface is nicer.)

Re:J2ME?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you looked at the context of his statement, you would have seen that he was referring to Applets, not the entire Java platform.

Re:J2ME?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Apple has never liked Java, and probably never will, but despite Steve's protestations to the contrary I'd be very surprised if the second generation iPhone doesn't have Java ME on it. The cost of the decision must be pretty high - after all Google maps, which Jobs' used to wow the audience when he announced the thing, is a Java ME app on everything else, so presumably Apple has to pay a biggish chunk of change to get Google to port it over to their platform and maintain it. Also in markets where smart phones are already pretty advanced (like Europe) it is pretty much impossible to sell a phone that doesn't support Java, so the general view here is that the current iPhone will bomb hideously outside of the States. In any event lovely though the iPhone's box is I'll be sticking to my Java powered Crackberry for now.

It is all about control

[burris]

All along Apple has planned to support 3rd party apps on the iPhone the same way they support them with iTunes/iPod: you can't get the SDK without signing a restrictive contract. A contract that gives Apple the final say on whether or not you can ship your application. Enforced through copyright; your app, when linked to their SDK, has stuff that Apple has exclusive rights over so you can't just get a copy of the SDK from a friend and avoid signing the contract. Some people are happy with that but it's a far cry from the software freedom that Slashdotters profess to support.

Ever wonder why there is only one music store that integrates with iTunes? Why all attempts to integrate anything fun and useful for consumers into iTunes are quashed? Because Apple is an extremely conservative organization that uses all of its power to suppress anything it doesn't like. Expect the same thing with iPhone.

Forget trying to ship anything for the iPhone that is innovative, contrary to the status quo, or competitive with Apple.

Re:It is all about control

[Overly Critical Guy]

And god bless them for it. It's the reason their platform is famous for its degree of simplicity, stability, and high quality. I'm not really interested in whatever backwater goofball app you'd concoct that would crash my iPhone.

Re:It is all about control

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah dude... The Man's trying to keep you down, with His dastardly smart-phones! Right arm!

Fuckin' clown, get a life...sheez.

Re:It is all about control

[Mattsson]

So if I'm not satisfied with what Apple chooses for me, I shouldn't be allowed to develop something that does?
If you're not interested in non Apple-applications, you wouldn't download it anyway, right?
Freedom of choice is good, even if it lets you make choices others wouldn't.

Re:It is all about control

[GaryPatterson]

*That* was modded informative?

It's just conjecture, guesswork and FUD.

Or is there some link to the iPhone SDK contract that burris can provide to prove the point? If not, then this is just a few paragraphs of FUD.

Re:It is all about control

[Overly Critical Guy]

So if I'm not satisfied with what Apple chooses for me, I shouldn't be allowed to develop something that does?

It's all up to Apple. And they have a huge fanbase that chooses their platforms specifically because of their high standards.

here is how

[geekoid]

You write an app the shares your music with anyone on the network.
Then 1,000,000 people are constantly hitting the network hoping to get your music.
Boom, saturation an the nearest node.

OR maybe they just don't want people writing apps that shares their music.

Re:here is how

[Anonymous Coward]

The examples given thus far involve an app being run on multiple phones that simply overwhelm a tower. Not that Earth shattering, heck, by that argument American Idol could be a problem because a telephone network couldn't handle the volume of calls.

Give me an example where a SINGLE phone running an application crashed a tower/network and I'll believe the argument.

Dashboard, duh!

[dr.badass]

Has anyone seriously believed that there wouldn't be third-party development for the iPhone? I was under the impression that the answer to that question was pretty obvious. The only question has been what form it would take, and even that is pretty obvious if you just look at the thing: Dashboard!

For starters, the interface has a lot of the same visual elements as Dashboard. The grille/tray, rounded-glass squares, identical icons. Hell, identical set of apps as the default set of Dashboard widgets. Dead giveaway. And why shouldn't it be the same set of apps? Apart from email, the main reason to have an internet-connected phone is for quickly fetching bite-sized chunks of information: exactly the sort of thing that widgets are good for.

Consider also that typical widgets take up very little memory and about the same amount of screen real estate as is available on the iPhone. On a Mac, this is because it is expected that you'll be looking at a bunch at the same time, but on the iPhone it's a perfect fit. For existing widgets, it's trivial to either modify the interface to fit the iPhone's screen or load a different interface depending on the platform.

There's no reason why every existing widget couldn't easily be made to run on iPhone, something that isn't true for existing desktop applications. That means thousands of applications available as soon as Apple allows it. Hell, developers don't even need to own or have access to an iPhone to be able to write applications for it. And before anyone screams "JavaScript Sucks", remember that Dashboard widgets can work with Cocoa, too. Off hand I can't think of much that you can't do in a widget. (For a good time, open up the Quartz Composer template included with Dashcode and ask yourself how much fun it would be if you could touch the cube.)

I know there a lot of doubters, but I think that iPhone is going to become the easiest mobile platform to develop third-party apps for.

Re:Dashboard, duh!

[drew]

JavaScript doesn't suck, unless you expect it to act like C++/C#/Java... The problem is there there are far too few programmers who are willing to treat JavaScript as a fully fledged language in its own right, and just view it as a crippled version of whatever language they do their "real" programming in.

So ship a more limited API

[Namarrgon]

Something that is already fairly well-defined & well-known, something that is sandboxed away from the underlying newness. That'll give customers some satisfaction while giving you the time to clean up and prepare the full SDK (which you're already trialling with a few close partners).

In fact, why not some sort of HTML-based mini-apps, like widgets perhaps? Oh wait...

Re:So ship a more limited API

[dr.badass]

In fact, why not some sort of HTML-based mini-apps, like widgets perhaps? Oh wait...

Oh, but then they'd have to ship new developer tools for making widgets. Oh wait...
Well, still, developers wouldn't feel limited if they had to do everything in JavaScript. If only you could use Cocoa in a widget. Oh wait...

Predictable Apple move

[Stephen Ma]

No, the iPhone is not selling well, so they are opening it up in hopes of expanding its market. The iPhone should have been open from the start, but Steve Jobs, as usual, has been too greedy.

Re:Predictable Apple move

[great throwdini]

The iPhone is not selling well, so they are opening it up in hopes of expanding its market.

WTF? Has /. become a playground for baseless assumptions? Apple/AT&T aren't allowing pre-sale of the iPhone, so how could anyone (let alone you) state whether it's selling well or not?

Re:Predictable Apple move

[Stephen Ma]

How many cellular companies have signed up for the iPhone? Damned few. So I stand by my assertion: the iPhone is not selling.

Re:Predictable Apple move

[Kymri]

How many cellular companies have signed up for the iPhone? Damned few. So I stand by my assertion: the iPhone is not selling.
Uhm. How about one: Cingular. Which has a contract that says no other company CAN buy (or, more importantly, sell) the iPhone. If they could, you'd better believe that Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint would probably fall all over themselves to carry it. (My own personal supposition/opinion, I have no proof of this statement.) Your assertion that you're standing by is pretty baseless, however, since no other companies are allowed to 'sign up for the iPhone'. Watch where you're standing in the future.

Re:Predictable Apple move

[Stephen Ma]

Cingular. Which has a contract that says no other company CAN buy (or, more importantly, sell) the iPhone.

My point precisely. Could Cingular have leveraged an exclusive deal (Jobs is a notoriously tough negotiator) if Apple had any other choice? Apple was begging for business -- any business -- for the iPhone.

If they could, you'd better believe that Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint would probably fall all over themselves to carry it.

False. Verizon was certainly not falling over itself to carry the iPhone -- they rejected it. Cingular was Apple's second choice (or perhaps third).

Re:ummm okay?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no wonder you eat ramen so fucking much.

You don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you probably never will.

Applets

[Augusto]

He was talking about applets people.

Then why Symbian and Windows Mobile....

[Wooky_linuxer]

Have no restrictions? The two OSs, no matter how they compare to OS X, have a plethora of apps, a good deal of them opensourced, available, with open SDKs and so on. You can code anything you want for Symbian and Windows Mobile platforms. So this excuse that an open iPhone will "bring the network down" doesn't apply, really, or it would have hindered the other platforms too.

Re:Then why Symbian and Windows Mobile....

[digitalchinky]

I'm guessing you've never had to wait in line for Nokia to approve a developer certificate for anything remotely more complicated than a hello world script. Ok, it's not quite that bad, but if you are wanting to change something as simple as the operator logo, browse certain directories, or access a few of the multi-media functions, it's not going to happen unless you have a few kilograms of cash in hand, and a good deal of patience.

I would presume the iPhone might use the same certificate based crap that Noika settled upon, hope I'm wrong on that though.

I do agree with you otherwise.

Not saying the argument is not odd

[SuperKendall]

I agree, other apps appear on other mobile phones all the time. I'm just offering alternatives for how Apple could work things if the problem is as they stated.

Perhaps the iPhone would offer a lower level of access to the network than other device APIs, which are not straight up UNIX after alll...

Apps I'd like to see on iPhone...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Salling Clicker
2. Mac HelpMate.. er, iPhone HelpMate...
3. Lux!!! http://www.sillysoft.net/

Anything else would be a waste of precious storage for my uses ;-)

No, *YOU* 'Submit'!

Praise, Villification & Sexual Innuendo

[Gary W. Longsine]

I have noticed that there is a remarkable amount of hostility in discussion forums all over the web, even though the articles by thoughtful reviewers tend to be rather positive, and clearly enough people are impressed by what they've seen so far to send the stock price through the roof. Places where there are only half a dozen comments, where geeks normally don't hang out and discuss stuff, places that are normally total fanboi sites that typically sport little criticism, etc. are littered with really hostile comments. One article at The Register had a discussion thread about stabbing an Apple fanboi repeatedl in the face for saying something nice about the iPhone. Good grief. I suspect a paid astroturfing anti-campaign.

Re:Praise, Villification & Sexual Innuendo

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you have people praising and reviewing a product that no one knows the price for, has not been released yet so no one has one, very few actual technical details have been released for it (commercials and stage appearances are nothing but pictures of the device). How can ANYONE review and make comments about such a device with such little information to go on? There are those that are already on board with the iPhone regardless of the functionality and features that get released. That is obvious and these people will "adjust" their needs based on the functionality it has (no third party apps? Well I dont need them, no FM capability? Who needs that). How can you think you are getting a decent "review" from someone that does not have the product, does not know the direction the product will be going and has already made up thier own minds that they are getting one and it is a great product? Hell, here we are a few weeks from release and the question about something as major as 3rd party applications is still up in the air, no one knows the battery life, no one knows exactly what will be included software wise on the phone, no one knows anything about pricing plans for data or voice, no one what type of reception it will get, no one has even navigated the menus on the thing. It is not an anti-campaign, it is people getting sick of others giving blind praise to a product that is between concept and release date.

developing the SDK

[Gary W. Longsine]

You're right on target. Furthermore, Apple has a long history, going back to the founding of NeXT, of being exceedingly careful with the publication of new API and SDK. They typically develop at least one application which makes extensive use of the new API, and ship that application first. Then they get feedback on the application, go through another app development cycle, improve the API, etc. Finally, after they are very happy internally with the API, they might publish a public version of it in a developer release of the next release of the OS, and get feedback from developers, incorporate that feedback to the extent possible, and then ship the API. Then, they sometimes go through that cycle again with the next release of the OS before the API has really settled.

This is a somewhat painful process for those of us on the outside, and it normally takes a couple years before the API is published. However, it has resulted in API which, on the whole, are widely respected by talented developers with experience on multiple platforms. Some of those API have evolved only modestly since initial creation, some of those over 15 years ago, and are still regarded as advanced and modern.

It's also clear that Apple will need to accelerate this process a bit for the iPhone, simply because they want to develop *several* applications internally. They need the API and developer tools themselves. The good news is that this will also give them the experience with making different kinds of apps which will help round out and debug the API faster. We won't need to wait two years for the first version of the API. There is a non-zero chance we might see it, or at least hear about it, at WWDC 2007, the Cocoa API, not merely the Widget API.

It's clear that Apple has legitimate reasons for wanting to get the application development stuff "right" on the iPhone. The app market on most of the other cell phone platforms is really a disaster in the making. In addition to zillions of apps that are utter crap, which drag performance of the device down to unbearably slow, which crash and which feature generally poorly integrated UI, there is the looming threat of malware. There have already been a few malware incidents, and one of these days there will be a big, big malware incident. Apple doesn't want to be the platform that got nailed first. They don't want to get nailed at all.

Apple was intentionally vague about the SDK at the announcement of the iPhone because they didn't have all the answers lined up, really, none of them. But there will be a 3rd part app market at some point. And it will be huge.

We aren't talking about OS X, or you or me

[SuperKendall]

OS X doesn't come with applications that do more than a very small subset of the functions I want.

Yes but we are not talking about a full computer. We are talking about a phone. Or at least a consumer device in a phone form factor.

It doesn't come with everything I would ever want either. But in aggregate, it comes with mostly what people need, along with a lot of what people would want - from an iPod, web browser, and phone. That's true enough for me that I'm getting one, 3rd party apps or no - again, a real browser means a lot of possibilities for light web based applications, that can live just fine on a low bandwidth diet.

cell network incidents exist, like Pluto

[Gary W. Longsine]

There have been a number of incidents with cell phone networks like this. The service providers are really freaky paranoid about updating software on the switches and other network components, and are utterly loathe to update the firmware on the cell phones partly because they live in constant fear of unintended consequences of change. The change control procedures on the software systems for the network devices are mind numbing.

These incidents don't get published, just like most worm outbreaks in large corporate and government networks don't get published. I know a lot of them happened because I saw them first hand. Can't prove them to some random snit on Slashdot, however. The victims are often more afraid of the bad publicity than anything else that could result from an incident, and they eschew publicity. (The world would probably be a better place if they did share these experiences more widely, because lessons could be learned, software and procedures improved, etc., but that's not how managers of bureaucratic organizations operate just yet.)

To those demanding to see a link, I say: Well, since most of the people who actually know things like this are restricted by NDA agreements and also have the integrity to honor those agreements, perhaps first, you prove to us that pluto exists. I'm not talking about some white dot that could be a pin prick on a slide. You don't really know that Pluto exists, and nobody here has time to educate you in both epistemology and information technology so that you understand enough that we can "prove" everything to your pathetic satisfaction. Before mouthing off and demanding a link as though that constituted proof, maybe you should start by asking yourselves, "hrm... why would he lie about this?" If there are no compelling motivations for a big lie, then maybe, just maybe, he's not lying. Or maybe you don't believe him because you yourselves lie so often that you don't believe anyone else? What a sad life that must be.

Re:cell network incidents exist, like Pluto

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen Pluto, touched him too, down at The Magic Kingdom

http://disney.go.com/characters/mickey/html/meet/p luto.html
Disney.com

Re:cell network incidents exist, like Pluto

[bwalling]

I've seen Pluto, touched him too, down at The Magic Kingdom

I hate to be a jerk and all, but that was just some guy in a costume. Please tell your mommy I'm sorry I revealed the lie, but I needed to restore the integrity of Slashdot and couldn't allow such a misinformed post to stand without rebuttal.

I just don't buy it. But...

[StarKruzr]

some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past

If you could point me to a story about a time this has actually happened, I would love to read it. How is this even possible? It's like an application "breaking the internet." There is massive traffic shaping done on cellular data networks and the OS never has raw bit-writing ability to the cell network; everything is always done through a tightly-locked proprietary software interface.

Oh, and by the way, we need to ship something that works by June 29th.

No, I agree with you, this is utterly absurd. I don't expect a fully-functioning Xcode module (plus simulator, plus debugging, etc.) at all at launch, but it is very, VERY nice to know Apple has decided to be good to their customers and actually allow the platform to be open. I'm practically salivating at the thought of Terminal on my iPhone :D

NOW, I might actually consider getting one, if I can find a buyer for my HTC TYTN (Cingular 8525). I never would have considered it before this announcement.

Man. Perfect integration with iCal, Mail and Address Book, plus whatever GNU apps I want, plus whatever else I can think of. Pure awesome.

You're half right

[StarKruzr]

It got a lot of public ridicule, but they still sold out their pre-orders in many places.

I think the reason this change happened is because someone at Apple ran the numbers and realized they could find themselves in a position to make simply UNGODLY amounts of money off businesses of every size from mom-and-pop outfits to multinational conglomerates if they could find an effective way to create a software ecosystem around the iPhone. Now everything from your stupid little cash register applications all the way up to massive CRM systems can talk to the iPhone, and the iPhone can talk to them.

This is the first real, commercially-viable UNIX-esque cellular device out there. Apple also has a chance to place themselves in the position of being THE SOLE PRODUCER of a standardized, next-generation UNIX handheld.

This was a very, very good move on their part. Even the price won't stop the iPhone now.

dumb anti-iPhone ass-troturfing

[Gary W. Longsine]

I'm just saying. There is entirely too much utter baseless crap like this in all the forums. I'm guessing a paid campagin.

distributed apps are the risk

[Gary W. Longsine]

Misbehaved applications or operating systems, distributed widely, can perform the accidental equivalent of accidental Denial of Service attacks. It happens. If it happened on the iPhone, Apple might suffer greatly. Their stock price would plummet. Sales might lag for months. They might find it harder to get agreements with carriers.

Just because Symbian, PalmOS, and Windows Mobile platforms allow uncontrolled developent and distribution of 3rd party applications doesn't means that this isn't a somewhat risky proposition for the network provider and platform maker. Given the sheer volume of scrutiny that Apple is getting as a result of being a late entrant to the cell phone market, I'd say their caution is warranted. I'd love to see them thinking hard enough about this issue to come up with some ways to help prevent it on their platform. Signed applications distributed through Apple? That might be a pretty reasonable model for a while. Who knows, maybe it would work so well that the model could be extended to the desktop/laptop market without adversely affecting consumers or 3rd party software developers. Maybe they'll decide to open it up wide later, but when they are getting started, I'm happy enough to see them exercising caution on this issue. It's probably not the *only* reason they are being cautious with the SDK/API, but it's certainly a real *enough* reason. It's not a smokescreen.

get with the program

[nanosquid]

Windows Mobile, Palm, Linux, and Nokia's Symbian devices all are fully programmable and let you make arbitrary network connections. Nokia gives you Python and C for Symbian. Heck, talk about "programmable devices on the cellular network", I'm writing this through the cellular network from a MacBook Pro. And if your carrier doesn't offer the phone you want, you can use an unlocked phone on any of the GSM carriers (AT&T/Cingular being one of them). If the carrier wants to limit your network connections, they don't have to limit the phone, they do it like any sensible network admin--by configuring their routers.

Steve Jobs's attempts to present himself as the champion of consumers against monopolistic cell phone companies are bullshit. The iPhone can't be any more programmable or any less restricted than many other devices because many other devices are fully programmable, down to hacking the OS. If the iPhone delivers anything short of a full OS X programming environment, it's simply not in the same league as other smart phones. Dashboard Widgets won't do.

dashboard widgets now

[nanosquid]

If you want Dashboard-like widgets for your phone, there's WidSets. They're designed from the ground up for cell phone usage, including cell phone screen sizes and keyboards, and they work on many different cell phones.

Wont do for you

[SuperKendall]

Just because you (or even I) could make use of a fuller programming environment (I've programmed some Palm apps before, and also some J2ME applications for cell phones) does not mean that the ability to craft Dashboard applications and deploy them to the iPhone is not enough for most people.

Re:Wont do for you

[nanosquid]

Whether it's "enough" is not the issue. The issue is that Jobs is lying through his teeth when he claims that any limitations that iPhone may have in terms of programmability are necessitated by network or carrier issues.

Furthermore, it's not about me writing applications. I have never written any applications for my Palm, but I am using about a dozen freeware and shareware apps on the Palm. In contrast, the iPod applications market, which is similarly restricted courtesy of Apple, is pretty pathetic. Many users benefit from the ability to develop and deploy on such a platform freely.

Re:Wont do for you

[Anonymous Coward]

You're damn straight. Jobs reality distortion at work - tell you about a limitation as though it's a feature that you should aspire to have.

It's not just Jobs. Palm did this all the time when their simple (unsophisticated) OS had piles of limitations and new devices came out which did more. They brayed about the 'Zen of Palm'. And there is some truth to both Palm and Jobs in these instances. But regardless of the element of truth, they are spinning like any politician to change the debate to something they can win.

Since they can't win on your ground (e.g. you say Jobs is lying through his teeth) he spins the ground to show how they really want to but won't, because they want to do it RIGHT. And there is merit to that approach. But ultimately it fails the objective test you set out, Jobs is just trying to convince you that your objective criteria is somehow wrong and undesirable.

Java on the iPhone will never happen

[LKM]

Multitouch support? UI Guidelines? Java on the iPhone is not going to happen.

Re:Java on the iPhone will never happen

[lmpeters]

Oh, I think it will. First of all, the point-and-click paradigm used by virtually all GUI's today is a SUBSET of the multitouch paradigm. You can just set it to ignore simultaneous input to two different parts of the screen and the vast majority of Java apps should work just fine. Second, UI guidelines (insofar as they're not imposed by hardware limitations such as screen size) are merely recommendations--Apple cannot and does not enforce them with third-party developers.

Besides, if the iPhone's web browser is going to work as well as Safari on the full version of Mac OS X, it needs to have Java support. Java may not be as popular as it once was, but it IS still used on the web.

Re:Java on the iPhone will never happen

[LKM]

Oh, I think it will. First of all, the point-and-click paradigm used by virtually all GUI's today is a SUBSET of the multitouch paradigm. You can just set it to ignore simultaneous input to two different parts of the screen and the vast majority of Java apps should work just fine.

Sure, you could, but why would Apple want to do that?

Besides, if the iPhone's web browser is going to work as well as Safari on the full version of Mac OS X, it needs to have Java support.

Apple already announced that there will be no Java support in iPhone Safari.

Re:Java on the iPhone will never happen

[lmpeters]

Sure, you could, but why would Apple want to do that?

Given the enormous price tag on the iPhone, I think that third-party software is pretty much the only way Apple is going to be able to sell iPhones. This would make it a lot easier for third-party developers to write software for the iPhone.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is an ideal solution; I'm just saying it would be "good enough". And I think having a less-than-ideal solution when it ships is preferable to waiting eight more months for a full-blown iPhone SDK (which should have been ready to ship at the same time as the iPhone itself). But some might disagree with me on that point.

Apple already announced that there will be no Java support in iPhone Safari.

That's lame.

Re:Java on the iPhone will never happen

[LKM]

Sure, you could, but why would Apple want to do that?

Given the enormous price tag on the iPhone, I think that third-party software is pretty much the only way Apple is going to be able to sell iPhones.

I think you think wrong :-)

Apple will sell a shitload of these, with third-party apps or without. Java apps on the iPhone won't make a difference to most people.

Personally, I agree that Java apps on the iPhone would be great. I just don't think there's any incentive for Apple to do one. They'll sell as many iPhones as they can make for at least half a year, SDK be damned.

That's great

[Namarrgon]

No, really. And as soon as Apple make an iPhone with the features I actually want, then I'll gladly buy one. They look like lots of fun.

OS, CPU, screen, etc are all just icing on the cake. They don't do anyone any good without real underlying features that the user wants - "potential" doesn't sell hardware to anyone except early adopters. However, if the user just happens to want an iPod and a wifi browser with their phone, then the slick UI will make it very accessible.

Well, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the point of a portable computer as powerful as the iPhone if it can't run 3rd party apps?

Um... It's a cell phone with a kick-ass interface and some very neat capabilities, not a portable computer.

While being able to write applications for it might be very nice indeed, if you want a portable computer, buy a damned Ibook. Proper tools, and all that.

Except...

[Namarrgon]

The whole point of Cocoa widget plug-ins is to escape the sandbox & allow widgets greater access to the underlying OS - exactly what Apple would be trying to avoid.

Don't expect support for those for a while.

I agree absolutely

[Namarrgon]

I love the iPhone's UI, and multitouch is a marvellous thing. I'm sure it'll sell very well indeed, especially once the price gets down. I'm just waiting for a "smartphone" version with 3G, a scrollwheel (very convenient for one-handed operation), perhaps a keyboard, full third-party app support... that sort of thing.

if a feature is inconvientent enough to use, it may as well not be there.

Certainly true for some segments of the market. However, if the feature you need isn't there at all, it doesn't matter how good the UI is.

BTW, by "paradigm shift" I was referring to the GP's mention of Skype, and mobile VoIP in general. Basically, it's not going to happen until we either have 3G & cheap data plans, ubiquitous free wifi, or something completely new & exciting...

How about calls to another phone?

[Namarrgon]

Does iChat have an equivalent to SkypeOut? Can you call other phones, and not just computers? If so, then yeah, perhaps that's all you need.

Personally I prefer SIP-based VoIP clients, as that's non-proprietary and in much more widespread use. A lot of ADSL modems have SIP-based VoIP built-in these days, and SIP clients are widely available, for PCs and many smartphones too. Plus, international calls for under 10c untimed are not to be sneezed at.

Re:How about calls to another phone?

[2nd Post!]

Weird. iChat is SIP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Session_Initiation_Pr otocol

Whoa there people

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> iPhone To Allow 3rd-Party Development

I'm waiting for the " but "

I wouldn't bet the company

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are gonna do a 'bet the company' move, you might loose. Hard.

Ask the people who lacked good contracts with Apple over the Newton. Or the Red Box line. Or PPC. Or the Apple ///. Or the Apple ][ line.

If you have a good contract like Power computing or the gent (Northcott?) who had the Japanese market Newton contract....you'll be taken care of.

Linux running on iPhone by June 30?

[peter303]

Is 24 hours too long for first hack?

I beg to differ.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the people here on slashdot and some power users would love the ability to install external applications.
But for the people who buy this that are just your average joes with some extra cash on their hands, how much will they care about being to install extra applications?
i think very little. it's hardly make or break for Apple, what's going to make or break this phone is if it provides the same easy to use environment as the ipod.
So we'll have to wait and see (and for those of us in Asia, we'll have to wait and see a little longer that the rest of you) what the verdict of the "common man" is. If it's smooth sailing, then Apple will most likely have another runaway success on its hands, especially once the price drops.

Re:I beg to differ.

[glesga_kiss]

But for the people who buy this that are just your average joes with some extra cash on their hands, how much will they care about being to install extra applications?

Here in the UK there is a huge market for games, ringtones, screensavers and backdrops on mobiles. On some TV channels adverts for these consist mostly of these services.

Time to Buy More

[olddotter]

Is it time to buy more stock?

This might be the most exciting change I have heard about the iPhone in months of Hype!

Fanboy paranoia

[Stephen Ma]

I own a PC, and I run Linux on it. That is the entire extent of my relationship, direct or indirect, with any of Apple's competitors. Are you satisfied?

Steve Jobs stole from his own partner (Wozniak) when both were poor. So I am not speculating when I say that Jobs is greedy.

Look this isn't news here.

[DrRotwang]

This is not news. Not at all. Jobs had originally said that the iphone will only support third party apps that Apple approves of. That's still what will happen. TFA practically said it outright, look:

"We're working through a way [to support third-party development]," Jobs said. "We've got some pretty good ideas that we're working through, and I think sometime later this year we will find a way to let third parties write apps and still preserve security." And what "idea" will he pick? Later on in TFA:

NPD analyst Rubin sees iTunes as being one possible vehicle for delivering applications to the iPhone. Besides giving users a familiar interface, it will also give Apple the chance to certify applications for the device. In other words, we'll get exactly what control-freak Jobs said we'd get. The iphone will be closed. You can't put a third party app on the phone if apple doesn't put it on itunes.

Woz!

[Gary W. Longsine]

Dude. I should have guess it was you. So sorry.

Completely wrong

[glesga_kiss]

But let me be clear about the kind: you have identified yourself as a gum-flapping moron who's never shipped code worth a damn in your life, especially an SDK for external developers.

The company I work for makes an SDK for their platform. It has all the usual things, code context assist, code completion, step debugging, graphical data adapters etc. It's a huge BPM platform. I personally have 13 years software development experience and I've "shipped code" with two of the five largest IT companies on the planet.

Who's the gum-flapping moron?

It's VERY hard to ship a new embedded platform in a timely manner with an SDK that supports arbitrary third-party development for a new product.

So? That isn't the reason there isn't an SDK for the iPhone. It's because they never planned to do it.

Maybe Ballmer was right...

[omahajim]

Developers Developers Developers Developers

Developers Developers Developers Developers

[lather rinse repeat ad naseum]

Repeat After Me: It's a PHONE.

[Spencerian]

I am not a programmer by trade.
I am a phone user, however.

Those of you who have "smartphones" (the term may get blurry as the iPhone debuts) have had crashes in apps, or even the phone itself as you added software or hardware. My Treo is OK, and hasn't given me problems, but its not a very robust thing, either.

Aside from probably not having a true SDK ready, Apple is trying to avoid Terrible Things. The iPhone isn't a computer per se. It's not only an information device as computers are, but a life-saving device for 911 calls and such. The last thing Apple or AT&T want to see is a news report like "Man Dies When iPhone Crashes" after he installed some "nifty" gadget that some third party made that caused a serious failure for the guy's phone in the middle of nowhere, causing him to burn or freeze from exposure. Phones must just work.

The webapps solution was a good compromise (which is also why PC users got Safari to aid in this). Hopefully there may be less regulation on more complex app development, but for now, less is more.

Note

[SuperKendall]

After today, it seems Apple agrees exactly with what I said. Applications are Web 2.0 with some extension access to phone features.

Re:Note

[skinfitz]

Quite.

Looks like I'll be sticking with an open platform in the short term at least.