Slashdot Mirror


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."

43 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. A much better link by Raindance · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.
    1. Re:A much better link by glesga_kiss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:A much better link by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "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.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:A much better link by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:A much better link by trwww · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:A much better link by John+Whitley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:A much better link by lmpeters · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:A much better link by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:A much better link by Sandor+at+the+Zoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    9. Re:A much better link by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

  2. One approach by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:One approach by ncc74656 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    2. Re:One approach by Mattsson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
  3. Re:GPS by soft_guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  4. One Word: by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:One Word: by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    2. Re:One Word: by blhack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    3. Re:One Word: by filterban · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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!

      --
      rm -rf /
    4. Re:One Word: by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    5. Re:One Word: by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:One Word: by fishboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
  5. Two words: by MacEnvy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --


    ***
  6. Re:The big question.. by cowscows · · Score: 5, Funny

    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 time I threw a brick at a duck.

  7. Announcement may make some change their mind by thoughtlover · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    No sig for you! Come back one year!
  8. Not what Jobs said... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  9. Steve Jobs = Modern P.T.Barnum by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Steve Jobs = Modern P.T.Barnum by SashaMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  10. ssh client would be nice by drfrog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    #EOF

    --
    back in the day we didnt have no old school
  11. Re:GPS by PhotoGuy · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  12. Got one of those already by Namarrgon · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  13. OpenMoko by cxreg · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  14. i never even considered... by pjr.cc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  15. Well.. by skinfitz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  16. Re:GPS by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

  17. Dashboard, duh! by dr.badass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
  18. Re:Its not an exciting shift by fishboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  19. Re:It is all about control by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  20. Re:It is all about control by Mattsson · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
  21. developing the SDK by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  22. We aren't talking about OS X, or you or me by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  23. cell network incidents exist, like Pluto by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  24. You're half right by StarKruzr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --

    +++ATH0
  25. dumb anti-iPhone ass-troturfing by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.