Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Welcomes Programmers for All Phones Except the iPhone
An anonymous reader writes "Apple's reasoning for keeping the iPhone a closed platform is that they don't want to 'potentially gum up the provider's network'. An article in the New York Times, though, points out that there are hundreds of phones out there working on open platforms that don't seem to be causing network interference. AT&T and Palm, in fact, welcome experimentation on their platforms. In AT&T's case ... on every phone but the iPhone. 'Hackers who have explored the workings of the phone say it uses the frameworks and structures that Apple uses on its other platforms to enable development; it just hasn't been documented. So if Apple is going to allow applications later, is there any reason -- other than vindictiveness or obsessive interest in control -- that it would want to cut off those developed by the pioneers who figured things out ahead of the official launch?'"
Control I buy into, but vindictive?
My guess is that the short answer is "Yes", and the long answer is "Yes, AT&T cut them a big fat check to do exactly that."
I've said from the beginning that the reason Apple's iPhone was closed to outside development was due to Apple, and not to AT&T. Apple is obsessive about controlling the end-user experience, so they don't want any third-party development on the iPhone. And what happened? I got accused of starting flamewars by rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth Mac fanbois.
There's nothing wrong with Apple intent on the iPhone. It's their product and they can market and sell it how they see fit. If you don't like it, don't buy an iPhone.
My blog
errr....
never mind.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I remember back when Apple was going after people selling mac roms for Amiga emulators.
Apple has always been proprietary and exercised iron-fisted control over what THEY want done with the hardware they sell for a profit. Why are the iPhone actions such a surprise?
If they don't want people messing with their precious phone, then don't buy one. I know that won't play well in the Reality Distortion Field, but their stubborness should not be rewarded.
Now, if it were actually the case that the service providers in the States actually wanted developers to do nifty stuff, then I think the pace of innovation on mobile phones would be quite different. Most of the wireless network providers don't want you to do neat things because that's money out of their pocket.
If there's a benevolent provider, please speak up.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Give us insane amounts of money.
No, you can't THAT with an iPhone.
We are going to bill you so hard you'll wish you were never born.
No, you can't do THAT with an iPhone either
We'll drop the price right away just to rub in what a stupid amount of money first adopters forked over
No, no NO! stop trying to use your iPhone in any way we haven't sanctioned
Doctor:
Notice how the subject keeps coming back for more and thanking us for it? The next update will cause the phone to shock the user at random times. We will see how THAT gets spun into an innovative feature that the users thank us for.
[insert evil laugh here]
The most obvious reason for me would seem to be simply avoid responsibility for the API until it is fully matured? Surely, if they were to release their API for the entire multi-touch aspect of the iPhone and iPod Touch at this point, they would be in a position where they have a lot of responsibilities:
* extensively documenting the API for a broad base instead of only for internal usage
* testing for possible bugs for usecases which are not relevant in Apple's internal usage
* making it feature complete
* making it secure
* when upgrading the API, supporting older applications built on that API (in other words, keeping full backwards compatibility)
All in all, this can be summed up as the basic fact that officially releasing the "mini OS X" that Apple uses on its portable devices as a development platform requires a whole different approach then simply using it themselves and not publishing it. All these responsibilities are easily avoided by simply not publishing the API and is a no-brainer if the company is on a tight deadline. Given the iPhone's short development lead time, i can fully understand that there was no time to get all of the above in order, so avoiding responsibility of the API for the time being seems like a logical thing to me.
That said, the above reason would steer them towards a tolerance stance regarding 'hackers', while Apple seems to be leaning more towards an 'active prosecution' stance, which i considere pretty much unjustified, together with the rest of the world.
"Apple's reasoning for keeping the iPhone a closed platform is that they don't want to 'potentially gum up the provider's network'."
Yes, and I'm sure that's why they're keeping the iPod a closed platform, too.
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
And, why would anyone be surprised by this? It's very much in keeping with the way Apple has done business for years and years.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
They are selling an iphone, a way of thinking, an idea. The problem is, the cellphone market really doesn't give a shit. Apple hasn't learned that. The question becomes, who budges first? Apple or the cell phone market?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
From the article:
What is especially odd is a NYT reporter creating a conspiracy story... wait I'm sorry that is normal operations at the times lately.
But seriously, maybe the real reason that Apple is not opening the iPhone right away is something more mundane. I base this on some of the minor clues given in the above quote.
1. The firmware API is not yet set in stone. Apple may be planning some "tweaks" to smooth over any rough edges in the firmware after releasing the phone into the wild and before publishing the currently undocumented API.
2. They haven't formulated a plan to keep the phone secure, and allow third-party programs (Sandbox anyone?).
3. The one thing that this article failed to mention that the other AT&T phones are handsets with limited OS installed and low data rate capabilities, and this is a smartphone with a reduced feature version of OS X installed and alledged high data rate capabilities. The point being that the iPhone is a little more complicated than a free Nokia or Motorolla phone.
Just wanted to point out some obvious scenarios, before the mac, windows, and linux fan-bois start the flamefest.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Steve Jobs can't come right out and say this, as it can be seen as tantamount to saying that users are stupid. Security. Not on the cell network, but the iPhone as a new platform. User's can't be trusted to install their own apps!
The big reason that Windows machines are riddled with Trojans, is that every user's process runs with the same permissions as the user, and that current systems do not allow finer-grained control over these permissions. (I removed 18 Trojans from my girlfriend's mom's computer the other day!) Stuff like this is one of the big reasons why the user experience on Windows can SUCK. (And yes, it's terrible that all iPhones have the same root password and that's already been cracked.)
The OLPC folks are addressing this by running apps in a sandbox. There are many others thinking along these lines -- that the security model we've been using is not the right one. The current Access Control List security model was designed to keep individual users on a mainframe from interfering with each other while under the supervision of a benevolent and all-powerful root Super-User. Now, in the 21st century, essentially everyone, their mom, their grandparents, and anyone else who runs Windows as Administrator and installs programs is root.
Think about it. There's something seriously wrong here, folks.
Now that we are entering the era of dual and quad core computers becoming mainstream, there is no reason why we can't have more secure models like capabilities. (Especially on quad core machines, where a micro-kernel can lock itself to one processor to prevent context-switch overhead without undue loss of performance.) In order to ensure security on the iPhone, and thus retain total control of the user experience despite malicious hackers, something like sandboxes with a capability model is needed. (Capabilities without context switch overhead could also be enabled by using a VM platform like Java.)
See Rik Farrow's Google Tech Talk on this subject. It's over an hour, so download it and watch it while working out. It's a *fact* that we've been barking up the wrong tree security-wise.
Perhaps it's also worth mentioning that the initial programs written for the iPhone exploited security holes in the software? It's possible that the death of the Installer.app applications was just a side effect of a security tightening.
Then again, that doesn't explain the ringtones, does it?
Are people just heart broken that Apple locked down the phone so much or what? If you want to support open platforms don't give Apple your money. I don't think it was a secret before the iPhone began sales that it was going to be a closed platform. Just like anything, support what meets your needs/wants.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
AT&T is innocent
My head just exploded.
The reasons were discussed before the iBricking event, but in summary:
1. Stability. Whenever third party apps are on your device, instability develops. Of course, sometimes the OS is unstable with no third-party apps running at all. Before the 1.1.1 firmware, Safari used to crash all the time. There haven't been a lot of reports about third party iApps being any worse behaved than the built-ins.
2. Support. Support issues are a perennial nightmare for any platform. It was speculated that lots of Apple and AT&T's support time was for applications that weren't native. Anyone have any numbers for this?
3. Development. It could be that the APIs are still in motion. The iBricking may be due to some bad updating; Mac OS X does have problem occasionally.
4. Developer support. Let's face it, lots of apps on other mobile platforms are ugly as all get-out. Apple's only now released human interface guidelines for the iPhone. If it's been this long for the HIG, the real developer docs'll take even more time.
So...there are lots of possible reasons for Apple's stance...before getting to the negatively-tinged personification excuses (control, vindictiveness, etc).
I have read in several places on the web, including in the comments here at /., that the reason the iPhone is closed is to prevent the development and widespread use of a VoiP app.
In light of this article, here is my questions: do VoiP apps exist for these other phones? If so, are such apps widely used? If not, why not?
Has a VoiP app been written for hacked iphones? If not, why not?
I have no experience with either the iphone or unlocked gsm phones that allow third-party development because I'm on Verizon. (They are the only network provider with decent coverage over the vast swathes of non-urban areas that make up the majority of where I need a mobile phone in the US.)
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
To anyone my age, the bogeyman of "network interference" instantly calls to mind Ma Bell and all the reasons she gave why nobody but AT&T could be trusted with an RJ-11 jack.
Actually, it predated the RJ-11 jack.
Here we go:
The New York Times, February 17, 1951, p. 30: Phone Company Upheld In Ban on Hush-a-Phone
The Hush-A-Phone was a simple cup-like acoustic isolation device that snapped onto a telephone handset and provided a measure of privacy and quiet. No wires, no electrical connection. The phone company banned it as a "foreign attachment." In the Times story, the FCC agreed such devices were subject to A. T. & T. control. The punch line:
"Unrestricted use of the device could, in the commission's opinion, result in a general deterioration of the quality of telephone service."
Yes, seriously.
Later, the phone company was to claim that wired connections to third-party devices (answering machines and, later, modems) could not only bring down the network but put their linemen at risk of electrocution. Anyone who wanted to connect a computer had two choices: buy a very pricey "Dataphone"--never sold, of course, but leased by the month--or buy a third-party modem anduse a pricey phone-company-supplied "Data Access Arrangement" device, which was never sold but only leased by the month.
It took decades to get the FCC to agree that it had the regulatory authority to set specifications for third-party interconnects, and to allow them.
I recall an amusing Racal-Vadic advertisement showing "Ma Bell" depicted as a grandmotherly figure, staring out of her window in horror at a huge dump truck pouring hundreds of DAA boxes onto her lawn, now that Racal-Vadic modems no longer needed them.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
iPhone is a big experiment for Apple. Clearly, there is a lot of potential for iPhone software and services beyond what you get with it right now.
I expect Apple prefers to keep it closed while it settles down and they see how it all pans out, to have time to see where best to take it next, and to develop and sell the new services themselves without losing out to some fleeter third-party developer.
Consumers may have a lot to gain from an open iPhone, but I don't see that Apple does right now.
That's just one reason though. If it were fully open and documented, the first thing people would do is throw VOIP & IM onto it, which would piss off AT&T.
Once they sell it to someone, it becomes that person's product to do with as they like.
I don't have an iPhone (yet), but I have had many PDA phones and I think Apple have made the right call here for iPhone v1.0 but they will have to change if they want iPhone v2.0 to be a success.
The big problem with most PDA phones is that they are worthless pieces of S**T. My Palm dies constantly, the browser is dreadful and third party apps make it unstable. My iPaq was worse, the bluetooth and WiFi were abysmal and the phone quality rubbish.
The problem with most computer phones is that they have puny processors and the operating system (such as it is) is 1980s style with no protected memory. Put a misbehaving application on the device and it becomes unstable.
Given the time that Apple had to put the iPhone together, I think they made the right call. It is far more important for the iPhone to work well as a phone than be an infinitely extensible computing platform.
This is not going to be the case for iPhone 2.0. Unlike the iPod competitors, Motorola, Nokia &ct. have the same commitment to usability, style etc. that Apple does. Google is also likely to enter the market. They are not going to respond with a Zune. If the iPhone is going to continue to be a success it is going to have to be available unlocked.
The iPhone exclusive deal looks to me like it is the last hurrah for a business model that has had its day. Carriers don't want to be in the business of selling phones, they have to give discounts on them in any case. The business of locking phones evolved because the carriers have to ease the customer into the deal by making the phone effectively free.
Free phones made a lot of sense when they became obsolete in a year, as they did a few years ago. The difference between the RAZR and predecessors was significant. The difference between modern phones is much less important. The iPhone marks the end of the 'disposable phone' era. People will abandon the 1st generation iPhone for the GPS and 3G capabilities in the second. But the idea of replacing a phone every year as a matter of course will go.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
AT&T has actively discouraged third-party developers for all phones since way back in the old Cingular days. Have you ever seen how locked-down the J2ME model is on Cingular/AT&T phones? One cannot connect to bluetooth (at all) unless the app is signed by a Cingular Preferred certificate. Guess how many third-party developers have a pre-existing relationship and/or can get one, to get their app signed? If you guessed that even Google doesn't sign their apps and pays the price in user functionality, you guessed correctly.
Six score characters.
Brevity being wit's soul
I have enough space.
It'd be trivial as hell for Apple to allow java apps that run in a sandbox. It's obviously not security that Apple's worried about.
As with most of their products, Apple tends to dictate the user experience to an unusually high degree.
For whatever reason.
And the original MAC used a 68000 with a memory manager that was completely capable of supporting protected memory but Apple never used it.
The fact that the platform may have some protected memory capability built in does not mean that the O/S is configured to take advantage of it. Windows XP has protected memory but its still virus prone because few people use the accounts feature.
Lock in is a first mover strategy. If you are the second or the third the advantage of lock in is much less. So pretty much every scheme that starts off with a walled garden approach is challenged in time by an open one.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I want it both ways - I want continued updates and improvements to my new mobile computer from Apple, and I want to be able to do other interesting things with my new mobile computer that fill a niche that Apple understandably wouldn't be writing software for.
Is it unreasonable for me, an Apple customer and shareholder, to want this?
When I'm buying a technology product, there are several factors that weigh into the decision. One is the quality of the technology. Just as important is the future outlook. Is there a good chance that missing features I want can be easily added later? Are there a lot of people, either in a company or on their own, working to improve it? Will I be able to adapt it to some niche problem that I'm working on that may not be important to most people, but is important to me?
Apple has a great technology, but lacking those other ingredients I just can't get too excited about the whole package. In a year's time, there will be other very similar phones on the market:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/29/nokias-iphone-no-seriously/
And some of those will likely be infinitely customizable. Nokia is already running with this Apple blunder:
http://www.nseries.com/index.html?l=campaigns,open
So Apple, am I going to feel like an idiot for buying into a closed platform when similar but open models come out from other companies?
Barring a shift in policy of some kind, such as a released api or "binary application approval program", I am thinking it's time to get out of AAPL and think hard before buying more Apple products.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
You are correct about Macs and 6800's, but different user accounts have nothing to do with protected memory.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
There is no valid technical reason for desiring closed platforms. There is a totally valid business concern, and it's not simply forcing customers into certain directions. I agree that this is an opportunity granted by a closed platform, but the real benefit for the business is significant reduction of variables to deal with when moving forward with fixes, new features, and so forth. Because Apple has taken the income over time, they are practically bound to add features. After the first two years or so, don't be surprised if the strict closed platform nature of the iPhone is relaxed significantly.
Also, for those bent on arguing the legality of such things, keep in mind that as a privately held network, AT&T has no requirements to allow devices access to its network if it doesn't want to. Currently, they allow zero devices without a contract or signed agreement of some kind, and in that contract they can easily apply device restrictions even if they seem ludicrous. Until this is actually challenged in a real court case (read: not class action fappery) then there is no reason to believe there are grounds to suggest the actions are unlawful. It's more practical to simply avoid the network entirely. Avoid the iPhone entirely.
Unless you have a significant Apple investment it's not the end-all be-all phone. The next generation of Nokias have as good of a browser (rendering-wise, it's based on the same KHTML engine) and have been open platforms for years. I use an iPhone because I have a strong library of media coming from iTMS, I don't really care about open platforms for my phone at this point. I did for a while, even developing for Symbian myself, but that time has come and gone.
However, if the situation was different, I don't even know why I would look at the iPhone. It's shiny sure, but it's not THAT amazing, the Nokia E90 is a lot cooler of a device imho. The iPhone's touch screen is ok, but hardly groundbreaking. Two touch senses at once... so? The pinching gesture gives me hand cramps, and even with all the smarts I still fat finger things all the time. With a keypad interface that's designed for interface and situation appropriate limits (i.e. single handed use in keypad mode of S60 phones) it's far faster and easier to navigate than a touchscreen. The learning curve is higher, yes, but that's not a problem, especially not for the target audiences.
So let us recognize the reality, and put your jealous tendencies aside for a moment. Realize that the iPhone, while technically interesting, is an embedded, developer unfriendly, locked down media device. It's not a portable computer, it's not a PDA. It's nothing more than exactly what it's advertised as being and that's what Apple intends. Why should we expect more from it? There are other companies offering what you want. Don't be so Apple obsessed.
I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender