Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs Announces iPhone SDK
An anonymous reader writes "It finally happened. Steve Jobs announced an iPhone SDK today. The plan is to release it in February, and the suggestion is that apps will need to be digitally signed (not unlike digital signing in Leopard). Here's hoping that developing for the iPhone/Touch will be cheap (or free) enough to allow the folks who have been writing apps to continue doing so. Says Jobs: 'It will take until February to release an SDK because we're trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once--provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc. This is no easy task.'"
Can anyone say "long overdue?"
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Digitally signed: Totally Legit Inc.
Install this app now, and make sure your contact list is filled with other iPhone users.
-Matthew Riley "TofuMatt" MacPherson
I have a website
It makes me suspect that Steve was caught a bit flat-footed, if it'll take until then. If this was the usual Apple release, it would be a total surprise and be available Friday or something.
Of course, it could also be that it's taken them this long for events to prove to AT&T that resistance was ultimately futile and counterproductive. Hard to say, with that crowd.
I am the one true god. However, as an atheist, I don't believe in myself. I guess I have a self-esteem problem.
Here's the quote that may have misled:
So, what they're really saying is that they're hoping to do something along the same lines as signing, but not signing per se. This actually may be the most interesting part of their announcement, in that it could signal the next step forwards in indicating trust and providing clarity of who worked on what. Here's hoping it's not just repackaging.
Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
Jobs made several comments about securing iPhones and the network from malware, and the route Apple takes to do this is a big question mark. He mentioned application signing as a step in the right direction, with regard to other companies. Leopard brings support to OS X for both application signing and native sandboxing of applications for security. I wonder if Apple will employ either or both of these technologies to lock down the iPhone and, if so, how locked down they will be.
I'm still at 1.0.2, simply because I love the 3rd party apps that are on my phone already. (I already bent over for AT&T, so I didn't bother unlocking my phone).
Now, as the summary mentions, I hope the barrier to development is not too high. They're certainly right to be concerned about security, I just hope a good balance is struck.
(Somewhat unrelated: I see that it's now possible to jailbreak 1.1.1, but I'm still waiting. Apparently you cannot yet use your own, non-apple-blessed ringtones under 1.1.1, even after jailbreak.)
Jobbs also said that he like Nokia's policy of "requiring" that apps be signed. So how much will it cost to get an app signed? Want to add Divix or Ogg support? Might just be too bad.
I guess this is going to be a big "we shall see"
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Interestingly, by enforcing digital signing Apple is guaranteeing the survivial of an iPhone developer's "underground" -- instead of writing hacks to jailbreak and unlock iPhones, they'll be writing hacks to get unsigned apps running on the iPhone.
"...we're trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once--provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect our partners from hacks, unlocking, etc. This is no easy task."
Fixed.
Will this apply to the ipod touch as well? I really would like to be able to read maps/books offline on one. If there was an app to let me take websites or google maps and pdfs and store them locally to an ipod touch it might be my next mp3 player.
From TFA - quoting Steve Jobs:
The risk of damage would be a lot less damage if every app on the iPhone didnt run as root.
Nice false dichotomy. We've all heard that security is a social problem, not simply a technological one. Since this is basically the cell phone "for the rest of us [rich people]", the users will be far more the problem than the SDK.
I was telling someone that the 2 things I wish the Touch had were a PDF reader and an SSH client. Hopefully, the dev. environment will allow these and many, many other goodies. If that _IS_ the case, the Touch very well become my new home computer ...
The only thing i want to add to the I phone is SSH and an external keyboard. Then it would be pretty much the ultimate laptop... if you had a really tiny lap. But it would then serve all my mobile computing needs.
Considering that the iPhone's OS is a moving target, and the majority of the frameworks and private APIs have changed from 1.0.2 to 1.1.1 (which is why many third party apps broke between 1.0.2 and 1.1.1), I don't think it's unreasonable to wait until things on that front have stabilized before you start providing developers with an SDK.
:-/
I knew that most of the negative responses to this would be along the lines of saying that Apple was "forced" into doing an SDK because of the third party hacking community, when in reality third party development was very likely in the cards all along.
Apple also sent the same information to anyone who bothered to file out a bug report about a lack of an SDK. I mention this only to point out that it's nice that Apple actually took the time to listen to its developers (and not just people who pay an annual fee) and respond. So next time if you're wondering whether your bug report gets read, it appears at least in cases like this it does.
I've recently become a complete Apple-convert. I used to hate Apple, and came from a Linux background. I have to say, though, that from a development standpoint their XCode environment is great, their libraries are well thought out, and it comes with a good number of advanced features that keeps coding fun. If you're wondering why people are so excited about developing for the iPhone, these are a few of the reasons.
At one point I played around with the toolchain that was previously being developed by the community hackers. It was relatively easy to put together a simple iPhone app, as the iPhone is running a simplified version of Cocoa. However, the more complex stuff (and interesting parts, like gestures) were not up to par because of lack of documentation.
With the introduction of the SDK, I think we're going to see a batch of really nice 3rd party apps. The current ones are extremely good for what resources are available, but I think everyone would agree there is room for much improvement.
Hopefully Apple will do the right thing in opening up their platform as much as possible. I wouldn't mind getting a free key to sign my code (Google did a similar thing when they opened up their search API). I wonder if they will limit all things internety to WIFI only, as AT&T might complain about random packets flying over their EDGE (even though other phone companies already allow this). I'm still not sure I fully get the malicious code issue, as the iPhone is essentially a dumbed down Macbook with a harder-to-use keyboard. How is the iPhone any more dangerous?
of commentary and stories about bricked iPhones?
They're getting pretty shrill on Slashdot, as if the fact that Apple's product was locked into AT&T's service was a big surprise foisted on consumers after the fact, or something.
I hate lock-ins as much as most of you, but you know about it going in, and you can choose another option. Of course, the best solution is to stop all forms of telco lock-ins, and the one glaring lock-in is the contract for wireless service on almost all providers that substantially penalize the customer for discontinuing service "early".
As a consumer, if I'm dissatisfied with my service or I can get better service elsewhere, there's no such thing as early discontinuation of service. It's more like "right on time". Lock-in contracts, unlike the iPhone dramas, affect nearly everyone with "post-pay" service. (The alternative phrase was "non-prepay" which sounds nutty.)
To further clarify, "malware" will consist of:
media players that support additional audio and video codecs,
anything that lets you install ringtones for free using your own licensed music,
anything that lets you make calls on alternative networks.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Isn't that the truth! It would be even better if Apple provided a glide-path to current developers to becoming "legit" so that they're encouraged to engage rather than fight. Apple really has no reason to be a jerk about it except spite. Unfortunately, Steve has proven that he's occasionally prone to that.
I am the one true god. However, as an atheist, I don't believe in myself. I guess I have a self-esteem problem.
Compare: provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc. This is no easy task. to Nokia, for example, is not allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known developer. While this makes such a phone less than "totally open," we believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on an advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively program the iPhone's amazing software platform while at the same time protecting users from malicious programs.
I read as Steve is saying Nokia's solution is a simple and not truly open system but Apple is working on an advance open system.
So sometime after February I'll be able to buy/download and install an ActiveSync client for the iPhone? That changes quite a lot...
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
[flame]but, but, but! Apple can't get viruses? They say so in the commercials![/flame]
Walk with Music;
Nice!
Now the iPhone will have 30 different ways to check stock prices, get weather updates and read RSS feeds!
Hopefully someone makes a Diet Calculator / Calorine counter as well!
I highly doubt it. If you have any java-enabled phone, any palm based phone, any blackberry phone, any symbian phone and you're using it on the AT&T network, you already know that you've been able to install ANY kind of app - networked or otherwise - on your phone.
... I hope developers don't have to pay to gain access to this trust system. I don't have an iPhone/iTouch yet, but if developers have to pay to make software that works on the iPhone and variants, they may well decide to pass the cost along to the end-users—and (F|f)ree software is a selling point for mobile devices as far as I'm concerned.
I've got a Windows Mobile smartphone, and, while there is plenty of for-pay software (my phone came with a built-in Handango catalog), there's also plenty of freeware software available. WM6 warns you that whatever application you're trying to install isn't trusted and asks you if you really want to install it, but it doesn't completely lock untrusted applications out. (Think Cancel or Allow...) Annoying it may be, but it's better than total lockout. I wonder if Apple will do something similar?
Third Party Applications on the iPhone
Let me just say it: We want native third party applications on the iPhone, and we plan to have an SDK in developers' hands in February. We are excited about creating a vibrant third party developer community around the iPhone and enabling hundreds of new applications for our users. With our revolutionary multi-touch interface, powerful hardware and advanced software architecture, we believe we have created the best mobile platform ever for developers.
It will take until February to release an SDK because we're trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once--provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc. This is no easy task. Some claim that viruses and malware are not a problem on mobile phones--this is simply not true. There have been serious viruses on other mobile phones already, including some that silently spread from phone to phone over the cell network. As our phones become more powerful, these malicious programs will become more dangerous. And since the iPhone is the most advanced phone ever, it will be a highly visible target.
Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example, is not allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known developer. While this makes such a phone less than "totally open," we believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on an advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively program the iPhone's amazing software platform while at the same time protecting users from malicious programs.
We think a few months of patience now will be rewarded by many years of great third party applications running on safe and reliable iPhones.
Steve
P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for iPod touch.
____
I'm worried about a Windows CE-like business model. Unlike traditional certificates, with CE you don't purchase certificates but use a signing "service." While that might seem cheaper, you have to sign EACH of your binaries EVERY time a modification is made. That's incentive for developers to NOT release patches. Fortunately, it's not being enforced by many OEMs, but heaven help our wallets should that happen. There are a lot of small mobile shops our there that can't absorb these kinds of costs.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Remember how unwillingness Steve had been about native apps? He even went out on a leg to try and make Web Apps easy to get to by creating that apps repository.... Well it seems that the _large_ number of people who are jailbreaking their iPod Touches and iPhones to install third party apps have been heard. They probably weren't planning on releasing an SDK until Steve realized how popular native apps are/would be.
I never really understood the resistance to third party apps in the first place. The iPhone could not only take a chunk of the phone market, but it could take over the entire smart phone market. The same goes for the iPod Touch and the PDA market.
This puts me in a tough position though... I want a Touch right now, but what if Steve screws current Touch owners by making the SDK cost money? Or only allows for proprietary apps to be installable (locking out the Open Source developers)? or something else... hmmm
... Seems to be a good-enough way to do things, as long as folks can install self-signed apps (with appropriate warnings and caveats and whatnot) .
Jobs:
It will take until February to release an SDK because we're trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once-
Allow nearly open software development but completely restrict the ability to use VoIP (and upset ATT).
There. Fixed that for you.
(Side note: I live in Oakland County - home of a county-wide wireless project. If residents could run VoIP on an iPhone, then cellular revenue would plummet here. I suspect that would catch on like wildfire, once proven. This is RISKY business for Apple.)
More
Perhaps they had planned to release the SDK earlier via a Apple-style surprise, but timing slipped, and Jobs felt the need to just go ahead and announce it anyway to avoid the development community making Apple look like a stodgy dinosaur in the meantime. Besides that, I really can't understand why they wouldn't have announced it around release time.
I am the one true god. However, as an atheist, I don't believe in myself. I guess I have a self-esteem problem.
So, let's say someone doesn't have any real programming experience besides college level stuff from a few years ago, but understands programming concepts and was enthusiastic with the possibility of dabbling in iPhone programming because it's a "brave new frontier" and is a rather small, hopefully less complex environment than, say, Mac OS X.
What programming language are the current third party iPhone apps written in? How would one get started now to prepare for the SDK? Any suggestions on books to read to brush up on the languages?
Yes, we can read the article on our own..Thanks.
There is to me, nothing wrong with "application signing". I think it's good to have a registered contact for a product and to ensure that product can be traced. (We're not talking personal privacy rights here.)
That said, most past attempts as application/driver signing have failed because it hasn't been about signing but rather about making $$$. And signing has cost booku bucks for being signed. This is the aspect of signing that's bad.
Rather, Apple should simply have all developers register (in order to get the SDK) and then be given a corporate identity ID to sign their applications with. They could also allow access of 3rd party apps via iTunes. The caveat being that they could block a dev ID if that ID gets out into the wild and used by malware coders. Others might install any software outside of iTunes. But this would allow them to make the iTunes (dumb name these days since it does video, games, and more these days. They really need to change it to iMedia or something).
But I'm really all for app signing as long as it's free to do so or a negligible (ie: $5-$10) processing fee.
But if it's $500 or $1,500 to have your app signed. Then it will fail...
- Saj
There were rumors the MacOS would someday have a Multi-touch GUI mode too. Then you could design for all three platforms. Anyone hear of a date?
I applaud Jobs comments, but there is a much larger issue that open source community needs to address: safety and security vs malicous attacks. By using open source application open one up to attacks by those who would use that technology for personal gain rather than benefiting the community. Is there a balance? Some may say that this is a moot point. How does the commmunity weigh the need to open source code without providing a pathway for malicous intent? Is there a better way? Jobs I believe is on this very notion how do you weigh providing a method of development without it being used againest you or your customers?
I think they are waiting on applying Leopards sandboxing to the mobile OS. That would be key to allowing third party apps but with tight security.
YMMV, but from what I've read, the whining wasn't that there was a long wait for the SDK, but that there was a long wait for an announcement that there would even be an SDK. Most products I've seen planned and announced to have an SDK before the initial product release, and then put out the SDK after. But then again, that's just what I've seen.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
"The last thing that Apple was thinking about during the development phase was a clean documented publically available and stable API."
First of all, you're making that up.
But second of all, even if you are right, then Apple would have to be the dumbest development company ever. Here's a company that has a 30 year history of making products that have API's (yes, even the Apple ][ had API's of a sort), but on their latest computer, the one they saw had a huge strategic impact, they never gave it a thought?
Seriously, what you're suggesting is so ridiculous, that I'm guessing you're trolling or astroturfing.
My guess is there never was going to be a publicly available API, but Apple finally realized if they didn't make it available, they'd be overwhelmed by people who actually want to use what they bought in the way the want to.
FTFA: The plan is to release it in February, and the suggestion is that apps will need to be digitally signed (not unlike digital signing in Leopard).
Is this akin to trusted computing? This is the first I heard Leopard having such a thing. So if you are a 3rd party developer you will have to contact apple or Verisign every time you want to release your app? Or is this just poormans DRM?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Personally, I'm hoping all the apologists whining about whining will now calm down and not feel the need to jump on any criticism of Apple or the iPhone with spurious after-the-fact justifications of Apple actions. We'll never know whether Apple initially planned an SDK, however if they did it was disingenuous of Steve Jobs to claim that
It's great news that they've intimated they'll release an SDK next year, and I'm sure the availability of apps will spur adoption by people who owned other smart phones in the past and were attached to things like being able to transfer and read PDF files on their device (without emailing them or putting them on the web). For various reasons (which you've elaborated at length) it might have been impossible to launch it with an SDK and/or third party apps - what was possible was to tell the users and developers honestly what action was planned in the future, rather than trying to sell running web apps on the phone as a real SDK.
It still has some flaws (lack of 3G and GPS foremost), but by mid-next year this looks like it will be a great platform instead of just a phone.
Digital signatures offer security only when all IPC (including kernel/system calls) is signed, and when signature logs survive an attack by that signed app. Otherwise, after the attack, the signed app can cover its tracks. ActiveX signatures, for example, are worthless.
Since the iPhone depends on its network for all app installation, and nearly all its operation, it can enforce those policies. Since practically all the data on the iPhone, including voice call data, is private, that enforcement is an absolute necessity. Apple should include a server account that backs up the signature logs, and encrypted key storage to other accounts the iPhone is used to access.
Once people are used to that minimum assurance of accountability of installed apps and data on their mobile phones, maybe they'll start to expect it on their notebooks and desktops. Apple could leverage the service to those products, too. And maybe that competition will finally force Microsoft to secure the vast majority of the world's private data that their platforms are responsible for.
--
make install -not war
Look at the SDK announcement. Then look at the list of Leopard features here:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html
Note that under security, there are adding app signing and sandboxing and improving certificate handling in the core of MacOS X.
That's exactly what they need in order to pull off what they aim to with the iPhone and iPod Touch SDK!
And improved VPN support and library randomization sure wouldn't hurt for a device like an iPhone. (Some people can't use IMAP at all unless they have VPN support.)
Make sure the apps don't kill the phone! Badly programmed iexplorer.exe on my windows mobile can loop requiring a hard reboot(hit reset button next to the battery behind the case). Until that reboot it will not let me answer calls, will sometimes ring, will sometimes display that a call is incoming, and not acknowledge that I've hit the answer button. I always thought this was why the iphone was closed, until they can solve that problem.
There are not "serious virus problems" in mobile phones, and given the fact that Darwin includes scripting languages that I can not imagine being restricted by signatures I don't believe any signing regimen will significantly restrict virus propogation.
I suspect the reason for these restrictions are:
* to avoid having to classify the iPhone as a software controlled radio.
* to avoid Real or some other DRM pusher from making the iPhone and iPod Touch support their DRM.
* to allow the iPhone to be locked.
What do they mean by "sandboxing"?
They finally picking up FreeBSD jails?
Or are they talking about something like Microsoft's halfhearted attempt in Vista?
You mean patience is a place where if you hang around too long you're likely to get mugged?
I've finally discovered the truth: Steve Jobs is Bill Clinton in disguise. This isn't meant as a political comment, but a study in management styles. Clinton could backpedal with the best of them because he knew when he'd taken an unpopular course, that it was important to back down gracefully.
Hackers opened the iPhone, Apple bricked it for the iChumps, now Steve's seeing the groundswell and responding. That's both good and bad, because while we get a better product people without clarity of direction aren't great for the industry.
Now he gets to face Vista-level security questions, made complicated by the invisible "clueless" tag in the middle of "consumer hardware."
technical writing / development
Bleh.
BTW, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the stuff I'm seeing people claim are copied from Vista originated in FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and VMS.
Every time one of these stories comes out I point out that the situation will be the same as with the iTunes SDK: to get the SDK you'll have to sign an agreement that gives Apple veto power over your application. Every time people flamed me. It still looks like I'm right.
Anything they don't like, gone. They say its to protect users from spyware and other forms of malware but it'll be used to eliminate anything they don't like. Just like there isn't any decent music sharing functionality in iTunes, there won't be anything on the iPhone that doesn't settle well with the ultraconservatives in Apples Ivory Tower. Instead you'll get crippled functionality, like music sharing with ridiculous limits on the number of people/playbacks per day. As if all of their developers and customers are children who can't be given responsibility. Children don't own copyrights, so they don't need the discretion to share music beyond what Apple believes is "fair enough."
People are still going to flame me saying that we should wait and see. Well, I've been waiting and I see no way to set an mp3 on your iPhone as a ringtone. Is there any reason not to give this functionality other than to protect Apple's new ringtone business? Why would any reasonable person believe that Apple won't do the same thing when granting ISVs permission to deploy applications on iPhone?
The argument that phones are somehow more vulnerable than any other network connected computer and need to be controlled by a central authority is specious.
"Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you..."
Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example, is not allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known developer.
Nokia warns about unsigned applications; they don't keep you from installing them.
We think a few months of patience now will be rewarded by many years of great third party applications running on safe and reliable iPhones.
Or maybe we can just forget about iPhone and instead get rewarded by truly open platforms that aren't owned and run by Apple.
but how are they going to handle the distribution of 3rd party app/updates?
If the third party applications can be downloaded/installed/updated through iTunes, thats fine. That being said, a real killer feature would be to provide an app where (over wifi/celltowers) you can search or browse for specific applications and download them through the wifi/celltowers. Though that would just be awesome, what would make that feature above and beyond would be if then the phone's OS would then keep track of the app's installed and provide updates as the apps go from X.0 to (X+1).0
Think synaptic, only for the iPhone.
Some basic features and the phone would be good looking and useful. Skype or jabber and aside from AT&T tethering I'm tempted to buy a new phone.
Quack, quack.
Microsoft would have had the SDK out a year before the phone was released. Poor Apple just does not have the muscle...
>We are working on an advanced system which will offer
>developers broad access to natively program the iPhone's
>amazing software platform while at the same time protecting
>users from malicious programs.
Looking at their revolutionary AT&T deal, one would expect that
they won't miss a chance to properly milk iPhone developers too.
I simply don't believe that Apple would relinquish their control
over what can and cannot run on the iPhone.
How's this for a prediction -
"To provide the best degree of the protection for iPhone users
all third party applications will need to be cross-signed by
Apple. This ensures that we stand behind the application and
its developer (and that the developer pays through the nose for
this lovely arrangement)".
3.243F6A8885A308D313
Let me get this straight. Apple released a product that contains an operating system that's still in alpha?
No. Their OS works well and will have passed QA before they shipped. Like any humans, Apple make mistakes, but they generally at least try to adhere to "it just works".
They ported their (stable) OS to a new architecture. The internal developers put up with the codebase (with any extant foibles), and they wrote a completely new UI framework (based on, but different to, Cocoa). They did sufficient QA to get the built-in applications working correctly, and then shipped the device, hitting their target.
Now that it's out, and there's less pressure, they've been tidying it up, and polishing the UI framework, the compilers, any OS routines, and they've announced they're opening it up to 3rd parties. Presumably this means they've been patching the areas they worked around internally.
There's nothing too surprising in any of the above, in fact I'm surprised the "official" SDK will be available so soon. Porting an OS and writing a good accelerated UI framework is a non-trivial task.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
So, even if apps require formal signing and they all cost money, I still kinda expect that one thing we'll get is IBM's WebSphere Everyplace Micro Environment.
It exists for PalmOS, it exists for Windows Mobile, it exists for other handhelds, and I imagine that both IBM and Sun would explode with joy at the possibility of getting it onto the iPhone and iPod Touch.
For those who don't know, this is IBM's J2ME/JavaME runtime for small systems. If you have Java on your PalmOS, Windows Mobile, or even many Linux handhelds, it's probably due to this being loaded on or embedded into it.
If we don't get that, maybe we'll get a port of the open-source reference implementation of JavaME:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhoneME_(software)
It already builds for both ARM (current iPhone) and x86 (rumored future iPhone) instruction sets.
Either way, looks to me like once there's a general dev kit, a JVM isn't going to be too far off. Anyone want to make predictions about how long it'll take or what form it'll come in?
Apple have a policy of giving away their full suite of development tools to all ADC members, and ADC "membership" is a free registration away. They just want to know how many people are interested in developing for the Mac, IMHO.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
I read the article title as "Steve Jobs Announces iPhones Suck"
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
The iPhone essentially runs a cut and trimmed version of OSX, so getting an SDK for it is NOT some massive undertaking
I mean, look, despite Apple's attempts to keep people from using their own phones, random hax0rs got a working SDK up within days
A iPhone SDK would use a gcc cross-compiler (since the iPhone isn't running PowerPC or Intel chip -- by the way, gcc makes it easy to build a cross-compiler so this isn't a big deal)
Not a massive undertaking at all.
No, that's trivial mate. Tell you what, we'll do you two, in case one breaks - have it to you next Tuesday... Not.
Writing whatever they needed for the initial (general public who don't give the shake of a rat's tail about the SDK) release, then writing/polishing a general developer release is so obviously the way to go, I can't believe people are still talking about it. And if you expected 'The Steve' to lay out all his plans ahead of time, you've obviously been in a coma for the last decade. Welcome to the new century.
Simon.
(*) I think this is actually resolved in version-3 of the compiler. I'm still stuck with v2 because I can't get the LLVM part to compiler on my mac for some reason.
Physicists get Hadrons!
And how long before the price drops a bit more. I realize Apple products have a vanity, cachet, and other aspects of "image" maintained by high prices and acceptance of non-accession of a lot of potential customers, but I would not mind having an iPhone if it cost, say, $150, AND was not LOCKED INTO AT&T.
Do those two things Apple and I WILL buy an iPhone, just for the sake of having the cool gadget. What'll suck, though, is having two phone bills, one of which could be an ISP bill payment.
I don't know if the iPhone acts as a Wi-Fi modem, but it would not be bad if a laptop could be linked up to it.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
:p
Here come the Beowulf Clusters of iPhones!!!!!1
The Iphone will also need a file system that you can put your own files on to and the 3rd party apps can use as well.
You are the best!!! Thanks so much!!! I knew you were right!!!
Do we really want him to "stay the course" even if the entire rest of the world thinks he's wrong?
Doesn't that depend on whether or not he's right? The "entire rest of the world" has been wrong before, and they will be again.
technical writing / development
[flame]but, but, but! Apple can't get viruses? They say so in the commercials![/flame]
You have confused two very different things.
No one is saying OS X *cannot* get viruses. There are always security holes.
What we are all saying is that you *don't* get viruses, because there are none. Pick your reason - better security model, faster TTF (time to fix), smaller marketshare - the thing is there are no viruses in teh wild to catch right now. That may change but that's how it is currently and has been for years.
Until you can understand the distinction between security flaws and active exploits, you really should refrain from commenting on anything security (or even Mac) related.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm very curious as to what the SDK will allow me to do. Will we get access to the AT&T edge network ? Will I be able to write applications that talk to my laptop over bluetooth ?
It should be easy to write a bluetooth modem app for the iphone. Sure, it would increase the traffic on AT&T's network, but it would also be a great argument for getting an iphone.
Here's another idea. I'd love an API to send and receive text messages from my computer.
Here is why:
- he brought the Apple II to me when I was in highschool
- he brought the Macintosh to me when I was in College
- he brought the NeXT to me when I was just starting my career
- he resurrected Apple from the Dead
- he created OS X from NeXT Step and OS 9
- he brought the iPhone to me last summer
And last:
- he has the ability to change his mind when he's wrong.
Many people can't do that. Jobs wanted a closed iPhone. Remember his announcement at WSJ? At the dev conference? His recent "cat & mouse" comment? For whatever reason (alienating his developers, lost AT&T revenue is lass than increased sales, iPhone developers can't be stopped, some other reason...) he's changed his mind.
For this I love him.
Sorry, this is /. We don't get dates.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Soon you'll probably be able to do anything you want to an iPhone without any consequences whatsoever and you can declare victory of the horrible monster that created that horrible device to begin with. But then why not just go out and buy a different product that lets you do all those things that you want to do from someone who doesn't make all that profit but who also doesn't take the expensive risks needed to develop and deliver something like that piece of crap that you obviously hate ? Or maybe you didn't buy one ? If that's the case then please ignore this response.
Well, the fact that such fundamental design and philosophy changes are still under way, I feel reassured in my decision to wait for iPhone 2.0 before shelling out any money. Needless to say, Switzerland is likely not going to see iPhone 1.0 on the official market any time soon anyway. However, iPod touch and iPhone, given a proper SDK, could easily turn into some rather amazing products, far more than they are now. Imagine the potential for games for example. PSP anyone? Or tying iPhone and Mac tighter together via Bluetooth. Imagine a possible UMTS support on a future iPhone coupled with a MacBook or MacBook Pro. Sounds rather sweet imo.
The iPhone whining will eventually stop but Apple haters reproduce faster than rodents. People who expect everything for nothing generally reproduce even faster because they've got nothing better to do with their time than get calouses on their genitals.
iWhining is a proud tradition in this nation of children who know the price of everything and the value of nothing and whose word and signature mean nothing.
You can't take the sky from me...
You can't take the sky from me...
There's much to be suspicious about whenever someone like Steve Jobs suddenly has a "change of heart" regarding product policy. Does anyone really believe Jobs wasn't at all planning this back when he asserted that developers would take down the west coast cell networks if allowed to develop native apps on the iPhone? There's obviously more to it than this thinly-veiled blessing announcement that just happened to conveniently coincide with the release of Leopard next week.
Just wait... there will be some sort of costly compromise to be met for developers to use this SDK. Perhaps certain applications of the SDK, such as creating a VoIP app, may be considered a breach of contract. Maybe something more draconian, such as zero freedom to distribute an app without Apple as a middle-man, including a mandatory Apple tax for the privilege. (After the whole pay-to-play 802.11n firmware upgrade fiasco, I put nothing past what Apple might do if it means an extra buck.)
Needless to say, the former "crazy ones" are now committable.
8==8 Bones 8==8
If Apple really cared about such pressure, they would have added Ogg support to the iPod to please those ten or twelve people that have been demanding it for the last few years. :)
if I correctly understand the implications of your remark then you agree with Apple's approach.
The Steve, 6000 years ago, created signed apps with the rest of the iWorld. However, as he is a vengeful God, he gave this innovation to Microsoft, for the greater glory of Apple, may it live forever.
What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
Please someone answer if you know...
Would this likely pave the road for a program to be written which could handle LEAP authentication (I believe LEAP is higher-level than the driver level)?
The file system on the iPhone is called HFS Plus, and, once you've jailbroken your phone, you can put stuff on it.
The iPhone has these handy APIs with names such as open() , close() , read() , write() , lseek() , unlink() , rename() , mkdir() , rmdir() , opendir() , etc..
I wanna hear him 'say' it. I'm blind and listen to Slashdot comments through a voice synthesizer, you unrefined fellow who is not responsive to my personal feelings!
Bow-ties are cool.
Yeah. And when developers say that, 95% of the time, you can file it under "Blame the User."
Are you adequate?
When I say "I expected dashboard widgets," I mean packaging HTML and javascript up as an "application," and allowing them to communicate with a developer-written web-server daemon running on the iPhone. I didn't expect to get access to the UI except through Safari, in other words. I'm quite impressed with this announcement.
The people who hack their phones to run applications are highly visible. They are the people who show others all the awesome things it can do -- play Nintendo games, view PDFs on the phone, etc. -- and they are the ones who act like force multipliers for sales if they are happy with a product. They are the leading edge, and consumers follow.
+++ATH0
... should be fixing that root problem you mention. There is no reason everything should HAVE to run as root. There is, in fact, an otherwise-unused "mobile" user that you can run irssi as so you're not IRCing as root. If you can run console apps as an unprivileged user, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to run SpringBoard apps as an unprivileged user.
+++ATH0
-sammy/iPhone
Apple is has great design for UI's and hardware, but suck at security at this point. At least Windows had help from the NSA to make Vista harder to hack. But you say Microsoft has more bugs...Apple is going to fry when the hacker focus moves more from Windows to the OSX. Apple just hasn't been that big of a target, but it's getting bigger all the time! Horray for Apple!
Steve thought that there would be an onslaught of web apps developed for the iphone. Since the release, the iphone web app developers has all but stopped. Releasing a SDK is their only hope.
My Java based Blackberry is loaded with dozens of 3rd party apps and it never crashes like your iPhone apparently does.
Respect the Constitution
Maybe it is just what software (not hardware) companies do, but shouldn't Apple have been working on the SDK as they worked up to the release of the iPhone. That way they could have a nice list all of the applications and developers who were behind their product?.
/.ers and teenagers buy them, but it will never thrive like Blackberry has.
Oh wait, that is what Microsoft, Palm and Blackberry have done with their products, based on Windows Mobile, Palm OS or Java. That is why if you use any of those phones you have a variety of useful apps by countless companies.
Steve Jobs is a control freak, he should have been smart enough to recognize that an SDK would have helped adoption. Furthermore it could have helped to lead companies that are presently Windows or Java development shops step into OS X application development.
Jobs has made a ton of mistakes in his career. Worse he repeats mistakes and does not learn. Not having and SDK for a PDA/phone is similar to not having expansion slots on the Mac. He is more interested in telling people how to use his products rather then make products that allow people to use them in a variety of ways.
Oddly, it is Microsoft who is better at working with 3rd hardware and software companies than Apple. iPhone may survive because
Respect the Constitution
In other iPhone news, the International Herald Tribune writes that Apple will sell official unlocked iPhones in France, to comply with local laws:
Apple said Tuesday that it had signed France Télécom's wireless unit, Orange, to be the U.S. company's exclusive seller of the iPhone in France, agreeing for the first time to sell a version of the device that consumers can use on any network.The move, which ended a month of speculation, is a concession to a French law that forbids bundling the sale of a mobile phone and a mobile operator.
So thanks to European laws, Americans will soon be able to import updatable unlocked iPhones, As I predicted.
This leaves us with only one question: What will we complain about now? :-)
The announcement certainly is long overdue. The SDK, I can understand why they didn't rush it. Even the update to 1.2.1 has broken a huge percentage of all unofficial third-party apps. Obviously, Apple is still changing things around in the SDK. It would be a bad idea to publish an SDK that is in such an unrefined state. You just can't go and break third-party apps with every minor revision of your OS.
Had Apple committed to the APIs in 1.0.2, they would not have been able to change the APIs so dramatically for 1.2.1. Had they done what must be done, third-party devs and users would have been outraged because all of their apps stopped working.
I work on an app with an SDK, and something like this is a constant struggle between progress and compatibility. I understand why Apple wants to let the APIs mature a bit before opening them to other developers. I don't understand why Apple didn't just come out and say so right from the beginning.
Possibly the security issues of SIM unlocks, chat and VOIP apps, where by security, Apple means "our security that we make a lot of money from contracts and people send a lot of SMS messages" :-)
Seriously though, with the announcement of an unlocked iPhone in France, I wonder whether Apple will still go after the SIM unlock hacks so vigorously.
For scaring them into it with your upcoming S60
What would be the app you'd most want on _iPod Touch_?
I don't thinkt hat's what GP meant. When OS X first came out, even minor new versions sometimes broke third-party apps. The iPhone update to 1.2.1 broke almost all third-party apps. That's just how it works early in the life of a product. The app team notices a missing feature, the SDK team implements it, the interface changes, other apps break. Had Apple released the SDK with the iPhone, they would have been screwed: Either break third-party apps, or maintain APIs that don't make a lot of sense anymore.
Just tried it out with the 140 page PDF of a manuscript I'm half finished laying out and even got my octogenarian mother interested in touching my new toy when the only think she remembered from the first time I showed her was the price.
Also tried a 1920 x 1200 aerial photo I had cropped for use as one of my dozen iMac desktop images and one which I definitely need on the toy before hiking season. Intriguingly, it was reduced to 960 x 600 so I'm either going to need to experiment further or wait for some youngsters to explore further.
Amusingly the SDK announcement came only hours after I had posted elsewhere declaring my confidence that "Apple will release an SDK after they stabilse the internals". My timing is usually out by a lot more than my typing.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
rockbox.org
There may still be software out there that enables this (not sure, since I don't really care), but iTunes on its own does not.
Media Center has enabled unconstrained internet sharing for years. It can do either library sharing, or server-client streaming. What's really cool is that it can do bandwidth-specific transcoding when feeding the clients - I've used it to stream audio over an AOL dialup (quality was AMish). It also lets me copy the same tracks between the ipods, the irivers, and the PSP. It's like itunes for grown ups.
Da Blog
While it's possible you're right, the evidence suggests otherwise:
- the iPod is a very successful closed device (aside from the Touch).
- the AppleTV is a closed device - which is failing due to no content. Opening the AppleTV would boost sales, yet it remains closed.
- comments from Apple execs suggest their suppressed desire for an SDK, implying a rift among execs on the issue of an SDK
- comments from Apple-centric blogs suggest a growing disenchantment with Apple by the core 10% - no SDK, $200 shafting of early adopters, bricking iPhones, disabling 3rd party apps, 1.1.1 update was only about Apple profit (mobile music purchasing, Starbucks purchasing, $2 ringtones).
- the 1.1.1 update seriously tried to nail down the iPhone, but it was still hacked within weeks.
No, I think Jobs realized that an SDK wasn't a bad thing.
Apple probably had SOME kind of SDK/third party development planned all along. But the iPhone's OS is still a wildly moving target, and it's not appropriate to have an SDK before things have calmed down with the OS APIs, frameworks, etc.
That's probably true, but Apple today in terms of basic R&D and also implementation muscle is a mere shadow of its former self. Although Amelio had also been doing is own layoffs, one of the earliest and most consistent things Jobs did to set up his impressive string of profitable quarters despite declining sales was to aggressively curtail entire divisions and lay off most of the "wonks" and a huge chunk of the d2d devs to cut costs. That has repercussions today. Look at how unfinished so many of the apps in the iPhone were, and the lack of integration. Apple simply doesn't have enough resources to simultaneously develop well-documented and functional APIs at a fast enough pace for OSX, the ipods, and now the iphone.
Da Blog
Maybe it's to maximize the use of the limited 256MB of RAM in the iPhone? Maybe swapping kernel space and user space on a system with memory protection significantly degrades performance on such a memory-restricted device? Anyone want to weigh in on whether that may be the case?
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)