Slashdot Mirror
iPhone SDK May Be 1-3 Weeks Late
tuxeater123 writes "According to a blog posting at BusinessWeek.com, the iPhone SDK could be pushed back by another 1-3 weeks. Unfortunately, the evidence provided, such as the media announcements that are usually made before most Apple releases, suggests that this may indeed be true. Apple usually sticks to their announced deadlines, however they have been known to break them occasionally."
It's interesting that everyone takes for granted that "getting from iTunes and then syncing it over" will be the only way to get apps. It's likely to be one of the ways, but Apple has revealed nothing. It's all speculation so far.
They already host downloadable Dashboard widgets and provide links to all sorts of software on their site and host the world's biggest podcast directory at no fee for anyone, producers or users. I don't see how helping to host applications that could solve every non-hardware related aspect ("3G!") of their product would be *bad* for them, even if some of those applications were free.
I expect to see some way that Apple will help people sell their apps if they do end up with some sort of iTunes app store, but one approach doesn't rule out the other, especially since it likely won't be that easy to get access to their payment/transaction system.
Right, I guess the free podcasts which Apple hosts on iTunes are being sold... oh, wait... I guess not. By the way, Apple (Steve Jobs) has already alluded that apps through iTunes will be available for various rates, including Zero/Free.
Yeah, when one, single model from one, single manufacturer outsells ALL Windows Mobile smartphones from ALL manufacuturers for two quarters, that sure is a failure.
There's already a means to get ipod applications in itunes, and has been for some time - it'll just be extended to the iphone/itouch. The ipod touch 'option pack' ($20 to do the equivalent of set a registry entry), was the dry run of the delivery method.
From that we know that applications will be signed.. which means some kind of approval method, and its associated cost. No great surprise there - all mobile platforms have something like it. Whereas you *could* distribute an approved app for free you'd be paying apple for the privilege.
Presumably users will be able to sign their own apps limited to one phone with the SDK (development would be a bit hard without it.. simulators still aren't real hardware and nobody in their right mind would release an app that hadn't had real world testng), which means if you want to distribute 'free' apps then there's the extra step of getting end users to sign it themselves.
It comes down to the SDK - if that's free then distributing free software will continue with the extra step of signing those apps yourself. If it costs money it'll kill free distribution because there won't be enough users who will pay money simply to get free stuff.. they'll pay the fees to itunes instead.
They managed to break records with a phone that lacked many features people have come to accept as standard, with a horrible choice of plans/carriers at a premium price.
Nobody at all seemed to care about the lack of 3rd party apps on it when they handed over their cash for the device. They broke into the cellphone market with just 1 product in record time and you say they got the disadvantage?
Android may do even better BUT it will do in a totally different way. First off there will be NO google phone. Android is closer to Symbian or even MS Mobile OS (whatever they renamed it to this month) then the iPhone. With the iPhone you bought a Apple product, with Android you will buy a phone from any number of phone makers that just happens to run a software suit in which Google had a hand in the development.
Their most likely won't be a google branded phone and none of the others have enough status to sell a phone just because their logo is on it.
Android and the iPhone are completly different products and Apple doesn't need to worry about the same things Google has too. I might buy an Android phone for its openess, but I think absolutly nobody bought an iPhone for any similar concerns. It would be like saying that Ferrari needs to publish the specs for their new car early so 3rd parties can develop roof racks and child seats for it early. Sorry, Ferrari and the people who buy them could care less about that.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Signed applications means that the applications have a cryptographic signature attached to them with *any* trust root, not that they have to be attached to any specific trust root. There's a leap from "applications have to be signed" to "applications have to be signed by Apple" or the more likely "applications have to be signed by an authority whose certificate is trusted by Apple". But let's say that happens: unless all development happens inside a simulator in software (and good luck testing multi-touch then), I definitely think that there'll be a way to run "untrusted" apps, and this way will be exploited to run free apps. I think Apple knows this.
The iPod touch update was curious - the apps were already in the new firmware, and the update just "unlocked" them. (The update weighs in at 9 KB.) Since people won't get to download new firmware every time they get an app, this doesn't confirm much, although I agree that it was probably a dry run of some component in the whole scheme, most likely signing.
Also, Most smartphones have Java, which is quite uniform across devices. It only seems to be used for games, but there is great potential for it.
I think it would be smart for apple to include Java into the iphone, it would give it a pretty level playing field with other devices.
So you're insinuating that Apple withheld releasing a proper SDK when the iPhone launched because they purposefully wanted to stunt the platform?
Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the API for mobile OSX 1.0 might have been last priority behind everything else that had to be done to get a 1.0 product out the door? Talk to any iPhone app developer and they will tell you the same thing - iPhone 1.0 looks pretty darn good on the surface, but under the hood its quite ragged as the developers were obviously under pressure to meet a deadline.
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
It was a Nokia 6600. Interesting phone. As I remember the hardware was very attractive but the UI was confusing. I remember it taking more time to figure out where the web browser was in the thing than to actually download and eradicate the virus.
Here's your proof that this virus exists:
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/commwarrior.shtml
You are clearly wrong that no phone virus causing monetary harm has ever existed. MMS messages cost money to send. This virus sent hundreds of them. I will admit I only have her word that the virus caused her a $300 phone bill. But I believe MMS messages cost about two Philippine pesos (at the time $ 0.20) to send. When she discovered the problem, her phone was continuously sluggish and so I have no problem thinking she might have sent a thousand or so messages, so close to $300 in MMS.
I am not an expert about virus propagation, but I suspect you need millions of users for it to be financially worthwhile to write a virus. Nokia/Symbian does have that critical mass. I do not believe there are enough jailbroken iPhones to be a sufficiently fertile market for a virus, but if you could do it on all iPhones it might be. Furthermore, if you jailbreak you iPhone, you and not Apple are responsible for your acts. So you could get a virus on your phone but Apple would not be liable in any way.
Curiously enough, the iPhone's third party software development is done through a model surprisingly similar to what we expect Apple to do. Installer.app is a centralized repository for iPhone software. I would certainly assume that if someone added a virus to installer.app's list of software it would be rapidly removed and the developer blacklisted. Most people are relying on installer.app instead of searching the Internet for software.
While the existing mechanism is probably very safe, I think Apple is right in being concerned about viruses,especially as adding software to the iPhone spreads from what is probably a community of a few hundred thouand at most to a community of millions.
Hope that was of interest.
D