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."

Comments

That's terrible!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm devastated by this. It makes my entire life valueless. How could a company like Apple even think about delaying a software release by almost a month. Oh, woe, woe is me. etc etc etc

Most pointless statement ever?

[psp]

Apple usually sticks to their announced deadlines, however they have been known to break them occasionally.

Slashdot article summaries usually are shock full of valuable comment, however they have been known to be totally pointless.

Interesting

[wamerocity]

My big problem with this is that EVERY program for the iPhone has to come from iTunes, which means it will most likely be sold. I doubt Apple is going to host any freeware programs that people write out of the goodness of their hearts. I've actually been very surprised by the quality and ingenuity of some of the programs written for jailbroken iPhones, and I know that these programs will only increase in quality once real tools are released, but I just wonder how hindered it will be because of the inability of people to "just install" programs on it that they like.

Re:Interesting

[wootest]

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.

I doubt Apple is going to host any freeware programs that people write out of the goodness of their hearts.

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.

Re:Interesting

[__aapdpi4193]

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.

Re:Interesting

[Tony Hoyle]

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.

Re:Interesting

[wootest]

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.

Pointless?

[Serious Lemur]

What kind of /. user would buy a locked-down phone anyway?

Re:Pointless?

[mdwh2]

One sick of phones having nearly-useless web browsers, when the only phone with a useful one is locked.

Any cheap old phone can run Opera Mini. I too was annoyed by the poor quality of my phone's built in browser, but now I never have any trouble. It even has features like server-side downscaling of image sizes, thus reducing download times (and costs) - so even if your phone does have a decent browser, it's worth a look.

Re:Good News. Bad News.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Developers, developers, developers

[Ilan Volow]

One of the most frustrating parts of being a mac and Apple platform developer has always been being the veil of secrecy around API's, and for anyone who's used to the mac development lifestyle, the iPhone SDK isn't an exception. Personally, I can't understand it; keeping customers in the dark may be smart marketing, but keeping developers for your platform in the dark is suicide.

Thousands of developers are already writing code for Google's Android platform because Google released the API early, even before they released a device. By the time Apple releases their SDK, Google will already be ahead of them in the numbers of developers experienced with their API. I wish Apple could understand the enormous competitive disadvantage they are putting themselves in.

Re:1-3 weeks late?

[Tony Hoyle]

It was originally announced for February. Remember that we weren't going to get a proper SDK... Steve Jobs announced the web SDK and said that everyone would be using that from now on (what, over GPRS? Get real steve). It was only when they realized that (a) nobody gave a shit about web apps, and (b) millions of users were running native apps anyway, and apple wasn't getting a cut, that he announced the SDK.

I would LOVE their disadvantage

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

This is good...

[HumanEmulator]

I'll be able to get real work done for an extra 1-3 weeks before I starting hacking my phone.

Re:I think that's his point

[ThePengwin]

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.

Re:1-3 weeks late?

[Fahrvergnuugen]

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.

Re:1-3 weeks late?

[Space cowboy]

Right, because the iPhone has suffered terribly from the lack of 3rd-party applications. Sales are in single digits, and frankly owning one is an embarrassment. Not.

I'm an iPhone app developer. The API is actually pretty nice "under the surface". UIKit is a lean-and-mean version of Cocoa, and behaves just like it in most respects. Being able to write Leopard-style ObjC on a device that goes in your pocket is frankly awesome. Unless you have *specific* examples of this "ragged" nature, I'm just gonna call bullshit on your entire comment, and leave it at that.

Now a proper SDK will be a step forward, no doubt, but that's because we'll get things like named-constants rather than use 0x02 to specify values. Classdump, which is how the API was recovered, can only give you the method signatures and names. We'll also get the official C compiler, not one that works 98% of the time, real debugging, and perhaps even a simulator built into XCode, so you don't have to deploy to a target device in order to test the code. Oh yeah, and I'd expect to see some documentation too...

Lacking any of these things doesn't point to it being "ragged" architecturally, every single point is a consequence of the hacks that were required to get *any* development going on the iPhone. Apple don't have that problem...

Simon.

Re:1-3 weeks late?

[Fahrvergnuugen]

"Unless you have *specific* examples of this "ragged" nature, I'm just gonna call bullshit on your entire comment, and leave it at that."

How about the fact that everything (on 1.0) runs as root?

Re:Security

[daviddennis]

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

Root is *GOOD*

[MacDork]

How about the fact that everything (on 1.0) runs as root?

Being unable to run as root is where problems occur for developers. Behold the market for Nokia S60 v3 smartphone software. Half of the most popular apps are written by Nokia, because everyone else is busy jumping through flaming hoops to get their apps signed. The process is so damned bureaucratic, innovation freezes, developers loose interest in frustration, and Nokia ends up developing most of what little appears on the platform. Worse yet, the stated goal of providing security through signing is obvious bullshit when signed spyware starts popping up. It's all about Nokia controlling who gets signed and who gets to compete.

You're root comment is a user security issue and has NOTHING to do with the availability of an SDK. If iPhone is unable to run at different user levels it is NOT Mac OS X, because user levels are a fundamental property of any *nix OS.

Macintosh computers aren't riddled with viruses and security breaches, what makes you think Macintosh phones would be any different? If Apple's SDK "solution" is to sign apps instead of fixing their obviously broke ass permission system, then their SDK will be useless anyway just like their other iPhone "SDK." If Apple can't provide a hand held platform as open to developers as their desktop systems, then they will join the long list of companies that failed to revolutionize the mobile market.

Right now they're blowing it, just like they blew it with the Macintosh two decades ago. I wouldn't be so upset about it if I wasn't such a huge fan of the company.