Slashdot Mirror
iPhone SDK Rules Block Skype, Firefox, Java ...
An anonymous reader writes "Apple's iPhone software development kit is already drawing complaints due to the strict terms of service. Voice over IP apps like Skype that attempt to use the cellular data connection will be blocked. Competing web browsers Firefox and Opera are forbidden. Even Sun is now backpedaling on its recent announcement of a java port, noting that there are some legal issues. Critics are already comparing Apple's methods to Comcast's anti-net neutrality filtering, and Microsoft's Netscape-killing antitrust tactics. Could Apple face government regulators?"
The SDK made the iPhone interesting and attractive to new developers. Sun adding java added to that. But now Apple slamming the door on innovation will only drive those that wish for such a product to go elsewhere, such as to Googles Android or the OpenMoko, for examples.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Why can't Apple dictate what gets put on their device? After all, if you don't like it, there are plenty of other phones on the market.
This is Apple we're dealing with here. They won't even let you build your own computer even though OS X runs on x86.
For all the crap Microsoft gets for its tactics, it should be clear from actions like this that Apple is the real villain.
And don't buy it. It's that simple.
It's not like comcast which is a monopoly in certain areas. There are hundreds of other cell phones to buy. Whoever wrote the summary is an idiot.
I think Apple is turning blind with your own success. All the marketing people loves Apple products, but in fact, technical people have a lot of non good points about the same products.
Look, I know the iPhone is all "snazzy" and "cool" and "trendy," but I think it's been known for a while that Apple would do this, yes?
If you're looking for a platform with more open SDK access, just don't write for the iPhone. Go for a mobile device with a Linux-based OS, or even Windows Mobile. That gives you a lot more flexibility in terms of writing your own software (I write C# on a Moto Q, myself) and you usually end up paying less, too.
Apple has a choice as to whether or not they open up their hardware just as you had the choice of buying the phone in the first place.
Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.
What other cell phone company might be facing government regulators over their extremely locked down software choices?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
But Microsoft is a convicted monopoly. Anyone seen my Kool-Aid?
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
How is this an issue for regulators? If Apple if determined to make their product not work, its not the regulators job to change their mind. If Apple decides they want no Opera and no Java and nothing else, its their decision. Let them make it and face the consequences.
It can be go tiem now plees?
Yes, the SDK has serious restrictions. But how can you compare this to microsoft? The whole point with regulating microsoft was the fact that microsoft has a monopoloy. I don't think anyone is going to argue that Apple has a monopoly in the mobile phone market. That's rediculous. If you don't like the iPhone or the iPhone SDK -- go elsewhere. There is plenty of competition. I personally will accept these drawbacks and keep using my iphone.
Could Apple face regulators for restricting third party development on THEIR SOFTWARE which is on THEIR HARDWARE which does not in any sense of the word have a monopoly.
Somehow.. I doubt it.
People seem to forget that Apple don't need to make it easy for people to develop for the iPhone. They don't have to assist at all. At. All.
Whilst I may disagree with their tactics, I'm certainly not going to tell them how to run their business. And whilst the Microsoft comparisons will be coming out of the woodwork like hungry mutant termites, it's simply not the same. Windows & Office locks people into a platform by being an established monopoly, it also uses this established monopoly to lock people into their other products. What this is, is simply Apple giving people a piece of cake and not letting them eat it. Sure it sucks, but you know what - don't like it; don't develop for it. Simple.
Could Apple face government regulators?
For what reason? Last I heard Apple did not have a monopoly on cell phones, or even on smart phones. The only thing they seem to have a monopoly on is fanboys.
Don't like the iPhone's rules, don't buy the phone. There are a multitude of alternatives. The FCC does not regulate what US providers can and can not restrict on their cell phone networks currently in any way.
On one hand, this reeks of the same type of behaviour microsoft have engaged in for the past two decades, and was rightfully sued over and over and over again about. At the same time, how is Apple's behaviour different from retarded mess that Verizon puts on its cellular phones to lock out developers and cripple the functionality. Noone goes after the cellular carriers and their enablers (handset makers). Also, where is the Zune SDK (not that Zune == IPod Touch/IPhone, but still)?
Ah, good old Slashdot, where every item sold by every company must be open to being used in any conceivable way, or the wrath of thousands of smelly nerds is brought to bear. In an ultimately ineffectual way, of course, since bitching on the web gets results nearly as fast as praying.
Most cell phone applications are written in J2ME. The lack of J2ME support means existing applications already on AT&T's approved app deck would need extensive porting. The only exception is Verizon which has their own language (called BREW), which has less apps than most other companies because of it. Even the Black Berry supports J2ME.
I'd bet a small amount of cash that the terms of the license were drawn up by lawyers without a huge amount of input and review by technical folks. They probably looked at the general characteristics of applications and disallowed those features that they thought might lead to malware being executed. In particular, leaving holes for un-vetted code to be executed.
Apple are probably just trying to protect their users from crap and at the same time protect themselves from legal issues. I can imagine a lawsuit by some aggrieved user: "Why did you leave this huge hole for this virus to walk in and spam overseas calls at tens of $1,000s per month."
I wish they had done a better job. As has been said many times, never ascribe to maliciousness that which can adequately explained by incompetence.
The iPhone is a niche product that one must go out of their way to pay a premium for. The people who buy it are buying it because they want what is being offered and they know what they are getting. The majority of Apple customers are going to use iChat, not GAIM, Safari, not Firefox, iWorks or MS Office (but only if they really must), not OpenOffice, etc.
This is a far cry from Microsoft forcing hardware manufacturers to install Windows on EVERYTHING or NOTHING, then using that penetration to foist IE, WMP, etc.
Apple users made a conscious decision for the whole kaboodle. Slashdot readers are not the norm for anything but obsessive Linux users. Say whatever it is that you want, but only Slashdot readers are going to be upset about this. The majority of iPhone purchasers and Apple users in general will hardly notice, if they even know what an SDK is.
borne shell, etc:
"no interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."
Man, I gotta remember to check post anon on this one!
"Why can't I dictate why software gets loaded on "my" device?"
That is the question I should have asked. When you buy the phone, you own the physical hardware, but only a license to use the software. Why can't Apple dictate how their software is used? They aren't Microsoft with a 90% market share, they are in a market with massive competition.
1) "Voice over IP apps like Skype that attempt to use the cellular data connection will be blocked." Yeah they're going to be blocked over the cellular network, not over WiFi, this is NOT NEWS. 2) The article that the "are forbidden" link goes to talks about the possible lack of Photoshop (among other apps) on the iPhone. Photoshop, come on. There is no way I'm going to take an article seriously that talks about the lack of Photoshop ON A PHONE. If you wanna use Photoshop get your own lappy 486 or Desktop. 3) Sun Java VM - Where the heck is the back peddling? This whole thing was announced less than a week ago, the article even states "if our crack engineers are able to build it" let alone where they mention the licensing in less than one full sentence... Get real. This is a Doom n' Gloom / FUD post.
No.
/. , at least), but they're not doing anything against the laws or regulations. Time to support Android, maybe.
They're not a monopolist in the area of 'smart phones' convicted of abusing that monopoly. I'm sure they wouldn't mind being a monopolist in it, and I'm sure they would actually love to abuse it if they were - but they're not, so... no.
They're also not a utility service provider. No data passes through iPhones and ends up hampered or filtered due to Apple policies for that iPhone, so... no.
Anything else?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not happy with this form of 'opening up' of the iPhone any more than the next guy ( on
Skype, etc are not permitted over the cell network per the SDK, but there are no restrictions on what you can do over Wifi.
I'm not sure you'd even want FF, slow and bulky as it is, on an iPhone. Not sure about Opera but I'll tell you that Opera mini 3.12 is a pretty crappy browser. Maybe v4 is better, I hope so for their sake.
that SDK says your app can't run in the background. I would imagine (not being an iPhone owner but having some common sense) that the iPhone will continue to play music if you are using say the Calendar functionality. If I am not able to create a media player that allows me to provide that same level of functionality, whether it is for some unsupported format not found in iTunes, or if I want to use another media player on my iPhone to download songs from Napster, then I think Apple will be opening itself up to a world of trouble, monopoly-wise. That is exactly how M$ got in trouble, was leveraging their OS to keep out competition. You can't have it both ways... you either allow 3rd party apps or you don't. If a particular carrier wants to prevent some type of network usage/traffic, I can see the carrier doing that, just like you ISP doesn't have to provide you with Newsgroups...but your OS had damn well better not try and block Newsgroups just because it has some forum software it wants to push.
http://blog.slaingod.com
The net neutrality part of it looks like FUD being spread by the uninformed pure and simple. The SDK allows you to differntiate between WiFi and EDGE data connections; so theoretically any VOIP app should be able to select the WiFi connection over cellular data. As for applications like web browsers having no ability to run backgrounded would make them moot unless you dont use any of the other apps like mail (and dont receive phone calls) (I do hope they reverse this; I'd really like an Adium port for the iPhone) For the most part everyones just making a mountain out of a molehill. The iPhone is not the most popular phone or software platform on a phone. Its a niche market at the moment and its long term effects on the market remain to be seen.
WTF, guys? How about you just buy a phone that will allow you to do all of that & tell Steve Jobs to kiss your ass on your way out?
There is a war going on for your mind.
I can see the No Skype on Cell-data restriction. VoIP is really very poorly suited for being carried over the wireless anyway, and the overhead is significantly more than just voice calls. Not to mention, voice on the cellphone network is pretty cheap already.
The "No Competing Browsers" I understand as well. You see, on the iPhone, the browser really isn't ordinary, but the keys to the kingdom of usability and utility. Apple wanting to protect that makes sense.
What is probably the MOST annoying is "No GPLv3": Apple won't distribute GPLv3 code because it means giving aways the signing key for that app (the anti-TiVoization clause), and since all distribution is through apple, GPLv3 is out.
However, for all the griping, this is actually an AMAZINGLY flexible and unrestricted platform, compared with say game consoles or other PDAs. And for $100 to get a developer key (which allows you to directly run on your own devices), who cares about the distribution restrictions if you are some l33t haxor type who just HAS to run firefox on his iPhone.
Test your net with Netalyzr
I find that the Azureus client for BitTorrent, while slow to launch, does a fine job of helping me pirate video, audio and software. A victory for Java!
I've taken a look at the documentation, and as always it's excellent. Lot's of examples and stuff, so the SDK itself seems to be really good. And I personally think that their distribution system is a good idea (they NEED control for various reasons). I also have no problem with the fact that they don't allow voice services over the cellular network, only via WLAN (they have to, the providers would kick Apple in the nuts if they'd allow that).
But the limitation that instantly kills a ton of useful potential apps is the fact that you can't run an app in the background. If you switch away from your app (say, accept a phone call), your application quits. Bye bye instant messaging and every other application that needs to run for a long time/wait for events.
I think the reason the iPhone is selling so well is it's potential capabilities. I mean, sure there were always going to be some fanbois who bought it (Newton, anyone?), but it's wild popularity was the promise/hope of new apps; as close to an all-in-1 as ever. Jailbreak anyone? Closing the iPhone back up will pretty much limit the iPhone to an expensive nifty gadget instead of something really useful (Netwon, anyone? Did I say that already?). Think of it as utility/potential ratios. Palm phones and Blackberries seem pretty close to "1" already. The iPhone hasn't even come close.
Game development is a hobby of mine. I was considering either doing some stuff in Microsoft's XNA Studio for the XBox or the IPhone SDK. It's funny that I'll be using a Microsoft product because it's more open.
Competing web browsers Firefox and Opera are forbidden
No. The linked article says that "you might be able to have Firefox, but you wouldn't be able to have the plugins, add-ons and other goodness". I'm not sure what "other goodness" the author is referring to, but he later goes on to say that "other developers have argued that since Firefox plugins primarily run JavaScript they may be [accepted]."
Based on this article alone, it is a huge stretch to say that Firefox is forbidden.
Antitrust laws are a last resort for when the market can't correct itself. If Apple keeps up with this crap they risk the more dire consequence of consumers simply abandoning their platform. Can you say, Apple Lisa?
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
...who didn't expect this? Honestly, this is completely in line with how they have been acting with the iPhone/iPod Touch product lines. Commence Jailbreaking in 5, 4...
Look, once and for all, there is a simple reason that Apple/AT&T are not letting developers have free reign on the data network. It has been brought up by Apple. it has been brought up by AT&T. Its validity has been given the nod by all sorts of people familiar with competing systems.
AT&Ts data network is not up to the task of handling all the potential traffic.
It's not. Everyone involved has been saying from the start that a single moderately popular application would be perfectly capable of saturating the entire connection. Whether that application is a VIOP app with a less than efficient protocol or bittorrent or video streaming. The network can not handle it. Now, I'm sure AT&T doesn't mind the lack of competition for its own services, but that si secondary at best. They could not allow these types of apps even if they wanted to.
So far, it looks like there is going to be little or no restrictions on what the iPhone can do when connected via Wi-Fi. They don't care what you do as long as you are doing it on someone else's connection.
Does the author mean user-javascript, perhaps? I don't think so. Otherwise, given that Opera really doesn't support extensions, and Opera has no intention of allowing extensions (for much the same reason Apple doesn't want to allow extensions, which might be (a) malicious, or (b) crappily coded), does this mean that Opera won't actually be blocked?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
it's a device to communicate and it can't communicate?
WTF
might as well buy a CB friggin radio!
Maybe someone will be at least be able to create a good webkit-based browser? If nothing else, I'd love to have the ability to "right-click" (press-and-hold, like on a PocketPC) on a link and open in a new window, or save a file (assuming they give you some kind of local file storage.) Plus a button to force it to render minimally-formatted pages at 100% (maybe insert a 'viewport' tag into the document?) instead of having to pan-and-zoom. (It renders them OK in landscape, but I'd like to force that behavior in portrait mode as well.) That would make it great for reading documentation.
/etc/hosts file to block ads or some other adblocking scheme. I block ads on my desktop, so not only do I hate seeing them on my iPhone, I really hate seeing them on my iPhone since they take longer to download and render and take up precious screen real estate. (Plus I pay for Yahoo mail so I don't see ads--but they serve ads to me on the mobile version anyway! No, I don't want to use the iPhone's mail app for my Yahoo mail.)
Also, it should be able to use a custom
And if anyone reading is/plans to be an iPhone app dev, I'd also like an app that lets me determine which way is south based on the time of day--that would make a great addition to Google Maps. Just draw an analog clock face (adjusted for DST if needed) with 12 at the top and two lines: one says "point at sun" and the other says "south is that way."
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
People paid 400-500 bucks for these phones, I'll piss in snow, photograph it, & scan it into a compiler if that's what it takes to get a little deeper into these consumers pockets.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Microsoft got in trouble for leveraging their OS monopoly to squash Netscape, and Apple has no such monopoly to leverage. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with limiting what applications can run on your device, nor is there anything wrong with integrating a browser, but there are some behaviors that monopolies cannot engage in that a smaller company can.
You bought an Apple device, you couldn't have been expecting open-ness.
Will Apple face government regulation?
I seriously doubt it. The iPhone has not given anything and then taken it away. Nor have they made any promises they didn't keep. Further, the level of ubiquity of the iPhone platform is not high enough to be on any government regulatory radar. (Blackberry *might* be just to illustrate a point of reference.)
As to whether or not a "next version iPhone" will grant developers and users the freedom and flexibility they crave? I find it to be HIGHLY unlikely. Apple has been very consistent in stating their attitude about who controls their products. Apple does -- at ALL times -- especially after purchase. They're pretty good at blurring the lines of who actually owns the products they sell.
Then get T-Mobile...
T-Mobile already does this effectively with their WiFi/cell phones: they route over WiFi when available (eg, home) and then over the cell network when away from the home. So you can have one phone, where you get GUARENTEED good reception at home, and can route transparently.
Hopefully AT&T will cross-liscence the patents, because THAT would be nice on the iPhone.
Skype is truely awful for data use on the cell network: Far more bandwidth per call and a lot more quiescent use. If the iPhone users had skype, the EDGE network would collape in 30 seconds.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Apple didn't release a SDK, and people were not happy. Now Apple released a SDK, people are still not happy.
Without Firefox, without Java, without VoIP on cell network, there are still tons of things you can program on to iPhone/iPod Touch. It's a business, pure and simple. I can imagine somewhere in the contract with AT&T it specifically rule out VoIP on cell network, and anyway to get around that.
Besides, Firefox is bloated (look how slow microb run on Nokia 770). And you want to use Azureus on iPhone/iPod? I don't see any big deal they have some restrictions. If you don't like them, don't develop applications for them. Or you can just go the old jailbreaking route.
A sig is redundant.
I'm guessing some of these limitations will or can only be enforced by not allowing these applications on the iTunes app store. However if you pony up the $99 to get a developer certificate presumably you'll be able to compile and run whatever the heck you want on your own iPhone subject to SDK limitations.
1) Number of apps so far released and distributed via app store: 0
2) Number of apps so far forbidden from being released: 0
3) Number of articles proclaiming the upcoming horror of what Evil Apple could do: an even quintbillion.
No one knows what Apple is going to do. No one. They could open it up to basically all-comers, or they could limit it so that only Tetris is available.
Why do so many people assume that Apple is Microsoft or Sony? I've never gotten that impression. They are by and large very open.
Why is it that 99% of the developer reaction I've seen has been enthusiastically positive, and yet the spin here is so negative? Apple has dramatically exceeded people's expectations and are even allowing VOIP applications that use WiFi. When the competitive landscape in the cellphone world changes and the carriers just become dumb pipes, Apple will be the first to drop stupid restrictions, since their interests will be completely aligned with users: they make their money on hardware, not software. And why does every discussion like this devolve into AAPL=MSFT? Apple are winning here because they have good products, not because they are kneecapping their competitors to try to maintain a monopoly for mediocre products.
When I heard about the SDK and having Java available for it I was thrilled. I'm a java developer, so I was thinking maybe I'd get an iPhone and play a bit. But with all these restrictions and blocking Java from the platform, I'm rapidly losing my interest. Apple's little deal with AT&T is going to hurt them in the long run I suspect. I don't own an iPhone yet for precisely the problem that changing carriers is a huge pain I prefer to avoid.
:)
Apple's been drinking a bit too much of their own koolaid. I recognize that controlling the platform allows them to provide some guarantees of the user experience. But when they go beyond user experience to manipulating this control for purely economic gain, they will eventually be diminishing the user experience. When you say to a user that they can't have a specific app because it would cost Apple money, you're well and truly on the slippery slope.
Honestly what I wish some cell company would do is offer a data phone that's mostly focussed on texting and web browsing, which would be open and permit the use of VOIP clients. This won't happen because carriers have too much to gain from the lock in and overcharging they currently exhibit on their minute plans. Because of how spectrum is licensed, it guarantees a limited number of players who all have the same interests. So it won't happen, but I can dream can't I?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
could it be that Apple KNOWS that if they open up the iPhone to everyone's languages they are going to have a support nightmare when all this crap that becomes available starts screwing up the users phones?
How much MALWARE coming in via Billy Bob Java's new widget should apple put up with?
the only way the iPhone stays out of the piece of sh*t category is to PREVENT you morons from messing with it.
Like, someone other than me, the person that is paying for that connection? If my TOS does not forbid me to use VoIP over the network, why should Apple go over their heads to do it, when other plataforms don't?
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
it's not.
It's clear that _only_ expensive class action lawsuits and/or government intervention will break the stranglehold Apple enjoys on everything they brand.
Yep, you certainly own the physical device.
And you have agreed to the terms of a license for the Apple software running on it.
If you don't like the terms, don't agree to them.
Apple is not beholden to fulfill the wish list of everyone on the long tail of interesting apps.
If you can run something on there without violating those terms, knock yourself out.
If not, you're free to pick up an OpenMOKO or an Android.
Oh, wait...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I think that's the main issue looking over all the on-going conversations.
Just because is shares many of the same abilities does not mean that Apple is under obligation to allow you to fully use those abilities.
Just like your under no obligation to buy the damn phone if it doesn't do what you want it to do.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Do most end-users care if they have J2ME? I think for most, it goes as far as "can I get [Tetris clone]?"
that if, hypothetically, Microsoft and let's say... Dell merged, all of Microsoft's legal troubles would go away forever and no one could legitimately criticize their ethics ever again?
I don't buy that.
BREW isn't a language. It's not Verizon's own.
You can read about BREW here
Not having owned an iPhone, and not being an Apple Fanboy, I am reading this discussion objectively. For Apple, I can see where they do not want certain apps on their phones, as the apple store probably doesn't want to have to fix your iPhone after you install mplayer and xvid codecs, and then iTunes stops working. The same goes for Java hijacking the OS on the iPhone and hooking into the iPhone's browser. It would be a support nightmare having to troubleshoot all of those apps. Stick to their SDK and you won't have to worry about a shoddily written program that could cause havok, because they approve it, sponsor it, and host it. That way they can be sure their hardware won't behave badly. I look at it like the game console modchips war. People will bitch about buying the hardware and owning it, and therefore they say they *should* have the right to mod it as they see fit, but when it breaks and they want it fixed, they expect the manufacturer to fix it. Usually for free. It'd be like converting your Mustang to run on bio-diesel and then bitching at Ford when your car has a heart-attack and dies from the trans fat. If you are THAT freaking worried about running Java, mplayer, skype, wine, World of Warcraft, whatever, on your phone, and having the ability to choose your carrier, save yourself $150 and buy the openmoko SDK. They actually encourage people to innovate on their platform. However, if you jack the openmoko up by installing XP-lite on it, don't expect simpathy from the dev team. Just like it shouldn't be expected from Apple when you crash your iPhone...
788652 = 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 19 x 1153
This is no different than Nintendo/Sony limiting devkit distribution and not allowing some gaming subject matter or play mechanics to get through to the public. Whether its right or wrong isn't the question. The question is whether you as an individual will buy into there model and abide by there rules. Of course they are going to limit certain features, this is a cell phone. Anyway, they are a company generating revenue and have share holders to contend with. Also, i really don't think the lack of java support is that big of a deal. The cocoa/objective-c/xcode trifecta is more than adequate for development here and fits better into A$ way of doing things. If you have learned java and its libraries then learning objective-c (weird looking but cool) and cocoa (a really complete library) should pose no problem at all.
They own copyright on their SDK. If you want to use their SDK, and distribute code built with their SDK libraries, then you have to comply with their license. Or write your own SDK (and use a jailbreak instead of their store). Just like the GPL. Comply with the license or write your own.
restricted people's ability to build clone machines back in the day.
...
The same Apple that restricted what software could run on their machines.
The same Apple that restricted
Nothing new here, this is Apple's secret formula to ensure they never have more than 3-5% market share of anything they do in the long term. I remember a time when Apple was very popular, but due to their complete lack of business acumen doomed their ability to take over the hardware and software markets. They could of taken the computer world by storm and buried IBM and Microsoft, but they have no clue how to market long term. Short term marketing and hype they've got down, but I didn't buy an iPhone, because, I know the end result, which we are now starting to see more clearly. Some people might say I was psychic, o which I would say know your history and you won't be doomed to repeat it.
Same ol' Apple. It's comforting to know I can rely on them to be consistent. Isn't Steve Jobs at the helm again?
Non-monopolies are prohibited from activities including price-fixing, bid-rigging, and allocation of territory or customers between competitors. There's no question that a monopoly will garner more attention from anti-trust regulators than a non-monopoly. But there are numerous decisions Apple could make about their SDK that might result in anti-trust violations. The answer, "No, they aren't a monopoly or a utility" isn't sufficient to demonstrate that Apple is not violating anti-trust regulations. Some of the decisions they have made about the SDK could be violations, but only if they made them pursuant to an agreement (formal or informal) with a competitor. They very well could attract the attention of regulators investigating whether such an agreement exists.
Maybe skype, as a huge developer, could have some kind of a special contract with apple to be allowed to develop an OFFICIAL version of Skype for the iPhone?
There's no wonder apple doesn't want *amateur VoIP applications* running on the iPhone...
> decide that a phone is just an appliance and I can live with Apple's constraints...
Why the docile obedience? Just because it is Apple?
You buy it, you do whatever the hell you want with it! Isn't that the mantra here at Slashdot? Except when it is Apple.
I want to see someone port Iceweasel to the damned thing, post a torrent up on a server somewhere anonymously and watch Apple suffer the PR nightmare of trying to ban it. If we can't outright outlaw stupidity we can certainly make it painful.
Adn if Sun actually had a pair of dangling between their legs they would port Java and double dog dare Steve to sue. Come on, they stared Microsoft down over their mistreatment of Java, why be scared of Apple when, again, this is a case they can't lose. Because it won't ever make it to a court of law, Apple would get their asses handed to them in the court of public opinion years before the wheels of justice could turn.
Democrat delenda est
If Apple tries to stop me, I will do my utmost to stop their intrusion onto my property by any means necessary.
I think this is the same perspective that Apple's wireless partner, AT&T has regarding the user of its very limited bandwidth on the EDGE network. EDGE sucks. If Apple lets clueless users run P2P and VOIP over it, say goodbye to Google maps and the other standard network apps ever working.
If this were about greed, they'd block SMS messaging apps, which they're not. AT&T and the other wireless carriers still treat text messages as a profit center. Since text chat shouldn't threaten the bandwidth of the network, Apple's cool with texting apps, even though AT&T isn't going to be too happy about them.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Apple is not the dominant one trying to force everyone to use their standards, or actually, to pay them to use their standards. Apple is just selling some all-in-one devices that run their software and some 3rd party stuff too. When you buy an Apple it's for its tightly integrated software & hardware combination... typically you're going exactly for what they provide. If not then just buy something else. At least their software plays nice with standards and doesn't try to force everyone to use their formats and apps, just those wishing to buy their systems. They're not trying to push some new document standard, or a new runtime that ties into their OS's API. I can run all my favorite OSS on OSX... the iPhone is just a phone that happens to have a web browser. It's funny because Steve Jobs was trying to sell web clips as web applets on iPhone and suddenly everyone wanted to run native code on the phone, and now basically want an open platform.
I don't have anything against that, but I don't think that was the idea really, and I think they're more worried about keeping trojans and worms off of it than anything since iPhones have unlimited data plans and because personal data is stored the same way on all iPhones and can be easily extracted and messed around with since there are built-in methods for communicating with your contacts without your initiation and of abusing your personal info that could have immediate consequences to you. Should we have a device that can run any 3rd party code that could accidentally or maliciously spread itself to all phones and start dialing 911?
Who knows if such a thing would happen, but it could, and just like the FCC tries to keep devices from interfering with each other for our benefit, do we also want to keep electronic devices hooked into essential systems that are capable of interfering with our emergency services? A lot of people say that if there's sensitive data on a machine you don't expose it to a network, and to keep back-ups off site, and all of this has the result of severing a direct line of consequence to that which we consider an important emergency resource or where privacy is concerned. I'm just wondering if everyone thinks the same thing applies here.
I guess I got off on a large tangent, my original point though was just that it doesn't seem like the iPhone was designed to turn into a platform, I just thought it was one of what would be many such all-in-one solutions, not something close to a sub-notebook.
Twinstiq, game news
I'm ambivalent about these licensing limitations. For $99 you can get a development license and run whatever you want on your phone. I'm hoping, and expecting, that somebody will figure out how to use the dev license to drop applications onto the phone directly instead of using Xcode development tools -- but even that wouldn't be a bad thing. Just think, if compiling on Xcode is how one gets the really interesting applications onto the phone then source distributions are automatically the default and everybody is encouraged to have a development environment etc. Isn't this the theory behind certain Linux distributions like Gentoo?
So this sets up a tiered ecosystem where many/most folks get only "safe" applications from the App Store and everybody else gets to load whatever they want using the dev license. (And of course I expect the jailbreak folks to continue their struggles to keep that free as well).
More curious to me is if the Dev license will let me build an application that can run in the background. I understand the reasoning but would rather they took an approach like limiting the amount of memory/processing a background app gets to use. I think are many really innovative ideas to explore in the 'always on' mobile space and apple is needlessly restricting their platform from being part of that wave.
As a long time apple fan/customer I'm rather disappointed.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
First, before people blast my post, I'd like to say I'm an avid supporter of free and open-source.
Now, looking at this iPhone SDK, the VoIP over Cellular is totally understandable, because if they allow that, then it'll totally undermine the revenue stream of the cell phone carriers. The iPhone, afterall, is first and foremost a phone.
Regarding Java, Apple might claim a legitimate concern that having a VM-based language will prevent programs from reaching guaranteed performance levels that native iPhone apps can achieve, thus "downgrading the user experience".
Regarding Firefox and Opera, I think the same argument can be used for game developers against XBox360 or PS3 or Wii consoles. As a hardware manufacturer, they have more rights to control what software goes onto their system (or what games).
And looking at the chaotic state of Linux and GUIs (too much customizations means no standard to identify with), maybe Apple would like a firmer grip at the user experience.
It's the interface of the iPhone that's so revolutionary. People keep talking about how the iPhone doesn't stack up because it lacks GPS and FM radio and Infrared and SD card slot and WiFi-N, but none of the other phones can remotely match the intuitive nature of the iPhone GUI. Heck, it doesn't even come with a manual.
For example the xbox SDK was only available to elite developers. XBMC is an awesome program that has been forced into the underground because they are not an official SDK developer, even though their product is IMHO way better then anything Microsoft sanctions.
Same thing happened to Nintendo in the 80's.
But the XBOX is my device and I can do what I want with it, but Microsoft isn't going to support it. Java, Firefox, and Skype can all be ported to the iphone (anyone heard of Installer.app), it just won't be supported through their software distribution channel. While I think it's a shame, it's their right.
Finally for those who say they can't hack this device, they certainly haven't tried. (IRC anyone?)
Oh and if Apple's TOS say it's illegal for me to run a ported Java, they can try and stop me, right after they pry the phone from my cold, dead, body.
On what basis could Apple be regulated? There are a multitude of alternatives available. The idea is ridiculous - nobody has to use Apple if they don't like it.
Call me an Apple apologist, but this all pretty much seems like much ado about nothing...
a.) Skype over GPRS isn't particularly compelling as it is. GPRS has limited bandwidth (particularly for VoIP apps) and latency issues. It transmits TCP/IP just fine, but UDP is better scaled to VoIP's requirements. VoIP, and Skype are allowed over WiFi, which is entirely technologically feasible. And a great idea. I realize there's plenty of cloak-and-dagger arguments about Apple trying to preserve their high-revenue margins on carrier exclusivity agreements, but there's no need to delve into it. GPRS uses time-division multiplexing, which means that timeslots are limited, and a UDP usage of the GPRS timeslots would pretty much screw other people who just wanted to use their phone to make a cellphone call, the very thing they are paying AT&T for. I realize there's a huge nerdgasm at the though of getting an iPhone that only puts limited cash in AT&T's pocket, but let's face it, it's called the iPod Touch. AT&T doesn't just *have* a GSM cellular network, they *PAY* for it, and so do their customers, and giving the power to iPhone users to monopolize the entire network is going to hurt both AT&T's and Apple's bottom-lines.
b.) ZOMG no Java!! I don't know what to say to this, except that I find it absolutely absurd that people have been clamoring for Apple to open up their APIs, and they essentially did, busted the whole thing wide open, and when Java wasn't built in, now we want an extra API? Java doesn't, and has never, jived with Apple's goals and desires. Java on mobile devices, IMO, is kludgy to use, at best. I've also tended to notice that many Java apps run slow on all mobile platforms. You open a SonyEricsson cellphone, go to launch a game, wait for Java to start up, and then play the game. Using the iPhone native APIs will provide significant access to software writing without having to resort to Java. There have been cries aplenty from the Java people with the OS X debacle, and now the iPhone, but this is Apple's cry that Java is *irrelevant.* Whether you believe it or not, the people in Cupertino think they can do it better, and with the latest slate of software (including Boot Camp, Parallels, and VMWare) I'm hard pressed to argue with them. Someone has yet to give me a compelling reason why Java should be allowed other than the "freedom" argument which should extend to porn and malware as well (which is doesn't).
c.) Firefox. I could see Firefox wanting to go there, but Apple hasn't made any statement on this one way or the other. If you'd like to assume that Firefox is disallowed on the iPhone, well, I'm curious how you can assume that when there is no Mobile Firefox for any platform. Firefox is a pretty hefty program, especially once you get it laden down with extensions, and there are probably more practical impediments to generating a successful Mobile Firefox before they can even start worrying about what Apple thinks.
These are all HUGE non-starters, especially when everyone starts hailing the openness of Android, but quite frankly, Skype still isn't going to work (well) on GPRS, Firefox still isn't going to have a mobile device browser (even on Android), and if you actually do the research, Java isn't all that happy about Google's Java implementation on Android.
Hence, FUD.
Called 'widgets', but they're still plugins.
Best Slashdot Co
They would be leveled against Apple the same way they were leveled against Microsoft. Microsoft uses its legal monopoly in OSes to illegally create a monopoly in browsers. Apple uses its legal monopoly in portable music players and online music sales to extend that dominance into the phone market. And before you argue that iPod dominance and a content distribution network does not give them an advantage in the phone market, allow me to point out that /.'ers have been awarded +5 insightful to people for saying exactly that with positive Apple spin. I'm sure /. hypocrisy will see me modded down for point at cracks in Apple's armor though.
If you drill through the articles, you see something important, and it's posted on ArsTechnica:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/03/07/voip-applications-on-iphone-a-possibility
Steve jobs says VOIP will be allowed... if you are using the Wifi connection, and not AT+T's data service.
Apple made the phone, but because of their contract, are making this specific limitation based on AT+T's request. That potentially has common carrier implications, because if you are going to offer data service, you should not be regulating what can or can't go across it.
No carrier would want VOIP on any phone, since almost all carriers offer an unlimited data plan at some level, and it cuts into their per minute revenues for the phone service.
It's a long shot, since no one is pursuing anti-trust these days, but you could get that clause of a business contract voided if you can convince someone in the US government to shoot down AT+Ts data restriction.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
If Apple's iPhone was in a monopoly position, maybe, but not only is it not even vaguely the majority of the market, it's not even vaguely in that position on AT&T's network.
As for net neutrality, Apple isn't even the network provider... AT&T is. Apple restricting access to their phone no more violates network neutrality than Sony or Nintendo or Microsoft restricting access to their consoles.
The iPhone is to a real "smartphone" as a Playstation or XBox is to a PC. There's a place for both in the market, and expecting the iPhone to do anything a Treo or iPaq does is like expecting to replace your PC with a Wii or a Tivo. And for some people that works out fine, they don't need a smartphone. For the rest, if you don't want a "console smartphone", then buy something else.
You don't need an app to do that, just find your current location using the built in google map app, switch to hybrid view and use compare landmarks you can see in real life and on the map. Turn your phone until the orientation of the map matches reality, and the top of the phone will be facing North and the bottom South.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Sure. But what about the carrier whose network the WinMobile or Symbian device runs on? Just try running random apps, especially networked, on Verizon.
Best Slashdot Co
Which is that Sun, for example, could release a JVM bundler that lets the developer bundle their JARs to the JVM and then create a single App that could be released. The EULA restriction (as I read it) is on downloading arbitrary code off the net and then running it. So yes you can have a Ruby, Python, etc interpreter; but it is going to have to be bundled with the code you want to run into a single app, and it cannot go out and download any code to run. That will be livable for a large number of developers.
It leaves browser makers out in the cold. And that (IMHO) is wrong. I think Apple is being too restrictive, and I hope they back off a bunch in the 3-4 months before these restrictions become real. I do think we should take a moment to understand them for what they are though (and no I am not new here)
What do you know I wrote a novel
You find that, basically, and app can't make calls into an external app. You can use whatever frameworks/plugins you want, but it has to be bundled all into the application package. This is somewhat constraining, but it doesn't rule out things like FireFox, Word, etc. (though, I'd never want to see a full version of Word on a phone; even MS doesn't do that with Windows Mobile).
This makes sense given the limitations of the phone platform. Namely, there's no installer, and packages can only read/write to themselves or the simple SQL database provided. There's no mechanism for resolving interdependencies, and the majority of the conventional OS X directories are located in firmware (read-only in operation).
In the case of FireFox for Mac, the application already behaves this way, save for the fact that it saves its preferences and cache in subdirectories of the user's home directory instead of within the application package. The application itself is fully contained within the package, and changing the file paths for data ought not pose too much of a problem to put it on the phone.
Claiming that they are ruling out other browsers or applications is unnecessary hyperbole.
Yeah, isn't it crazy when the government allows companies to control what kind of product they release? Did you know that my Cisco router doesn't play XBox games?! How dare they decide which features shouldn't be available on the product they sold me! It's my router, and I should be allowed to play XBox games if I want to!
Starting with v9.x it has mandatory signing and capabilities model. Self-signed application have similar functionality to iPhone SDK. Only free application could be self-signed. Non-trivial capabilities, like network access require Publisher ID, and in some case explicit phone manufacturer approval. Developer certificate, which needed for on-device testing also require Publisher ID and valid only one year. At least iPhone user interface is not so ugly as that of Symbian devices.
What a bunch FUD. First off, Apple is not a monopoly in the market. RIM still has the majority stake in smart phones. Why would you want to run Firefox on the iPhone? I like Firefox, but it is resource hungry. Better to have something that Apple can streamline like Safari. Apple would probably like to open this up, but who knows what the conditions of the AT&T contract are for running apps on the network. Other networks do pretty much the same thing. I hate AT&T which I don't have an iPhone, but if they offered it to my provider, I would buy it in a second. There is also security to deal with, let's open this up to random people and have them kill the platform sounds like a stupid idea to me. Where are all of the great watershed MS Mobile and Symbian apps? And finally, if you really want the iPhone and want to do whatever you want with it, unlock it and jailbreak it. Hell, the software is on the net all over the place. I plan on doing just that after June when the final release of the SDK comes out to save myself some hardship from the jailbreak procedure.
Apple is a proprietary company with an obsession with keeping tight control over their hardware/software. They always have and always will exercise tight control over their hardware/software platforms. I speculate this is the main reason why Apple was never adopted much in the business world, outside of media companies. It's either Apple's way or the highway. If Apple seriously wants to compete in the business world, then they're going to have to drop their restrictions a bit to allow more flexibility with 3rd-party vendors.
Somehow I doubt that the lack of Java, or any other additional language, browser, etc is going to hinder or limit the explosion of applications available for the iPhone. A year down the road from now your average iPhone user will be drowning in choice.
Those of you who won't buy an iPhone because of this, frankly aren't Apple's target market. And anyone who's been following the iPhone from the start shouldn't be in the least surprised that the iPhone SDK is presented in a gilded cage. Apple have tried to keep a grip of iron on this platform from the start. There's no way they're going to willingly allow people to hack at the guts of the iPhone using tools that Apple can't vet and cleanse in advance. That's life !
You'll just have to wait for the 2.0 jailbreak, and then hack your own apps onto the iPhone that way.
I've always suspected that most Slashdot traffic of that type was the result of only a few smelly nerds with bots.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Maybe Apple could learn a thing or two from Microsoft about how to make mobile communication devices with open software platforms?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Are they actively prohibiting software from running on the phones, or is the clause in the SDK license just a legal safety net for Apple? The latter is fairly reasonable, given the eventuality that someone will write a buggy app that crashes the phone, creates something file-sharey that the MPAA/RIAA doesn't like, or treads on someone's hoarded IP patents. It could just be a loophole through which they can demonstrate that the offending app is not endorsed by the company and(correctly) place the blame/credit on the actual app developer.
I guess we'll find out eventually, once people start producing apps that violate the agreement.
Yes Sun would probably win the case but upfront it would cost them a lot of money to fight apple and for what? A small amount of revenue on a niche device. They have better things to do with their time. If Sun just shrug their shoulders and take their ball elsewhere who can blame them?
Speak with your dollars, it's the only thing ALL Major Companies hear. Buy a Windows Mobile or Symbian phone next time, I intend to. I like my iPhone, but I'm wicked burned by the hobbled Bluetooth. I will put up with buggie WM if it allows me to link with a BT stereo head unit or GPS device.
iPhone is not marketed towards the "I want to buy so I can break it crowd", it is a consumer electronics product. The experience it is selling is one of seamless operation and solid features in an attractive form factor. Apple has offered an SDK for free, $99 distribution for unlimited transactions at 70/30 split, offered free marketing through the iTunes store and this is making people angry? Because they are trying to stop developers from using the new SDK to bypass their business plan?
You do all know that Apple is a for profit company, right?
that's why i bought the nokia n95 instead of the iphone, it has 3g hdpa as well as edge as well as pretty much all the same features
- posted from my nokia n95
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
But not the one you're thinking of. It's a secret formula for Apple to remain profitable.
Apple's restrictions on hardware significantly reduce the amount of development they do and the amount of support Apple has to provide. OSX doesn't have to have drivers for every crappy, made-in-China knockoff MoBo. They never have to take support calls where someone says "Hey, I tried installing OSX on this 286 DX-2 66 machine, and it runs like crap!" When you're Microsoft, you can afford to blow off consumers, since they pretty much don't understand what their options are and have become used to having an OS maker who says "FU!" if you have a WGA problem.
It also ups Apple's profitability, since a lot of people (including yours truly) finally get tired of screwing around trying to get Windows to cooperate and decide to buy something that "just works" even if it costs a little more. I used to build my own boxes back in the day--but eventually I grew up, moved out of the basement (figuratively) and got a life. I want to take my wife to dinner and a movie and have a tea party with my daughter, not spend three hours diagnosing some obscure video card driver issue. I use Linux at work (and love it) but I'm not up for doing Linux support (for my wife and myself) at home.
Apple's thing may not be for you, but it seems to be working out for them.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Your are very correct in the Apple doesnt have a monopoloy on Smartphones, or even smartphones on ATT. But, similar situations spawining lawsuits arent just about a monopoly, they are also about Anti-Competitive Behavior. Is this Anti-Competitive? IANAL, and IANA(Marketing Person), I am an engineer/researcher and I personally don't like it. And my opinion is only worth the energy expending in creating it. I think that it could be argued from a common sense (common sense != legal sense) that it is anti-competitive because they have a product that is unique in that it is a monopoly as far as having the ability to access ones media via Itunes on the pc and all the other yaddah yaddah yah. I am sure Apple has the force of patents to back them up and prevent others from providing something similar (not just the phone, but the whole infrastructure that makes the phone more than a pretty shiny toy). Is apple right or wrong? I honestly do not know, but something about it stinks to me. As much as I like some of their incredibly overpriced products - I own a MacBook and an Ipod Touch (my 3rd Ipod) - actions such as these prevent me from ever falling into fanboy land, I will say that.
what, no mention of Pope Benedect having gay sex with Hitler?
... dont't worry, Apple, it's just developers, having been interested in the iPhone as a target platform for a short period of time (what was it like - three days?), until they read the fine print in the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines.
They are now moving to
http://code.google.com/android/
or to
http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page
You don't really need them, do you?
There's no SDK for a microwave, not even a limited one.
No one's stopping people from running whatever the hell they want on their iPhone either. Apple has not sued, attacked, harassed, or taken any legal action whatsoever against the jailbreak folks. Even the "bricking" software updates were announced ahead of time and could be refused by the owner. They haven't helped them--true. But neither has my microwave manufacturer.
If you don't want the restrictions, don't use the official SDK. You will face no legal action whatsoever for doing whatever you want to the phone you own. But Apple is not legally obligated to help you do anything to the phone you own either. There is absolutely no legal duty for a company to make any electronics device a software platform. If you want to hack your phone, go right ahead, you have every right, but don't expect a helping hand. Can't have it both ways.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
What Apple is not doing, and have never done, is to legally go after people who hack the phone without using the official SDK. They have never even so much as sent a threatening letter to the jailbreak folks.
There is no legal duty whatsoever to provide an SDK for an electronics device. Your legal rights to do whatever you want to your phone do not extend to forcing Apple to provide an official SDK to allow it. The law cuts both ways--you have the right to do what you want to your property, but you also have the sole responsibility for doing it.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
If Apple starts suing people who hack their own iPhone, I'll be at the front of the line complaining. I doubt they will though, because that is very shaky legal ground. Your property rights have nothing to do with Apple being "anticompetitive." They are based on common law principles that go back hundreds of years. But as I noted, those rights do not extend to forcing Apple to provide the SDK you want.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
"Net neutrality" revolves around the legal principle of common carrier, which applies only to networks.
The iPhone is a piece of property that you purchase. You have every right to do whatever you want to it, but Apple is not legally obligated to help you.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I refuse to buy Apple products because of their heavy handed tactics and attempting to force vendor lock in. They are trying to be the "Next Microsoft". (TM)
:D
Every time I post about Apple, I get modded down by Apple zealotry. Well, you filthy Apple Zealots, get to modding!
Now, pardon me while I waste AT&T's bandwidth using Skype and stealing MobiTV.
I don't understand why AT&T is blamed for all these restrictions, yet they sell a phone such as the Tilt (HTC TyTn II), not that it's problem free, but...
Whether I agree with it or not, Apple's direction is to completely control their offerings. From what I see, they do this to maintain the best possible user experience they can deliver. If they allow their users, who tend to be non-technical, to download anything from anywhere, then they (feel that they) become responsible for any degradation in the user experience. Whether or not that is reasonable is a matter of opinion. Whether or not they have the right to do that is not.
As far as Java goes, I'm yet another Java developer. I love Java apps. They need no installer; they bypass the corporate security monitor on my workstation. They would also bypass any controls Apple uses to protect the user experience on the iPhone.
I don't own an iPhone, and I probably never will. It's not as if I don't have options.
People are free to develop for 2nd rate platforms such as WM, Palm, Symbian and Blackberry. Within 6 months after its debut the iPhone software store will be the #1 mobile software store in the world. The store's success will force the competition to copy Apple. :-)
At risk of being modded down:
I'm no fan of blocking Firefox or Opera COMPLETELY for the iPhone (I use both), but the reason why they are preventing FireFox/Opera from having plugin architectures is due to the existence of Skype plugins for Opera/Firefox.
They aren't blocking Skype completely from the iPhone, they are preventing it from being able to operate over AT&T's cellular network. It can still operate under Wi-Fi. The reason for this is that iPhone plans allow UNLIMITED data transfer currently, and if AT&T wants it to stay that way, it has to prevent Skype from using 3G/EDGE because that will cut into their minutes-per-month pricing plans. That being said, Telecom companies are evil.
Honestly though, is this entirely unexpected? We will still see Firefox and Opera on the iPhone, possibly, and maybe Apple will relent and allow plugins that don't use the cellular network (like Pop-up blockers, Firebug), but can you really expect a company-no matter how much you question their ethics- to shoot themselves in the foot and destroy their entire buisness model?
The reason why Skype is allowed on most Windows Mobile devices is because AT&T charges money after the first 5000mb (don't trust that 0 cent per mb), AND they are getting an extra 35-65 dollars depending on your plan. With the iPhone, its included. They would be painting themselves into a corner if they allowed Skype on the iPhone to use the 3G network.
I'm sure you'll see lots of lovely apps for the iPhone.
Lastly: I'm not buying one of these stupid things, just so you know. I hate the cellphone I currently have. I run a desktop windows machine I built myself and I have an Apple MacBook. For christs sake though, it really does seem like too many people have a "Jump to Conclusions" mat.
Don't like it? Don't buy an iPhone. It's that easy. Nobody is forcing you to get one. There are plenty of other phones and tiny computers on the market, running everything from Windows CE to Palm OS to Linux. It's not the same as the former M$ monopoly of years past. That monopoly existed because there was no other product on the market to fill that need, and M$ leveraged that control to push their other products. In Apple's case, there are plenty of other products on the market, and this one comes with agreements that Apple made with AT&T. If you like it, buy it. If you don't, don't.
First thought I had when I heard of the SDK was, Skype on a Touch... woot. I still am very interested in getting it for my iPhone, but I understand from a business side why Apple is prohibiting applications like this. In the end after all the shiny it's about the bottom line. Protect your own Interests & Contracts while keeping a majority of your customers happy.
Just not the kind of sex you WANT to be having.
I use Eclipse and NetBeans daily. They are vastly superior to all other IDE's I've used, including Visual Studio and XCode.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Would the following forbid putting lua, scheme, python, ruby etc. interpreters on the iPhone?
"No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and builtin interpreter(s)...An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise."
Thank you all for turning against the only realy competition to Windows Mobile. By the time Android gets on 3 phones on the market in NY and LA, MSFT will be eating RIM's territory.
Not to defend Apple, but the situation is quite different for the iPhone than for Microsoft:
- Apple makes a complete, integrated product: hardware + software.
- They have an image of "style" and "high quality" to maintain.
- They are worried about "diluting" that image with potentially crappy 3rd party apps.
- With Apple, people expect a self-contained product that "just works", so the tech support calls would end up going to Apple.
- This is even more critical with a cell phone than a home PC. It can't crash when you need to make a 911 call!
On the other hand:
- Microsoft makes only the software and for cheap, commodity hardware. They don't make the whole product.
- Many things come to mind for people when the name Microsoft is mentioned, but style and high quality are not among them.
- 3rd party software vendors for Microsoft platforms are responsible for their own tech support.
http://apple2history.org/dl/download.pl?file=a2refmanorig.pdf
The Apple II Reference Manual provided not only a handy schematic to all the electronic components (that folded out into a poster-sized thing of beauty), but there are ROM dumps and direct address locations provided throughout.
Excuse the philosophical rant, but there have been three "Apples" so far. The first, with both Steves (The "Accessible" Apple), with one Steve (The "Progressive" Apple), and this one, with "King Steve", attempting to "screen-in" his kingdom.
I believe we can expect an Apple down the road with led by a "Knight on a White Horse" to the resuce, so to speak.. Woz?
What keeps a band of hobbyists from flocking under a single, but loose cooperative? You split the cost of the $100 certificate and publish under a single entity? Now the barrier to entry is a few bucks, or a few cents.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
We now have/will soon have excellent open source handsets. The iPhone is an expensive fashion accessory and markets likewise. Those who care can go with Android and those that don't don't know any better.
becoming "rotten to the core"?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Apple doesn't have to make an SDK at all. If they want to have limitations, then so be it. If you want an open API, you shouldn't invest in a company who's entire empire built on proprietary hardware/software combos. There aren't any Anti-Trust issues here, because iPhone isn't cornering any market. There are other options. Whine all you want, but I for one am not surprised.
interactive hologram, or it didn't happen.
Okay, I took the time to RTFA and it was pretty apparent either the author (someone's personal blog) is being intentionally inflammatory and misleading, or they have some seriously misguided ideas about several topics. Allow me to elaborate.
Apple's blocking of Skype and other voice applications raises the same Net neutrality issues as Comcast's blocking of BitTorrent.
Apple is not a network operator. They have not been granted the benefits of being a common carrier and they do not have a government enforced geographical monopoly as a result of being one of only two companies with access to government right of ways needed to connect lines to houses. You'd think the name "network neutrality" would be a tip off as to the requirement that a company needs to be a network provider for network neutrality laws to apply.
I'm not saying there is no room for network neutrality laws to apply, it is just that the scope of them might be to nullify the portion of Apple's contract with AT&T which requires Apple to restrict VoIP applications from other vendors. Even then, that does not mean Apple would have to do so, only that they cannot be required to do so as part of a contract with a network operator.
And while we're on the subject, Comcast's intentional degrading of Bittorrent traffic, while a concern for the FCC, is not a network neutrality issue. Network neutrality laws as conceived and written, to date, are about forcing network operators not to discriminate based on the source or destination of traffic. It does not ban quality of service traffic management. It just ensures that a network provider can't degrade one type of traffic from or to a given person or organization, and not that same type of traffic to or from someone else. i.e., they can slow down all bittorrent or VoIP traffic if they want, they just can't slow down bittorrent traffic from other companies but not from their own servers. They can slow down voice traffic, just not voice traffic using Skype and not a competing VoIP application/service.
Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer back in the late '90s led to major antitrust lawsuits brought by Department of Justice and 20 different states. While consumers were free to install Netscape and other competing browsers, it was the preferential treatment of its own browser that lead to legal problems for Microsoft. Apple is now engaged in an even more egregious practice. It bundles the Safari browser with its iPhone, it makes it impossible for consumers to remove the browser, and the company now forbids competing companies from making their browsers available to the millions of iPhone users.
Sigh. You'd think by now people would know enough to look up "antitrust" on wikipedia so they know what the hell they're talking about before spouting this sort of uneducated crap. Microsoft did not get prosecuted for antitrust abuse because they "bundled a browser with an OS." They got in trouble because they bundled a product in a market they had monopolized with a product from another, already existing market. The fact that one of those products was an OS and one was a browser is happenstance.
Apple does need to be concerned with antitrust issues, but this is not even close to one of them. Apple may or may not have sufficient influence in the "portable, digital music player market" to face antitrust sanctions. Apple does not have to worry about bundling anything with their browser or their phone or anything other product unless it is with their portable digital music player. Now the iPhone does fit into this category because it could be seen as Apple leveraging their success with iPods to take gain unfair advantage in the cell phone market. Further, they could be guilty of antitrust abuse for tying their iTunes music service to their iPods and bundling iTunes with their iPods. What they won't be facing antitrust problems for is bundling their browser with their OS or with iPhones since none of the products involved comes even c
Apple has pretty much always kept tight control on their products. They're not trying to be the next microsoft, they're continuing to be Apple.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
If you pay $99 for your dev certificate, there might be several holes you can use to get your own application onto the device, including "forbidden" apps like daemons, browsers, etc.
I don't feel any better about Android, which runs everything in Java VMs, or OpenMoko, which will never get off the ground, than I do about this, but I think jailbroken OS X is still the best mobile platform for geeks. Which is sad.
+++ATH0
This has got to be one of the dumbest concepts on Slashdot ever. What about all the other phones that limit technology? Game systems? You guys have to learn the difference between proprietary and anti competitive. There are enough options out there that no phone maker should be forced by the government to allow this crap.
Until their excusivity contract is over, don't hope for anything groundbreaking from the iPhone. Once it's concluded, all bets are off, espcially considering the relative popularity of the device.
That monopoly existed because there was no other product on the market to fill that need
While I agree with the latter part of your statement, I don't agree with the former quoted above. There was a need. It was being filled. Commodore/Amiga, TI, Atari, Apple, Timex, Magnavox, VisaCalc, Lotus 1-2-3, WordPro, WordStar, dBaseIII, Novell DOS 7, Caldera DOS, OS/2 Warp, CP/M, Stacker (Stac Electronics), Netscape. Microsoft systematically destroyed software and hardware companies through litigation and court bullying, or cast fear, uncertainty, and doubt into many struggling companies and stockholder boards. Before the government got wind of it, the damage was already done. And the playing field was leveled, not by competition, but by one company with an army of lawyers seeking and destroying. And then there was no other marketable source of an OS except for Microsoft by 1995. The Department of Justice took on the task of taking down Microsoft. And Microsoft went to task of lobbying the government, and funding the George Bush campaign. The Clinton administration was ready to dismantle Microsoft. In stepped George Bush with a fist full of Microsoft cash, just got campaign-paid, and told the DOJ to back off. The effect of the law was compromised. Heck, just recently, George Bush came to Microsoft's rescue again - Bloomberg.com: U.S. - Bush defeats Anti-trust against Microsoft
I don't think any company can do what Microsoft did for at least another 20 years. Many weaknesses of people, society, and government have been exposed. But this time around, we have the internet and Slashdot, and Groklaw. Many more truths have been exposed. Internet news containment is out of control. Companies really do not control information flow on the net, like they can in traditional media where they can make people of a country fit into a box of their creation. It may take somewhat longer than that to repeat history, which mankind is doomed to do over again.
I don't know if the parent has every detail right, but Symbian is much more restrictive than Tony Hoyle describes.
"Comcast's anti-net neutrality filtering, and Microsoft's Netscape-killing antitrust tactics. "
There not the same thing, not even close. Clearly the person who wrote that isn't familiar with any facts.
I'm am nost siding with Apple here, just pointing out that it is an invalid comparison.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Has anyone at /. heard of the iPhone dev-team or its spinoff the dev-team-elite? I ask because I've seen no mention of them in the comments. Its amazing how just the right constraints can foster (and nurture, even) a comradery among OSS strangers who hacked their way in and gave iPhones to those on other networks and in unsupported countries, propagated package management systems (Installer.app, and now Aptitude) long before Apple revealed their innovative invention, AppStore, at the Special Press Event. Forget waiting for June, hundreds of 3rd party apps are available now for those that are unafraid to tinker (the worst that can happen is you will have to restore the phone to factory defaults and start over). An estimated 1 million iPhones have been jailbroken. Get your heads out of the sand.
The Admin and the Engineer
his new age crap didn't fix his cancer.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You're too late. The thread was ended with that post according to Godwin's Law.
is almost doubtlessly responsible for forcing apple to block voip over their cellular data network. I bet that was part of the terms of their profit sharing agreement. However, is it possible that it will be ok to use voip over their 802.11b network?
Actually I'm not sure this makes much difference since, I mean, if you have an iphone you are already paying for some kind of cellular service...
What does seem scummy to me is blocking alternative browsers on the iPhone. I also don't really understand the motivation, since safari isn't really something that makes apple money. Really, it was something they were forced to develop when Microsoft dropped IE for mac.
Not the JesusPhone after all, is it? No unconditional love here...
Sig? What's that? Oh, 'signature'...and it's supposed to be witty? Right...
The real problem with the Iphone is that it's locked to AT&T wireless. Despite their "more bars in more places" advertising, their coverage is spotty even in major markets. Check it out: http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer will show you what they claim their coverage to be. Look at the pretty colors, then check to see what those colors actually indicate. If you throw away everything from "probably get a signal standing in the street" down there's not a lot left. Keep in mind, that map is generous; your experience in real life may be much worse.
So why should I (or anyone else) buy a $500 phone with a $80/month service plan that can't be used at home or the office and only has a usable signal for about 1/2 mile along the daily commute? That's just plain silly - and there's nothing that Apple can do to make their cell phone more attractive to me (except change providers to someone with real coverage).
There's a lot of people like me who have to use Verizon phones; say what you want about that company, but they do a very good job of providing solid coverage. Around where I live: Verizon works, AT&T doesn't.
Having far too much experience with the way that Verizon cripples their phones, I find all the hyperbole about Apple's restrictions to be questionable at best. Music? Sure, but the only way to load a music file is through Verizon's pay site. Games? Only if you buy them from Verizon. Camera in your phone? Sure, but the only way to get the pictures off of the phone is through Verizon's pay site (at $1 per picture!) Bluetooth? Sure, but Verizon has disabled most of the BT profiles to the point where all it can work with is Bluetooth hands-free devices. And that support is limited, too. Internet access? Sure, but the browser is almost useless and only works through Verizon's gateway (for a fee, of course). And don't bother trying to visit sites that Verizon doesn't want you to visit.
Right now, with nothing more than the Iphone comes with out of the box, it's a far more functional and useful cell phone than anything you can get from Verizon. Too bad about that coverage problem...
is there a -1 stupid?
..I mean, no basis, they don't behave the same there is no evidence to support it, nothing.
I mean, besides what you were modded with at birth.
They sell hardware and want to control what operated their hardware, and how it behaves.
Stupid microwave company locking me into their software.
I don't own a Mac, my iPod mini was a gift. I am not an apologist, and such things go against my nature. Your statement is ridiculous
Stop creating a false Dichotomy. Use actual arguments.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I posted a comment weeks ago that knowing Apple and its control freak nature that I would not be surprised if the SDK has lots of hooks in it restricting developers. So now Apple has proven itself to be just as EVIL (tm) as Microsoft (more so) on the mobile platform I wonder what spin doctoring they will do to make this pile of manure look good. Hmm maybe a new iPhone with even more bouncing icons for the style insecure.
So, is restricting development on the iPhone a stepping stone to market dominance? If that's true, that would seem to validate Apple's model choice very much indeed!
Otherwise, abusing a dominant position is what MS has been getting nailed for, and Apple are nowhere near that position in the mobile phone market. Hence, they have a much more free hand, just as they have with respect to bundling software with the Mac.
"Now there will be an official SDK and even better apps"
This is not at all clear. Entire classes of applications will be wiped out. Did you like MobileScrobbler? Too bad, you can't have it anymore because no daemon software is allowed.
+++ATH0
Apps that run in the background, ignoring calls to quit by the OS memory manager? There's a stability problem just waiting to happen.
My iPhone has been running several applications in the background -- the RSS updater, MobileScrobbler, sshd, an ftp server, afpd, Samba -- for quite a while with absolutely no stability problems whatsoever. Plenty of others' have as well. Stop buying the Apple company line on everything.
+++ATH0
agreed. I have been a happy Apple user for 3 years now, and I can say unequivocally that you have a perfect grasp of the situation.
The arguments against boil down to "ethics out of economics," which, IMHO, is wholly bullshit.
+++ATH0
As opposed to those other Apple products that are only sold to hackers, not to consumers, and thus don't need those restrictions.
Please vote with your wallet. Buy a Nokia N800/N810 which is more open than the iPhone/iPod Touch and has few, if any, restrictions imposed by Nokia. If you don't like Apple's ToS, then don't write for it! Put your code where mouth is, support the more open platform!
To be fair, I can't fault them for the VOIP issue, that sounds more like an AT&T thing, which I can understand....As for the Firefox issue, that's a bit of a lie.... The SDK says "An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plugin architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise." So you could have a firefox versions, but plugins....no. So that's a little misleading. As for targeting Firefox specifically, that quote doesn't sound like it's saying that at all. BTW all my quotes are links directly from the article you sent, so I'm not taking anything out of context here.
As for the Sun Java port, it's not an issue with Apple the quote below clearly shows that Sun put conditions up regarding development on the Iphone, specifically, it had to be "open" or they didn't want to play ball. "Sun's VP of Java Marketing, Eric Klien, has been quoted saying he wants to bring Java to the iPhone now that the SDK makes the iPhone 'open'... but with Apple having a veto on which apps get authorised or not, surely the 'open' iPhone is only as open as Apple wants it to be - and why would Apple allow Java, which lets developers create their own code to run 'anywhere' - circumvent the iPhone SDK process?"
Now personally, I know it may not be a popular point of view, but if Apple is trying to position it's self as being the next smartphone OS, they want to to ensure they don't enter into the same trap that Microsoft has been engulfed in. Specifically, the more you open it up, the more spyware, viruses, and OS effecting apps begin to degrade the OS stability and user expectation of performance. Both of which have always been crucial to Apples business plan. Unpopular, maybe, but this article definitely came at the issue with a pre-anti-apple feel. The truth is Apple is obviously positioning them selves to take over the Smartphone market with their recent announcement that it would support Exchange communication, and activesync. Clearly they want into the business market, and they aren't willing to sacrifice their performance or usability to get there. On a personal note, that's more then ok with me, it's preferred.
There are hundreds of other cell phones to buy.
True, and they're all crap compared to my wonderful iPhone.
My friend has already dealt with firmware roulette on his PSP, and now he is going to be dealing with this shit on his iPhone. No big deal, right? Yeah, except I'm the one who he goes to to do it.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
No, my logic is perfectly sound. It is you have it backwards. iPhone owners are in possession of a free iPod. And given it is an iPod, it will play all the tunes sold from the second largest US music retailer behind Wal-Mart, and by far, the dominant player in online music sales. Yet that offers iPhone no advantage over other phone manufacturers to whom Apple steadfastly refuses to license Fairplay? I'm surprised we haven't seen an antitrust suit already.
Of course, only a select few readers get mod points.
It does not mean the post is agreed to by the majority, or even makes a valid point. There's many a groupthink post that gets a +5 rating.And what is groupthink but a consensus of /. opinion. You argue that the sample is biased and not representative of the /. majority. With karma and meta-moderation, you have an uphill battle. My post has received up and down mods because there are obviously quite a few of you /bots that disagree with me. It is controversial. The post I linked to contained ONLY up mods... as many up mods as is possible on /. Not controversial.
It's actually kind of pathetic you think a point shouldn't be argued simply because of a +5 rating in another thread.I'm not saying the point should not be argued. I'm saying that arguing the iPod's dominance and iTunes content has no effect on the competition, and being subsequently being modded up for it, will demonstrate typical /. hypocrisy.
Sure enough, in one post, iPod/iTunes is a one/two knock out punch that crushes the competition in the phone market... 100% positive mods. In another, iPod/iTunes is irrelevant to antitrust concerns and has no effect on other players in the phone market... also 100% positive mods.
The mods have applied typical /. doublethink.... Just as predicted.
The passive aggressive schtick is kind of lame, as well.It isn't schtick in this case, it's an accurate prediction. It's schtick when you attach it to something you know everyone agrees on in order to get modded up like you're some sort of underdog. We all know it's just preaching to the choir. In those cases, you're right, it's lame. In this case, I have 10 replies coming to Apple's defense and/or telling me I'm a moron.
By open I guess you mean you are going to deploy your finished XNA game to not only the XBox or Windows, but also to the Mac, the iPhone, PS3 & Wii, and all the Linux distros, plus a run-anywhere Java version, is that right? Is that what you mean by 'Open'? Tell me how MS is going to help you compile your game for all those targets? Or do you just mean free/cheap? Yes, the XNA Game Studio EXPRESS is free, the Pro (real) version cost$. Have fun. Thanks for protecting MS monopoly. /d
WOW this crazy thread / website just crashed my IE7, froze my Firefox 2.0, and Opera 9.2.4 can't even show all the correct format and links. The only browser that is left working and refresh each page the fastest is the Safari 3.0.4 that I'm typing this reply on from my XP. How dare those guys at Apple try to shoot for such quality product! How do you think this discussion will render on all the mobile handsets, mmm?
We still love it and we're willing to bend over again and again, because this is dear Apple we're talking about. Not microsoft, not Nokia, not Qualcomm. They can have my first born, and sell my wife into prostitution, but I will still love and worship lord Jobs and lick the dirt off his car tires every day. /end sarcasm
Can anymore hyperbole be stuffed into these pathetic excuses for journalism? "face government regulators"? Are you high? IT'S APPLE'S PHONE! It's THEIR OS! Like it or lump it. And don't even bother with bullshit about "monopolies". When the iPhone is 95% of the mobile phone market, we'll get back to you.
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
Technically, when you "buy" a cell phone, usually you are purchasing a contract with a cellular company which allows you to use their equipment, including, but not limited to, their communication backbone, their cellular towers, their phone. Most cell phone companies subsidize the actual phone for their customers as part of the customer's contract. When you "purchase" the phone, you're purchasing a contract that permits you to use said phone. If you wish to terminate the contract early, then you usually pay the price of the phone plus lost revenue back to the phone company in the form of the termination fees. Until you pay the termination fee or until your contract runs out, you can, in no way, claim that "your phone" really belongs to you. For the longest time, the actual landline phone in your house belonged to Bell, just like the cable or satellite equipment in your home. These companies allow you to use these services/products while you pay for them. After you stop paying for them (unless you pay a termination fee or something similar), you lose any right to the products the company supplied you to use their service.
"I'm glad I'm going to die because, when I do, the world's gonna go to the dogs." -Me on aging and the next generation.
Great decision, Sherlock.
That's certainly been a successful strategy so far for keeping there from being a publically available SDK or SIM unlocks for the iPhone without Apple's help, I'm sure it will be just as successful after the internals are better documented in an Apple supplied SDK.
Clearly if they can keep those guys out, they can keep malicious software out.
-AC
while much-praised by irrational Apple-haters*
This comment of yours is pure flamebait and should have gotten your comment modded down. The reason is that your post is almost exactly the same as the legions of over-sensitive Microsoft fans and users here on slashdot who almost always include in a post a comment to the tune of "irrational Microsoft hater".
I'm a Mac user (I've got three at home) and I honestly have to agree that Apple gets a free ride on slashdot. Apple gets away with things that Microsoft gets roundly criticized for here, simply because "the design is better, more user firendly" and all the other reasons given, but more truly simply because Apple is trendy, has a much better marketing and PR than Microsoft, and is still seen as the underdog of the American computting industry.
The iPhone is good, nay fantastic, with its combination of an excellent user interface, big screen and multi touch screen, but the truth of the matter is that the platform is locked down in a way that it will be useless for tasks like system administration, since you can't run a shell or interpreter on it (Actually, theoretically, you could, in the same way as X11 works, but who wants X11 on the iPhone?). The only reason I can see behind that is
a)Apple is honestly worried that interpreters which have no sandbox, like Python, Ruby, Bash, etc, might make the iPhone susceptible to viruses and also less reliable due to bad unknown code, or
b)Apple doesn't want software running on the machines that it can't control
The iPhone looked REALLY cool. I was hoping to buy one. But then I find it's locked to one telco and won't be available in my country until.....oh who knows. Meanwhile, there are other cool products appearing that aren't as restricted and are even cheaper. Some combination of an ASUS eeePC and a cheap, pre-pay GSM cell phone might be the best way to go. Cell calls when you need'em and wireless Net with Skype when you don't. Plus the webcam. Plus Firefox. Plus Open Office, Java.....etc....etc....all for less than an iPhone.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Which is to say, all of them.
Best Slashdot Co
This week's TWIT had a good discussion of this tradeoff.
There's an old saying -- open if you're losing, closed if you're winning. Apple will open this thing up more as competition increases. Until then, user experience will dominate.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Apple's reputation is built completely around a fantastic user experience.... so do they:
a) allow developer freedom to create runaway apps that destroy that experience (OMG it's an iPhone Virus! Or something with backdoors to tape your phone conversations?)
b) restrict developer freedom to preserve the user experience.
They'll obviously choose the latter; the market has not punished them for it on the iPod. The device *has to take phone calls* regardless of what app you're using, so it will unceremoniously quit that custom app at any time.
Also, this is the *first version of the SDK*. It's not set in stone. Certainly instant messenger applications will become important, and they'll find a way to allow them to run in the background (or they'll make one themselves).
As for VOIP over EDGE, the complaints are ridiculous -- the latency of EDGE would make conversation nearly impossible. We're talking 56k modem speeds with 1000-2000ms latency at times! When the iPhone goes 3G, perhaps.
-Stu
Ok, I'm willimg to admit I might be mistaken, but I always believed that OpenOffice was a descendent of Star Office which was an old OS/2 app. But since nothing would exist in the computer world without Steve to create it, i'm sure you will find some way to retell the OO.o creation story.
This isn't at all what the GP was trying to do, nor is any reference to Jobs' considerable influence on the computing industry necessarily the product of someone fabricating a Steve-centric cosmology.
At any rate, OpenOffice is descended from Star Office, that's correct, and I don't see anyone saying otherwise. What's being pointed out is that Schwartz's career is essentially a consequence of his cofounding and involvement with Lighthouse Design, and it's arguable that Lighthouse wouldn't have existed in any congruent form without OpenStep... from NeXT, the work of, among others, Steve Jobs.
You could *potentially* argue further that the various incarnations of Sun's Application Development group wouldn't have existed without OpenStep in general (and Lighthouse specifically) to demonstrate the viability of Sun's software as a platform for running applications, but that's a bit of a stretch, pulling together an applications group to compete with Microsoft was the thing to do in the mid-90s, Novell had already done it, McNealy probably didn't need Lighthouse to give him the idea.
Except for the couple million marching morons who buy the shiny handcuffs Steve sells.... Because Apple knows something you obviously don't; Apple will never play in the Enterprise space. Luxury boutique goods are never going to be picked by the green eyeshades types. Kewl industrial design means nothing.
Apple also knows something you don't. Just because your priorities (or my priorities) aren't met in any given device doesn't at all mean that the only selling point is the shiny industrial design.
I'm also disappointed Apple seems to be resisting the compelling (and nearly inevitable) idea that the iPhone (or any smartphone) can be a full-fledged computing device. I'm also frustrated that they're doing things by half-measures and holding people back rather than reprising the role of a company that simply ignites revolutions.
But the fact is, on the merits *alone* that it is an iPod and a cell phone, the iPhone is a successful convergence device. This is to say nothing of the fact that the web experience on it is unexcelled (arguably unmatched, even), that the use experience is superior to the majority of existing phones, and that it is going to have a vibrant market for 3rd party software (*certainly* a more vibrant market than anything the mobile industry's done so far), even if that never includes interpreters, virtual machines, or other browsers.
Tweet, tweet.
of this there is no doubt. As software companies go, Microsoft is reasonably open about their products and is interested in giving developers power. Yes, they spew a lot of bullshit and have been responsible for some awful software, but occasionally they develop really good tools (Visual Studio, XNA). Apple on the other hand keeps things much closer to its chest. However, as some people have rightly pointed out, Apple is not a monopoly, and is not subject to the same degree of regulation as MS. This is part of a societal decision we have made to limit the powers of any one entity, because anyone with too much power is likely to abuse it. I find Apple products unusable anyways, so I don't care.
Really, the function of the "Apple" section on Slashdot is for the courageous anti-capitalist 20-somethings to find something, anything, that pisses on Apple from a great height. For months, you hear nothing but "Open the SDK!" "We want to produce apps!" And then they do, and there is news of fresh alarums. One would think the frigtards of Slashdot will do and say anything.
You will be using the same SDK that Apple engineers use. There is a foundation ready to disburse $100 million to fund developers. AIM is going to be ported. You will be able to use Skype for calls over Wi-Fi. You will be able to give away your programs for free in one of the best possible venues: your phone, or on iTunes. If you charge money, Apple will pay you what the record labels get, 70%. only better than they get, because the developer will set the price.
And the new firmware will be cracked for jailbreak, of that you can be sure. And then you will have the privilege of using any provider with GSM.
It's a fully-functional computing platform. Most people, the vast majority in fact, don't give a damn about jailbreaking and Java or anything else. It will do some amazing things, and Apple will make a truckload of money, and with that truck they will hit blips in the highway, and the driver will say, "What did I just hit?" And it will be slashdotters.
The iPhone SDK contractual agreement say this:
Distribution of Applications created with the SDK is not permitted absent a separate agreement with Apple.
What is the point exactly?
Apple technofanatics want to pin down all computing progress to Jobs, no matter how tenous the links they can find.
Pathetic to be honest.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There was a good write up on Products today about iPhone SDK restrictions, http://www.personafile.com/products