Apple Opens Up iPhone To Third-Party Browsers

sedition writes "MacRumors is featuring a story on Apple's discreet decision to open the iPhone to 3rd-party browsers, by allowing them to appear on AppStore. While the big players are still at bay, several choices are offered, allowing you, e.g. to browse anonymously or in fullscreen. Prices vary."

Comments

No Flash

[alain94040]

Sorry, these are just different skins on top of the same Safari (webkit) engine. Of course, Flash is still forbiddden on the iPhone. It's sad, but there's a very good reason for it.

Imagine if anyone could do dummy iPhone apps using Flash, put them anywhere on the web, with absolutely no control from Apple. There'd be popups asking you to enter your credit card every 10 seconds, ads left and right, etc. Users would eventually be fed up and find the iPhone ugly. I guess Apple cares too much to let that happen.

--
FairSoftware.net -- where geeks are their own boss

Re:No Flash

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Imagine if anyone could do dummy iPhone apps using Flash, put them anywhere on the web, with absolutely no control from Apple. There'd be popups asking you to enter your credit card every 10 seconds, ads left and right, etc. Users would eventually be fed up and find the iPhone ugly. I guess Apple cares too much to let that happen.

Does that happen with your non-portable computer (Desktop) running OS X & Safari?

Does it happen with your more portable computer (laptop) Mac running OS X & Safari?

So WTF do you think it will happen with your extremely portable computer (iPhone) running OS X & Safari?

Don't visit malicious websites.

If Apple sees any threat from Flash, it is people being able to develop & distribute Apps out of Apple's control.

Re:No Flash

[Anonymous Coward]

No, its an unbelievably poorly thought out post. I mean WTF? Flash will lead to fake apps? Why hasn't Apple banned Javascript then?

Re:No Flash

[AKAImBatman]

If Apple sees any threat from Flash, it is people being able to develop & distribute Apps out of Apple's control.

Getting warmer. If Apple sees any threat from Flash, it's in providing a distribution system for multimedia that is out of Apple's control. Remember, Apple still makes a lot of money off the iTunes Music and TV stores. They don't want to have competition from the likes of Hulu.com or NetRadio.com. Especially if users get the bright idea of streaming this data over a cell network. (ugh)

The technology that worries Apple for apps is Java. Though I have to concede that J2ME apps tend to be craptastic. They're simply underpowered for a device as sophisticated as the iPhone.

Re:No Flash

[AKAImBatman]

don't dimiss flash as a viable dev platform

As an app platform, Flash can't do anything that Javascript/DHTML can't. (See my sig for an example.) Except for multimedia.

The apps in the appstore are there because the appstore provides a useful distribution channel to get apps in front of users. i.e. a "push" model. Apps on the Internet are much harder to find and require active searching by the user. i.e. the "pull" model

Re:No Flash

[AKAImBatman]

Yes I know H.264 is not OSS, but compared to Flash or Silverlight it is certainly more accessible.

Flash supports H.264 codecs. So in that respect, it actually works with Apple's designs for multimedia. Flash is also a pseudo-open platform, making it reasonably appealing to implement on any platform. Of course, the only reason why anyone feels it's a must-have is because of the multimedia capabilities. e.g. If you look at the Wii, the overriding purpose of Flash support on the Internet Channel was Youtube support. The staff have said as much and have ignored other sites with Flash players that don't work.

Apple sidestepped that issue by working out a deal with Youtube to provide direct MP4 access to videos. That allows the iPhone to have Youtube support (which doesn't compete with their offerings) without supporting the Flash player. Jobs also knew he could sell it because he talked Youtube into giving them higher quality videos. Higher quality provided justification for the path taken by Apple.

I think it is a little less sinister than you think.

Let's be intellectually honest for a moment. Apple's actions are neither sinister or altruistic. They are simply good business. While my answer of "Flash competes" is the distilled answer, there is more to the story than that. Take Youtube as an example. Apple truly is providing a better experience with a custom application that fits the phone rather than allowing users to use an interface that is designed for desktop PCs. This devalues the Flash player and raises questions as to whether or not it's needed. If you dig further into that line of logic, you find that Flash enables interfaces that go against the slick interface of the phone. Apple has some control over HTML rendering, but practically none over Flash rendering. Thus another ding against the platform. Add it all up and Apple's decisions start to make a lot of sense.

However, would Apple kick Adobe out on their can if they approached Apple with a proposition for supporting Flash? Probably not. Again, it comes down to good business. If Adobe can make an offer that appeals to Apple, it may overcome the aspects that devalue the platform to them. The only catch is that Apple doesn't need Adobe as much as Adobe needs Apple to maintain their multimedia monopoly on the web. So Adobe will be in the unenviable position of having to make the most compromise to reach an agreement.

Same with Sun. If Sun can reach an agreement on Java that appeal to Apple, Apple may change their tune. But as it stands today, Apple has ensured that they don't need anyone else's support. Especially if it causes aspects of the platform to leave their control. Given the ease with which an application could overwhelm a cellular network, control is something that Apple needs in this situation. It's just good business.

Re:No Flash

[Graff]

Imagine if anyone could do dummy iPhone apps using Flash, put them anywhere on the web, with absolutely no control from Apple. There'd be popups asking you to enter your credit card every 10 seconds, ads left and right, etc. Users would eventually be fed up and find the iPhone ugly. I guess Apple cares too much to let that happen.

Pretty much anything you can do with Flash can also be done with JavaScript, Ajax, etc. The iPhone fully supports these technologies, in fact that WAS originally how Apple wanted people to do apps for the iPhone. You can find out more about creating web apps straight from Apple.

Apple has no problem with web apps because they access your device through a vetted application, Safari. The reason that Apple is being more cautious on native apps is that they don't want to make their device unstable or dangerous to the cell phone network through someone's bad or malicious coding. Yes, maybe they are being overly cautious and restrictive but I'd rather they deny a few extra apps than allow apps that could cause problems.

Overall Apple has approved many thousands of apps and the percentage of apps that have been denied is small compared to that. No matter what a company does there will always be a vocal minority that pisses and moans about something. The fact is that the iPhone is wildly successful and many people are very happy with Apple's app-approval policies. If Apple does go off the deep end then you can bet they'll lose a lot of sales. That's the way the market works. If you don't like Apple's policies then don't buy Apple, eventually they'll get the message and tone things down.

Re:No Flash

[jeff4747]

If Apple sees any threat from Flash, it's in providing a distribution system for multimedia that is out of Apple's control. Remember, Apple still makes a lot of money off the iTunes Music and TV stores.

What's that? I couldn't hear you over the music streaming to my iPhone using the Pandora radio app.

Away with the App store please

[tsa]

This is exactly why I hate the App store. Apple has far too much control over its iPhone, stifling competition and hindering progress The iPhone is just a little computer that you can make phonecalls with. If Apple started to sell Macs on which you could only install new software using iTunes and the App store nobody would buy them. Then why is it OK for the iPhone to have this construction? I bet if the App store didn't exist we would at least have a beta version of FF for the iPhone now.

Re:Away with the App store please

[jo_ham]

That phone platform exists - it's called Android.

If you don't agree with Apple's business model for the iPhone, you are free to not purchase one, or use the apps on the app store.

This is slightly different to the usual "well if Microsoft did this, everyone would moan!" and you're right - they have tried, and very few people bought smartphones (compared to the prevalence of the iPhone).

If you don;t like it, don't buy one. Don;t buy one, knowing full well ahead of time the way Apple handles software on the iPhone and then complain bitterly after the fact that it's not they way you *think* they should do things.

If you want to do it yourself, you can jailbreak your phone and carry on as normal.

The iPhone is a specialised device, with a specific distribution model for its features and applications. It is not a computer (in the sense of a tiny PC - I know that it literally is a small OS X box), it is a phone, with pds-style functions. Apple can choose to lock it down as much as they like - either people will buy it or they won't. So far, it is selling almost faster than they can make it, so buying and installing apps via the store obviously is not a hindrance to the people who are buying it.

Re:Away with the App store please

[GF678]

I bet if the App store didn't exist we would at least have a beta version of FF for the iPhone now.

If the App store didn't exist the iPhone wouldn't be as popular as it is. By having total control, Apple can ensure applications on the store are up to their standards, conforming to certain specifications like the GUI. This ultimately provides a higher quality app selection (in theory).

Of course, you're a geek, so you don't think like a normal person (no offense, just how I differentiate). But Apple obviously doesn't care about this, and the iPhone is flourishing because they don't bother catering to the geek. If you are worried about competition being stifled, go with one of those Android-based phones.

Re:Away with the App store please

[tlhIngan]

Mine was jailbroken around Christmas-time, for two weeks. I wanted 'net access, and the easiest tethering options were all for jailbroken phones.
Now that I'm back around stable connections, I'm pondering reloading the firmware. Apart from winterboard and other theming tools, I can't find any real purpose to have a jailbroken phone if you don't need the unofficial tether.

Here's one reason - MxTube. Lets you download YouTube videos onto the device for watching later. That way you csn watch the wifi version while you only got a cell connection, and they play instantly. Of course, you can also use sftp to then grab the mp4 videos off it if you want to preserve it that way, too.

Another reason is to "fix" your APN so if you don't have a data plan, the phone won't try to do any data over the cell network. It's apparently quite common for people to not have a data plan when they get the iPhone. Or, for me, the carriers disabled changing the APN so I'd be forced to use the "iPhone/Smartphone Data Plan" rather than my unlimited, tethering-allowed data plan (which they don't offer anymore). With a jailbreak and a little creative .plist editing, you can re-enable changing the APN. Without that they would've dinged me at 5cents/kilobyte (kilo, not kibi!) since my plan didn't include that APN.

Third, if you want to do iPhone development, you don't have to ante up $100 to test your app on the device (you will if you want to deploy via the app store, though). If you decide not to ante up, you can still deploy via Cydia or Installer (Cydia is popular... it's just apt-get!). And heck, you can do anything you want with your jailbreak-required app...

Oh yeah, if you're travelling, jailbreaking is mandatory so you can unlock your phone (iPhone 3G's are now unlocked, too) and use a local SIM rather than pay outrageous roaming charges, and even more outrageous data usage charges (if you enabled roaming data usage...)

Only Webkit-based browsers

[caspy7]

Let me clarify this before the hundreds of comments talking about Opera and Firefox "Coming to the iPhone!".
All of the browsers listed are based on Webkit, the rendering engine for Safari (in fact, I think they're all simply embedding Webkit).
It is highly unlikely that Apple will allow a browser based on other technologies any time soon.

Sorry to smash your hopes and dreams.

Re:Only Webkit-based browsers

[cbhacking]

In other words, Apple is allowing apps that are used for browsing, but has not gone back on their "no third-party software that can execute other software" i.e. a competing JavaScript engine (or Flash, or Java, or even Bash...)