Slashdot Mirror
Google Latitude Arrives For the iPhone — As a Web App
An anonymous reader writes "After months of waiting, the Google Latitude social maps service finally arrived for the iPhone ... but thanks to an Apple rejection of the natively developed app, it's a web app. Says Google on their blog, 'We worked closely with Apple to bring Latitude to the iPhone in a way Apple thought would be best for iPhone users. After we developed a Latitude application for the iPhone, Apple requested we release Latitude as a web application in order to avoid confusion with Maps on the iPhone.' But it gets worse for iPhone users: 'Unfortunately, since there is no mechanism for applications to run in the background on iPhone (which applies to browser-based web apps as well), we're not able to provide continuous background location updates in the same way that we can for Latitude users on Android, BlackBerry, Symbian and Windows Mobile.' Latitude has been sprouting new features lately and is an interesting take on social networking, but it looks like Apple is determined to ensure its users only get a seriously crippled implementation compared to the Android and WinMo versions. PC World put it less politely than Google did, saying, 'Google's new Latitude Web app for iPhone is so hamstrung that Apple customers may be wishing they had a BlackBerry or Android handset instead.'"
Happy iPhone user here.
Although I couldn't give less of a crap about this particular application (it's pretty worthless overall, in my opinion). They do need to open up the API a bit or they are going to be passed by.
Frankly, I think they will. Steve Jobs isn't one to be outdone by competition.
Gone!
Yet another iPhone discussion that includes "apple will not allow [X]"... They are starting to bore and depress me as they are rather futile. The Apple fans will always blindly support and back the Apple position. People who disagree with the Apple position will always see things as they do as well. Neither side will win the other over. And if it did, Apple would just kill the iPhone project completely.
I have to wonder if there is ever anything "apple fans" ever complain or disagree with Apple about? I'd like to hear from Apple fans to know if they are actually independent or completely sold into the Apple view. I remember some faint complaints about the change to OSX but those didn't last long. The "classic" mode also raised a bit of ire and frustration as I recall. But is Apple "simply perfect?" Can Apple do no wrong?
And this relates to Apple limiting their own customers from being able to do things that the other 'big' phones can do how? Sounds like the one a step behind is Apple. This IS about features that are being rolled out for other phones that Apple refuses to allow on the iPhone, the only one playing catchup is Apple here and from the article it's less catchup and more sit on your ass and take a nap.
Right, which is why Apple can't run apps in the background. Someone at Apple was asleep at the switch with that decision.
but it looks like Apple is determined to ensure its users only get a seriously crippled implementation compared to the Android and WinMo versions.
I think a more accurate replacement for this line would be, "but it looks like Apple is unwilling to make exceptions to their developer agreement for Google. Unfortunately, this means a crippled implementation compared to the Android and WinMo versions."
This summary makes it seem as though Apple conciously went out of their way to cripple the app, instead simply being inflexible in it's design restrictions. Everyone and their cat has an opinion on Apples "1 app at a time" policy, and that's fine. Bash that if you want to, theres plent of anger and frustration over that to go around. However, intentionally misrepresenting the issue here is counter productive, and prone to start a flamewar at best.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
"This should be the point at which everyone realizes that If a google app gets rejected, there's no point investing time and money into an iphone app.
Business isn't going to make a product which can't be sold."
"As of July 14, 2009, there are over 65,000 third-party applications officially available for the iPhone and iPod Touch on the App Store"
This must be a tiny bit embarrassing for Google. They're staking their reputation on Chrome OS, an OS based on the principle that native apps have had their day, and that everything we want to do can be done perfectly well through web apps.
Yet everyone's describing Google's web app as "crippled" on the iPhone, solely because Apple wouldn't allow them to release the native version of it. Why did they even deem it necessary to write a native version in the first place?
Incidentally, is there something in the Slashdot terms and conditions which means the site has to get worse every day? I can't even interact with the comment box with my mouse any more, it just ignores all clicks as if there's another HTML element overlaying it. This is truly pathetic.
You are absolutely correct. There are absolutely no legal ramifications there. Feels great to live in a FREE country :)
Breaking iTunes compatibility on Linux and Blackberry and now they're crippling a Google app. What up? I'm sure there's a strategy here, I just can't see it.
I don't think trying to Balkanize their services and regulate iPhone users is going to ultimately be good for them or their user base. The iPhone user demographic may not have the same brand loyalty as the Apple faithful.
Beyond that I've always been impressed with Apple's execution...until recently. Instead of their usual suave and polish, always being ahead of the curve in packaging and style, lately they seem to be heavy handed and bumbling around a bit. Reactive instead of their usual proactive. Being reactive and heavy handed reminds me of Microsoft and even though I'm not a Mac fan myself I really appreciate what Apple did well.
I hope they right themselves and implement a service strategy with the same quality they've shown in other areas. If they start trying to make iPhones the AOL of cellular services, then Google and other providers are going to out-maneuver them with superior service offerings on a wider range of devices.
Maybe it's some flashback to the OS wars. Instead of a big market share and being the dominant player in the field, Apple is setting themselves up for a smaller but more loyal market share. Which could be either good or bad depending on how you feel about them tying their OS to their hardware.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Apple does run apps in the background, just not apps that suck battery power. If every app you download wants to continuously run in the background then you're phone only runs for 3 hours, everybody complains what a piece of crap the iPhone is due to its bad battery life (which is rather low as it is, without actually trying to use all the apps apple displays on every commercial). They allow the ipod to run in the background as well as the clock, but those are two very low power programs. One reason they don't want IM apps in the background (before their push service) was the constant need to have the 3g/wifi antenna running all the time to poll for messages. Beside the display, the connectivity sucks the most juice.
"Apple requested we release Latitude as a web application in order to avoid confusion with Maps on the iPhone."
How does Apple get away with that as an excuse when Microsoft gets sued billions of dollars for simply including a web browser or media player with Windows? At least in Windows you can install a different browser!
...Latitude is the 'service' where Google gets to track pretty much every move you make, right? I'm still at a loss why people are so enthusiastic over this.
Banning Latitude is almost certainly just another mundane example of carrier oligopoly abuse. The federal government needs to legislate to stop cell phone carriers from crippling phones.
Wrong solution!
The federal government needs break up the oligopoly to allow real competition to thrive. In a competitive market, we can have the features we want without the government having to decide what features those should be, which always causes problems. Verizon can strip wifi out of your phone because they know you're not going to switch to another carrier that supports phones with wifi. There are plenty of reasons why it wouldn't be easy for you to switch - and THAT'S the root of the problem.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
How do Windows Mobile and Android manage running background apps perfectly fine? Does Apple have some inferiour programmers who cannot implement a proper scheduler?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
The iPhone is just a Darwin machine, which all of us here should know is based on FreeBSD. It, therefore, has a very good scheduler (one of FreeBSD's best features is that the system stays usable and responsive, seemingly no matter how high the load on the CPU is).
Apple's own software multitasks just fine, where it is useful to do so. They just don't let third-party apps run in the background.
My jailbroke iPod Touch (same hardware, more or less) works just fine as a multiuser Unix box, background apps and all. There's no compelling reason why I couldn't install Apache, Postfix, and BIND on it, and make a silly little Internet-facing WiFi-connected server (with a built-in UPS!) out of it, except for the fact that I'd rather do that on real hardware if I had a need to do so.
Kid-proof tablet..
I believe the Maps app on the iPhone is made by Google, so if there was an update around the corner that added this functionality I would think that Google would be aware of it