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.'"
Exactly! Google Latitude is just an inferior (and potentially confusing) version of the maps app. Sure the maps app might actually use Google Maps but it's the Apple extensions that really put the shine on it. It's absolutely right that this be limited to a web-app. Furthermore, who would want to allow an application to continuously run in the background? It opens up all sorts of angles of attack, it's dangerous, resource intensive, and Apple is right to disallow it. Apple know what's best for it's customers. They shound't, and they won't allow the likes of Google to undermine their customers' experience with the iPhone using shoddy, poorly designed applications.
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.
Yup. Can't see any legal ramifications there.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
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.
There is a real balance out there. The reason for the tight control is to prevent damaging software, which is a good thing. However Apple needs to lay off on apps that compete with the phones defaults. Sure their stuff is good but it doesn't always quite feet the need where a new app could.
I personally think their process should just check to insure the app doesn't kill the phone or slow it down way to much. And that it is age related. But besides that, let the honest companies make software without worry that they will get denied just because of some app approver with a God complex.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
...that the ultimate narcissist application (everyone needs to know exactly where I am every second!)... ...doesn't work on the ultimate narcissists cell phone.
This space available.
AT&T wants to sell their 'AT&T FamilyMap' plan to its users. Subscribers are charged $9.99 for the ability to locate up to 2 other people with AT&T phones $14.99 to locate up to 5 people. Google latitude will do this for free only better because users can locate as many people as they want and it can locate non-AT&T users.
I think that Apple would be happy to allow this but the problem is that wireless providers abuse their oligopoly status to cripple cell phone features so that users are forced to give the wireless carriers money for things that they otherwise would have been free and better.
For example Verizon forces smart phone manufacturers to rip out WiFi so users are forced to pay Verizon to access the internet. MP3 players are ripped out of cellphones and replaced by silly paid services such as VCast.
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.
Apple know what's best for it's customers. They shound't, and they won't allow the likes of Google to undermine their customers' experience with the iPhone using shoddy, poorly designed applications.
You, sir, are the biggest idiot I have ever met online.
Satire.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"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!
Running an active TCP session for an IM client constantly would light up much more of the iPhone's hardware, and drain the battery that much faster.
Well, not exactly....
An active TCP session is EXACTLY what Apple's Push Notification Service uses.
Its an extended version of ActivSync, Licensed from Microsoft.
It works like this:
You open a TCP connection with an Apple Notification server, and shutdown the radio, leaving the connection open, by never explicitly closing it. With the radio down, the phone is Saving power.
Periodically, you wake up the radio, check if the TCP socket is readable. If so, you read it, and notify the user, and optionally launch that application that the notification was destined for.
If the socket failed, (timed out, network dropped, etc) you reestablish the socket.
Since TCP timeout is usually on the order of 12 minutes or longer, this happens only about 5 times an hour.
Checking socket readability takes just a tiny bit of power for a very very short time. So your radio is on for a few seconds every hour. (Which it is anyway, listening for incoming calls).
Apple's push notification leverages this single socket connection to an unlimited number of applications in the iPhone, by having a single daemon watching the socket, signaling the target app, and notifying the user.
It operates similar to InetD in Linux, other than instead of waiting for new connections, it is watching existing ones. In fact, there is some discussion as to whether ActiveSync is even patentable because it is so obvious.
And to be perfectly pedantic, Antennas do not consume any power when receiving.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.