iPhone To Allow 3rd-Party Development

Anarchysoft writes "In an exciting shift from previous statements, Apple CEO Steve Jobs revealed at the D Conference that 3rd-party development will be supported on the iPhone. Questions remain as to whether the opening of the platform, slated for later this year, will be through Dashboard-like widgets or a separate SDK."

A much better link

[Raindance (680694)]

This has been covered better and in more detail [arstechnica.com] by Ars' John Siracusa. In short, Apple actually wants to allow third-party apps on the iPhone, and developers are salivating at the thought, since (beside it being sexy) it'd be much easier to develop for the "real OS X" that runs on the iPhone than some kludgy mobile phone OS. The problems are two-fold:

1. Cellular networks are fragile. Much more fragile than the larger internet. They tend toward monoculture and proprietary systems, and haven't had the shakedown that standard internet network hardware and protocols have had. So Jobs' quote about him 'not wanting third-party apps bringing Cingular's network down' actually makes some sense (some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past). And

2. Apple simply doesn't have the design tools, and more importantly, the user interface guidelines, ready for developers.

So, third-party apps on the iPhone will happen. Just in a very measured way.

Here's Siracusa:

Not only does Apple have to figure out what makes a good iPhone application, it has to actually create the APIs to produce such a thing. Okay, so no scroll bars, but surely there will be some standard way of scrolling, some standard gesture recognition engine, and so on. Apple has to create all this, if only for its own internal sanity, before it can really get cranking on iPhone application development.

And like the Mac GUI before it, there will be fits and starts, dead-ends, and bad ideas to shake out in the first few years. Also, an IDE would be nice. Xcode, sure, but some sort of simulator or remote debugger system would help. And, whoops, let's keep revising all those APIs and that IDE to match the best practices as they evolve. Oh, and by the way, we need to ship something that works by June 29th.

Viewed in this context, the calls for third-party iPhone development, and Apple's reaction to them, start to make a bit more sense. It's the prototypical fanboy mistake to imagine that the mothership has infinite resources and skills, and any lack of satisfaction is malicious. The fact is, Apple could not provide a comprehensive third-party iPhone development environment on par with what Mac developers have come to expect by June 29th, even if it wanted to do such a thing--and there are many sound reasons not to. This stuff all needs time to cook.

In the meantime, Mac developers will have to be happy with some simple, widget-like WebKit-base development at WWDC this year. That'll also be a nice gesture of good faith from Apple.

One approach

[SuperKendall (25149)]

One thing Apple could do is allow software development, but only allow HTTP calls out of said apps - that way it would allow Cingular to shape traffic and not risk wonkiness from raw TCP handling by applications.

I'd be happy enough with an API that let me develop a simple interface that could store some data locally and sync with a computer, so even no network access for applications at all would be of some use (though obviously as the device is very network centric it would not be nearly as fun).

Re:

[ncc74656 (45571)]

One thing Apple could do is allow software development, but only allow HTTP calls out of said apps

That'd be less than useless...how are you going to do mail, SSH, VNC, or whatever if everything but HTTP traffic is blocked?

Re:One approach

[Mattsson (105422)]

Why would applications on an Apple-phone accessing the internet via tcp-ip sockets be more harmful than all the existing phones that enable just that?
On my sony-ericsson W810 I've installed things like a webbrowser, a Google-earth-like app, a ssh/telnet-client, a gps-map software, a ICQ/MSN/etc-IM app, all of which access the internet via tcp-ip, none of which has ever brought down the mobile network.

I can see how they'd be nervous about letting 3:rd party software talk directly to the mobile network, but tcp-ip access for 3:rd party software is already common stuff in mainstream, middle-end mobiles via J2ME MIDP 2.0 [sun.com].

Re:A much better link

[glesga_kiss (596639)]

So, third-party apps on the iPhone will happen. Just in a very measured way.

Ballocks. The saw the intense negative criticism the original decision produced and changed their minds. The reason a sdk isn't available is because they'd never planned for one originally.

Re:A much better link

[John Whitley (6067)]

The reason a sdk isn't available is because they'd never planned for one originally.

Yes, you're a troll. But let me be clear about the kind: you have identified yourself as a gum-flapping moron who's never shipped code worth a damn in your life, especially an SDK for external developers. (And before anyone asks, yes, I have done both. In the same product, even.)

It's VERY hard to ship a new embedded platform in a timely manner with an SDK that supports arbitrary third-party development for a new product. So hard, that it's almost never the right answer to hold off ship to wait for an SDK. An organization is much better off shipping the working, robust 1.0 product into customer's hands and use that experience to build a quality SDK and toolchain. The platform itself is a sea of unknown problem domains ("arr, here be dragons!") for a "version 1.0" product like the iPhone.

developing the SDK

[Gary W. Longsine (124661)]

You're right on target. Furthermore, Apple has a long history, going back to the founding of NeXT, of being exceedingly careful with the publication of new API and SDK. They typically develop at least one application which makes extensive use of the new API, and ship that application first. Then they get feedback on the application, go through another app development cycle, improve the API, etc. Finally, after they are very happy internally with the API, they might publish a public version of it in a developer release of the next release of the OS, and get feedback from developers, incorporate that feedback to the extent possible, and then ship the API. Then, they sometimes go through that cycle again with the next release of the OS before the API has really settled.

This is a somewhat painful process for those of us on the outside, and it normally takes a couple years before the API is published. However, it has resulted in API which, on the whole, are widely respected by talented developers with experience on multiple platforms. Some of those API have evolved only modestly since initial creation, some of those over 15 years ago, and are still regarded as advanced and modern.

It's also clear that Apple will need to accelerate this process a bit for the iPhone, simply because they want to develop *several* applications internally. They need the API and developer tools themselves. The good news is that this will also give them the experience with making different kinds of apps which will help round out and debug the API faster. We won't need to wait two years for the first version of the API. There is a non-zero chance we might see it, or at least hear about it, at WWDC 2007, the Cocoa API, not merely the Widget API.

It's clear that Apple has legitimate reasons for wanting to get the application development stuff "right" on the iPhone. The app market on most of the other cell phone platforms is really a disaster in the making. In addition to zillions of apps that are utter crap, which drag performance of the device down to unbearably slow, which crash and which feature generally poorly integrated UI, there is the looming threat of malware. There have already been a few malware incidents, and one of these days there will be a big, big malware incident. Apple doesn't want to be the platform that got nailed first. They don't want to get nailed at all.

Apple was intentionally vague about the SDK at the announcement of the iPhone because they didn't have all the answers lined up, really, none of them. But there will be a 3rd part app market at some point. And it will be huge.

Re:

[lmpeters (892805)]

An easy start for Apple would be to put a Java runtime environment on the iPhone. Then people could start developing third-party apps for the iPhone right now.

Re:

[jesboat (64736)]

Who here's written a JRE? Anyone?

Re:

[VP (32928)]

Apple has - they have one as part of OS X.

Re:

[DavidinAla (639952)]

You're asserting something as fact. Do you have actual knowledge to back up what you claim to know? Or are you just plain speculating?

I'm sure we know the answers to those questions, but let's see if you'll admit the truth.

David

Re:A much better link

[drinkypoo (153816)]

And with that one post all of Apple stories on Slashdot is summed up nicely with the Troll mod.

The sad thing is that his comment is probably the most accurate interpretation of events. Apple stated in no uncertain terms that there would not be third-party apps on the iPhone, except through Apple. This is a complete 180 from their original statement. He is probably correct.

Not what Jobs said...

[SuperKendall (25149)]

At lauch, Jobs sais that there would be third party applications, but the reelase of them would be tightly controlled by Apple at first (he spoke of the iPod games as an example). Perhaps the wider availaiblity of an SDK is something new, but not the presence of third party applications or some kind of SDK at all...

If you think about it, the notion that there was "no SDK at all" before is ludicris. After all, Apple has to develop applications for the phone, right? Therefore there always has been an SDk,

You're half right

[StarKruzr (74642)]

It got a lot of public ridicule, but they still sold out their pre-orders in many places.

I think the reason this change happened is because someone at Apple ran the numbers and realized they could find themselves in a position to make simply UNGODLY amounts of money off businesses of every size from mom-and-pop outfits to multinational conglomerates if they could find an effective way to create a software ecosystem around the iPhone. Now everything from your stupid little cash register applications all the way up to massive CRM systems can talk to the iPhone, and the iPhone can talk to them.

This is the first real, commercially-viable UNIX-esque cellular device out there. Apple also has a chance to place themselves in the position of being THE SOLE PRODUCER of a standardized, next-generation UNIX handheld.

This was a very, very good move on their part. Even the price won't stop the iPhone now.

Re:A much better link

[LWATCDR (28044)]

"1. Cellular networks are fragile. Much more fragile than the larger internet. They tend toward monoculture and proprietary systems, and haven't had the shakedown that standard internet network hardware and protocols have had. So Jobs' quote about him 'not wanting third-party apps bringing Cingular's network down' actually makes some sense (some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past)."
Not really. Cingular offers several SmartPhones like the Treo and the Samsung Blackjack that run both Palm OS and Windows Mobile. You can add software for both those with little effort. You can even write your own.
I would say your statment is "optimistic" at best.
A far more likely idea is simply that AT&T and Apple wanted to make a lot of money from selling software for the iPhone for a while. Good choice on Apples part to decide that making the developers happy would pay off more in the long run.

Re:

[trwww (545291)]

Cellular networks are fragile. Much more fragile than the larger internet. They tend toward monoculture and proprietary systems, and haven't had the shakedown that standard internet network hardware and protocols have had. So Jobs' quote about him 'not wanting third-party apps bringing Cingular's network down' actually makes some sense (some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past).

I have to disagree. I've been using and developing apps for Windows Mobile smartphones for almost tw

Re:A much better link

[0xdeadbeef (28836)]

Embedded Visual C++ 4.0 [microsoft.com] is free. It works with the Windows Mobile 5 SDK [microsoft.com]. Knock yourself out.

But don't stop there.

Series 60 [nokia.com]
Palm OS [access-company.com] (Treo SDK [palm.com])
BlackBerry [blackberry.com]

Details on "network fragility" please...

[jbn-o (555068)]

Cellular networks are fragile. Much more fragile than the larger internet.

What backing do you offer for this claim? Other posters on /. seem to be taking it as fact with nothing standing behind it.

The rest of what you're getting at is really no different from any other non-free software—the proprietors set the allowable limits of development via development kits.

Re:A much better link

[Achromatic1978 (916097)]

Cellular networks are fragile. Much more fragile than the larger internet. They tend toward monoculture and proprietary systems, and haven't had the shakedown that standard internet network hardware and protocols have had. So Jobs' quote about him 'not wanting third-party apps bringing Cingular's network down' actually makes some sense (some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past). And

Bullshit. Utter crap. Why is there this paranoia about the iPhone, when Symbian, Windows CE/Mobile have allowed this for years? There is no way an application on a device should or could bring down a base station, let alone a cell network.

Oh, and as for this gem:

bringing Cingular's network down' actually makes some sense (some mobile phone applications have more-or-less done this in the past)

Cite. Go on. I would so so love to see a citation of any evidence of this. Any, whatsoever.

Re:A much better link

[Sandor at the Zoo (98013)]

Cite. Go on. I would so so love to see a citation of any evidence of this. Any, whatsoever.

I can't give you a cite since it wasn't public, but I was there when the company had to roll out a quick release for an email client that was hitting the network at the same time every morning, from some tens of thousands of handsets. With cell time synchronization, that meant exactly the same time every morning, which was bringing down the C******* server that handed out data connection contexts.

Like you, I wouldn't have believed that you could bring down a cell network, but there you go. I suppose it wasn't really the whole network, but whatever.

Maybe they have more than one server handing out contexts now. Maybe not.

cell network incidents exist, like Pluto

[Gary W. Longsine (124661)]

There have been a number of incidents with cell phone networks like this. The service providers are really freaky paranoid about updating software on the switches and other network components, and are utterly loathe to update the firmware on the cell phones partly because they live in constant fear of unintended consequences of change. The change control procedures on the software systems for the network devices are mind numbing.

These incidents don't get published, just like most worm outbreaks in large corporate and government networks don't get published. I know a lot of them happened because I saw them first hand. Can't prove them to some random snit on Slashdot, however. The victims are often more afraid of the bad publicity than anything else that could result from an incident, and they eschew publicity. (The world would probably be a better place if they did share these experiences more widely, because lessons could be learned, software and procedures improved, etc., but that's not how managers of bureaucratic organizations operate just yet.)

To those demanding to see a link, I say: Well, since most of the people who actually know things like this are restricted by NDA agreements and also have the integrity to honor those agreements, perhaps first, you prove to us that pluto exists. I'm not talking about some white dot that could be a pin prick on a slide. You don't really know that Pluto exists, and nobody here has time to educate you in both epistemology and information technology so that you understand enough that we can "prove" everything to your pathetic satisfaction. Before mouthing off and demanding a link as though that constituted proof, maybe you should start by asking yourselves, "hrm... why would he lie about this?" If there are no compelling motivations for a big lie, then maybe, just maybe, he's not lying. Or maybe you don't believe him because you yourselves lie so often that you don't believe anyone else? What a sad life that must be.

Re:The big question..

[cowscows (103644)]

More importantly, once it's running vista, can you run a virtualized instance of linux on that, on which you run an emulator of a 6 year old version of palm OS. That way you can play DopeWars in all of it's 4 shades of gray glory. Of course, that's still worthless unless you can do all of the above from a terminal window on your powerbook, ssh'd into the iphone while it's still sitting in your pocket.

One Word:

[Penguinisto (415985)]

Skype.

If this critter has WiFi, and someone ports Skype to it, a damned fine radical shift in cell communications is very possible. While it wouldn't work outside of large metro areas (ones with lots of free WiFi, anyway), it would make phone companies, contracts, and all the BS that goes with 'em rather obsolete, methinks.

(then again, we'd likely see folks like Verizon et al start lobbying city councils to stop putting in free wifi, like Qwest and Comcast did when Utah began it's UTOPIA project of multiple city-funded fiber-to-the-doorstep projects all linked together).

Either way, it'd be damned cool, IMHO.

/P

Two words:

[MacEnvy (549188)]

802.11 sniffer
That's what I've been waiting for in iPhone news. Sure, there's the Oqo and some Axim-type devices that work for this, but very few that can harness the power of a terminal window, which I've been told (by an Apple higher ed employee) we'll be able to do on the iPhone.

Re:

[geekoid (135745)]

Yes, and the phone companies know this.

Once easy to access fee wi-fi hit's saturation, the phone companies become an emergency/ foreign access niche.

And even then it would only be to countries that don't have saturation.
A forward thinking CEO would embrace it and make money.

Re:One Word:

[Joe The Dragon (967727)]

a forced 2 year voice and data plan will stop that.

Re:

[blhack (921171)]

Unfortunately, the iPhone will NEVER become that great skypable device in the sky that we have all been waiting for for so long now. Apple is a business and a publicly traded one at that. If their phones became that cell-killer device, their contract with cingular would go bye-bye in a big huge hurry. Not to mention that no cell provider would want to come near the phone if that ever happens.

I am really shocked and, frankly, kindof disappointed in you here slashdot. The majority of you seem to have play

Re:

[fishboy (81833)]

Unfortunately, the iPhone will NEVER become that great skypable device in the sky that we have all been waiting for for so long now. Apple is a business and a publicly traded one at that. If their phones became that cell-killer device, their contract with cingular would go bye-bye in a big huge hurry. Not to mention that no cell provider would want to come near the phone if that ever happens.

But it won't be because of some little contract with Cingular. You think that something Skype-like is going to kil

Re:

[filterban (916724)]

You're right, and you have to know that Cingular is well aware of this issue.

The minute someone makes Skype for a WiFi cellphone is the minute people start using fewer minutes.

Of course, Cingular's still getting your money because you signed a 2 year contract to get the phone in the first place.

What will be really interesting is if Openmoko takes off. Then, there's no 2 year contract... say goodbye to margins!

Got one of those already

[Namarrgon (105036)]

And so does my wife.

Hers is from Nokia, mine is from HTC (I'm posting from it). They both have wifi and run Skype (and SIP, which IMO is better). They both have 3G too. Mine also has a full touchscreen and keyboard.

What you're asking for has been available for years. All Apple has done is put a (very) slick UI on it. It's nice, but I'm still waiting for the paradigm shift to kick in.

Re:One Word:

[Achromatic1978 (916097)]

You are, uhhh, aware that Skype is already available to several mobile devices, right?

Re:

[2nd Post! (213333)]

Why would you need to port Skype when iChat comes free with the iPhone?

iChat can do video with all other cam equipped Macs and voice with all mic equipped Macs.

On top of that, it can interoperate with the AOL video/voice client.

Announcement may make some change their mind

[thoughtlover (83833)]

I, for one, balked at the idea of having such a sweet platform to develop nifty apps for, but no 3rd-party development allowed?? Either they release a full API for garage developers or I won't consider buying one. I still think the 2-year commitment to #%^&! Cingular is a bad enough 'deal'. I'm just freaked out at what the battery life is like. I can't see getting more than 2 hours of full use from it before charging again.

This guy is a developer?

[SilentChris (452960)]

"I can understand their concern where they don't want after-market apps taking down the whole phone network," said iClip developer John Casasanta, who called last week's comments by Jobs "fantastic."

Wait... did this guy just insinuate that an app on one guy's iPhone is enough to take down all of AT&T/Cingular's network? Or did someone add the word "network" afterwards? Suddenly I have a lot less faith in iClip (whatever it is) being a quality app...

Steve Jobs = Modern P.T.Barnum

[xxxJonBoyxxx (565205)]

Apple CEO Steve Jobs revealed at the D Conference that 3rd-party development will be supported on the iPhone.

In modern marketing Steve Jobs has no equal. I think you'd have to go back all the way back to P.T. Barnum to find a similar exec in a similar industry (entertainment) who marketed his wares so effectively with personal announcements.

Re:

[SashaMan (263632)]

Bullshit. I keep seeing all of these business articles talking about how Jobs is such a great salesman, and while he is, that is not the reason for Apple's resurgence in the past 7-8 years. More than his salesmanship, Jobs fanatical focus on building great products is why everyone is talking about Apple. People are excited about the iPhone not just because it's flat and shiny, but because it provides a level of functionality and user experience (at least as its been depicted so far) that no other cell phone

ssh client would be nice

[drfrog (145882)]

#EOF

This is because Apple wants control

[fishthegeek (943099)]

The reason Apple is opening up to third party developers is that Apple does want to retain whatever control they can over the platform. The iPhone will be opened up anyway whether it's some very skilled h4x70r or a professional is the only difference. By releasing a dev kit (they'll all but have to) they can retain a modicum of control over what is developed and how it will be deployed. This isn't to say that there won't be hacks available but at least whatever useful programs are written will be part of

dumb anti-iPhone ass-troturfing

[Gary W. Longsine (124661)]

I'm just saying. There is entirely too much utter baseless crap like this in all the forums. I'm guessing a paid campagin.

Well..

[skinfitz (564041)]

Steve Jobs revealed at the D Conference that 3rd-party development will be supported on the iPhone

Maybe I'll get one after all then.

What is the point of a portable computer as powerful as the iPhone if it can't run 3rd party apps?

We aren't talking about OS X, or you or me

[SuperKendall (25149)]

OS X doesn't come with applications that do more than a very small subset of the functions I want.

Yes but we are not talking about a full computer. We are talking about a phone. Or at least a consumer device in a phone form factor.

It doesn't come with everything I would ever want either. But in aggregate, it comes with mostly what people need, along with a lot of what people would want - from an iPod, web browser, and phone. That's true enough for me that I'm getting one, 3rd party apps or no - again, a

Dashboard, duh!

[dr.badass (25287)]

Has anyone seriously believed that there wouldn't be third-party development for the iPhone? I was under the impression that the answer to that question was pretty obvious. The only question has been what form it would take, and even that is pretty obvious if you just look at the thing: Dashboard!

For starters, the interface has a lot of the same visual elements as Dashboard. The grille/tray, rounded-glass squares, identical icons. Hell, identical set of apps as the default set of Dashboard widgets. Dead giveaway. And why shouldn't it be the same set of apps? Apart from email, the main reason to have an internet-connected phone is for quickly fetching bite-sized chunks of information: exactly the sort of thing that widgets are good for.

Consider also that typical widgets take up very little memory and about the same amount of screen real estate as is available on the iPhone. On a Mac, this is because it is expected that you'll be looking at a bunch at the same time, but on the iPhone it's a perfect fit. For existing widgets, it's trivial to either modify the interface to fit the iPhone's screen or load a different interface depending on the platform.

There's no reason why every existing widget couldn't easily be made to run on iPhone, something that isn't true for existing desktop applications. That means thousands of applications available as soon as Apple allows it. Hell, developers don't even need to own or have access to an iPhone to be able to write applications for it. And before anyone screams "JavaScript Sucks", remember that Dashboard widgets can work with Cocoa, too. Off hand I can't think of much that you can't do in a widget. (For a good time, open up the Quartz Composer template included with Dashcode and ask yourself how much fun it would be if you could touch the cube.)

I know there a lot of doubters, but I think that iPhone is going to become the easiest mobile platform to develop third-party apps for.

Re:GPS

[soft_guy (534437)]

Does the iPhone have a GPS or not?

No, it does not have a GPS. Lots of people wish that it had one. Lots of people wish it had 3G. I wish it had more than 8GB of storage (like maybe a 100 GB hard disk).

There is always next year.

Re:

[lakeland (218447)]

Which is funny, because I only want it to have 2GB... Since 8GB isn't enough to fit a decent percentage of my music collection on, I am going to manually manage what is on my phone (favourites + random selection + a few audio books). An extra gig of five won't be enough to change that so is not valuable to me. Now, if it went up to 80GB that would be a different matter because then I'd be able to use it differently.

Oh, and I do wish it had GPS (for the google maps integration).

3G, I dunno... my wife's pho

Re:

[shmlco (594907)]

8GB let's me get a good selection of music and audiobooks, a couple of TV shows, a movie, and some pictures on it while leaving space for contacts and for the 2MP camera to do it's thing.

Only having 2GB would cut out nearly all of the wide-screen video capabilities, as there'd be no room at all for the files. One movie is a gig-plus all by itself.

Besides, I'd say there's a slim chance (20%) that it will ship out of the gate with more than 8GB. Underpromise and overdeliver.

Re:GPS

[PhotoGuy (189467)]

GPS can be added in quite a nice way to Bluetooth devices. Devices such as the Holux GPSlim 240 (my preferred choice) are under $100, the size of a memory stick, and have one of the bets GPS chipsets on the market (works inside a glove compartment), and relays the GPS data to a Bluetooth device. Works perfectly with my UTStarCom 6700 Phone (Windows Mobile 5) and TomTom Navigator. One added benefit is that you can stick the bluetooth GPS device in a handy spot (on a dash, up on deck on a boat, etc.) to increase reception, while having your phone anywhere within reasonable bluetooth range.

Re:GPS

[R3d M3rcury (871886)]

I don't believe so. But I'm curious whether the E911 system could be used in the phone in order to determine your location? There are rumors talking about this...

Re:

[fishboy (81833)]

Its an embarassing climbdown. Apple are notorious for tying to control everything, the negative feedback from the marketplace has obviously influenced this 'shift'.

Right. You think that Apple hadn't anticipated a market demand for third party apps? Apple pays a lot of attention to the upgrade path and lifespan of their products, in addition to looking at competitor capabilities-- you think they are building in the capability of third-party apps as some sort of afterthought on one of the most anticipated

Re:

[Overly Critical Guy (663429)]

And god bless them for it. It's the reason their platform is famous for its degree of simplicity, stability, and high quality. I'm not really interested in whatever backwater goofball app you'd concoct that would crash my iPhone.

Re:

[Mattsson (105422)]

So if I'm not satisfied with what Apple chooses for me, I shouldn't be allowed to develop something that does?
If you're not interested in non Apple-applications, you wouldn't download it anyway, right?
Freedom of choice is good, even if it lets you make choices others wouldn't.