Slashdot Log In
iPhone To Allow 3rd-Party Development
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jun 05, 2007 05:23 PM
from the let-us-at-it dept.
from the let-us-at-it dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Apple: iPhone 1.1.3 Update Confirmed, Breaks Apps and Unlocks 412 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Gizmodo has gathered conclusive evidence which confirms that the iPhone Firmware 1.1.3 update is 100% real. It installs only from iTunes using the obligatory Apple private encryption key, which nobody has. The list of new features, like GPS-like triangulation positioning in Google Maps, has been confirmed too. Apparently it will be coming out next week, but there's bad news as expected: it breaks the unlocks, patches the previous vulnerabilities used by hackers and takes away all your third-party applications."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
A much better link (Score:5, Informative)
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:
One approach (Score:5, Interesting)
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:One approach (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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:A much better link (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
You're half right (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A much better link (Score:4, Informative)
But don't stop there.
Series 60 [nokia.com]
Palm OS [access-company.com] (Treo SDK [palm.com])
BlackBerry [blackberry.com]
Re:A much better link (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
Cite. Go on. I would so so love to see a citation of any evidence of this. Any, whatsoever.
Re:A much better link (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.. (Score:5, Funny)
One Word: (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Two words: (Score:5, Interesting)
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:One Word: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One Word: (Score:4, Informative)
Steve Jobs = Modern P.T.Barnum (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
ssh client would be nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Dashboard, duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
There is always next year.
Re:GPS (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GPS (Score:4, Interesting)