Submitted by Steve Jobs announced today that Apple will release an SDK for native apps next February, but it will take measures similar to Nokia’s for Symbian 60 regarding digital signatures on these apps.
Third Party Applications on the iPhone and Touch
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
But anybody can get a certificate for S60 and it’s possible to do programs without cert too. Nice to see how it will be with Apple.
…it will take measures similar to Nokia’s for Symbian 60 regarding digital signatures on these apps.
The news item doesn’t actually say this, they may or may not follow Nokia’s model. However, Jobs does mention that Nokia’s decision is a “step in the right direction” but is “less than totally open” – so who knows what they have planned. Though “totally open” are certainly not words I’d use to describe Apple.
Anyway, as for the SDK, better late than not at all! This definitely makes the iPhone a more attractive product to me.
I need friggin’ Bubble Breaker for the iPhone. Seriously, I need some games for when my brain is fried and I need to pass some time while on the subway.
Read a book. It costs less and lasts longer.
(I realize that this is completely uncalled for, but it’s the first thing that came to mind, sorry…)
I wouldn’t say what you said is rude – its right on the mark. The last thing the brain needs is over stimulation after a long day. I second a book as well. I remember when I was on the train going into Wellington; coffee in one hand, news paper in the other – nice and relaxed trip in (whilst the sheeple were stuck in their cars).
Back ontopic, one viewed the ‘prohibition of native applications’ at the beginning as ‘Apple being evil’ – has anyone thought that they didn’t offer the capability because they couldn’t guarantee interface stability, there were no tools, and that they wanted to create an ecosystem that was ‘done right’ rather than a hack fest of additions.
Books are so boring!
I no longer have the attention span for them unfortunately…
To each his own, I guess!
I would go to your local GP and get him to prescibe some ADD meds.
Get some audiobooks with a good narrator, those can make a good story come alive and keep you interested. I just finished “American Gods” by Gaiman it made me wish my commute was a half hour longer sometimes 🙂
Edited 2007-10-18 16:04 UTC
and I need to pass some time while on the subway.
…and after trying to surf the web on that P.O.S AT&T network you have to connect to. That, in and of itself, is reason enough to throw it against the wall.
My condolences.
It works quite reasonably depending on where you are. In midtown atlanta I’ve certainly found the network to be fast enough for casual browsing. Hardware-wise/software, I have yet to see anything that touches the iPhone. Browsing on any Palm platform sucks, and I have yet to see a Pocket PC device that didn’t make me WinCE…
Couldn’t agree with you more?
and I have yet to see a Pocket PC device that didn’t make me WinCE…
Nice one.
I’ve used lots of Windows Mobile platforms, and it just seems that Microsoft is hell-bent on trying to prove that the start menu and transplanting Windows from a PC on to a mobile is the way to do things.
Apple are learning as they go. They’re in an area about which they have little knowledge and they’re trying to provide a superior user experience.
It’s obvious that they need to protect the users so they don’t end up with (more) bad press, such as where Paris Hilton’s Sidekick had been hacked.
They’ve done a reasonable job to keep Mac OS X safe so I’m sure they’ll do the same for the mobile version, as soon as they figure out how to do that. Providing the SDK will enable more users to do what they need to do but allowing developers the freedom to create.
In all fairness, hers didn’t really get hacked, it was a combination of someone knowing a) her phone number, and b) guessing that her password was the name of her dog or something stupid like that and thus managing to log into her account on the web, which has access to all her SK’s data. Can’t really protect against stupidity.
That doesn’t really wash with me. Everyone in IT these days have used mobile phones of years and there is plenty of examples to to use as case studies when developing new ideas. It’s not like they’re developing NASA technology – phones have been a tried and tested technology for year.
They’ve also had it relatively easy having a *nix framework and not being as high profile target as Windows (on the desktop) or UNIX/Linux (Servers)
That doesn’t really wash with me. Everyone in IT these days have used mobile phones of years and there is plenty of examples to to use as case studies when developing new ideas.
Existing smartphones have had almost no impact outside the business market, at least in the US. You don’t see teenagers walking around with Treos and Windows Mobile phones. The iPhone is aimed at a fundamentally different market than those smartphones. Those phones started out as PDAs, with added phone functionality. As such, those phones became popular with people who already owned PDAs — business users. They retained programability, which was a vital part of the original appeal of PDAs. The iPhone starts from the iPod, and adds phone and web browsing functionality. It’s target market, at least for now, is obviously general consumers. It’s certainly not obvious that programmability is a vital feature for that market — certainly, being closed hasn’t hurt the iPods popularity much.
Edited 2007-10-18 07:38
That’s completely besides the point where the origins of smart phones are because they’ve already evolved beyond the confines of their original target.
The fact of the matter is the technology (regardless of where its roots begun) is not new technology. It’s been tried and tested many many times.
All the rest if just marketing and packaging the device to appeal to your target.
That’s completely besides the point where the origins of smart phones are because they’ve already evolved beyond the confines of their original target.
I think your view of what a smartphone does is valid, but it’s not what Apple is looking at. They’re trying to build an iPod with phone capabilities. Add in web browsing, calendar, and a game or two and you’ve covered everything my non-smartphone does, but the iPhone does it wildly better. That’s what J. Random Consumer wants, smartphone users are a different breed.
For its price, the iPhone does less than competing products from other companies.
The iPod is already an overpriced but well advertized product.
If you ask me, I would say the target market is the people who watch too much ads.
Ipod and iPhone follow the principle of less is more. Do a few things and do them well and no try to do everything in a mediocre fashion. The same philosophy applies to many things in life.
Most people to seem to confuse doing more things and doing things well. You can throw everything and the kitchen sink in a product as some smart phones do and end up with some thing that is buggy and pain to use.
I have never had a S60 that didn’t crash multiple times a week requiring reboots.
I’m really not sure vendor lock-ins could be classed as a “doing stuff well principle”.
What does vendor lock-in have to do with performing a function well?
I have used supposedly open smartphones and I haven’t found one device that works as well and seamlessly as the iPhone.
You are arguing two orthogonal issues. It don’t care how open a platform is if it doesn’t suit my usage needs, It is useless. Corollary, If a product works well and is closed that is fine by me.
I don’t prescribe to the whole mental masturbation of ideological computing. In the end the most functional product wins in my book.
Edited 2007-10-18 18:03
Sorry – I was having a bit of a tease with the vendor lock-ins comment.
I keep forgetting that humour doesn’t translate well online (particularly without emoticons)
Edited 2007-10-19 07:23
Darn! a smiley face would have made that obvious.
It’s not about S60. I have a simple phone, I don’t even know what the OS is. It supports J2ME, but I don’t need to know that. It just does what I need : take photos, movies, play music and movies, have a calendar and I can make video calls. My grand mother has one like mine and she can use it. I can surf with 3G speed and my phone cost half an iPhone and it never crashes and has never crashed. Actually there are tons of phone with comparable stuff, but the iPhone iw way behind the rest.
Seriously, I don’t ask the iPhone to do complex stuff, it’s 2007 and even 2 years ago the iPhone wouldn’t have been competitive. If you can’t even surf the web at decent speed, what does it do so well? I know it looks better than any other phone and the touch screen is cool, but who need to pay that much just a nice look and for a phone of the last century?
Competitive with what?
I have had those simple phones with all those features but never used most of them. For example, I never entered home addresses for people in contacts. I do now because it makes sense to as I can tap the address to route directions. Same thing with email addresses.
I barely used the music feature on my SonyEricsson walkman phone because the playlist management system was just bad.
I surf the web mostly at wifi speed with the abundance of hotspots where I use the phone. EDGE is passable most of times.
Care to point me to the make and model of the phone you have?
Edited 2007-10-18 22:20
I have a Sony Erikson K800i and I had a Nokie 6280 2 years ago. I watch movies in the train and listen to music in the subway. I’ve installed Opera mini and I don’t understand how you can live without internet. There are no free wifi spot where I live, so I NEED 3G. After all, maybe that is why you use the iPhone : abundance of hot spots?
The K800I is $320-$449 in the US. So your fraction of the cost argument it pretty much bunk. Granted it is unlocked but it doesn’t support any of the US frequencies since it is not quad band. I would much rather make a call than surf the web on UMTS. The K800i also doesn’t support any of the US UMTS bands so making is pretty useless because it doesn’t do EGDE.
I have no idea why anyone would buy a K800i in the US. However, I can use my iPhone all over the world on EDGE/GPRS or Wifi. The K800i is uses less as an internet device in the US.
I have used Opera Mini 3 and 4 beta on a W810i for two months before getting the iPhone and I am never going back.
Can you get email with MS Word, Excel docs and PDF attachments read them? If you get an email with a http link can you click it and have it open opera mini?
Not to mention watching videos on a tiny 2 inch screen or even surfing the web on it. Not to mention the lack of a decent QWERTY keyboard.
Don’t get me wrong I like my SonyEricsson W810i but I like the iPhone even more. The K850i looks nice but I won’t be getting it even if it has 3G. I just find the iPhone more useable and useful.
I am just trying to point out any phone can be made to look bad in comparison to another depending on what you decide to pick apart.
Enjoy you K800i and I will my iPhone.
Edited 2007-10-19 06:54
Well maybe the iPhone is suitable for the US market, but in Europe, it is too expensive.
That may be so. I would agree. We will have to see how it sells.
But that’s still just an interface change. The technology the 3rd party software sits on top shouldn’t be /that/ much different.
That’s completely besides the point where the origins of smart phones are because they’ve already evolved beyond the confines of their original target.
No, they haven’t. In the US (where Nokia and Sony phones have almost no impact), there is no other smartphone that’s playing in the iPhones market. Treos, WM devices, and Blackberrys are complete non-starters there.
The fact of the matter is the technology (regardless of where its roots begun) is not new technology. It’s been tried and tested many many times.
In the computer market, the technology is almost never the hard part. Productization and marketing are the hard parts. The technology of the iPhone is pretty stock (ARM processor and big touch-screen, geez, we’ve had those since the Newton!) The trick is to turn that technology into a product that your market will actually buy. So far, Palm, Samsung, etc, have not been able to make a smartphone that appeals to the iPod crowd. Apple has.
Getting back to the SDK issue — the hard part of integrating one isn’t the technology. After all, the iPhone had to have an SDK From day one — people had to write the apps for it somehow! The trick is figuring out how to integrate custom programs into what is otherwise very much an appliance-style product. How do you manage applications? How do you launch custom ones? How do you preserve UI integration? The existing solutions make sense for PalmOS and WM smartphones, which are basically PDAs with phone capability, but downloading installers manually from websites and dealing with an “add/remove” programs applet isn’t going to hack it for the iPod crowd. Moreover, apps that happily crash your machine are something that Palm users have learned to deal with (I’ve owned a couple of Palms myself), but again, it’s not something that’s going to hack it with the iPod crowd.
I think iTunes gives Apple quite a leg-up here. Unlike ActiveSync and Palm Desktop, iTunes is, well, not a piece of shit, and actually has a large userbase. If Apple can make downloading apps from iTunes as easy and reliable as downloading songs, then custom apps on the iPhone might see some real widespread use.
Edited 2007-10-18 22:08
What Apple want to prevent is unlocking, using your own music for ringtones, or anything that threatens to mess with their deals, agreements and otherwise. This has little to do with “viruses and malware”. A web page can phish your bank details just as easy as local malware.
I think someone on Slashdot said it best with “It’s difficult to be open and closed, at the same time.”
“It’s difficult to be open and closed, at the same time.”
Not if you’re using quantum physics.
It’s interesting how Apple learns. If it were most other tech companies, I doubt that they would have the brains to figure out that even if they weren’t going to release an SDK,people would develop applications. In fact, they would probably deploy methods for preventing said developments. Apple, on the other hand, sees this, and releases their own SDK.
Edited 2007-10-17 19:39
Apple have tried to prevent third party apps (1.1.1 update), and just because they will release an SDK, it doesn’t mean people are going to use it. If there’s too many restrictions that prevent equal-rights to first party apps, then the hackers will still have plenty to do.
For example, will Apple allow Skype or other VOIP apps? These could threaten AT&T profits at the end of the day.
Man I know, I’ve been waiting forever for an SDK to develop apps for my Windows Mobile phone… wait, what?
Nice try at spin, but face it Apple dropped the ball on this one.
how did apple drop the ball on this one? please explain!
yeah. Too bad Windows Mobile is terrible in comparison to Palm, Blackberry, and now mobile OSX.
Having used several iterations of Windows CE, Pocket PC, WM5, and WM6, along with several versions of Palm and BB each, I feel qualified to say that.
Do yourself a favor and build WebKit. Look at the scope of the many projects inside it and then review your “Apple dropped the ball on this one” again.
I’m not so sure. Apple is not a content vendor or a service provider. They are a style-oriented consumer electronics vendor. Any content vendor or service provider that deals with Apple must realize they only care about selling beautiful objects.
Apple doesn’t want to make big bucks selling ringtones, but they know that more people will buy iPhones if there’s a way to buy ringtones. They also know that more people will buy iPhones if there’s a way to use your own music as ringtones.
The aspect of open platforms that doesn’t appeal to Apple as a way to sell more objects relates to their somewhat obsessive desire to prevent third-parties from sullying their beauty. I suspect that “malware” is AppleTalk for add-ons that tarnish the elegant usability of the standard functionality.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the SDK clearly separates the Apple software from the alien software at the user interface level. As the saying goes, separate but equal.
Yes, I think so.
Apple and we all need this feature.
I take extreme pride in being one of the first who categorically affirmed Apple would release a SDK when they’d be ready to, and in being the guy who submitted this story first.
So, please, let me bathe myself in arrogance, put on the poshest accent ever, and say: “I told you so”.
(But truth be told, I’m just overwhelmingly cheerlead-y giddy happy it happened sooner than later. Yay!!!)
And you know what? This was pure economics. The strategy at Apple is to ensure the iPhone remains attractive, and that obviously means catering to the geek audience
As an aside: am I the only one who found John Carmack’s statements after WWDC incredibly telling? Quoting Gamasutra:
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=14979
Hmm, assigned a team to look into developing for it? He so knew of something we mere mortals didn’t…
Right. It’s simple: “Promise less and deliver more.”
Edited 2007-10-18 00:10
still don’t want one lol, probably never will. I don’t like the way Apple is doing business these days, and while I used to envy people who could afford Apple stuff, now that I can afford the stuff, I just vote with my dollars.
This is a step in the right direction for iPhone users, but I still think the company has really been doing some suspect things lately. Hopefully they won’t cripple the SDk to badly (lol..snicker), otherwise, like a previous poster mentioned, it won’t slow the hackers down one bit.
I think users have been doing some suspect things to be honest.
Apple presented a product, take it or leave it. From Daring Fireball:
“If anything, the lesson to be drawn is that Apple is quite trustworthy — iPhone 1.1.1 is and does exactly what Apple has claimed the iPhone is and does. To be trustworthy is to do what you say you will do; to do whatever someone else wishes you to do is to be obsequious.”
Has anyone actually heard of one of these being bricked? There’s a very fine line between “being honest” and spreading FUD to try to dissuade people. I wouldn’t put Apple above FUD.
Now let’s see exactly how “open” this is, and how much access to the iPhone core elements we get: multitouch, wifi, bluetooth, microphone, calendar database, music library, etc.
I’m guessing “anything that could enable VoIP” would be intentionally crippled, as well as anything having to do with ringtones, access to the music/video library files directly, and any other potential revenue stream for Apple, obviously.
I love the Ipod Touch as a mini web viewer, cannot wait for the future of the platform…..even the tweaks that apple will likely do in the coming months….like adding events to sync with ical, etc.
… they will complain no matter what a company does.
1st Complaint: No SDK! Apple is Evil.
2nd Complain: SDK *MIGHT* be crippled. Apple is Evil
…
you get the idea.
It’s just a phone. Just a Company.
First, I never said “Apple is Evil”, but rather stated a fact, Apple is a business.
Second, the letter makes a point of mentioning digital signing of apps, yet mentions it as just a good “first step”, which clearly indicates Apple intends to control the apps that run on the iPhone (perfectly understandable, btw). To which extent is not yet known, but if this involves “getting permission from Apple”, then there are several categories of apps that simply will never be available since they’ll hurt Apple’s bottom line or business deals. Example: file sharing over WiFi or bluetooth.
Seriously, what does the iPhone have? no 3G, no movie capture, no apps. It looks good, right.
So they release the SDK next year. Who buy a phone because they will release a SDK and there will be apps in the future?
And still they rush to the store? I really don’t get it, honestly. Is that all it takes? Marketing, marketing, marketing…
I think you’re confusing marketing with advertising, but anyway, “Marketing, marketing, marketing” is exactly what it takes. There’s a lot more to marketing than advertising. Like the development of a product with features that are desirable by the mass-market. Like choosing the right price point. And of course, advertising.
In the end though, hardly anyone, save for the type of people who read websites like OSNews, is going to buy a phone because an SDK is scheduled for release next year. I can only comment for North America, but you’d probably be hard pressed to find someone walking down the street who even knows what SDK means.
And besides the odd game, most people only have a vague awareness that they can install and run applications on their phone. And very few would even know how to do so.
Edited 2007-10-18 06:12
I’m enjoying fiddling with J2ME on my Sony Ericsson w580.
It doesn’t have safari, but I don’t care.
I can write all the applications I want for it. It has all the basic features of the iPhone, but with better (unrestricted) IMAP v4 (with idle) support, the walkman software is just as good as my old iPod (3G), it’s smaller, and with the 8GB m2 cards from Sandisk coming Q4, who -needs- an iPhone?
The SDK will let the iPhone become a viable PDA platform, nothing more, nothing less. Once the SDK is released, the Newton might finally be able to RIP.
I’m not aware of this. On my N73 and E70 you can choose to only install digitally signed applications, but you can turn it off quite easily. If Nokia have started requiring apps to be digitally signed then I’m not interested in having a new Nokia. If Apple is saying that they are going to require signed apps, then I’m not interested in an iPhone.
Some claim that viruses and malware are not a problem on mobile phones—this is simply not true. There have been serious viruses on other mobile phones already, including some that silently spread from phone to phone over the cell network. As our phones become more powerful, these malicious programs will become more dangerous.
This is sensationalist BS.
Edited 2007-10-18 11:49
Half truth, segedunum.
I too own an E70 and every application that goes beyond the trivial must be signed. You must have already seen application managers that require “dev cert”, meaning that you must go to symbiansigned.com and apply for a developer digital certificate yourself and sign it.
You might never have bumped into applications that need it, but it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. FExplorer is a prime example of a ridiculously popular S60v1/v2 app that needs a dev cert to run on S60v3. The S60 phone browser needs a certificate that Nokia doesn’t provide for free, so no one outside Nokia’s close partners can build a phone version of Reindeer (so open source my 4$$, may I add; what good is it to make sources available and make it impossible to run the customised software on the platform it was created for?).
I for one am eager to see what Apple is going to do there. As long as they provide ample access to the bluetooth stack and wifi, I’m almost happy. The camera may have a level of restriction. GSM access may be further restricted, I don’t really care… And if they enable someone to build a J2ME VM, I’ll be pretty happy. And if they provide OpenGL and Core Animation-level access to that PowerVR MBX chip they bundled, I’ll be in heaven.
<irony>
Yeah, right. I just counted 171 sensationalisms here:
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/mobile-description-index.shtml
even though this sensationalist page here: http://mobile.f-secure.com/news/september_07.html
counts 376 sensationalisms in the wild.
</irony>
And I’m not even touching the subject of bluejacking…
Edited 2007-10-18 22:26
“Any content vendor or service provider that deals with Apple must realize they only care about selling beautiful objects. ”
ahh… apple sells computers… not jewelry! they just happen to have a vision on what computers should actually do. (and that more than just making money)
“I suspect that “malware” is AppleTalk for add-ons that tarnish the elegant usability of the standard functionality.”
this statement is not far from the truth…. but you have a bad attitude! apple has a vision for this iPhone. its NOT your typical cell phone… or your run of the mill PeeCee. as yes… they DONT want to be tethered to a bunch of third parties and their apps that have their own agenda for the platform.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if the SDK clearly separates the Apple software from the alien software at the user interface level. As the saying goes, separate but equal.”
well… let see how well there approach works. if you don;t like it… i am sure there will be other options for you to choose! (but… you’ll still spend a dis-proportionate amount of time talking about apple stuff… even if you are not a user…. funny how that works)
My hope is that you’ll be able to use something similar to Dashcode to develop a majority of iPhone apps.
There’s a lot that can be done with Javascript, some kind of persistence, HTML and a Canvas. Add in some interfaces to something akin to Core Data or Core Animation, and easy access to web services (SOAP and REST) and I’ll bet a lot of folks, notably casual hackers and corporate developers, would get a lot of mileage out of such a platform.
Plus you’ll get small downloads (no doubt dominated by graphics more than code), ideally simple development (using Dashcode on OSX), and working with a high level environment outside of Obj-C.