Apple not opposed to native iPhone app development - report

[AppleInsider]

Apple Inc. won't oppose developers attempting to write new and intuitive applications for its iPhone handset, but also won't jump through hoops to make sure those programs remain functional with each successive iPhone Software Update, a company executive said this week.

Speaking to editors from PC Magazine, Apple hardware marketing chief Greg Joswiak said that the Cupertino-based company is taking "a neutral stance" on third-party iPhone applications. Apple won't forcibly prevent developers from writing new apps for the handset, he said, nor will it maliciously design software updates to break those apps.

On the other hand, Joswiak said Apple won't have much sympathy should one of its own upcoming software updates accidentally break some of the unofficial apps. Unlike development for the Mac, he explained, Apple is less experienced writing code for a mobile platform in this regard.

The Apple exec also left the door open to a further change to its policy on third-party iPhone development, explaining that the company is always re-examining its perspective on such risky matters.

In the meantime, Apple's neutral stance is good news for the few dozen native iPhone applications already in existence, and the countless others that are sure to crop up following Joswiak's comments. It may also boost interest in the company's upcoming iPod touch player, which -- as Joswiak also confirmed -- runs the same Mac OS X-based software platform (and the same hardware) as the iPhone. Therefore, most applications written for the iPhone should also function the same way on the new iPod.

In speaking to PC Magazine, Joswiak also dispelled rumors that Bluetooth functionality was yanked from the iPod touch at the last minute. Any images on the internet that may have implied as such were errors, he said. Similarly, he added, there are no immediate plans to bring games to the iPod touch.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[josephwinters]

I wish they would make games a top priority. It would be a good market for them to jump in on.

i wouldnt mind playing a few cool games on my iphone.

[sandau]

i have iBlackjack, LightsOff (from delicious monster) and FiveDice on my iPhone. All are pretty decent games, but I really want a touch version of Texas Hold'em. ---and not just on the iPhone, but Apple TV.

however, over Edge, Scenario Poker works amazingly well (better on wi-fi, of course), once it loads. try it out:

http://iphone.scenario.com/

[melgross]

Ok, this article is good news. It's what developers need to hear.

Even though no promises have been made toward the future, right now, there seems to be a blanket approval for the unofficial SDK and installer that's out.

Of course, there could be a problem if third party tools permit things that are banned, such as these ringer utilities are reported to do.

If Apple finds that they must prevent them from functioning, and the only way they can do so it to shut down the entire development process, they may decide to do so.

We can only hope that is not the case.

There is still the possibility that Apple itself is planning its own software for development. With Jobs's remarks earlier this year, I still have hope for that by MacWorld.

[SpamSandwich]

Apple is insane to not provide the SDK for the iPhone. Oh, well... just another roadblock Apple has set up to slow adoption of their latest and greatest.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Apple is insane to not provide the SDK for the iPhone. Oh, well... just another roadblock Apple has set up to slow adoption of their latest and greatest.

My thoughts are about the same.

I've thought that as long as it were possible to write an independent SDK and installer, someone would do it, and they have.

This is all fine, and in the long run, may work out well.

But, the problem is that by allowing the possibility for this, Apple has destroyed their own argument for why THEY don't provide one. If it is destabilizing, and dangerous for the network as well (I'n not saying I buy into that, but it is Jobs's argument), why would Apple allow it at all? It makes no sense.

If, as I believe, Apple will be coming out with their own software for this, why not just come out and say so directly, instead of hinting?

The problem here for Apple is that if they do come out with an SDK and installer, the Genie may already be out of the bottle, and Apple may have lost control of the process, esp. if their own software doesn't allow things that the independent versions do. That likely would not have happened if Apple were there first, as the incentive to anything else would have been significantly lessened.

If Apple hopes to derail this independence, they had better not wait too long.

But, after saying that, I believe that the bigger developers will be very wary of using something that is not officially endorsed by Apple, and that might be blocked in the future.

So, while this is pretty good, it's not perfect.

[nagromme]

Games would be GREAT--with multitouch and the very-precise tilt sensor, you could so some unique things that no other device can do.

As for 3rd party stuff, I think it makes sense to let the platform "settle"--allow software updates to do what they need to do without worrying about 3rd parties--and then LATER offer official tools and open the platform up formally.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by nagromme

As for 3rd party stuff, I think it makes sense to let the platform "settle"--allow software updates to do what they need to do without worrying about 3rd parties--and then LATER offer official tools and open the platform up formally.

I'm not so sure. we don't want two incompatable systems for creating this stuff.

And remember, Apple is not promising that something they do in the future won't disable this.

[MacTel]

Geez, ya know you would think with OSX on these devices that native applications wouldn't be a big issue. Regarding stability, OSX should allow the application to crash without crashing the entire system and restarting the phone. Regarding security, again OSX is supposedly a very secure OS - what's the problem?

[melgross]

Originally Posted by MacTel

Geez, ya know you would think with OSX on these devices that native applications wouldn't be a big issue. Regarding stability, OSX should allow the application to crash without crashing the entire system and restarting the phone. Regarding security, again OSX is supposedly a very secure OS - what's the problem?

Jobs doesn't want the phone to crash, so he says.

Security is never perfect. He doesn't want the virus's that have been popping up on smartphones the past few years either. He's also said that he doesn't want the phone to crash the cell network from some malicious software.

I don't agree that these are serious worries, but they are ones he stated, so you should e-mail him. Sometimes he actually answers.

[MacTel]

Originally Posted by melgross

Jobs doesn't want the phone to crash, so he says.

Security is never perfect. He doesn't want the virus's that have been popping up on smartphones the past few years either. He's also said that he doesn't want the phone to crash the cell network from some malicious software.

I don't agree that these are serious worries, but they are ones he stated, so you should e-mail him. Sometimes he actually answers.

The phones are crashing anyway. Safari is buggy from all the reports I've read.

Has a virus ever made it into the wild and spread natively on OSX?

What's his Apple email address? His Pixar one was sj@pixar.com.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by MacTel

The phones are crashing anyway. Safari is buggy from all the reports I've read.

It's still new. Third party apps could cause problems of their own that Apple can't control.

Has a virus ever made it into the wild and spread natively on OSX?

Not yet. But, this is a phone. Is there a firewall? I don't know. Is there a router with NAT? No. If Apple sells tens of millions of these, they will become a target.

What's his Apple email address? His Pixar one was sj@pixar.com.

I saw it in an interview lately, but I don't remember it. It's out there though.

[aegisdesign]

Originally Posted by nagromme

Games would be GREAT--with multitouch and the very-precise tilt sensor, you could so some unique things that no other device can do.

I hope someone is looking at doing a SCUMM VM port. I've loads of those games on my SE P910i and it works great with a touch screen already. They're one of the few styles of games that work really well on touch screen phones that have no buttons.

Originally Posted by nagromme

As for 3rd party stuff, I think it makes sense to let the platform "settle"--allow software updates to do what they need to do without worrying about 3rd parties--and then LATER offer official tools and open the platform up formally.

My thoughts too. They want to be able to make changes without upsetting developers. When they've sorted their base classes we'll see an SDK then.

[MacTel]

Originally Posted by melgross

Not yet. But, this is a phone. Is there a firewall? I don't know. Is there a router with NAT? No. If Apple sells tens of millions of these, they will become a target.

It really needs a router built into the iPhone. The HTC phones (AT&T 8525s) here at my employer can act as wireless routers, which is nice if you're toting a laptop too. Although, that's over a 3G network.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by melgross

But, the problem is that by allowing the possibility for this, Apple has destroyed their own argument for why THEY don't provide one. If it is destabilizing, and dangerous for the network as well (I'n not saying I buy into that, but it is Jobs's argument), why would Apple allow it at all? It makes no sense.

Actually, no they haven't. 3rd party apps built with an unofficial SDK is caveat emptor. Apple is not responsible for instability if you put something on your phone that isn't blessed by Apple.

More importantly, when someone developes a VOIP package Apple can shrug at AT&T.

As to why it would allow it...it doesn't hurt Apple to have new widgets on the iPhone.

The problem here for Apple is that if they do come out with an SDK and installer, the Genie may already be out of the bottle, and Apple may have lost control of the process, esp. if their own software doesn't allow things that the independent versions do. That likely would not have happened if Apple were there first, as the incentive to anything else would have been significantly lessened.

If Apple releases an official SDK then that's the one most folks will migrate to because it will offer full development support. They can't actually lose control of their own platform because they can simply modify OSX to break other SDKs by requiring a digitital signature to run. After that any hacking by 3rd party SDKs runs afoul DMCA. At least in the US.

Something a hacker might do for fun but not a company selling widgets and can get sued.

Personally, I don't think they have the security features they want done yet for either OSX or the SDK. This is probably an area that Symbian is a bit ahead of OSX.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by MacTel

Geez, ya know you would think with OSX on these devices that native applications wouldn't be a big issue. Regarding stability, OSX should allow the application to crash without crashing the entire system and restarting the phone. Regarding security, again OSX is supposedly a very secure OS - what's the problem?

Depends on the level of hardware memory protection. VmWare supports this on ARMs but the MMU is optional. Hmm...something to look into.

But anyway, if the iPhone lacks this then a misbehaving app can cause all sorts of mayhem.

---

Looks like the iPhone CPU is a Samsung S3C6400 so it does have a MMU. Samsung site was a tad sketchy. Haven't done any embedded work in 5 years and we were using PPCs rather than ARMs. The S3C6400 seems nice tho'. Also has TrustZone which I presume would be used in the official SDK.

[jasenj1]

Maybe we haven't seen anything from Apple because some of the APIs are based on Leopard? Not until 10.5 is out the door can they release tools for the 10.5 derived OS X on the iPhone/Touch.

It's a theory.

- Jasen.

[vinea]

Looking at the ARM docs I'm guessing this (TrustZone) is why the iPhone doesn't have a official native SDK yet. To make it work with a released in the wild SDK requires a bit of work to build a sandbox that isn't HOA (Hacked On Arrival).

If they were running late on the iPhone because of software issues then punting this aspect was a no brainer to try to get to launch. Too many nitpicky details will bite you on the ass if you try to rush this.

Probably all the apps are running with the Non-Secure bit set and all the peripherals are also not protected...although looking at the "docs"* seems to indicate this level of protection is pretty easy if coding in a simpler RTOS. If it works as stated. Which it might not. And OSX might not be playing well with it for whatever reason.

Plus, Apple would want an abstraction layer over the ARM security stuff. That might not be complete yet either and I don't believe that OSX was built with Trusted Computing in mind...a good security abstracyion model that would play well both on the desktop and mobile from different h/w vendors.

V

* the "docs" are a series of PP slides from ARM. Not dev docs.

[TenoBell]

Apple is insane to not provide the SDK for the iPhone. Oh, well... just another roadblock Apple has set up to slow adoption of their latest and greatest.

I don't think that's necessarily so. I've seen it in several articles that state most of the third party apps used on most phones already come with the iPhone. The only other app I really need on the iPhone is instant messaging, after that everything else is extra.

The problem here for Apple is that if they do come out with an SDK and installer, the Genie may already be out of the bottle, and Apple may have lost control of the process, esp. if their own software doesn't allow things that the independent versions do.

I would believe that less than 1% of iPhone users are using any of these hacks. The far majority of users will go with whatever Apple officially supports.

I'm sure I'm technically inclined enough to use the hacks but I don't want to bother with it.

[Celemourn]

I wonder if music copyrights might be an issue of concern regarding an official Apple SDK. I imagine that licensing is probably why we have to pay for ringtones, and I bet that a case could be argued that by providing an SDK, and thereby facilitating access to the iPhone's inner workings, Apple would be compromising their DRM schemes. Someone mentioned it above, and I bet they're right that it would open the door to Skype too, bringing up trouble with AT&T. Unless Apple had that in mind when the contracts were done up, that is.

At any rate, I want my Hello World iPhone tutorial! Anyone seen one floating about?

[Feynman]

Originally Posted by jasenj1

Maybe we haven't seen anything from Apple because some of the APIs are based on Leopard? Not until 10.5 is out the door can they release tools for the 10.5 derived OS X on the iPhone/Touch.

It's a theory.

- Jasen.

Good point.

I think we will see an official SDK at WWDC 2008 as part of Xcode 3.5

As of now there is no way to get official third party apps on the phone...obviously Apple will need to provide this method.

I think the best way for Apple to handle this is have a strict set of guidelines and have a dedicated team that will test the apps, and then approve them and then have them on board iTunes.

I have this feeling if Apple opened up the device with out such a practice, everyone and their mother would write apps and the iPhone and iPod Touch would not only become unstable but would also muddy up the device.

[mrpiddly]

come on, even if we cant have an sdk at least give us flash.

[Celemourn]

Originally Posted by Feynman

I think the best way for Apple to handle this is have a strict set of guidelines and have a dedicated team that will test the apps, and then approve them and then have them on board iTunes.

I have this feeling if Apple opened up the device with out such a practice, everyone and their mother would write apps and the iPhone and iPod Touch would not only become unstable but would also muddy up the device.

Agreed. That would solve stability issues without stifling creativity. They could use a "Made for iPhone" logo scheme to identify compliant software. As long as they did nothing to prevent uncertified apps from going public, that would probably keep everyone happy.

[michaelb]

Originally Posted by MacTel

What's his Apple email address? His Pixar one was sj@pixar.com.

It's not hard to guess (initial + surname) but he doesn't really read them. His personal assistant culls the inbox and presents the most relevant to him. He is a pretty busy guy after all, and can you imagine the volume of fanboy drivel he must get.

Phil Schiller may be a better bet. Fanboys can't spell.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by vinea

Actually, no they haven't. 3rd party apps built with an unofficial SDK is caveat emptor. Apple is not responsible for instability if you put something on your phone that isn't blessed by Apple.

Try to tell a customer that when (s)he calls and says that the phone is crashing.

9quote]
More importantly, when someone developes a VOIP package Apple can shrug at AT&T.[/quote]

I have no problem with that. But will business be interested if Apple says that it might not work next week?

As to why it would allow it...it doesn't hurt Apple to have new widgets on the iPhone.

Yes. No argument there.

If Apple releases an official SDK then that's the one most folks will migrate to because it will offer full development support. They can't actually lose control of their own platform because they can simply modify OSX to break other SDKs by requiring a digitital signature to run. After that any hacking by 3rd party SDKs runs afoul DMCA. At least in the US.

That's what I've been saying. Apple can choose, either through intention, or through other needs of their own, to prevent anything developed through the third party SDK's or installers from working.

Personally, I don't think they have the security features they want done yet for either OSX or the SDK. This is probably an area that Symbian is a bit ahead of OSX.

As I said, this is all too new as yet. Apple is still working out the early problems.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by mrpiddly

come on, even if we cant have an sdk at least give us flash.

Half the guys here want Flash, and half don't.

Hmmm!

[potterhead4]

Eh, I think people are missing the point. I remember back when the no SDK thing broke that the given reason was that Apple was worried about security issues but perhaps a bigger reason was that AT&T was worried that native Apps would allow users to circumvent features they could charge for, ie voice (VoIP) and text messaging (IM) service. I hate to be so cliche, but Apple ignoring third-party development was probably part of the plan all along. This way they can guarantee AT&T that only a tiny percentage of users are actually using these hacks and it's not worth their time to investigate while making their tech-savvy users (cough, early adopters) happy by leaving unofficial developers alone. As a bonus, Apple gets to circumvent any pesky contractual obligations by outsourcing early stability testing so that by the time they do release an SDK it's really rich and secure and there's already a big, experienced developer community for the iPhone. Just my (poorly written, for which I do apologize, it's too late to edit) take.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

I would believe that less than 1% of iPhone users are using any of these hacks. The far majority of users will go with whatever Apple officially supports.

I'm sure I'm technically inclined enough to use the hacks but I don't want to bother with it.

If they start selling them on sites like this, them quite a few will be using them. They are getting easier to use.

http://www.pocketpccity.com/

[Ronbo]

Originally Posted by melgross

As I said, this is all too new as yet. Apple is still working out the early problems.

Of all the things I've read back and forth about whether Apple will give us an SDK, the best was from John Siracusa on Ars Technica. The article can be found here:

The Frontier

Among other excellent points, he reminds us that even though this is OS X, Apple is basically in the process of inventing an entirely new interface paradigm. They're still trying to decide a lot in the details about what they think constitute the new rules for interface design.

There are no windows, no close/minimize/zoom widgets, no checkboxes, no radio buttons, no scroll bars, no nothing.

There are analogs to the things we're familiar with (finger-flick for scrolling),,,

But what does an application behave like in this new world? What makes a pleasant, easy to use iPhone application? Where are the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines? No, seriously. Yeah, sure, we're all such old pros that we can just ignore the Mac HIG and riff, right? After over 20 years of the Mac-like GUI, maybe that's true. But you have to know the rules before you can know when to break them. We're all in the dark on the iPhone.

And that includes Apple. 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.

Very well put, I think. The entire article is worth a read. Give Apple time. You'll get the SDK, I suspect. But right now, there simply isn't such a thing. Let it cook, and don't push them to take it out of the oven before it's ready.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

Of all the things I've read back and forth about whether Apple will give us an SDK, the best was from John Siracusa on Ars Technica. The article can be found here:

The Frontier

Among other excellent points, he reminds us that even though this is OS X, Apple is basically in the process of inventing an entirely new interface paradigm. They're still trying to decide a lot in the details about what they think constitute the new rules for interface design.

And he's right. I've been trying to tell people who think that "porting" programs over from the Mac will be so easy because OS X is on the phone. It's not.

Two reasons. The first is because of the interface problem, which Jobs brought up months ago. This is not a quick and dirty change.

Two is because the phone is far less powerful than even the least powerful computer Apple has made in the last ten years or so.

Only the simplest programs will make it over without almost totally rewritten code.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by melgross

Try to tell a customer that when (s)he calls and says that the phone is crashing.

Essentially that's what they said today. 3rd party apps are unsupported. Likely support would first ask if there are any 3rd party apps. If so, they'll ask the owner to backup data, wipe, restore to a clean phone and resync without any 3rd party apps installed.

Heck, that's probably their first answer anyway. Wipe, resynch.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by vinea

Essentially that's what they said today. 3rd party apps are unsupported. Likely support would first ask if there are any 3rd party apps. If so, they'll ask the owner to backup data, wipe, restore to a clean phone and resync without any 3rd party apps installed.

Heck, that's probably their first answer anyway. Wipe, resynch.

It could well be. But customers are a funny lot. If they buy this software at a web site that sells mobile software, which could very well start happening, they won't understand that the software isn't officially supported.

For us, it wouldn't be a problem. we would just curse once, wipe it clean and restart.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

Among other excellent points, he reminds us that even though this is OS X, Apple is basically in the process of inventing an entirely new interface paradigm. They're still trying to decide a lot in the details about what they think constitute the new rules for interface design.

Meh...I think he overstates the case a little bit. From an app perspective the UI is (often) abstracted. It sees a scroll event...and it doesn't matter that the scroll is a finger flick or a scroll wheel or a mouse on a scroll bar if properly abstracted. Likewise open, close, etc events.

The paradigm is much like kiosk, (some) web and game UI development where you do not have the full traditional WIMP interface and alternative input devices vs a keyboard and mouse.

Radio buttons you can still have. Just have to be big and the number of items restricted to what you can display on one page.

Pull downs aren't useful but replaced by the list interface common to iPods.

If you want a radical change in UI paradigm try designing a Zoomable User Interface. Raskin loved that concept and with the gesture interface it might actually...not suck too bad. See his Humane Interface book...

The current Phone UI is still fairly traditional with icons and windows...even if the windows occupy the entire screen...with gestures added. That's actually a good thing. Baby steps.

The lack of stylus doesn't hurt the iPhone but for larger touch devices you'll want the capability for a stylus.

But in general, what he says was that Apple wasn't ready to release a SDK and that's kinda obvious. Building an API and supporting SDK/IDE/test env is a lot of work.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by melgross

It could well be. But customers are a funny lot. If they buy this software at a web site that sells mobile software, which could very well start happening, they won't understand that the software isn't officially supported.

For us, it wouldn't be a problem. we would just curse once, wipe it clean and restart.

I guess it depends on if they bring in to an Apple or ATT store or if they have web/phone support. A Genius would go "Ah...see...you loaded these unsupported apps...let me remove them for you...see...all better."

Then its up to the mobile software dev to handle the irate call.

Not saying the strategy is perfect but it does offer some insulation for Apple since 3rd party apps are unsupported and likely they will make it very clear to any customer that calls. If it becomes a big problem then Apple can ask the vendors to put a large disclaimer on their site or risk getting shut out entirely as Apple defensively applies Trusted Computing.

A lot of these apps will break as they implement security anyway. Do you REALLY want any 3rd party app to have control over the camera?

[melgross]

Originally Posted by vinea

I guess it depends on if they bring in to an Apple or ATT store or if they have web/phone support. A Genius would go "Ah...see...you loaded these unsupported apps...let me remove them for you...see...all better."

Then its up to the mobile software dev to handle the irate call.

Not saying the strategy is perfect but it does offer some insulation for Apple since 3rd party apps are unsupported and likely they will make it very clear to any customer that calls. If it becomes a big problem then Apple can ask the vendors to put a large disclaimer on their site or risk getting shut out entirely as Apple defensively applies Trusted Computing.

A lot of these apps will break as they implement security anyway. Do you REALLY want any 3rd party app to have control over the camera?

I hope you're right, but, human nature being what it is...

But, as many were disappointed that the phone doesn't do video, if some app managed to make it work, then sure, people would be happy if it took over the camera.

...as long as you KNEW what it was doing, of course.

[petermac]

Originally Posted by melgross

It's still new. Third party apps could cause problems of their own that Apple can't control.



Not yet. But, this is a phone. Is there a firewall? I don't know. Is there a router with NAT? No. If Apple sells tens of millions of these, they will become a target.



I saw it in an interview lately, but I don't remember it. It's out there though.

Its sjobs@mac.com

Well, its what my research says.

Good Luck

[Sandman619]

To clarify, the iPhone & iPod run OS X
Macintosh computers run Mac OS X
OS X might best be described as the core OS without all of the fancy Mac UI & features

[Blah64]

Originally Posted by melgross

Half the guys here want Flash, and half don't.

Hmmm!

No kidding. Count me in the No Flash court. The main thing that makes Flash remotely "useful" these days is playing video, and H.264 is coming to YouTube and probably other sites.

At the very very least, if/when Flash is on the iPhone it needs to be disable-able by the user. Or something like FlashBlock needs to be available. I'd be happiest if it just wasn't there at all. It's not that the technology is so evil, but much of its usage is. I can't even read a simple news page with all the scrolling ads and blinking crap that comes with Flash these days....

Just for fun, everyone try turning off Flash for a couple hours as you cruise the net. It's a much more calming and pleasant experience. You can actually see what you want to see without advertisers giving you a headache! :-)

[s.asad]

A 3rd party drag and drop mp3 assign to phonebook app (when connected) would be killer.
I've got short mixes (I DJ) I've wanted as my HQ voicemail message for years...

...Edit your own aiff/wav in desktop/laptop, convert, drag and drop as ringtone.

That program Jobs displayed was extra-lame.
Custom 3rd party voicemail/ringtone drag & drop app ftw.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Blah64

No kidding. Count me in the No Flash court. The main thing that makes Flash remotely "useful" these days is playing video, and H.264 is coming to YouTube and probably other sites.

At the very very least, if/when Flash is on the iPhone it needs to be disable-able by the user. Or something like FlashBlock needs to be available. I'd be happiest if it just wasn't there at all. It's not that the technology is so evil, but much of its usage is. I can't even read a simple news page with all the scrolling ads and blinking crap that comes with Flash these days....

Just for fun, everyone try turning off Flash for a couple hours as you cruise the net. It's a much more calming and pleasant experience. You can actually see what you want to see without advertisers giving you a headache! :-)

I haven't checked to see if this is using flash or not, but check out that Toshiba ad on the right. Give it e few seconds to get going.

If another ad appears, try theInquiresite directly, and click on something.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42269

Ahh, when I tried my direct link, the ad doesn't show.

try the home page first.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?rfp=dta