Apple launches official iPhone, iPod touch Web apps directory

[AppleInsider]

Apple on Thursday afternoon launched as part of its website an official directory of iPhone and iPod touch Web applications, reinforcing its stance that third-party developers should focus their developmental efforts on Web 2.0 applications that function only under the embedded version of its Safari browser.

The move, anticipated by AppleInsider earlier this week, underscores the Cupertino-based firm's commitment to maintaining the security and integrity of its mobile Mac OS X platform by disallowing native application development by anyone other than itself.

The new applications directory, fashioned after the company's official Dashboard widget list, includes over 200 third-party Web-based applications optimized for either the iPhone or iPod touch -- which share a similar hardware makeup.

The Apple directory breaks applications down into categories such as Games, News, Sports and Weather. Each application listing provides a short description of that application's function, the name of its developer, associated web addresses, and the date the application was approved and posted to the official company list.

Apple encourages developers to submit their Web applications to the directory and provide feedback on the current concept. The company also provides a guide explaining how developers can get started writing Web applications for the iPhone and iPod touch.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Aqua OS X]

Thanks Apple.
<fart noise>

[Fiyero]

im glad they have this directory now!

But i noticed some of the links dont work or link to the wrong page

the graphing calculator one in particular

[wingrove]

so with my iPod touch i can only check my "to do" list if i have wifi access? what about all the other time, doesnt apple get it that NO ONE wants web apps, theyre slow and you can only run them if your on the net, aaargh apple listen to your customers, unless youve got something else planned stop blocking others from doing it right!

[MacTel]

Originally Posted by wingrove

so with my iPod touch i can only check my "to do" list if i have wifi access? what about all the other time, doesnt apple get it that NO ONE wants web apps, theyre slow and you can only run them if your on the net, aaargh apple listen to your customers, unless youve got something else planned stop blocking others from doing it right!

Yeah, no doubt. Let the user decide if they want Web 2.0 apps or native apps. We want a free market for the iPhone.

[josephwinters]

its nice knowing whats available. I'm all for this.

i was looking around and noticed an app called jkPassword.... SEEMS SPOOKY to me. hehe... Is apple ensuring that the web apps are safe? I guess thats all up to the end users discretion.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by MacTel

Yeah, no doubt. Let the user decide if they want Web 2.0 apps or native apps. We want a free market for the iPhone.

I second the motion.

[manfrommars]

Yawn. Nobody wants web apps.

[Footloose301]

Just tried out their web apps, they SUCK! Thankfully I'm sitting at home in my nice wi-fi environment. I want REAL apps!!!

[mdriftmeyer]

Totally hilarious.

People proclaimed that traditional Client/Server apps were passe and now all we see is people bitching for REAL applications.

What Real Apps do you want?

IM?

Quicken Lite?

What?

[zigzaglens]

So, no one is allowed to write native apps (except Apple.)

No one is allowed to switch networks.

We are, however, welcome to run web apps on iPhone's Safari over AT&T's miserably, excrutiatingly shoot-me-in-the-face-slow EDGE network.

Ugh.

[desarc]

Originally Posted by zigzaglens

So, no one is allowed to write native apps (except Apple.)

No one is allowed to switch networks.

We are, however, welcome to run web apps on iPhone's Safari over AT&T's miserably, excrutiatingly shoot-me-in-the-face-slow EDGE network.

Ugh.

yeah, imagine that, it's EXACTLY like you were told it would be LONG before it was released.
i bet you bitch at the clouds when it rains, too.

[zigzaglens]

Originally Posted by desarc

yeah, imagine that, it's EXACTLY like you were told it would be LONG before it was released.
i bet you bitch at the clouds when it rains, too.

I was told how awful EDGE was months before the phone was released?? Huh, I don't remember that. Well, color me corrected.

[desarc]

Originally Posted by zigzaglens

I was told how awful EDGE was months before the phone was released?? Huh, I don't remember that. Well, color me corrected.

the iphone is class 12 edge device, so:
your best case scenario is a transfer rate of 236.8 Kbps for download and 59.2 Kbps for upload.
not too bad, the problem is latency. [how long it takes your phone to send a request for data to ATT's server, and how long it takes that server to get back to your phone.

i guess i just assumed that everyone spending 600 bucks on a piece of hardware that they KNOW uses a slower network is going to research exactly what that means before they drop 6 bills.

[wizard69]

I liken this to a street walker trying to pitch something you don't want. Further you really don't want to take on the dangers of taking that pitch.

This is how I see Apple, at least with respect to real apps, they are a corporation that is pitching a product that most rational people don't want. Even if you drink the cool aid and buy into their vision, there is still the issue of what you get with this pitch. It might not cause anything to rot off, but potentially could cause you life long grief.

Dave

[McDave]

Originally Posted by desarc

the iphone is class 12 edge device, so:
your best case scenario is a transfer rate of 236.8 Kbps for download and 59.2 Kbps for upload.
not too bad, the problem is latency. [how long it takes your phone to send a request for data to ATT's server, and how long it takes that server to get back to your phone.

i guess i just assumed that everyone spending 600 bucks on a piece of hardware that they KNOW uses a slower network is going to research exactly what that means before they drop 6 bills.

I'd check the latency of higher speed networks as they often increase throughput at the expense of higher latency. Too many people look at the wrong spec. and with multiple users in the cell all checking out the latest videos a data system which doesn't pretend to be all that good may be the better option. Especially if the product and network have a symbiotic alignment because of, let's say, a tie-in

McD

[McDave]

Originally Posted by MacTel

Yeah, no doubt. Let the user decide if they want Web 2.0 apps or native apps. We want a free market for the iPhone.

We will decide, if we don't want a phone with Web2 Apps, we won't buy the iPhone. I want a useful product by the time it gets here, not a free market concept that's failed so badly on the so-called 'smart' phones. Steve would have to be an idiot to emulate failure.

I thought we got over this free-market rubbish with the Mac isn't it PC users that have a thousand choices, none of them good?

McD

[Ireland]

[Footloose301]

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

Totally hilarious.

People proclaimed that traditional Client/Server apps were passe and now all we see is people bitching for REAL applications.

What Real Apps do you want?

IM?

Quicken Lite?

What?

What I'm talking about is things like Chess. I love to play Chess and I want it on my iPhone. They have a webapp for it, I just played it. Its horribly slow even over my 802.11N. They need it right on the phone itself, among other things.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by McDave

I thought we got over this free-market rubbish with the Mac isn't it PC users that have a thousand choices, none of them good?

McD

Perfect sentence. Thanks.

[mrpiddly]

I would honestly be happy if they just let flash on and made their own screen sharing service.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

People proclaimed that traditional Client/Server apps were passe

I don't remember anyone saying it like that at all. Of course, I'm really rusty on what "traditional client/server app" means.

and now all we see is people bitching for REAL applications.

Are these the same people?

What Real Apps do you want?

IM?

Quicken Lite?

What?

A lot of the apps in the directory would be good starters. Webapps undoubtedly have their strengths, but it would be nice to have simple apps that aren't affected by weak signal strength, latency and low bandwidth, which I feel might hit me pretty hard. For me, I get just above barely usable voice signals for all the major carriers, but I fear data is another questioni if I leave my hotspot then I'm out of luck. Any app that would otherwise not need a network connection at all are saddled with these concerns.

[tutumiles1]

Web Apps are not making it happen. Lame, lame.... Apple we deserve better....

[Kutjara]

Creating a stripped-down website and applying a little Ajax styling does not an application make. Websites are fine for viewing infrequently-accessed information (like restaurant addresses or opening hours), but pretty lame for anything processor or data intensive, or for actions the user may want to perform when not within range of a data network.

Web "apps" and native apps both have their place. I'm perfectly happy to access news and sports by surfing to a website or via a web app "aggregator." However, if I want to play a game, access a large database of specialist information (e.g. medical, legal, engineering), or dictate into a voice recorder, I would want to do it through a native application. Speed, responsiveness and lack of network overhead are important in such circumstances, and web apps just can't deliver. The problem is made even worse when these apps have to squeeze themselves through the horribly outdated EDGE network. If Apple was really serious about Web apps, they would have insisted the iPhone had 3G capability.

As it stands, web apps look like a real afterthought. It's almost as if the phone was fully designed and in production when someone mentioned to His Steveness, "Ya know, just about every other smartphone can install and run applications. Aren't people going to wonder why ours can't?" It was too late to do anything about the problem, so some bright spark thought up the idea of calling websites "applications" and hoping nobody would notice.

[gilfanon]

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

Totally hilarious.

People proclaimed that traditional Client/Server apps were passe and now all we see is people bitching for REAL applications.

What Real Apps do you want?

IM?

Quicken Lite?

What?

Your logic is just daft. Yes, there's an industry buzz about moving away from client server for desktop based users- i.e. where you have a persistent network connection. Doesn't work quite so well on a MOBILE DEVICE. The only time I have a persistent wifi connection for my iPod Touch is when I'm at home or in the office- those being the only times I have b*gger-all need to use my iPod Touch since I have a laptop to pass my time on.

Might be nice if Apple gave some thought to how people are actually going to use these Apps. In my case, I'd like to use them during the 2 hours a day I spend bored out of my mind underground on the Tube which, for the unaware, has zero wifi connectivity whatsoever. Making all of these apps (I need wifi to write a friggin' todo list before work???) less than worthless. I'm guessing a lot of Apple's customers who commute to work by bus or train feel the same way. And who knows, it might just be a nice little marketing tool if bored London commuters got to see people playing games on an iPod Touch next to them on the Tube. Gee, it's a win-win for Apple and their customers...

Give us offline Apps dammit!

[samurai1999]

Originally Posted by gilfanon

Your logic is just daft. Yes, there's an industry buzz about moving away from client server for desktop based users- i.e. where you have a persistent network connection. Doesn't work quite so well on a MOBILE DEVICE. The only time I have a persistent wifi connection for my iPod Touch is when I'm at home or in the office- those being the only times I have b*gger-all need to use my iPod Touch since I have a laptop to pass my time on.

Might be nice if Apple gave some thought to how people are actually going to use these Apps. In my case, I'd like to use them during the 2 hours a day I spend bored out of my mind underground on the Tube which, for the unaware, has zero wifi connectivity whatsoever. Making all of these apps (I need wifi to write a friggin' todo list before work???) less than worthless. I'm guessing a lot of Apple's customers who commute to work by bus or train feel the same way. And who knows, it might just be a nice little marketing tool if bored London commuters got to see people playing games on an iPod Touch next to them on the Tube. Gee, it's a win-win for Apple and their customers...

Give us offline Apps dammit!

Couldn't agree more!

The need for these mini-apps is when you don't have Wi-Fi access (particularly for the iTouch) - who wants to have to have a Wi-Fi connection to play Sudoku?!
Web-Apps are cool for certain apps that need the resources of the Web, but for most of these, a native app is what's wanted/needed.
- the people at Apple aren't crazy/dumb enough not to realise this
- so they must have their own reasons for disallowing the obvious...
- maybe it's just His Steveness wants to keep control
- or maybe they're having trouble figuring out what should be in a proper SDK (C++?, Java?)
- whatever, they seem to be missing out on a great opertunity to make the iTouch, and the iPhone, really useful, compelling devices.

[mr_cazorp]

All hatred of web "apps" aside -

Apple couldn't even be bothered to create an iPhone-formatted version of this directory - or, put another way, they didn't optimize their optimized web apps for iPhone web page for iPhone.

Apple lately reminds me of Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes.

Now just a little bit of hatred for web "apps":

Anything useful will require a signon and password. That's just incredibly lame - Apple should make an authentication portal for single sign-on.

Or, they could just admit that what they really created is a handheld computer, and let people write REAL PROGRAMS for it. Hey whatever.

[Gizmo-xl]

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

Totally hilarious.

People proclaimed that traditional Client/Server apps were passe and now all we see is people bitching for REAL applications.

What Real Apps do you want?

IM?

Quicken Lite?

What?

Well I would like a password manager that lives on my iPhone and not the web.

[daratbastid]

you think even at&t would want to keep people off thier data network as much as possible so the whole web app thing would be making things worse for thier puiny edge connection . Who cares all is good on the apptap side of the fence anyways!

[Amorya]

Originally Posted by McDave

I'd check the latency of higher speed networks as they often increase throughput at the expense of higher latency. Too many people look at the wrong spec. and with multiple users in the cell all checking out the latest videos a data system which doesn't pretend to be all that good may be the better option. Especially if the product and network have a symbiotic alignment because of, let's say, a tie-in

McD

I'm browsing AI on 3G now. The latency is noticeable if you look for it, compared with ADSL broadband, but not a big inconvenience. I don't notice it in a normal browsing session, as often I'm loading multiple pages in tabs anyway rather than wanting instant feedback on clicking a link.

It's worse for things like SSH, because there's a small lag between keystroke and character appearing. That may be due to the multitude of proxy servers I'm going through to get around a stupid port 80 only limitation, though.

Amorya

[McDave]

Originally Posted by Amorya

I'm browsing AI on 3G now. The latency is noticeable if you look for it, compared with ADSL broadband, but not a big inconvenience. I don't notice it in a normal browsing session, as often I'm loading multiple pages in tabs anyway rather than wanting instant feedback on clicking a link.

It's worse for things like SSH, because there's a small lag between keystroke and character appearing. That may be due to the multitude of proxy servers I'm going through to get around a stupid port 80 only limitation, though.

Amorya

Does you phone/plan also allow you to use SSH over EDGE? (for comparison)

I take it 3G allows you to load all the adds on AI quicker!

McD

[jake_11]

Originally Posted by desarc

yeah, imagine that, it's EXACTLY like you were told it would be LONG before it was released.
i bet you bitch at the clouds when it rains, too.

What we were told is the iPhone runs OS X, not a stripped down OS like other smart phones has the real internet and email, and that it was going to be better than other smart phones in all ways. Most of us expected it to be less limited than other smart phones, but what we got was a toy with limited capabilities.

I wish Apple would unlock the full potential of the phone.

[McDave]

Originally Posted by jake_11

I wish Apple would unlock the full potential of the phone.

Apple never unlock the 'full potential' of any of their products on account of it also opening the potential to ruin slick & usable design replacing it with load of functions few people will ever use. Prohibition has taught us that ground conceded can rarely (if ever) be re-taken so they have to be extremely careful. It can be annoying, especially as the others curry favour through choice, but ultimately they make better products for it.

McD

[Amorya]

Originally Posted by McDave

Does you phone/plan also allow you to use SSH over EDGE? (for comparison)

I take it 3G allows you to load all the adds on AI quicker!

McD

I don't think my phone or network can do EDGE at all, to be honest. The fallback (for where there is no 3G) is GPRS, which is even slower. I haven't tried the net on that much, so I don't know, but I suspect SSH is blocked there too -- it's just a stupid restriction by the wonderful company that is Three UK.

[McDave]

Originally Posted by Amorya

I don't think my phone or network can do EDGE at all, to be honest. The fallback (for where there is no 3G) is GPRS, which is even slower. I haven't tried the net on that much, so I don't know, but I suspect SSH is blocked there too -- it's just a stupid restriction by the wonderful company that is Three UK.

I think we're always going to have these restrictions from providers to protect their own interests. My ISP throttles traffic that it believes o be 'illegal' making them the judge & jury even though I can create an identical digital copy of a TV show 'legally' by buying a DVR from my local retailer.

There's another thread going about opening the iPhone so developers can try their own software. I think the proposal is to break the fundamental design so they can play around adding software (skype's been mentioned a few times) only then to find the ISP will throttle it? Not the brightest, I guess if they were they'd be real developers!

McD

[jake_11]

Originally Posted by McDave

Apple never unlock the 'full potential' of any of their products on account of it also opening the potential to ruin slick & usable design replacing it with load of functions few people will ever use. Prohibition has taught us that ground conceded can rarely (if ever) be re-taken so they have to be extremely careful. It can be annoying, especially as the others curry favour through choice, but ultimately they make better products for it.

McD

OK, I would be happy with 80% of its potential. With Steve's announcement about the SDK we will finally get what we want so it doesnt matter anymore.

[McDave]

Originally Posted by jake_11

OK, I would be happy with 80% of its potential. With Steve's announcement about the SDK we will finally get what we want so it doesnt matter anymore.

Fair point

McD