or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › What kind of limitations will apple put on 3rd party apps?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What kind of limitations will apple put on 3rd party apps?

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
I would really like opera or firefox mobile. mainly, just for choice, but also because i'd like a mobile browser with flash support. will apple let that happen?

what about a slingplayer application? i can only speculate as to why they wouldn't want that app on the iphone, but i'd LOVE it.

so what do we know about the limitations apple will put on 3rd party apps?
post #2 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmber View Post

I would really like opera or firefox mobile. mainly, just for choice, but also because i'd like a mobile browser with flash support. will apple let that happen?

what about a slingplayer application? i can only speculate as to why they wouldn't want that app on the iphone, but i'd LOVE it.

so what do we know about the limitations apple will put on 3rd party apps?

That is a great question but unfortunately the answer will most likely be: any application that Apple can charge someone for, even if Apple did not develop it. This is why the hacker communities never stopped hacking. Many to most of them are quite suer that Apple will try to lock down development through some sort of application signing, thus being able to charge for non-Apple "inspired" installations.

Nothing wrong with making money, but Apple is becoming more and more M$'ish day by day. I do hope that I am wrong but Apples past history of "more for the consumer" comes at a price.
post #3 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

That is a great question but unfortunately the answer will most likely be: any application that Apple can charge someone for, even if Apple did not develop it. This is why the hacker communities never stopped hacking. Many to most of them are quite suer that Apple will try to lock down development through some sort of application signing, thus being able to charge for non-Apple "inspired" installations.

Nothing wrong with making money, but Apple is becoming more and more M$'ish day by day. I do hope that I am wrong but Apples past history of "more for the consumer" comes at a price.

Is Apple charging to list podcasts in iTMS? I haven't heard that they are so there is no reason to say that they will charge developers to list and distribute applications in iTMS.

Now saying that, there is a big difference between a podcast and an application. One is an executable that can cause damage and the other is not. So, if we take Jobs word for it that the reason there was no initial SDK was to protect the integrity of the iPhone, we have to assume that Apple has come up with a way for the user to verify that an application is from who it claims to be, does only what it claims to do and is unmodified. The easiest way to do that is to sign and vet the application before distribution. Vetting will cost money, and Apple (or ATT) will probably charge the vendor for vetting the application prior to its widespread release. As far as singing the app, Apple may charge a small fee for any developer to register with them and get a signature. But again they may not.

However, Apple may feel that they have adequately sandboxed the iPhone and will not require any signatures or vetting.

Also, I wonder many of those 'developers' complaining about having to sign their applications are ones we don't want to buy from in the first place?
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #4 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

Is Apple charging to list podcasts in iTMS? I haven't heard that they are so there is no reason to say that they will charge developers to list and distribute applications in iTMS.

Now saying that, there is a big difference between a podcast and an application. One is an executable that can cause damage and the other is not. So, if we take Jobs word for it that the reason there was no initial SDK was to protect the integrity of the iPhone, we have to assume that Apple has come up with a way for the user to verify that an application is from who it claims to be, does only what it claims to do and is unmodified. The easiest way to do that is to sign and vet the application before distribution. Vetting will cost money, and Apple (or ATT) will probably charge the vendor for vetting the application prior to its widespread release. As far as singing the app, Apple may charge a small fee for any developer to register with them and get a signature. But again they may not.

However, Apple may feel that they have adequately sandboxed the iPhone and will not require any signatures or vetting.

Also, I wonder many of those 'developers' complaining about having to sign their applications are ones we don't want to buy from in the first place?


Hello aresee,

There are some premiume content Podcasts in iTunes. I pay a monthly fee for one of them. I am not sure of the financial structure of this but I am sure Apple is getting a cut, and there is nothing wrong with this.

Any software that is installed and executabled can cause damage. Usually the user/installer is warned about the hazards of installing software. The same can be said about apps installed on the iPhone. They, just like apps that Apple develops can cause problems. Users are advised and take their chances accordingly. My issue is not with charging money for apps but that Apple is supposed to be the "Think Differnent" company but Apple seems to be more like the: "Think Money" company. Instead of working with the developers to expand the application portfolio base, they "seem" to be trying to surpress anything not blessed from on high by he who is named Jobs.

In the end we will see. This is all speculation and we will see within the next few days/weeks.
post #5 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Hello aresee,

There are some premiume content Podcasts in iTunes. I pay a monthly fee for one of them. I am not sure of the financial structure of this but I am sure Apple is getting a cut, and there is nothing wrong with this.

Any software that is installed and executabled can cause damage. Usually the user/installer is warned about the hazards of installing software. The same can be said about apps installed on the iPhone. They, just like apps that Apple develops can cause problems. Users are advised and take their chances accordingly. My issue is not with charging money for apps but that Apple is supposed to be the "Think Differnent" company but Apple seems to be more like the: "Think Money" company. Instead of working with the developers to expand the application portfolio base, they "seem" to be trying to surpress anything not blessed from on high by he who is named Jobs.

In the end we will see. This is all speculation and we will see within the next few days/weeks.

Ah, but your post implied that because it wasn't developed by Apple, Apple would charge for it just because it was non-Apple. I pointed out that this isn't being done for podcasts. Sure there are a few podcasts that you have to pay for, and maybe Apple is even getting a cut (or charging a money handling service fee), but the vast majority of podcasts in the iTMS are free.

I don't know the cell phone industry, not do I know it technical architecture, but our cell phones are much different than you and I sitting at our own computers. If an app goes bad on our computers, it takes out our computer and leaves everybody else alone. If it goes crazy on the net our ISP can quickly identify it and disconnect it without impacting anybody else. Cell phones are different, they are always connected and broadcasting. If they go crazy they may be able to take out a cell tower affect many other users. And as we move through the city this outage will move with us affected many thousands of people. So it is understandable that the FCC and ATT will both be concerned about any possible impacts to the cell system. So your assumption that Jobs, and only Jobs is vetting this software is incorrect. He is a part of a partnership that includes two others with a very high interest in keeping outsiders out. He can't filly, nilly throw the whole cell phone network open to all comers just on his say so. Especially when one of the interested parties can bar him and Apple from the full industry. Besides, being a newcomer to the industry, and showing the conservatism they have to government regulations (i.e. accounting rules that charged the Touch owners $20), I bet that Jobs and Apple are following the FCC rules and regulations to the letter.

But like you say, we are both speculating.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #6 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

Ah, but your post implied that because it wasn't developed by Apple, Apple would charge for it just because it was non-Apple. I pointed out that this isn't being done for podcasts. Sure there are a few podcasts that you have to pay for, and maybe Apple is even getting a cut (or charging a money handling service fee), but the vast majority of podcasts in the iTMS are free.

I don't know the cell phone industry, not do I know it technical architecture, but our cell phones are much different than you and I sitting at our own computers. If an app goes bad on our computers, it takes out our computer and leaves everybody else alone. If it goes crazy on the net our ISP can quickly identify it and disconnect it without impacting anybody else. Cell phones are different, they are always connected and broadcasting. If they go crazy they may be able to take out a cell tower affect many other users. And as we move through the city this outage will move with us affected many thousands of people. So it is understandable that the FCC and ATT will both be concerned about any possible impacts to the cell system. So your assumption that Jobs, and only Jobs is vetting this software is incorrect. He is a part of a partnership that includes two others with a very high interest in keeping outsiders out. He can't filly, nilly throw the whole cell phone network open to all comers just on his say so. Especially when one of the interested parties can bar him and Apple from the full industry. Besides, being a newcomer to the industry, and showing the conservatism they have to government regulations (i.e. accounting rules that charged the Touch owners $20), I bet that Jobs and Apple are following the FCC rules and regulations to the letter.

But like you say, we are both speculating.


On the iTunes issue I concur. This is just a way to make money and this is fine by me. I could go the long route, use Audio Hijack Pro and copy the streams that I want but I do not mind paying $10 a month and have the podcasts delivered fresh to my Mac daily.

On the other issue, I completely disagree. In the interim between answering your post, I contacted several friends at Nokia, and SE (network designers and engineers) to ask them about the possibility of a cell phone (even en masse) crashing a network. They all concur that this is not possible especially with the IN built into the network. If you have any data to prove that there has been a recorded case of a cell phone crashing a network we would like to see it. Even in labs, there is no known case of a normal phone or even a Smartphone crashing a network. Putting all things aside, I have to say that this is one argument from Apple and AT&T that holds no water. The FCC did not come up with the GSM standard. It was developed from a consortium of groups, countries, organization with ratification coming from the ITU-T. In all likelihood, the FCC is following their recommendations. If Apple has a cell phone on the market, it has gone through a rigorous certifcation process that would insure that the iPhone possed no danger to indiviual users or the network operators.

As I said, I think that the SDK, attempting to hack proof the phone are just ways that Apple is trying to guarantee the next iPhone associated revenue stream, and there is nothing wrong with trying to leverage a hot item. I guess it's all in the way you do it. Oh by the way, I do not believe that Apple is really trying to hack proof the iPhone. Reason being, they make money for every iPhone sold, either by AT&T or in their stores. As they have now found a software hack that only takes 30 mins to implement, I would bet that AT&T and Apple stores (big smile on Steves face) are hemorraging iPhones before Apple issues another "lock".

****** Thanks for a good discussion. ******
post #7 of 15
Thread Starter 
dashboard widgets are all free
post #8 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmber View Post

dashboard widgets are all free

Well, yes. This is true.
post #9 of 15
Dashboard widgets seem perfectly suited for the iphone and ipod touch.
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by TednDi View Post

Dashboard widgets seem perfectly suited for the iphone and ipod touch.

I think there are some sites already where you can access them. I do not remember it off hand but it was via Apple.
post #11 of 15
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TednDi View Post

Dashboard widgets seem perfectly suited for the iphone and ipod touch.

i agree, but i'd also like some full fledged apps too, like the slingplayer one i mentioned. i'd like a real text editor too.
post #12 of 15
I can't see why Apple would charge for independently developed apps. IMO, they will do the opposite. Once Apple releases the SDK, I think they will want to foster a thriving developer community. After all, the Touch was referred to as a mass market wifi device (or something like that) by Apple's exec.

Using the widget model, I think Apple will encourage individual and corporate developers to create apps. I can think of so many that would be great.
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

On the iTunes issue I concur. This is just a way to make money and this is fine by me. I could go the long route, use Audio Hijack Pro and copy the streams that I want but I do not mind paying $10 a month and have the podcasts delivered fresh to my Mac daily.

On the other issue, I completely disagree. In the interim between answering your post, I contacted several friends at Nokia, and SE (network designers and engineers) to ask them about the possibility of a cell phone (even en masse) crashing a network. They all concur that this is not possible especially with the IN built into the network. If you have any data to prove that there has been a recorded case of a cell phone crashing a network we would like to see it. Even in labs, there is no known case of a normal phone or even a Smartphone crashing a network. Putting all things aside, I have to say that this is one argument from Apple and AT&T that holds no water. The FCC did not come up with the GSM standard. It was developed from a consortium of groups, countries, organization with ratification coming from the ITU-T. In all likelihood, the FCC is following their recommendations. If Apple has a cell phone on the market, it has gone through a rigorous certifcation process that would insure that the iPhone possed no danger to indiviual users or the network operators.

As I said, I think that the SDK, attempting to hack proof the phone are just ways that Apple is trying to guarantee the next iPhone associated revenue stream, and there is nothing wrong with trying to leverage a hot item. I guess it's all in the way you do it. Oh by the way, I do not believe that Apple is really trying to hack proof the iPhone. Reason being, they make money for every iPhone sold, either by AT&T or in their stores. As they have now found a software hack that only takes 30 mins to implement, I would bet that AT&T and Apple stores (big smile on Steves face) are hemorraging iPhones before Apple issues another "lock".

****** Thanks for a good discussion. ******

sapporobaby,
Thanks for the information on the cell networks. As I said, I do not know them and was guessing at their vulnerability. I'm glad to hear that a crazy phone won't take out the network or even one cell. I wonder, has some engineer somewhere tried to intentionally take out the cell system? I bet one has, and he is now flipping burgers somewhere.

Now iTMS, after todays release of the AppleTV Take 2 I have to reconsider. Man is that thing tied to iTMS. The whole thing is a front end for the store. And the podcast directory, if your not a major corporation or already have a huge following, forget it. Nobody will find you. Yes, Apple has put away their Think Different banners.

iPhone hacking. I was surprised that Apple went with a network for the phone. I was one of those that felt that Apple would go it alone and put out a unlocked phone and sell directly to the consumer. Given Steve Jobs blue box history I would had thought that he would had preferred unlocked phones. I wonder who first proposed that Apple collect monthly fees from each iPhone account. Apple to squeeze more money out of ATT. Or ATT attempting to keep Apple from helping unlock iPhones. The iPhone could be that camels nose that allows the consumer to break the connection between the cell phone manufacture and the networks.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmber View Post

I would really like opera or firefox mobile. mainly, just for choice, but also because i'd like a mobile browser with flash support. will apple let that happen?

An alternate browser is no guarantee of Flash, the proper plugin has not been ported to the iPhone and no number of alternate browsers will change that.
post #15 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

sapporobaby,
Thanks for the information on the cell networks. As I said, I do not know them and was guessing at their vulnerability. I'm glad to hear that a crazy phone won't take out the network or even one cell. I wonder, has some engineer somewhere tried to intentionally take out the cell system? I bet one has, and he is now flipping burgers somewhere.

Now iTMS, after todays release of the AppleTV Take 2 I have to reconsider. Man is that thing tied to iTMS. The whole thing is a front end for the store. And the podcast directory, if your not a major corporation or already have a huge following, forget it. Nobody will find you. Yes, Apple has put away their Think Different banners.

iPhone hacking. I was surprised that Apple went with a network for the phone. I was one of those that felt that Apple would go it alone and put out a unlocked phone and sell directly to the consumer. Given Steve Jobs blue box history I would had thought that he would had preferred unlocked phones. I wonder who first proposed that Apple collect monthly fees from each iPhone account. Apple to squeeze more money out of ATT. Or ATT attempting to keep Apple from helping unlock iPhones. The iPhone could be that camels nose that allows the consumer to break the connection between the cell phone manufacture and the networks.


I agree with you 100%. I have seen reports where people (mainly Europeans) have stated that they would love the iPhone but not on Apples terms. Europeans are not used to having their phones locked or being told how to spend their money. Branding has happened but many phone companies are sitting on branded phones or people flash the f/w and unbrand them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › What kind of limitations will apple put on 3rd party apps?