Apple to serve as regulator for iPhone app distribution - Page 3

Brother, you have real issues. I was not talking about cell network crashes. Please read my first post on page 1 before replying to a post.

What Nokia phones are you talking about?

Yes and Apple clearly doesn't give a damn about you, so go and make one yourself or find yourself another phone, nonsense.

Salaams Nasser,

If I misunderstood your post please accept my forgiveness. My only concern was in reply to people that think an application can crash a cell network.

Apology accepted

You did say, however, and I am sure that they will have a quick way to check for viruses programed using it.

And now we're talking about 'trusted' publishers. What's a trusted publisher, someone willing to fork over $$$ to Apple for the right to be called 'trusted' (plus a little badge for their web site saying as such)?

On top of that, of all the developers of all the software I use, I get the most competent technical support, and quicker updates, from the 'small' developers, who are also more likely to develop small, yet useful, tools that larger companies would not find profitable to make.

And why all the concern over what gets on an iPhone, yet my computer, hooked up directly to the internet, is left to have installed any application I may decide I want.

Yes, I am sure they have a way of checking for viruses written using the SDK. I doubt that iPhone applications will be that hard to analyze, the iPhone still have small processor and storage and may not be able to run large and complex programs.

Your computer have an Anti Virus software. Unlike a computer the iPhone IS a phone and if they totally open the iPhone someone can write a program that uses your iPhone to call 900 number or drain your minutes in the background.

Who at Apple is going to be "testing" all of this new software in a timely manner?

The same people who can't quality-check their own software/hardware?

This is highly unlikely. First, the iPhone is more iPod than phone. Second, an app like you mention would almost be spotted immediately by normal users of their phones. I have nothing wrong with Apple putting some sort of signing or security (put in a password) mechanism. The bottom line is that the current community of hackers ( I prefer the term "Different Thinkers") are very good at policing themselves. If you have hacker your iPhone and participated in the community, you would know this already.

Yea ... the same people who allow you to only sort by "last opened" (as if anyone gives a crap) when you search using spotlight

think the biggest fear is a rogue app could make expensive calls without your knowlege and land you a huge bill

Mate - I DO understand. I was merely making a reference that a rogue application *could* cause havoc on the data layer not necessarily the voice layer. The voice layer is fairly robust - but any al'e router can only handle that much crap

He was flaming me

But thanks anyway

Yep - thats the ones. Same group who makes sure that iLife addresses issues with OSX (or the other way round) - or making sure that your iSight does not crash some minority OS calles OSX. Anyway the left hand who takes care of the right hand

If all applications have to be bought in binary form only from iTunes isn't this going to cause problems for developers using open source code in their apps if the code is under the GPL?

You are talking about developers not hackers. At my time (back in 1990s) hackers were bad thing, they are people who develop viruses to ruin your life. You have to keep in mind that most people are not computer expert. Last month, I reported more than 20 computers infected with viruses to our campus IT department as they try to infect my iMac through the network. Most of the infected users did not have any idea what a virus is.

My computer may have anti-virus, but do you know how it works? It downloads signatures from a server and when a file is read, it compares the signature to the file, checking for a match. A new virus generally goes undetected until the security companies detect it, update their software, and release a new virus database to catch it.


OK, but how is it OK for Apple to allow me to install haphazardly software on my mac that would allow someone to steal my keystrokes, leading to my bank account being siphoned?

Time to catch up to the news

Free apps without approvals

I don't think so. The biggest issue, as I see it, is the license needs to be viewed (or something like that), but I'm assuming you already have to do that for other software off iTunes. But, besides that, the developer can deal with all the other stuff (source code release, that kind of stuff) off their own website.

No..... They will simply drop the data call. It is soooo simple. You are comparing a data call (cell wise), to data on the Internet. Many to most cell calls, data included are routed via fiber. Very little unless it is a call (data included) going cell to cell.

Didn't you read my posts? I was saying if Apple open the iPhone completely that what would happen. That's why they "might" control the software you install iPhone, to avoid such software.

I'm sorry... but is this REALLY a surprise to anyone?

I understand people are complaining about it, but I mean... come on people... Apple isn't really making products for 'us' These products are being made for them... Joe Consumer.

And the beauty of Apple is how locked down and seamless they are. How easy it is to perform operations. So I just don't see how it comes as a surprise that Apple will control this. I'll bet they'll make a section in the iTunes store, it will be quality controlled, and they'll get a cut of the royalties.

Well duh.

I can't answer for anyone else, but this was 100% obvious to me.

A rumour that contradicts this thread, which one is true.

I think you are onto something with the idea of indemnifying the end-users. I think, however,
that it will be the software developers who have to do the indemnifying (of end-users, Apple,
AT&T). Part of the reason for requiring apps to be distributed through iTunes store may be
to require software developers to sign indemnification agreements, to protect Apple in the
event the apps contain malware. I feel that this reason is more significant that any desire
Steve Jobs has to spoil peoples' good times.

everybody get your opinions in....only 6 more days to speculate

This is pretty much the exact same model as the console videogame industry.

Developers pay to create titles for PS3 and Xbox360.
The have to adhere to technical requirement checklists. - And pay to have their titles checked.
If the title fails the checklist - they have to pay again to resubmit.
Only the approved and checked titles are legally sold.

The system works. For most of the time.
Console games rarely crash. They don't undermine the platform .. and some of the time developers and the platform-holder actually make some money and share the revenue.

C.

This one makes sense.

I'M not sure if the rumor is even worth responding to. Mainly because this discussion will be based on fact in a few days.

If there is truth here though I think Apple is making a big mistake. There are a number of reasons, I will highlight a few below.

1.
Corporations will not want internal apps distributed outside the company. So this isn't something that will make corporations think positively about the iPhone.

2.
Like wise I might not want to distribute personal apps this way either.

3.
Then you have the whole issue of people wanting to distribute apps of their making freely.

4.
Lack of access to the cradle connector strikes me as absolute stupidity. The connector offers huge potential for a number of applications.

In any event it will be interesting to see if Apple lives up to the pre event hype they are creating. This rumor more or less flies in the face of public statements already made. In any event this is one of the things that Apple has to get right in order for me to lay out my money. They only have a few months before the competition really heats up.

DAve

Actually I was correcting you.

I have a feeling Apple may want to cash in on that huge potential themselves,
or in partnership with companies they prefer, by creating their own
accessories.

I really haven't seen much as I have a few games and that's enough to keep me occupied. I got Bejeweled as a 5-pack of PopCap games for $20 for my Palm-based Tapwave. Bejeweled alone is $5 for the iPod. I think the Tapwave has a much better UI than the clickwheel. I'm pretty sure that'll change with the iPhone, the iPhone versions of all those games will most likely be at least a little better. I think the PalmOS game was tied to the SD card it's on, you'd have to hack it in order to run illegal copies of it.

I think the limited market for the software also plays into the pricing too, there are not so many devices with PalmOS or Windows Mobile. It's a much more splintered market than personal computers are.



I know there's now a rumor that iPhone will allow non-iTunes delivered sofware, but In your hypothetical situation, there could be a developer mode, or if you have to acquire a special developer-enabled model just like console developers have to use to test their games.

Is there any information on what this SDK will cost?

Best post in an otherwise largely uninformative, needlessly contentious, and mostly inside-baseball thread.

Lol, well in that case this is the second best post

You whine about why Apple is not supporting your hacked phone.
You whine about Apple not opening up the iPhone.
You whine about Apple not providing an SDK.

Now that Apple is beginning the path to rev2.0 of the iPhone and slowly begin opening up the gates in a controlled, non-chaotic action, you whiners just have to find something else to whine about.

As a full-time software developer myself, I look at it from a perspective that Apple (for good or for bad) wants to continue providing high-quality applications to reach the iPhone. The software after all, is what makes the iPhone such a wonderful piece of art. If you don't like them being the gatekeeper as to what gets loaded, get over it. Sell your iPhone on Ebay and wait for Google's vaporware Android phone and then whine about it not being as nice as the iPhone. 99% of most software developed by weekend developers is just pure crap. Perhaps this method will motivate developers to actually create a properly designed app instead of the garbage that is mainly out there for other platforms. The 1% of the real stuff is made by people that will most likely not have a problem with what Apple is doing. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. It's too early too tell what Apple is going to do and you guys just feed off of conspiracies.

If iTunes is to be the hub for distribution, so be it. Hopefully that would end up reducing (or eliminating) the rampant piracy (i.e. palm apps) and maybe put a little money back in the pockets of the developers instead of being copied by freeloaders. If Apple opens the doors (which I hope they do) to cost-free applications, great!

It sounds like Apple is going to accommodate free software. How they pull it off will be interesting to see. Will they be able to make everyone happy? Probably not. But I appreciate the fact that Apple is more concerned with providing a user-experience to the majority Joes than to try to lick the vocal minorities (whiners). If they did it the reverse, they would probably be out of business because nothing satisfies you guys.

So wait and see what they actually do instead of coming to a conclusion based on rumors. I look forward to what Apple does. You should be too.

Would it be possible for a moderator to post this at the head of every thread?

Re crashing a cell network, some friends of mine recently developed a mobile tracking application for a Motorola team building event (you know the sort of thing, give all the competitors a GPS-enabled device and have it upload their current position and status to a server so people could track how they were doing). It all worked beautifully for the first couple of hours, until it crashed two local cell towers which weren't used to handling that much data all of a sudden. And not just data - those base stations were out of action for the rest of the day, including for voice and emergency calls. So yes, it's DEFINITELY possible for a malicious or even totally innocent mobile application to have an undesirable impact on the network.

But the real point of controlling what applications can do is no doubt to protect revenue streams. The network operators make money from services like phone calls and text messages, so they're not going to allow you to undercut that, for example by using 3rd party software to make VOIP calls for free under an unlimited data plan.

Additionally, the only reason they can offer unlimited data for the iPhone is that they know that in practice users who are checking their emails and browsing the web will use much less than they theoretically could. If every iPhone user suddenly started transferring data at the maximum rate non-stop it would very quickly bring the entire network to its knees as there's only a finite capacity in practice. It doesn't seem unreasonable of Apple or the network operators to be concerned about this and restrict what you can do therefore. Would any of you rather have a situation where you can freely install any software you wanted, including VOIP, IM etc., but had to pay 10c/megabyte for all your data??

Having a tiered system makes a lot of sense. Free apps require no vetting but as a result you have limited access to the phone, but if you want to go deeper into the phone you need to have the software approved before you develop it.