As I said they SELL THE IDE...it is called VS2005, in the high end package, it has a mobile dev tool.
Windows Mobile allows any binary compiled for the WinCE API to run natively on it. As far as I know, only the official Visual Studio releases allow access to it. But if you have the correct headers and start-up code, I don't see why you couldn't compile stuff for it using arm-gcc.
It also supports the .NET Compact Framework. This is a subset of the .NET framework used on regular Windows machines as a "managed" alternative to the Win32 API, and it's somewhat akin to Java in that it's intermediately compiled to a machine-independent bytecode. The .NET runtime's CLR recompiles it just-in-time to the native instruction set and provides access to a standardized API. In that way, it's somewhat akin to Java except the just-in-time native code is cached for faster runtimes in subsequent runs, and it's somewhat akin to Rosetta on Mac OS X, except that .NET's bytecode will not run natively on any of the supported machines.
Any development suite which allows writing programming of .NET applications could theoretically be used to develop applications which will run on both Windows Mobile and "regular" Windows with a single bytecode, as long as you limit yourself to linking against classes which exist in the Compact Framework. Since the Compact Framework and associated headers are freely downloadable from Microsoft's website, verifying this limitation isn't a problem.
There are several freely-available SDKs available which allow you to develop .NET applications, and most of them are not as inflexible as Microsoft's free offering, Visual Studio Express 2005. (IIRC, Visual Studio Express adds artificial restrictions which would prevent you from linking against the .NET Compact framework.) SharpDevelop, for example, doesn't have that restriction. However, there are still some Do-It-Yourself steps required before you can get things fully working.
OK, then I guess you have a very different definition then. I see "closed" as in you have to get the device maker's permission to even get the software on the device period, assuming they let anyone near it, and assuming they do, pay said maker for every copy sold after signing some self-flaggelating contract.
That's too common and I would not be at all surprised to see Apple do that. For example, there is no authorized SDK available for iPods at any price that I'm aware of, and they may very well continue that particular legacy. Frankly, I really don't think Newsweek had a situation like OpenDarwin in mind when asking about the openness of the platform. At any rate, we'll have to wait for some sort of clarification.
there is no SDK for the Dell/Creative/brand-x mp3 player, afaik, there is no SDK for Zune...but a smartphone is soooo much more...it is kindof pointless without 3rd party apps...imagine, no pith helmet for Safari, no in-house tools for big companies (think an inventory database viewer/searcher for the supply manager at a factory), no Delicious Library tool, no chance to use the wifi functionality to integrate into home automation...
MP3-players by nature are not connected...this is a connected device, no way to make 3rd party apps means I (and MANY other Apple fans who are not koolaid drinkers) will not buy one because I can live with my razer and $500 in my pocket.
Apple said that there would be no iPhone for years, Apple said No video ipod...Apple said no iPod for windows, Apple said NO fuullscreen without QT Pro, then put full screen in iTunes...Apple lies through their teeth, particularly when the devices in question have yet to ship...
I apologize if this has been brought up earlier ... but I bet this is the first of several new iPods, this one happens to be the one with phone and internet... surely there is also a 'iPod Video Wide Screen' $199-299 depending on HD just around the corner too? Or is Steve worried it would slow sales of iPhone?
Here is another tangential comment... I am sick to death of non www compliant web sites (Realtor MLS systems are prime examples of Active X maniacs). Maybe in a few years if iPhones + Safari are as ubiquitous as iPods are now it may force the end to Mac marginalization (is that a word?). OK just a hope
there is no SDK for the Dell/Creative/brand-x mp3 player, afaik, there is no SDK for Zune...but a smartphone is soooo much more...it is kindof pointless without 3rd party apps...imagine, no pith helmet for Safari, no in-house tools for big companies (think an inventory database viewer/searcher for the supply manager at a factory), no Delicious Library tool, no chance to use the wifi functionality to integrate into home automation...
MP3-players by nature are not connected...this is a connected device, no way to make 3rd party apps means I (and MANY other Apple fans who are not koolaid drinkers) will not buy one because I can live with my razer and $500 in my pocket.
Apple said that there would be no iPhone for years, Apple said No video ipod...Apple said no iPod for windows, Apple said NO fuullscreen without QT Pro, then put full screen in iTunes...Apple lies through their teeth, particularly when the devices in question have yet to ship...
I think Apple will sell iPhone widgets on iTunes for $.99. The time it takes to make a quality widget, compared with the 100s of thousands (if not millions) of customers who will buy them, makes them the first thing on iTunes that Apple will really make a huge profit from.
Sure, we kow they are at least breaking operating in the black with iTunes, buy tiny Java app that is only a few Kilobytes to DL and takes only a couple hours to create something that will be pure profit.
For instance, If I were traveling, which I do several times a year, I'd pay a small fee to have the Flight Tracker and Translator widgets on my iPhone. Something like the Unit Convertor isn't something I need much, except for currency comparison, but I'd still even pay a small fee for that, too.
As far as I know, that would be illegal, unless you notify the other party every time you spoke to them and recorded it.
Not true. Recorded calls aren't admissible in a court of law in US if the party was not made aware, but there is no law saying that you can't record a conversation for your own benefit.
Not true. Recorded calls aren't admissible in a court of law in US if the party was not made aware, but there is no law saying that you can't record a conversation for your own benefit.
Funny thing. Here, cingular don't lock their phones. I have a Motorola MPx220 smartphone and my brother has some type of T-mobile smartphone. We changed sim cards, my phone worked with his sim, but his phone didn't work with my sim. Question is, why would apple give a shit about the phone being unlocked.
because they dont want people coming to them with problems because nothing works and because it wont work, haha the phone is not unlockable it has hardware that detects it from being unlocked and will not allow you to use the ipod or any of the features, u wont be able to get passed the warning it will probably show
Didn't a law just pass where all phones must be unlockable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaydan777
because they dont want people coming to them with problems because nothing works and because it wont work, haha the phone is not unlockable it has hardware that detects it from being unlocked and will not allow you to use the ipod or any of the features, u wont be able to get passed the warning it will probably show
If it's based on Mac OS, then I'm sure that Apple will be happy to provide developer tools for it once it's released. After all, the more cool applications/widgets/etc which are developed for the phone, the more phones they'll sell. I can't see why they'd keep it as a closed development environment after it's been released to the public.
That's what makes logical sense, but as it happens they've already said they won't do that.
I wonder if you can just just keep converging calls among other iPhones? How many conversations can we daisy chain before we bring down Cingular's network?
Merging calls isn't an iPhone only feature. Any crappy Nokia will do it.
(My record is six, as it happens, before Orange lost track.)
Ok this is the new law i'm talking about. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/..._unlock28.html They don't have to unlock it for you, but if you decide to unlock it, you're not breaking any type of laws. I wonder how Apple will get around this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaydan777
no no one has to unlock any phone, they just have to have the ability to port the numbers, and for that you have to check on too, but who knows
oh ya theres no law against unlocking phones, companies do it all the time and if you know how you can...problem is apple implemented things that wont allow this, i guess as soon as the phone acknowledges your not on cingular you cant even get to the ipod or any other functions...and i heard steve said theres no way to bypass this..but then again theyres some crazy hackers
oh ya theres no law against unlocking phones, companies do it all the time and if you know how you can...problem is apple implemented things that wont allow this, i guess as soon as the phone acknowledges your not on cingular you cant even get to the ipod or any other functions...and i heard steve said theres no way to bypass this..but then again theyres some crazy hackers
If they do it this way, then big thumbs down for Apple. It may change before release. I don't care either way since I'm a happy Cingular customer whose contract is up in July.
Comments
As I said they SELL THE IDE...it is called VS2005, in the high end package, it has a mobile dev tool.
Windows Mobile allows any binary compiled for the WinCE API to run natively on it. As far as I know, only the official Visual Studio releases allow access to it. But if you have the correct headers and start-up code, I don't see why you couldn't compile stuff for it using arm-gcc.
It also supports the .NET Compact Framework. This is a subset of the .NET framework used on regular Windows machines as a "managed" alternative to the Win32 API, and it's somewhat akin to Java in that it's intermediately compiled to a machine-independent bytecode. The .NET runtime's CLR recompiles it just-in-time to the native instruction set and provides access to a standardized API. In that way, it's somewhat akin to Java except the just-in-time native code is cached for faster runtimes in subsequent runs, and it's somewhat akin to Rosetta on Mac OS X, except that .NET's bytecode will not run natively on any of the supported machines.
Any development suite which allows writing programming of .NET applications could theoretically be used to develop applications which will run on both Windows Mobile and "regular" Windows with a single bytecode, as long as you limit yourself to linking against classes which exist in the Compact Framework. Since the Compact Framework and associated headers are freely downloadable from Microsoft's website, verifying this limitation isn't a problem.
There are several freely-available SDKs available which allow you to develop .NET applications, and most of them are not as inflexible as Microsoft's free offering, Visual Studio Express 2005. (IIRC, Visual Studio Express adds artificial restrictions which would prevent you from linking against the .NET Compact framework.) SharpDevelop, for example, doesn't have that restriction. However, there are still some Do-It-Yourself steps required before you can get things fully working.
OK, then I guess you have a very different definition then. I see "closed" as in you have to get the device maker's permission to even get the software on the device period, assuming they let anyone near it, and assuming they do, pay said maker for every copy sold after signing some self-flaggelating contract.
That's too common and I would not be at all surprised to see Apple do that. For example, there is no authorized SDK available for iPods at any price that I'm aware of, and they may very well continue that particular legacy. Frankly, I really don't think Newsweek had a situation like OpenDarwin in mind when asking about the openness of the platform. At any rate, we'll have to wait for some sort of clarification.
there is no SDK for the Dell/Creative/brand-x mp3 player, afaik, there is no SDK for Zune...but a smartphone is soooo much more...it is kindof pointless without 3rd party apps...imagine, no pith helmet for Safari, no in-house tools for big companies (think an inventory database viewer/searcher for the supply manager at a factory), no Delicious Library tool, no chance to use the wifi functionality to integrate into home automation...
MP3-players by nature are not connected...this is a connected device, no way to make 3rd party apps means I (and MANY other Apple fans who are not koolaid drinkers) will not buy one because I can live with my razer and $500 in my pocket.
Apple said that there would be no iPhone for years, Apple said No video ipod...Apple said no iPod for windows, Apple said NO fuullscreen without QT Pro, then put full screen in iTunes...Apple lies through their teeth, particularly when the devices in question have yet to ship...
Like I said...WWDC One more thing...
Here is another tangential comment... I am sick to death of non www compliant web sites (Realtor MLS systems are prime examples of Active X maniacs). Maybe in a few years if iPhones + Safari are as ubiquitous as iPods are now it may force the end to Mac marginalization (is that a word?). OK just a hope
there is no SDK for the Dell/Creative/brand-x mp3 player, afaik, there is no SDK for Zune...but a smartphone is soooo much more...it is kindof pointless without 3rd party apps...imagine, no pith helmet for Safari, no in-house tools for big companies (think an inventory database viewer/searcher for the supply manager at a factory), no Delicious Library tool, no chance to use the wifi functionality to integrate into home automation...
MP3-players by nature are not connected...this is a connected device, no way to make 3rd party apps means I (and MANY other Apple fans who are not koolaid drinkers) will not buy one because I can live with my razer and $500 in my pocket.
Apple said that there would be no iPhone for years, Apple said No video ipod...Apple said no iPod for windows, Apple said NO fuullscreen without QT Pro, then put full screen in iTunes...Apple lies through their teeth, particularly when the devices in question have yet to ship...
Like I said...WWDC One more thing...
I can't wait for WWDC!
Yes, "NO" in SJ lingo means "NO...t yet"
Sure, we kow they are at least breaking operating in the black with iTunes, buy tiny Java app that is only a few Kilobytes to DL and takes only a couple hours to create something that will be pure profit.
For instance, If I were traveling, which I do several times a year, I'd pay a small fee to have the Flight Tracker and Translator widgets on my iPhone. Something like the Unit Convertor isn't something I need much, except for currency comparison, but I'd still even pay a small fee for that, too.
I hope it has a way to record phone conversations. I know many softphones have this feature, but does any current smartphone have this feature?
As far as I know, that would be illegal, unless you notify the other party every time you spoke to them and recorded it.
As far as I know, that would be illegal, unless you notify the other party every time you spoke to them and recorded it.
Not true. Recorded calls aren't admissible in a court of law in US if the party was not made aware, but there is no law saying that you can't record a conversation for your own benefit.
Not true. Recorded calls aren't admissible in a court of law in US if the party was not made aware, but there is no law saying that you can't record a conversation for your own benefit.
Thanks for the clarification.
because they dont want people coming to them with problems because nothing works and because it wont work, haha the phone is not unlockable it has hardware that detects it from being unlocked and will not allow you to use the ipod or any of the features, u wont be able to get passed the warning it will probably show
I think Apple will sell iPhone widgets on iTunes for $.99.
I hope not. It sets a bad president. The widget platform should remain free.
I hope not. It sets a bad president. The widget platform should remain free.
Bad president, bad president!...woof!
Bad presidents set a bad precedent, also.
If it's based on Mac OS, then I'm sure that Apple will be happy to provide developer tools for it once it's released. After all, the more cool applications/widgets/etc which are developed for the phone, the more phones they'll sell. I can't see why they'd keep it as a closed development environment after it's been released to the public.
That's what makes logical sense, but as it happens they've already said they won't do that.
Amorya
I wonder if you can just just keep converging calls among other iPhones? How many conversations can we daisy chain before we bring down Cingular's network?
Merging calls isn't an iPhone only feature. Any crappy Nokia will do it.
(My record is six, as it happens, before Orange lost track.)
Amorya
That's what makes logical sense, but as it happens they've already said they won't do that.
Just like Jobs said video is unnecessary on the iPod and Apple would not make iPods with flash drives.
There really is no telling what they will do.
Didn't a law just pass where all phones must be unlockable.
no no one has to unlock any phone, they just have to have the ability to port the numbers, and for that you have to check on too, but who knows
no no one has to unlock any phone, they just have to have the ability to port the numbers, and for that you have to check on too, but who knows
oh ya theres no law against unlocking phones, companies do it all the time and if you know how you can...problem is apple implemented things that wont allow this, i guess as soon as the phone acknowledges your not on cingular you cant even get to the ipod or any other functions...and i heard steve said theres no way to bypass this..but then again theyres some crazy hackers
If they do it this way, then big thumbs down for Apple. It may change before release. I don't care either way since I'm a happy Cingular customer whose contract is up in July.