Although Apple calls their new device an iPhone, I think this is not truly what it is. First we had mainframes, then microcomputers, then personal computers, then laptops. Now we have handheld computers.
Sure, but on the other hand, Apple's people have made a distinct point of saying that the iPhone is not a computer. Perhaps that's just so people don't expect to be able to load their own software on it like they do with a real computer. Or perhaps it's because they have other products coming down the line, more like a real UMPC.
Some of you have raised good points so far. I know many smartphones do most or all of what the iPhone does but I think the iPhone has many tricks still up its sleeve. Anyway, at the heart of the matter, one could say a Windows PC does everything a Mac does. So too a Lexus does everything a Ford Escort does. Yet, we all know there is a big difference in implementation.
I'm glad to see Apple in this fight and wish they would get into a few more, like the living room, gaming, etc. Not everybody agrees but at least they should recognize that Apple's competitors are fighting on these fronts and we all hope Apple doesn't get blindsided by somebody doing an iPod/iTunes to them.
I do think handheld computers are going to be big am glad Apple is in the fight. Think of all those years people wished for a PDA. Well, now they have it. And I like what I see at least.
But the biggest question is what don't we see. What is coming next year and the next few years? I don't just mean hardware alone but the synthesis of hardware, software, networking, media. Remember when we didn't have personal computers, cell phones, email, the web, cable tv, and Starbucks? Ever wonder what things will be like in twenty years?
Usually when people talk of the future they have pie-in-the-sky unrealistic scenarios. But I really try to get a realistic glimpse and see how things tie together. Most technologies evolve from older technologies. Even without new inventions and huge breakthroughs we should be able to put together an interesting look at the future.
Yes, we have handheld computers, today. It's called Palm Treo, Motorola Q, Windows Mobile, Palm OS, Symbian, etc....
If this were true what would be the need for the Ultra Mobile PC market?
Symbian is built for handheld devices and is inherently limited and does not have the advantages of a desktop OS. Palm OS has had trouble, no one wants to license it, and Palm itself uses Windows CE. As far as WinCE itself is an entirely different animal with little relation to XP outside of the name and start button.
Quote:
iPhone is not a full blown computer. It's an extremely light version of OS X just as Windows Mobile is a light version of MS Windows. Product such as Treo 700w carry Microsoft Word, Excel, Outlook, Powerpoint, Access.
As Apple has described OS X is not the same as Windows Mobile at all. Windows Mobile is not derived from Windows XP. OS X on the iPhone has the kernel and API framework of Mac OS X. Apps built for the iPhone will be built using the same tools used when building apps for the Macintosh. Windows Mobile does not have these attributes from XP.
Quote:
The iPhone cannot be like the iPod because by wedded itself to Cingular for 5 years.
These two have nothing to do with each other.
Quote:
People do not switch Wireless Carriers because of Phones, especially for a very expensive phone such as the iPhone.
Probably not in extremely large number but carriers do gain customers from having desirable phones exclusively tied to them. That is the reason they make such deals. People switched to Verizon when the the RAZR was exclusively offered for $500.
Quote:
Nice vison, but nothing new. The iPhone brings nothing new to the table.
The UI of the iPhone is manipulated by the very basics of motor skills. The graphics on the iPhone react in much the same way that objects pushed with your fingers react to air and gravity in the physical world. No other phone is designed like this.
Plus you can manipulate the screen with multiple fingers, no one else has done that.
Quote:
Very nice vision....but neither can the iPhone. When the iPhone CAN do it.....you can sure bet that the latest Motorola, Palm, Samsung, etc.... product can do it as well.
With Symbian, Palm OS, or WinCE you cannot build a full app using desktop class APIs. With OS X you can.
Quote:
you can add SD memory cards that are now going up to 8gb. The iPhone cannot. PLUS.......
Depending on how important this is to you it can be a legitimate complaint. But how many people are out there buying 4 or 8 GB SD cards for their phones? I doubt very many.
Quote:
With every computer you can add software applications. With Smartphone you can do this. With the iPhone, you Cannot.
Steve did not confirm or deny that there would be additional software for the iPhone. But if someone were to look at the situation rationally, its a pretty safe assumption that at some point it will be available.
Quote:
Believe me, if Apple meets that vision you can safe bet that Palm, Motorola, Sony, Microsoft, will meet it as well......and cheaper.
After six years on the market none of Apples competitors have been able to match the iPod or iTunes. Not in a more expensive device and certainly not in a cheaper one.
As Apple has described OS X is not the same as Windows Mobile at all. Windows Mobile is not derived from Windows XP. OS X on the iPhone has the kernel and API framework of Mac OS X. Apps built for the iPhone will be built using the same tools used when building apps for the Macintosh. Windows Mobile does not have these attributes from XP.
Um....NET Compact Framework and and you build apps using VS 2005 in C#. That's pretty close to just building for windows.
We just finished a Windows Mobile app...but it was a web app using Windows Live stuff so how different managed code has to be (presumably winforms isn't there) I dunno for sure. I'm going to guess that developing for the iPhone is more difficult than for Windows Mobile given IMHO studio is better than xcode but we'll see when folks talk about the devkits. Assuming Apple opens up the iPhone at all to 3rd party devs.
Vinea
PS Evil empire or not MS has some really cool stuff.
Um....NET Compact Framework and and you build apps using VS 2005 in C#. That's pretty close to just building for windows.
Mono is an implementation of .NET and runs on Linux and Mac OS X. So building a .NET app and running it in Mono now turns Mac OS X into Windows? Nope.
Windows Mobile is not architecturally related to Windows XP. Windows Mobile is based on Windows CE, and Windows XP is based on Windows NT. The two have completely different kernels.
Yes, they clearly share a subset of a framework, and they obviously share some GUI look and feel as well. Several apps are also available for both, although with largely different feature sets. But that's it. They're still hugely different operating systems.
Mac OS X and OS X for iPhone, on the other hand, have the exact same kernel and share many frameworks completely. They're architecturally very similar, and their core differences merely account to optimizing them for their main use.
The UI of the iPhone is manipulated by the very basics of motor skills. The graphics on the iPhone react in much the same way that objects pushed with your fingers react to air and gravity in the physical world. No other phone is designed like this.
A better way to say this....
The reaction and response of iPhone's graphics to touch operate under much the same logic as objects in the physical realm would react when touched within the limits of space, time, and gravity.
No other mobile device UI has worked as strictly within these guidelines.
Quote:
Steve did not confirm or deny that there would be additional software for the iPhone. But if someone were to look at the situation rationally, its a pretty safe assumption that at some point it will be available.
Apple has spent two years of resources on development on the iPhone. Ported and trimmed OS X to be the phones operating system. Bought a company and its intellectual property specifically to use for the phones human interface. It was the highlight of MWSF. Apple clearly showing this as the future direction of the company. Maybe not immediately but at some point there will be an entire ecosystem of software built around the iPhone.
Quote:
PS Evil empire or not MS has some really cool stuff.
I don't mean to deride MS or its products. But its true that WinCE does not have a relationship to XP or Vista, the same way OS X for iPhone has a relationship with Mac OS X.
We will certainly have to wait and see but from what we've seen so far, apps for the iPhone should be very interesting indeed.
Mono is an implementation of .NET and runs on Linux and Mac OS X. So building a .NET app and running it in Mono now turns Mac OS X into Windows? Nope.
Windows Mobile is not architecturally related to Windows XP. Windows Mobile is based on Windows CE, and Windows XP is based on Windows NT. The two have completely different kernels.
Yes, they clearly share a subset of a framework, and they obviously share some GUI look and feel as well. Several apps are also available for both, although with largely different feature sets. But that's it. They're still hugely different operating systems.
He said that apps built for the iPhone will use the same tools as that for developing apps for OSX. All I'm saying is that this is also true for developing managed code on Windows Mobile. Just like it would developing a java app in J2SE for embedded. At best I would say Apple would be lucky to be on par with these other platforms. And that's being very generous for a release 1.0...
That the kernel differs is of less importance to many apps as long as the top layer APIs are implemented. Yes, windows mobile shares no direct heritage with NT and OSX on the iPhone is likely based on Mach.
Quote:
Mac OS X and OS X for iPhone, on the other hand, have the exact same kernel and share many frameworks completely. They're architecturally very similar, and their core differences merely account to optimizing them for their main use.
Really...you can say that with such assurance? That the same modified Mach microkernel in OSX is exactly the same as the presumed Mach kernel they use in the iPhone? Or perhaps like other real-time mach's they went back to a pure microkernel? I'm going to guess that they didn't stuff all of the same BSD kernel components into the iPhone that you find attached to desktop OSX Mach. I'm also going to guess if the userland exists it'll come from something like busybox rather than the heavyweight components from BSD.
At the framework level I expect the same kind of subset of the full desktop frameworks as in .Net. Many things will be there. You can write apps using XCode, etc.
But I'm going to hazard that Visual Studio + Windows Mobile 6 is somewhat more mature and easier to code more complex apps for in the near term. Like Java, .NET finally doesn't suck.
I don't mean to deride MS or its products. But its true that WinCE does not have a relationship to XP or Vista, the same way OS X for iPhone has a relationship with Mac OS X.
I did not mean to imply that you did. It was just a comment...I've seen some really cool stuff out of the live team equal to some of the stuff I've seen from Google. Virtual Earth 3D surprised the hell out of a lot of folks. A lot of folks expected it to really really suck.
On the mobile side I would say that Apple has more of a challenge even given multi-touch than on the desktop vs Vista.
Quote:
We will certainly have to wait and see but from what we've seen so far, apps for the iPhone should be very interesting indeed.
That the same modified Mach microkernel in OSX is exactly the same as the presumed Mach kernel they use in the iPhone? Or perhaps like other real-time mach's they went back to a pure microkernel?
We may never know. But even if they did trim out code specific to the desktop its derived from the same source.
Quote:
At best I would say Apple would be lucky to be on par with these other platforms. And that's being very generous for a release 1.0...
More than likely iPhone is based on Cocoa which is just as mature.
Quote:
On the mobile side I would say that Apple has more of a challenge even given multi-touch than on the desktop vs Vista.
Based on what Apple has shown. What do you think are their tough challenges?
Quote:
Like Java, .NET finally doesn't suck.
Other thoughts on Java.
Jesper is right: “standard” Java phone apps not only wouldn’t fit in look-and-feel-wise, they wouldn’t fit in hardware-wise, either. The only possible way Java would be relevant to iPhone development would be through the Cocoa-Java bridge — a bridge that Apple deprecated starting with Mac OS X 10.4.
In short, Cocoa kicks Java’s ass for developing any app where the UI matters. That Cocoa is at the heart of iPhone app development gives credence to Steve Jobs’s claim that the iPhone is “five years ahead” of anyone else. What other phone or PDA OS has developer tools and frameworks that compare to Cocoa?
John Gruber
Me, I defected long ago. I’m another of those Apple Java engineers who dropped out. I spent five years as a raving Java fanboy, but I gave up after optimizing AWT, implementing drag and drop, and trying to make 1,200 pages of crappy APIs do the right thing on the Mac. Then I took a one-week Cocoa training course, and wrote the first prototype of iChat.
My Theory is that Java desktop apps succeed only in niches where UI design and usability don’t matter: development tools and enterprise software. Programmers expect things to be crude and complicated: anyone who’ll voluntarily use ‘vi’ in the 21st century will put up with anything**. And the poor users of enterprise software don’t have a choice: they have to run the damn app no matter how awful it is, because it was selected by an MIS department that could care less about usability.
Just for the record, in Italy one of the three major GSM providers is proposing HDSPA modems, either in the form of a PC card, or a small Usb modem. It provides speeds of 3,6 Mbts/sec, i bought the modem under a promotion for 50 Euros (65 US$) and get a monthly allocation of 600 mb for 26 US $ per month (data only, no voice).
Now, it surely is less than WiMax, but it is now and here, and cheap enough. Plus, roaming in a number of european countreis can be obtained for a small sum.
Sorry for the Irish who posted, this provider is..Vodafone italy!
We may never know. But even if they did trim out code specific to the desktop its derived from the same source.
Which would entail development slightly differently than on the desktop. Is this killer? No, but its likely no easier than the other platforms you mention. There are frameworks to help you with a lot of stuff.
The Active-Idle stuff gives you Konfabulator like widgets.
Quote:
More than likely iPhone is based on Cocoa which is just as mature.
Cocoa is mature. Embedded Cocoa?
Quote:
Based on what Apple has shown. What do you think are their tough challenges?
Apple has an advatnage in UI but the other platforms have the advantage of larger userbase, more experienced developers and far larger library of code. Also the UI advantage is primarily with gestures which will take some trial and error to get right.
Quote:
Other thoughts on Java.
Jesper is right: “standard” Java phone apps not only wouldn’t fit in look-and-feel-wise, they wouldn’t fit in hardware-wise, either. The only possible way Java would be relevant to iPhone development would be through the Cocoa-Java bridge — a bridge that Apple deprecated starting with Mac OS X 10.4.
Well...J2ME GUIs aren't AWT or swing.
Quote:
In short, Cocoa kicks Java’s ass for developing any app where the UI matters. That Cocoa is at the heart of iPhone app development gives credence to Steve Jobs’s claim that the iPhone is “five years ahead” of anyone else. What other phone or PDA OS has developer tools and frameworks that compare to Cocoa?
John Gruber
MS, J2ME, etc.
Quote:
Me, I defected long ago. I’m another of those Apple Java engineers who dropped out. I spent five years as a raving Java fanboy, but I gave up after optimizing AWT, implementing drag and drop, and trying to make 1,200 pages of crappy APIs do the right thing on the Mac. Then I took a one-week Cocoa training course, and wrote the first prototype of iChat.
Herein lies the problem with hype. This developer spent 5 years grinding against the realities of java vs the hype of java. I know how frustrating that is because I also spent many years doing the same thing with PHBs telling you to use a technology based on marketing hype that's just broken. Developing for 1.1.x + Swing was just a lot of bleeding. 1.2 still sucked. 1.3 less so...rather than needing transfusions during a project band-aids were sufficient. 1.4-1.5 are finally Java that more or less don't suck as a whole. Or at least suck a couple orders of magnitude less and bleeding is at the paper cut level. But the java community did an amazing amount of bleeding those years trying to get a buggy framework atop a buggy language to do stuff reliably or at all. Which is why many folks, to this day, believe Java sucks full stop.
And again, J2ME is not the same UI as desktop UI development. I believe many folks write straight to the canvas (or gamecanvas) if they don't use a 3rd party framework (like J2ME Polish). Development on an embedded device, even a modern one, is much more low level than for the desktop. Who knows...J2ME may still suck...the last version of J2ME I worked on was 5 years ago and was a 1.1.x variant on vxWorks. That sucked. Big Time.
I'm going to guess that cocoa designed for the desktop is going to need some hefty revision. Anything new entails suckage. I don't care if you're Sun, IBM, Apple or MS.
Quote:
My Theory is that Java desktop apps succeed only in niches where UI design and usability don’t matter: development tools and enterprise software. Programmers expect things to be crude and complicated: anyone who’ll voluntarily use ‘vi’ in the 21st century will put up with anything**. And the poor users of enterprise software don’t have a choice: they have to run the damn app no matter how awful it is, because it was selected by an MIS department that could care less about usability.
Yes, Sun has abandoned usability research. Arguably so has Apple. Is there a new equivalent to the Tog, Raskin, et al at Apple anymore? HIG was disbanded when Jobs returned. AFAIK never reconstituted in any form.
Certainly there are folks at Apple looking at usability and UIs. But they exist at MS, Google and even Sun. Piles was developed by HIG research in the late 80s/early 90s (paper was released in 1992). Multi-touch has been an area of research for some time (but now a lot at uni's).
The thing about editors is just goofy after a diatribe about how IDEs UI (RAD tool) development sucks. IB is a RAD UI tool too...which he seems to like. I guess he hates NetBeans. Sokay...I'm not a big fan of ObjC.
Really...you can say that with such assurance? That the same modified Mach microkernel in OSX is exactly the same as the presumed Mach kernel they use in the iPhone? Or perhaps like other real-time mach's they went back to a pure microkernel? I'm going to guess that they didn't stuff all of the same BSD kernel components into the iPhone that you find attached to desktop OSX Mach. I'm also going to guess if the userland exists it'll come from something like busybox rather than the heavyweight components from BSD.
At the framework level I expect the same kind of subset of the full desktop frameworks as in .Net. Many things will be there. You can write apps using XCode, etc.
I don't understand the skepticism that iPhone OS X isn't Mac OS X. Obviously it doesn't contain every single byte from OS X short of the processor specific bits, but I'd speculate that it's a fairly complete implementation of XNU, CoreFoundation/Graphics/Animation/Audio, and Cocoa.
The iPhone isn't like smartphones or PDAs where the OS itself has to fit in a 32-64 MB ROM. The only bit of info we have on iPhone OS X is that it needs significantly less than 1 GB of space, and significantly has taken to mean about 500 MB. Last time I checked, that's a frelling large amount of memory for the critical parts of an operating system, and ridiculously large for smartphones and PDAs. Actually unheard of. Entire desktop class operating systems didn't need that much memory not too many years ago. Desktops and laptops operating systems today don't need that much memory either since most of your 2 GB of OS install is fluff.
I'd speculate that the optimization Apple did was more towards making it run fast on the iPhone, not necessarilly getting rid of stuff. They obviously did that, but I'm imagining it would be quite easy to get a Mac S X install down to 500 MB, especially on a system with only one set of hardware, and one where the majority of applications aren't needed.
Quote:
But I'm going to hazard that Visual Studio + Windows Mobile 6 is somewhat more mature and easier to code more complex apps for in the near term. Like Java, .NET finally doesn't suck.
If it is Cocoa and Javscript Widgets, I'd hazard a guess that "mature and easier" can't be used to differentiate the two because they'd already be really close and any differentiating opinions are really subjective to the experience and tendencies of the developer.
You obviously know your stuff in app development and what you say is all valid. However, I'd prefer to raise the discussion from leaves to the forest. Leaves are important but one can easily loose track of the big picture.
I think the iPod was a surprise for many people, me included. Apple got the leaves right but what was most important, was how it integrated into a forest. This is Apple's strength - a solutions company.
I think most people don't care about the engine under the hood as much as gas mileage, price, capacity, looks, options, etc. Mechanics look at cars one way, but most people look at cars very differently. People just want to turn the key and go. The better the car, the less they worry about what is under the hood.
All the details - the leaves, the car engine, etc - are very important. But just as important is the forest view. That is what I am trying to understand with the iPhone. I think the alliances Apple made are significant in understanding the macro view. Apple needs to tie all the different pieces together into a solution that just works. I have confidence in their abilities to do this. I don't have confidence with their competitors.
As for their competitors, I think they might look as good or even better now, but I'm guessing that a year or two from now, they are going to fall behind. Apple has a lot going for it right now and if they get some killer apps on the iPhone, they can quickly dominate. However, I think the killer apps are tied to wireless broadband like WiMax or some equivalent.
Now Apple won't be the only company to use mobile wireless broadband, but I think they are in a position to quickly capitalize on it. For example, I think iChatAV on iPhone will do videophone better and come quicker to market then the competitors. That is because the OS on the iPhone is so more robust, coming from the desktop OS. Just as the desktop OS can multitask, so to the handheld OS. I think. I am interpolating some here.
I think a handheld computer enables many new killer apps. Just as the iPod needed iTunes to grow into the mega-monster it is, so to the handheld computer. I think the hardware is not as important as the software, the network, the integration, and the marketing.
What Apple has going for it is that they can market everything together and people will know everything will work simply. In contrast, a competitors smartphone will run what OS and will have what apps. As things get more complex, what about security and bugs? How are they going to market the product to people? How will people buy? Where do they go for tech support?
I think Apple's retail strategy helps them out tremendously. People will know where to find the product, what the product does, and they can go and test it out before they buy. They know who to call or where to go for tech support. Branding and mind share are important. The integration of everything Apple will mean the whole is greater then the sum of the individual parts.
So I think Apple has the branding and marketing to win the game. I think their hardware is good or superior too. I think price is okay for now. I also hope Apple got the right networking deal. That remains to be seen but I am optimistic.
However, what I think we can talk about a lot more is software apps, particularly killer apps. Apple showed us some and they were good, but they did not show us all their cards. Apple doesn't want their competitors to see their hand six months in advance. However, we should be able to guess what these apps should be. Even if they don;t come out immediately, I'm guessing they are around the corner.
I'd throw iChatAV video conferencing as one. Mapping like Google Earth 3D+mapquest along with GPS could be very significant. Lots of rumors on that one.
Also, what about web browsing? Job's demo seemed to work pretty good. How is web surfing on other handheld phones? Anybody want to weigh in here? The iPhone actually looked usable. I doubt Apple's competitors' smartphone browsers are actually usable.
If the iPhone can always connect broadband, then iPhoto and iTunes libraries are always accessible. Same with dictionaries and other databases. How about always having access to every email, iCal, address book, and document? Youe wouldn't have to worry about syncing and deciding what files you need. As long as you have wireless access, you have all your files.
I don't understand the skepticism that iPhone OS X isn't Mac OS X. Obviously it doesn't contain every single byte from OS X short of the processor specific bits, but I'd speculate that it's a fairly complete implementation of XNU, CoreFoundation/Graphics/Animation/Audio, and Cocoa.
Perhaps because an OS designed for the desktop with desktop processors and desktop graphics support likely isn't going to run all that well on a PDA class machine without changes?
Quote:
The iPhone isn't like smartphones or PDAs where the OS itself has to fit in a 32-64 MB ROM. The only bit of info we have on iPhone OS X is that it needs significantly less than 1 GB of space, and significantly has taken to mean about 500 MB. Last time I checked, that's a frelling large amount of memory for the critical parts of an operating system, and ridiculously large for smartphones and PDAs. Actually unheard of. Entire desktop class operating systems didn't need that much memory not too many years ago. Desktops and laptops operating systems today don't need that much memory either since most of your 2 GB of OS install is fluff.
Yes, it has a bunch of storage since its also an iPod. But the limitations of battery life and form factor tells you the general CPU capacity for the device. Now for the kernel that's probably not that big a deal to make lightweight. How much usable memory the processor has is also subject to conjecture.
Quote:
If it is Cocoa and Javscript Widgets, I'd hazard a guess that "mature and easier" can't be used to differentiate the two because they'd already be really close and any differentiating opinions are really subjective to the experience and tendencies of the developer.
Well, embedded development isn't rocket science (except when it is) but it does take a little bit of effort to transition from desktop to palmtop development. There are also "rules of thumb" that embedded devs have that aren't common to desktop devs. These are less and less important...especially as you get to use "managed" code (either java or C#) but you do need more knowledge of the underlying hardware to get good performance out of a device than you do on a desktop.
Even with managed code knowing how the JIT compiler optimizes tells you how to layout code so the optimizer has a better shot at optimizing can mean the difference between usable and dog slow. Most desktop devs wont know and really there's no reason for them to.
/shrug
As I said, this isn't rocket science. But there are a lot more devs that know Java and C# than know ObjC so the pool of folks to fiddle with Windows Mobile and other embedded OS are pretty large in comparison to OSX.
You obviously know your stuff in app development and what you say is all valid. However, I'd prefer to raise the discussion from leaves to the forest. Leaves are important but one can easily loose track of the big picture.
I think the iPod was a surprise for many people, me included. Apple got the leaves right but what was most important, was how it integrated into a forest. This is Apple's strength - a solutions company.
I think most people don't care about the engine under the hood as much as gas mileage, price, capacity, looks, options, etc. Mechanics look at cars one way, but most people look at cars very differently. People just want to turn the key and go. The better the car, the less they worry about what is under the hood.
Yes, but if someone claims 200MPG for $500 that seats 10 with 500HP mechanics are going to be skeptical. Not that Apple has made these claims but some of its fans have.
The iPhone will be great and the multitouch if done right revolutionary. Lets just not get to carried away or you WILL be dissapointed. The "leaves" tell you how much of the "big picture" can be implemented today.
Quote:
Now Apple won't be the only company to use mobile wireless broadband, but I think they are in a position to quickly capitalize on it. For example, I think iChatAV on iPhone will do videophone better and come quicker to market then the competitors. That is because the OS on the iPhone is so more robust, coming from the desktop OS. Just as the desktop OS can multitask, so to the handheld OS. I think. I am interpolating some here.
That appears to be a leaf argument to me. In any case, while I don't doubt that OSX mobile can multitask other mobile OSs also can multitask. And the iPhone, as it is, will suck for videophone which surprised me. The camera is pointed the wrong way.
Quote:
However, what I think we can talk about a lot more is software apps, particularly killer apps. Apple showed us some and they were good, but they did not show us all their cards. Apple doesn't want their competitors to see their hand six months in advance. However, we should be able to guess what these apps should be. Even if they don;t come out immediately, I'm guessing they are around the corner.
I'd throw iChatAV video conferencing as one. Mapping like Google Earth 3D+mapquest along with GPS could be very significant. Lots of rumors on that one.
iChatAV seems unlikely unless they got the "display as camera" thingy working or reposition the camera.
Google Earth 3D is a little silly on the iPhone. Google Maps is what will be used. GPS may or may not be in the device.
Even assuming that GE is desired on a mobile of that size (and that ain't likely) Virtual Earth can likely be made to run on other platforms AND GE wont be exclusive.
Quote:
Also, what about web browsing? Job's demo seemed to work pretty good. How is web surfing on other handheld phones? Anybody want to weigh in here? The iPhone actually looked usable. I doubt Apple's competitors' smartphone browsers are actually usable.
Given that you haven't tried it seems that your opinions aren't grounded much. The answer is that they all do kinda suck for general browsing but that's a function of size rather than design. RSS feeds and specialized pages work a lot better but that's up to the content provider.
Obviously PDAs with more screen real estate do better than the smaller smart phones.
Quote:
If the iPhone can always connect broadband, then iPhoto and iTunes libraries are always accessible. Same with dictionaries and other databases. How about always having access to every email, iCal, address book, and document? Youe wouldn't have to worry about syncing and deciding what files you need. As long as you have wireless access, you have all your files.
Feedback?
Nobody is ALWAYS connected via broadband. That means you do need to decide what you have on your PDA. The iPhone's advantage here is that it has a goodly amount of flash for the job.
Did not sound like there was an embedded version of anything to me. Cocoa is cocoa.
Quote:
Apple has an advatnage in UI but the other platforms have the advantage of larger userbase, more experienced developers and far larger library of code. Also the UI advantage is primarily with gestures which will take some trial and error to get right.
Windows Mobile only holds 5.6% of the smartphone market. Symbian holds the far majority with Linux in second. If Apple sells 10 million phones by 2008 as Jobs predicted Apple would grab 15% of the smartphone market outpacing Windows, RIM, and Palm. Putting Apple in third place behind Linux.
I think logical gestures will be far easier to use than scrolling submenus and dialogue boxes. The challenging part will be getting used to no tactile feel from a flat screen, as long as the iPhones response is smooth and predictable people will get used to it.
Quote:
Perhaps because an OS designed for the desktop with desktop processors and desktop graphics support likely isn't going to run all that well on a PDA class machine without changes?
Well Tiger can run on a 400 MHz iMac G3 with 128MB of video RAM. Its certainly not the best circumstance but it does work. The ARM processors in the iPhone will be more powerful than the G3 from 1998.
Quote:
The iPhone will be great and the multitouch if done right revolutionary. Lets just not get to carried away or you WILL be dissapointed.
I agree. Apple understands that there is limitation in a 4" X 2" device. You cannot simply put a desktop on a miniature device, you need to adapt the experience to the advantages of the form factor. So the iPhone won't attempt to do everything a desktop computer does, but it will take full advantage of its size.
Windows Mobile only holds 5.6% of the smartphone market. Symbian holds the far majority with Linux in second. If Apple sells 10 million phones by 2008 as Jobs predicted Apple would grab 15% of the smartphone market outpacing Windows, RIM, and Palm. Putting Apple in third place behind Linux.
And yet the phone is only half of the product no? For the PDA market Windows Mobile as 52.6%, RIM 25.5%, Palm 13.4%, Symbian 3.6% and Linux at 1.2%.
Look for "Canalys (Nov 2006)" They tout Symbian's growth of course...but MS went from 302K to 1M.
Linux dropped from 22% to 16% but maintained unit sales at around 3M. Somehow I think MS will pass Linux given the dominance on the PDA side. And Symbian is not what I would call a great OS to build from. The market figues are not as great as they seem as there are 3 flavors of Symbian (Nokia/S60, Sony/UIQ, NTT/DoCoMo) and they don't play well together.
How mature OSX for the iPhone is only iPod game devs (outside of Apple anyways) really knows. The iPod has an ARM, 1MB ROM and 64MB RAM. I suspect the iPhone will have more but not hugely more (ie megs and not gigs).
What??? It doesn't even cover the whole of my kitchen! Have you actually used 3G? Or even seen a 3G coverage map
3g in america sucks, face it. theres no real point in getting it, because it only works in major cities and their suburbs, where you could get a subscription to a citywide wifi network like in DC. on my blackjack i get it on major roads and in my house.
Comments
Although Apple calls their new device an iPhone, I think this is not truly what it is. First we had mainframes, then microcomputers, then personal computers, then laptops. Now we have handheld computers.
Sure, but on the other hand, Apple's people have made a distinct point of saying that the iPhone is not a computer. Perhaps that's just so people don't expect to be able to load their own software on it like they do with a real computer. Or perhaps it's because they have other products coming down the line, more like a real UMPC.
I'm glad to see Apple in this fight and wish they would get into a few more, like the living room, gaming, etc. Not everybody agrees but at least they should recognize that Apple's competitors are fighting on these fronts and we all hope Apple doesn't get blindsided by somebody doing an iPod/iTunes to them.
I do think handheld computers are going to be big am glad Apple is in the fight. Think of all those years people wished for a PDA. Well, now they have it. And I like what I see at least.
But the biggest question is what don't we see. What is coming next year and the next few years? I don't just mean hardware alone but the synthesis of hardware, software, networking, media. Remember when we didn't have personal computers, cell phones, email, the web, cable tv, and Starbucks? Ever wonder what things will be like in twenty years?
Usually when people talk of the future they have pie-in-the-sky unrealistic scenarios. But I really try to get a realistic glimpse and see how things tie together. Most technologies evolve from older technologies. Even without new inventions and huge breakthroughs we should be able to put together an interesting look at the future.
Anybody care to share their vision?
Yes, we have handheld computers, today. It's called Palm Treo, Motorola Q, Windows Mobile, Palm OS, Symbian, etc....
If this were true what would be the need for the Ultra Mobile PC market?
Symbian is built for handheld devices and is inherently limited and does not have the advantages of a desktop OS. Palm OS has had trouble, no one wants to license it, and Palm itself uses Windows CE. As far as WinCE itself is an entirely different animal with little relation to XP outside of the name and start button.
iPhone is not a full blown computer. It's an extremely light version of OS X just as Windows Mobile is a light version of MS Windows. Product such as Treo 700w carry Microsoft Word, Excel, Outlook, Powerpoint, Access.
As Apple has described OS X is not the same as Windows Mobile at all. Windows Mobile is not derived from Windows XP. OS X on the iPhone has the kernel and API framework of Mac OS X. Apps built for the iPhone will be built using the same tools used when building apps for the Macintosh. Windows Mobile does not have these attributes from XP.
The iPhone cannot be like the iPod because by wedded itself to Cingular for 5 years.
These two have nothing to do with each other.
People do not switch Wireless Carriers because of Phones, especially for a very expensive phone such as the iPhone.
Probably not in extremely large number but carriers do gain customers from having desirable phones exclusively tied to them. That is the reason they make such deals. People switched to Verizon when the the RAZR was exclusively offered for $500.
Nice vison, but nothing new. The iPhone brings nothing new to the table.
The UI of the iPhone is manipulated by the very basics of motor skills. The graphics on the iPhone react in much the same way that objects pushed with your fingers react to air and gravity in the physical world. No other phone is designed like this.
Plus you can manipulate the screen with multiple fingers, no one else has done that.
Very nice vision....but neither can the iPhone. When the iPhone CAN do it.....you can sure bet that the latest Motorola, Palm, Samsung, etc.... product can do it as well.
With Symbian, Palm OS, or WinCE you cannot build a full app using desktop class APIs. With OS X you can.
you can add SD memory cards that are now going up to 8gb. The iPhone cannot. PLUS.......
Depending on how important this is to you it can be a legitimate complaint. But how many people are out there buying 4 or 8 GB SD cards for their phones? I doubt very many.
With every computer you can add software applications. With Smartphone you can do this. With the iPhone, you Cannot.
Steve did not confirm or deny that there would be additional software for the iPhone. But if someone were to look at the situation rationally, its a pretty safe assumption that at some point it will be available.
Believe me, if Apple meets that vision you can safe bet that Palm, Motorola, Sony, Microsoft, will meet it as well......and cheaper.
After six years on the market none of Apples competitors have been able to match the iPod or iTunes. Not in a more expensive device and certainly not in a cheaper one.
As Apple has described OS X is not the same as Windows Mobile at all. Windows Mobile is not derived from Windows XP. OS X on the iPhone has the kernel and API framework of Mac OS X. Apps built for the iPhone will be built using the same tools used when building apps for the Macintosh. Windows Mobile does not have these attributes from XP.
Um....NET Compact Framework and and you build apps using VS 2005 in C#. That's pretty close to just building for windows.
We just finished a Windows Mobile app...but it was a web app using Windows Live stuff so how different managed code has to be (presumably winforms isn't there) I dunno for sure. I'm going to guess that developing for the iPhone is more difficult than for Windows Mobile given IMHO studio is better than xcode but we'll see when folks talk about the devkits. Assuming Apple opens up the iPhone at all to 3rd party devs.
Vinea
PS Evil empire or not MS has some really cool stuff.
Um....NET Compact Framework and and you build apps using VS 2005 in C#. That's pretty close to just building for windows.
Mono is an implementation of .NET and runs on Linux and Mac OS X. So building a .NET app and running it in Mono now turns Mac OS X into Windows? Nope.
Windows Mobile is not architecturally related to Windows XP. Windows Mobile is based on Windows CE, and Windows XP is based on Windows NT. The two have completely different kernels.
Yes, they clearly share a subset of a framework, and they obviously share some GUI look and feel as well. Several apps are also available for both, although with largely different feature sets. But that's it. They're still hugely different operating systems.
Mac OS X and OS X for iPhone, on the other hand, have the exact same kernel and share many frameworks completely. They're architecturally very similar, and their core differences merely account to optimizing them for their main use.
The UI of the iPhone is manipulated by the very basics of motor skills. The graphics on the iPhone react in much the same way that objects pushed with your fingers react to air and gravity in the physical world. No other phone is designed like this.
A better way to say this....
The reaction and response of iPhone's graphics to touch operate under much the same logic as objects in the physical realm would react when touched within the limits of space, time, and gravity.
No other mobile device UI has worked as strictly within these guidelines.
Steve did not confirm or deny that there would be additional software for the iPhone. But if someone were to look at the situation rationally, its a pretty safe assumption that at some point it will be available.
Apple has spent two years of resources on development on the iPhone. Ported and trimmed OS X to be the phones operating system. Bought a company and its intellectual property specifically to use for the phones human interface. It was the highlight of MWSF. Apple clearly showing this as the future direction of the company. Maybe not immediately but at some point there will be an entire ecosystem of software built around the iPhone.
PS Evil empire or not MS has some really cool stuff.
I don't mean to deride MS or its products. But its true that WinCE does not have a relationship to XP or Vista, the same way OS X for iPhone has a relationship with Mac OS X.
We will certainly have to wait and see but from what we've seen so far, apps for the iPhone should be very interesting indeed.
Mono is an implementation of .NET and runs on Linux and Mac OS X. So building a .NET app and running it in Mono now turns Mac OS X into Windows? Nope.
Windows Mobile is not architecturally related to Windows XP. Windows Mobile is based on Windows CE, and Windows XP is based on Windows NT. The two have completely different kernels.
Yes, they clearly share a subset of a framework, and they obviously share some GUI look and feel as well. Several apps are also available for both, although with largely different feature sets. But that's it. They're still hugely different operating systems.
He said that apps built for the iPhone will use the same tools as that for developing apps for OSX. All I'm saying is that this is also true for developing managed code on Windows Mobile. Just like it would developing a java app in J2SE for embedded. At best I would say Apple would be lucky to be on par with these other platforms. And that's being very generous for a release 1.0...
That the kernel differs is of less importance to many apps as long as the top layer APIs are implemented. Yes, windows mobile shares no direct heritage with NT and OSX on the iPhone is likely based on Mach.
Mac OS X and OS X for iPhone, on the other hand, have the exact same kernel and share many frameworks completely. They're architecturally very similar, and their core differences merely account to optimizing them for their main use.
Really...you can say that with such assurance? That the same modified Mach microkernel in OSX is exactly the same as the presumed Mach kernel they use in the iPhone? Or perhaps like other real-time mach's they went back to a pure microkernel? I'm going to guess that they didn't stuff all of the same BSD kernel components into the iPhone that you find attached to desktop OSX Mach. I'm also going to guess if the userland exists it'll come from something like busybox rather than the heavyweight components from BSD.
At the framework level I expect the same kind of subset of the full desktop frameworks as in .Net. Many things will be there. You can write apps using XCode, etc.
But I'm going to hazard that Visual Studio + Windows Mobile 6 is somewhat more mature and easier to code more complex apps for in the near term. Like Java, .NET finally doesn't suck.
Vinea
I don't mean to deride MS or its products. But its true that WinCE does not have a relationship to XP or Vista, the same way OS X for iPhone has a relationship with Mac OS X.
I did not mean to imply that you did. It was just a comment...I've seen some really cool stuff out of the live team equal to some of the stuff I've seen from Google. Virtual Earth 3D surprised the hell out of a lot of folks. A lot of folks expected it to really really suck.
On the mobile side I would say that Apple has more of a challenge even given multi-touch than on the desktop vs Vista.
We will certainly have to wait and see but from what we've seen so far, apps for the iPhone should be very interesting indeed.
Agreed.
Vinea
That the same modified Mach microkernel in OSX is exactly the same as the presumed Mach kernel they use in the iPhone? Or perhaps like other real-time mach's they went back to a pure microkernel?
We may never know. But even if they did trim out code specific to the desktop its derived from the same source.
At best I would say Apple would be lucky to be on par with these other platforms. And that's being very generous for a release 1.0...
More than likely iPhone is based on Cocoa which is just as mature.
On the mobile side I would say that Apple has more of a challenge even given multi-touch than on the desktop vs Vista.
Based on what Apple has shown. What do you think are their tough challenges?
Like Java, .NET finally doesn't suck.
Other thoughts on Java.
Jesper is right: “standard” Java phone apps not only wouldn’t fit in look-and-feel-wise, they wouldn’t fit in hardware-wise, either. The only possible way Java would be relevant to iPhone development would be through the Cocoa-Java bridge — a bridge that Apple deprecated starting with Mac OS X 10.4.
In short, Cocoa kicks Java’s ass for developing any app where the UI matters. That Cocoa is at the heart of iPhone app development gives credence to Steve Jobs’s claim that the iPhone is “five years ahead” of anyone else. What other phone or PDA OS has developer tools and frameworks that compare to Cocoa?
John Gruber
Me, I defected long ago. I’m another of those Apple Java engineers who dropped out. I spent five years as a raving Java fanboy, but I gave up after optimizing AWT, implementing drag and drop, and trying to make 1,200 pages of crappy APIs do the right thing on the Mac. Then I took a one-week Cocoa training course, and wrote the first prototype of iChat.
My Theory is that Java desktop apps succeed only in niches where UI design and usability don’t matter: development tools and enterprise software. Programmers expect things to be crude and complicated: anyone who’ll voluntarily use ‘vi’ in the 21st century will put up with anything**. And the poor users of enterprise software don’t have a choice: they have to run the damn app no matter how awful it is, because it was selected by an MIS department that could care less about usability.
Now, it surely is less than WiMax, but it is now and here, and cheap enough. Plus, roaming in a number of european countreis can be obtained for a small sum.
Sorry for the Irish who posted, this provider is..Vodafone italy!
We may never know. But even if they did trim out code specific to the desktop its derived from the same source.
Which would entail development slightly differently than on the desktop. Is this killer? No, but its likely no easier than the other platforms you mention. There are frameworks to help you with a lot of stuff.
Here's an example: http://www.tricastmedia.com/v1/twuik.php
The Active-Idle stuff gives you Konfabulator like widgets.
More than likely iPhone is based on Cocoa which is just as mature.
Cocoa is mature. Embedded Cocoa?
Based on what Apple has shown. What do you think are their tough challenges?
Apple has an advatnage in UI but the other platforms have the advantage of larger userbase, more experienced developers and far larger library of code. Also the UI advantage is primarily with gestures which will take some trial and error to get right.
Other thoughts on Java.
Jesper is right: “standard” Java phone apps not only wouldn’t fit in look-and-feel-wise, they wouldn’t fit in hardware-wise, either. The only possible way Java would be relevant to iPhone development would be through the Cocoa-Java bridge — a bridge that Apple deprecated starting with Mac OS X 10.4.
Well...J2ME GUIs aren't AWT or swing.
In short, Cocoa kicks Java’s ass for developing any app where the UI matters. That Cocoa is at the heart of iPhone app development gives credence to Steve Jobs’s claim that the iPhone is “five years ahead” of anyone else. What other phone or PDA OS has developer tools and frameworks that compare to Cocoa?
John Gruber
MS, J2ME, etc.
Me, I defected long ago. I’m another of those Apple Java engineers who dropped out. I spent five years as a raving Java fanboy, but I gave up after optimizing AWT, implementing drag and drop, and trying to make 1,200 pages of crappy APIs do the right thing on the Mac. Then I took a one-week Cocoa training course, and wrote the first prototype of iChat.
Herein lies the problem with hype. This developer spent 5 years grinding against the realities of java vs the hype of java. I know how frustrating that is because I also spent many years doing the same thing with PHBs telling you to use a technology based on marketing hype that's just broken. Developing for 1.1.x + Swing was just a lot of bleeding. 1.2 still sucked. 1.3 less so...rather than needing transfusions during a project band-aids were sufficient. 1.4-1.5 are finally Java that more or less don't suck as a whole. Or at least suck a couple orders of magnitude less and bleeding is at the paper cut level. But the java community did an amazing amount of bleeding those years trying to get a buggy framework atop a buggy language to do stuff reliably or at all. Which is why many folks, to this day, believe Java sucks full stop.
And again, J2ME is not the same UI as desktop UI development. I believe many folks write straight to the canvas (or gamecanvas) if they don't use a 3rd party framework (like J2ME Polish). Development on an embedded device, even a modern one, is much more low level than for the desktop. Who knows...J2ME may still suck...the last version of J2ME I worked on was 5 years ago and was a 1.1.x variant on vxWorks. That sucked. Big Time.
I'm going to guess that cocoa designed for the desktop is going to need some hefty revision. Anything new entails suckage. I don't care if you're Sun, IBM, Apple or MS.
My Theory is that Java desktop apps succeed only in niches where UI design and usability don’t matter: development tools and enterprise software. Programmers expect things to be crude and complicated: anyone who’ll voluntarily use ‘vi’ in the 21st century will put up with anything**. And the poor users of enterprise software don’t have a choice: they have to run the damn app no matter how awful it is, because it was selected by an MIS department that could care less about usability.
Yes, Sun has abandoned usability research. Arguably so has Apple. Is there a new equivalent to the Tog, Raskin, et al at Apple anymore? HIG was disbanded when Jobs returned. AFAIK never reconstituted in any form.
Certainly there are folks at Apple looking at usability and UIs. But they exist at MS, Google and even Sun. Piles was developed by HIG research in the late 80s/early 90s (paper was released in 1992). Multi-touch has been an area of research for some time (but now a lot at uni's).
The thing about editors is just goofy after a diatribe about how IDEs UI (RAD tool) development sucks. IB is a RAD UI tool too...which he seems to like. I guess he hates NetBeans. Sokay...I'm not a big fan of ObjC.
Vinea
Really...you can say that with such assurance? That the same modified Mach microkernel in OSX is exactly the same as the presumed Mach kernel they use in the iPhone? Or perhaps like other real-time mach's they went back to a pure microkernel? I'm going to guess that they didn't stuff all of the same BSD kernel components into the iPhone that you find attached to desktop OSX Mach. I'm also going to guess if the userland exists it'll come from something like busybox rather than the heavyweight components from BSD.
At the framework level I expect the same kind of subset of the full desktop frameworks as in .Net. Many things will be there. You can write apps using XCode, etc.
I don't understand the skepticism that iPhone OS X isn't Mac OS X. Obviously it doesn't contain every single byte from OS X short of the processor specific bits, but I'd speculate that it's a fairly complete implementation of XNU, CoreFoundation/Graphics/Animation/Audio, and Cocoa.
The iPhone isn't like smartphones or PDAs where the OS itself has to fit in a 32-64 MB ROM. The only bit of info we have on iPhone OS X is that it needs significantly less than 1 GB of space, and significantly has taken to mean about 500 MB. Last time I checked, that's a frelling large amount of memory for the critical parts of an operating system, and ridiculously large for smartphones and PDAs. Actually unheard of. Entire desktop class operating systems didn't need that much memory not too many years ago. Desktops and laptops operating systems today don't need that much memory either since most of your 2 GB of OS install is fluff.
I'd speculate that the optimization Apple did was more towards making it run fast on the iPhone, not necessarilly getting rid of stuff. They obviously did that, but I'm imagining it would be quite easy to get a Mac S X install down to 500 MB, especially on a system with only one set of hardware, and one where the majority of applications aren't needed.
But I'm going to hazard that Visual Studio + Windows Mobile 6 is somewhat more mature and easier to code more complex apps for in the near term. Like Java, .NET finally doesn't suck.
If it is Cocoa and Javscript Widgets, I'd hazard a guess that "mature and easier" can't be used to differentiate the two because they'd already be really close and any differentiating opinions are really subjective to the experience and tendencies of the developer.
You obviously know your stuff in app development and what you say is all valid. However, I'd prefer to raise the discussion from leaves to the forest. Leaves are important but one can easily loose track of the big picture.
I think the iPod was a surprise for many people, me included. Apple got the leaves right but what was most important, was how it integrated into a forest. This is Apple's strength - a solutions company.
I think most people don't care about the engine under the hood as much as gas mileage, price, capacity, looks, options, etc. Mechanics look at cars one way, but most people look at cars very differently. People just want to turn the key and go. The better the car, the less they worry about what is under the hood.
All the details - the leaves, the car engine, etc - are very important. But just as important is the forest view. That is what I am trying to understand with the iPhone. I think the alliances Apple made are significant in understanding the macro view. Apple needs to tie all the different pieces together into a solution that just works. I have confidence in their abilities to do this. I don't have confidence with their competitors.
As for their competitors, I think they might look as good or even better now, but I'm guessing that a year or two from now, they are going to fall behind. Apple has a lot going for it right now and if they get some killer apps on the iPhone, they can quickly dominate. However, I think the killer apps are tied to wireless broadband like WiMax or some equivalent.
Now Apple won't be the only company to use mobile wireless broadband, but I think they are in a position to quickly capitalize on it. For example, I think iChatAV on iPhone will do videophone better and come quicker to market then the competitors. That is because the OS on the iPhone is so more robust, coming from the desktop OS. Just as the desktop OS can multitask, so to the handheld OS. I think. I am interpolating some here.
I think a handheld computer enables many new killer apps. Just as the iPod needed iTunes to grow into the mega-monster it is, so to the handheld computer. I think the hardware is not as important as the software, the network, the integration, and the marketing.
What Apple has going for it is that they can market everything together and people will know everything will work simply. In contrast, a competitors smartphone will run what OS and will have what apps. As things get more complex, what about security and bugs? How are they going to market the product to people? How will people buy? Where do they go for tech support?
I think Apple's retail strategy helps them out tremendously. People will know where to find the product, what the product does, and they can go and test it out before they buy. They know who to call or where to go for tech support. Branding and mind share are important. The integration of everything Apple will mean the whole is greater then the sum of the individual parts.
So I think Apple has the branding and marketing to win the game. I think their hardware is good or superior too. I think price is okay for now. I also hope Apple got the right networking deal. That remains to be seen but I am optimistic.
However, what I think we can talk about a lot more is software apps, particularly killer apps. Apple showed us some and they were good, but they did not show us all their cards. Apple doesn't want their competitors to see their hand six months in advance. However, we should be able to guess what these apps should be. Even if they don;t come out immediately, I'm guessing they are around the corner.
I'd throw iChatAV video conferencing as one. Mapping like Google Earth 3D+mapquest along with GPS could be very significant. Lots of rumors on that one.
Also, what about web browsing? Job's demo seemed to work pretty good. How is web surfing on other handheld phones? Anybody want to weigh in here? The iPhone actually looked usable. I doubt Apple's competitors' smartphone browsers are actually usable.
If the iPhone can always connect broadband, then iPhoto and iTunes libraries are always accessible. Same with dictionaries and other databases. How about always having access to every email, iCal, address book, and document? Youe wouldn't have to worry about syncing and deciding what files you need. As long as you have wireless access, you have all your files.
Feedback?
I don't understand the skepticism that iPhone OS X isn't Mac OS X. Obviously it doesn't contain every single byte from OS X short of the processor specific bits, but I'd speculate that it's a fairly complete implementation of XNU, CoreFoundation/Graphics/Animation/Audio, and Cocoa.
Perhaps because an OS designed for the desktop with desktop processors and desktop graphics support likely isn't going to run all that well on a PDA class machine without changes?
The iPhone isn't like smartphones or PDAs where the OS itself has to fit in a 32-64 MB ROM. The only bit of info we have on iPhone OS X is that it needs significantly less than 1 GB of space, and significantly has taken to mean about 500 MB. Last time I checked, that's a frelling large amount of memory for the critical parts of an operating system, and ridiculously large for smartphones and PDAs. Actually unheard of. Entire desktop class operating systems didn't need that much memory not too many years ago. Desktops and laptops operating systems today don't need that much memory either since most of your 2 GB of OS install is fluff.
Yes, it has a bunch of storage since its also an iPod. But the limitations of battery life and form factor tells you the general CPU capacity for the device. Now for the kernel that's probably not that big a deal to make lightweight. How much usable memory the processor has is also subject to conjecture.
If it is Cocoa and Javscript Widgets, I'd hazard a guess that "mature and easier" can't be used to differentiate the two because they'd already be really close and any differentiating opinions are really subjective to the experience and tendencies of the developer.
Well, embedded development isn't rocket science (except when it is) but it does take a little bit of effort to transition from desktop to palmtop development. There are also "rules of thumb" that embedded devs have that aren't common to desktop devs. These are less and less important...especially as you get to use "managed" code (either java or C#) but you do need more knowledge of the underlying hardware to get good performance out of a device than you do on a desktop.
Even with managed code knowing how the JIT compiler optimizes tells you how to layout code so the optimizer has a better shot at optimizing can mean the difference between usable and dog slow. Most desktop devs wont know and really there's no reason for them to.
/shrug
As I said, this isn't rocket science. But there are a lot more devs that know Java and C# than know ObjC so the pool of folks to fiddle with Windows Mobile and other embedded OS are pretty large in comparison to OSX.
Vinea
Guys,
You obviously know your stuff in app development and what you say is all valid. However, I'd prefer to raise the discussion from leaves to the forest. Leaves are important but one can easily loose track of the big picture.
I think the iPod was a surprise for many people, me included. Apple got the leaves right but what was most important, was how it integrated into a forest. This is Apple's strength - a solutions company.
I think most people don't care about the engine under the hood as much as gas mileage, price, capacity, looks, options, etc. Mechanics look at cars one way, but most people look at cars very differently. People just want to turn the key and go. The better the car, the less they worry about what is under the hood.
Yes, but if someone claims 200MPG for $500 that seats 10 with 500HP mechanics are going to be skeptical. Not that Apple has made these claims but some of its fans have.
The iPhone will be great and the multitouch if done right revolutionary. Lets just not get to carried away or you WILL be dissapointed. The "leaves" tell you how much of the "big picture" can be implemented today.
Now Apple won't be the only company to use mobile wireless broadband, but I think they are in a position to quickly capitalize on it. For example, I think iChatAV on iPhone will do videophone better and come quicker to market then the competitors. That is because the OS on the iPhone is so more robust, coming from the desktop OS. Just as the desktop OS can multitask, so to the handheld OS. I think. I am interpolating some here.
That appears to be a leaf argument to me. In any case, while I don't doubt that OSX mobile can multitask other mobile OSs also can multitask. And the iPhone, as it is, will suck for videophone which surprised me. The camera is pointed the wrong way.
However, what I think we can talk about a lot more is software apps, particularly killer apps. Apple showed us some and they were good, but they did not show us all their cards. Apple doesn't want their competitors to see their hand six months in advance. However, we should be able to guess what these apps should be. Even if they don;t come out immediately, I'm guessing they are around the corner.
I'd throw iChatAV video conferencing as one. Mapping like Google Earth 3D+mapquest along with GPS could be very significant. Lots of rumors on that one.
iChatAV seems unlikely unless they got the "display as camera" thingy working or reposition the camera.
Google Earth 3D is a little silly on the iPhone. Google Maps is what will be used. GPS may or may not be in the device.
Even assuming that GE is desired on a mobile of that size (and that ain't likely) Virtual Earth can likely be made to run on other platforms AND GE wont be exclusive.
Also, what about web browsing? Job's demo seemed to work pretty good. How is web surfing on other handheld phones? Anybody want to weigh in here? The iPhone actually looked usable. I doubt Apple's competitors' smartphone browsers are actually usable.
Given that you haven't tried it seems that your opinions aren't grounded much. The answer is that they all do kinda suck for general browsing but that's a function of size rather than design. RSS feeds and specialized pages work a lot better but that's up to the content provider.
Obviously PDAs with more screen real estate do better than the smaller smart phones.
If the iPhone can always connect broadband, then iPhoto and iTunes libraries are always accessible. Same with dictionaries and other databases. How about always having access to every email, iCal, address book, and document? Youe wouldn't have to worry about syncing and deciding what files you need. As long as you have wireless access, you have all your files.
Feedback?
Nobody is ALWAYS connected via broadband. That means you do need to decide what you have on your PDA. The iPhone's advantage here is that it has a goodly amount of flash for the job.
Vinea
Ireland, like yourself. Clare, to be more precise. What provider are you with that you can get 3G anywhere in the country?
Here's Vodafone's coverage map: http://www.vodafone.ie/roaming/domes...work/index.jsp
nowhere near 100% 3G coverage
3 claim to have 75% population 3G coverage - which with Ireland's population distribution probably translates to 15% geographic coverage.
I don't think O2 are even offering 3G yet, but I could be wrong...
What a surprise! Ireland is full of shit! Again!
Cocoa is mature. Embedded Cocoa?
Did not sound like there was an embedded version of anything to me. Cocoa is cocoa.
Apple has an advatnage in UI but the other platforms have the advantage of larger userbase, more experienced developers and far larger library of code. Also the UI advantage is primarily with gestures which will take some trial and error to get right.
Windows Mobile only holds 5.6% of the smartphone market. Symbian holds the far majority with Linux in second. If Apple sells 10 million phones by 2008 as Jobs predicted Apple would grab 15% of the smartphone market outpacing Windows, RIM, and Palm. Putting Apple in third place behind Linux.
I think logical gestures will be far easier to use than scrolling submenus and dialogue boxes. The challenging part will be getting used to no tactile feel from a flat screen, as long as the iPhones response is smooth and predictable people will get used to it.
Perhaps because an OS designed for the desktop with desktop processors and desktop graphics support likely isn't going to run all that well on a PDA class machine without changes?
Well Tiger can run on a 400 MHz iMac G3 with 128MB of video RAM. Its certainly not the best circumstance but it does work. The ARM processors in the iPhone will be more powerful than the G3 from 1998.
The iPhone will be great and the multitouch if done right revolutionary. Lets just not get to carried away or you WILL be dissapointed.
I agree. Apple understands that there is limitation in a 4" X 2" device. You cannot simply put a desktop on a miniature device, you need to adapt the experience to the advantages of the form factor. So the iPhone won't attempt to do everything a desktop computer does, but it will take full advantage of its size.
Windows Mobile only holds 5.6% of the smartphone market. Symbian holds the far majority with Linux in second. If Apple sells 10 million phones by 2008 as Jobs predicted Apple would grab 15% of the smartphone market outpacing Windows, RIM, and Palm. Putting Apple in third place behind Linux.
And yet the phone is only half of the product no? For the PDA market Windows Mobile as 52.6%, RIM 25.5%, Palm 13.4%, Symbian 3.6% and Linux at 1.2%.
http://www.palminfocenter.com/news/8...t-for-q1-2006/
Within the smartphone market the current standins are Symbian on top but the biggest growth? Microsoft at 239% between Q3 05 and Q3 06.
http://www.symbian.com/about/fastfacts/fastfacts.html
Look for "Canalys (Nov 2006)" They tout Symbian's growth of course...but MS went from 302K to 1M.
Linux dropped from 22% to 16% but maintained unit sales at around 3M. Somehow I think MS will pass Linux given the dominance on the PDA side. And Symbian is not what I would call a great OS to build from. The market figues are not as great as they seem as there are 3 flavors of Symbian (Nokia/S60, Sony/UIQ, NTT/DoCoMo) and they don't play well together.
How mature OSX for the iPhone is only iPod game devs (outside of Apple anyways) really knows. The iPod has an ARM, 1MB ROM and 64MB RAM. I suspect the iPhone will have more but not hugely more (ie megs and not gigs).
Vinea
What??? It doesn't even cover the whole of my kitchen! Have you actually used 3G? Or even seen a 3G coverage map
3g in america sucks, face it. theres no real point in getting it, because it only works in major cities and their suburbs, where you could get a subscription to a citywide wifi network like in DC. on my blackjack i get it on major roads and in my house.
rest is edge, which sucks.
100 kbps?!
my god