I think the best way for Apple to handle this is have a strict set of guidelines and have a dedicated team that will test the apps, and then approve them and then have them on board iTunes.
I have this feeling if Apple opened up the device with out such a practice, everyone and their mother would write apps and the iPhone and iPod Touch would not only become unstable but would also muddy up the device.
Agreed. That would solve stability issues without stifling creativity. They could use a "Made for iPhone" logo scheme to identify compliant software. As long as they did nothing to prevent uncertified apps from going public, that would probably keep everyone happy.
What's his Apple email address? His Pixar one was sj@pixar.com.
It's not hard to guess (initial + surname) but he doesn't really read them. His personal assistant culls the inbox and presents the most relevant to him. He is a pretty busy guy after all, and can you imagine the volume of fanboy drivel he must get.
Phil Schiller may be a better bet. Fanboys can't spell.
Actually, no they haven't. 3rd party apps built with an unofficial SDK is caveat emptor. Apple is not responsible for instability if you put something on your phone that isn't blessed by Apple.
Try to tell a customer that when (s)he calls and says that the phone is crashing.
9quote]
More importantly, when someone developes a VOIP package Apple can shrug at AT&T.[/quote]
I have no problem with that. But will business be interested if Apple says that it might not work next week?
Quote:
As to why it would allow it...it doesn't hurt Apple to have new widgets on the iPhone.
Yes. No argument there.
Quote:
If Apple releases an official SDK then that's the one most folks will migrate to because it will offer full development support. They can't actually lose control of their own platform because they can simply modify OSX to break other SDKs by requiring a digitital signature to run. After that any hacking by 3rd party SDKs runs afoul DMCA. At least in the US.
That's what I've been saying. Apple can choose, either through intention, or through other needs of their own, to prevent anything developed through the third party SDK's or installers from working.
Quote:
Personally, I don't think they have the security features they want done yet for either OSX or the SDK. This is probably an area that Symbian is a bit ahead of OSX.
As I said, this is all too new as yet. Apple is still working out the early problems.
Eh, I think people are missing the point. I remember back when the no SDK thing broke that the given reason was that Apple was worried about security issues but perhaps a bigger reason was that AT&T was worried that native Apps would allow users to circumvent features they could charge for, ie voice (VoIP) and text messaging (IM) service. I hate to be so cliche, but Apple ignoring third-party development was probably part of the plan all along. This way they can guarantee AT&T that only a tiny percentage of users are actually using these hacks and it's not worth their time to investigate while making their tech-savvy users (cough, early adopters) happy by leaving unofficial developers alone. As a bonus, Apple gets to circumvent any pesky contractual obligations by outsourcing early stability testing so that by the time they do release an SDK it's really rich and secure and there's already a big, experienced developer community for the iPhone. Just my (poorly written, for which I do apologize, it's too late to edit) take.
I would believe that less than 1% of iPhone users are using any of these hacks. The far majority of users will go with whatever Apple officially supports.
I'm sure I'm technically inclined enough to use the hacks but I don't want to bother with it.
If they start selling them on sites like this, them quite a few will be using them. They are getting easier to use.
As I said, this is all too new as yet. Apple is still working out the early problems.
Of all the things I've read back and forth about whether Apple will give us an SDK, the best was from John Siracusa on Ars Technica. The article can be found here:
Among other excellent points, he reminds us that even though this is OS X, Apple is basically in the process of inventing an entirely new interface paradigm. They're still trying to decide a lot in the details about what they think constitute the new rules for interface design.
Quote:
There are no windows, no close/minimize/zoom widgets, no checkboxes, no radio buttons, no scroll bars, no nothing.
There are analogs to the things we're familiar with (finger-flick for scrolling),,,
Quote:
But what does an application behave like in this new world? What makes a pleasant, easy to use iPhone application? Where are the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines? No, seriously. Yeah, sure, we're all such old pros that we can just ignore the Mac HIG and riff, right? After over 20 years of the Mac-like GUI, maybe that's true. But you have to know the rules before you can know when to break them. We're all in the dark on the iPhone.
And that includes Apple. Not only does Apple have to figure out what makes a good iPhone application, it has to actually create the APIs to produce such a thing.
Very well put, I think. The entire article is worth a read. Give Apple time. You'll get the SDK, I suspect. But right now, there simply isn't such a thing. Let it cook, and don't push them to take it out of the oven before it's ready.
Of all the things I've read back and forth about whether Apple will give us an SDK, the best was from John Siracusa on Ars Technica. The article can be found here:
Among other excellent points, he reminds us that even though this is OS X, Apple is basically in the process of inventing an entirely new interface paradigm. They're still trying to decide a lot in the details about what they think constitute the new rules for interface design.
And he's right. I've been trying to tell people who think that "porting" programs over from the Mac will be so easy because OS X is on the phone. It's not.
Two reasons. The first is because of the interface problem, which Jobs brought up months ago. This is not a quick and dirty change.
Two is because the phone is far less powerful than even the least powerful computer Apple has made in the last ten years or so.
Only the simplest programs will make it over without almost totally rewritten code.
Try to tell a customer that when (s)he calls and says that the phone is crashing.
Essentially that's what they said today. 3rd party apps are unsupported. Likely support would first ask if there are any 3rd party apps. If so, they'll ask the owner to backup data, wipe, restore to a clean phone and resync without any 3rd party apps installed.
Heck, that's probably their first answer anyway. Wipe, resynch.
Essentially that's what they said today. 3rd party apps are unsupported. Likely support would first ask if there are any 3rd party apps. If so, they'll ask the owner to backup data, wipe, restore to a clean phone and resync without any 3rd party apps installed.
Heck, that's probably their first answer anyway. Wipe, resynch.
It could well be. But customers are a funny lot. If they buy this software at a web site that sells mobile software, which could very well start happening, they won't understand that the software isn't officially supported.
For us, it wouldn't be a problem. we would just curse once, wipe it clean and restart.
Among other excellent points, he reminds us that even though this is OS X, Apple is basically in the process of inventing an entirely new interface paradigm. They're still trying to decide a lot in the details about what they think constitute the new rules for interface design.
Meh...I think he overstates the case a little bit. From an app perspective the UI is (often) abstracted. It sees a scroll event...and it doesn't matter that the scroll is a finger flick or a scroll wheel or a mouse on a scroll bar if properly abstracted. Likewise open, close, etc events.
The paradigm is much like kiosk, (some) web and game UI development where you do not have the full traditional WIMP interface and alternative input devices vs a keyboard and mouse.
Radio buttons you can still have. Just have to be big and the number of items restricted to what you can display on one page.
Pull downs aren't useful but replaced by the list interface common to iPods.
If you want a radical change in UI paradigm try designing a Zoomable User Interface. Raskin loved that concept and with the gesture interface it might actually...not suck too bad. See his Humane Interface book...
The current Phone UI is still fairly traditional with icons and windows...even if the windows occupy the entire screen...with gestures added. That's actually a good thing. Baby steps.
The lack of stylus doesn't hurt the iPhone but for larger touch devices you'll want the capability for a stylus.
But in general, what he says was that Apple wasn't ready to release a SDK and that's kinda obvious. Building an API and supporting SDK/IDE/test env is a lot of work.
It could well be. But customers are a funny lot. If they buy this software at a web site that sells mobile software, which could very well start happening, they won't understand that the software isn't officially supported.
For us, it wouldn't be a problem. we would just curse once, wipe it clean and restart.
I guess it depends on if they bring in to an Apple or ATT store or if they have web/phone support. A Genius would go "Ah...see...you loaded these unsupported apps...let me remove them for you...see...all better."
Then its up to the mobile software dev to handle the irate call.
Not saying the strategy is perfect but it does offer some insulation for Apple since 3rd party apps are unsupported and likely they will make it very clear to any customer that calls. If it becomes a big problem then Apple can ask the vendors to put a large disclaimer on their site or risk getting shut out entirely as Apple defensively applies Trusted Computing.
A lot of these apps will break as they implement security anyway. Do you REALLY want any 3rd party app to have control over the camera?
I guess it depends on if they bring in to an Apple or ATT store or if they have web/phone support. A Genius would go "Ah...see...you loaded these unsupported apps...let me remove them for you...see...all better."
Then its up to the mobile software dev to handle the irate call.
Not saying the strategy is perfect but it does offer some insulation for Apple since 3rd party apps are unsupported and likely they will make it very clear to any customer that calls. If it becomes a big problem then Apple can ask the vendors to put a large disclaimer on their site or risk getting shut out entirely as Apple defensively applies Trusted Computing.
A lot of these apps will break as they implement security anyway. Do you REALLY want any 3rd party app to have control over the camera?
I hope you're right, but, human nature being what it is...
But, as many were disappointed that the phone doesn't do video, if some app managed to make it work, then sure, people would be happy if it took over the camera.
...as long as you KNEW what it was doing, of course.
It's still new. Third party apps could cause problems of their own that Apple can't control.
Not yet. But, this is a phone. Is there a firewall? I don't know. Is there a router with NAT? No. If Apple sells tens of millions of these, they will become a target.
I saw it in an interview lately, but I don't remember it. It's out there though.
No kidding. Count me in the No Flash court. The main thing that makes Flash remotely "useful" these days is playing video, and H.264 is coming to YouTube and probably other sites.
At the very very least, if/when Flash is on the iPhone it needs to be disable-able by the user. Or something like FlashBlock needs to be available. I'd be happiest if it just wasn't there at all. It's not that the technology is so evil, but much of its usage is. I can't even read a simple news page with all the scrolling ads and blinking crap that comes with Flash these days....
Just for fun, everyone try turning off Flash for a couple hours as you cruise the net. It's a much more calming and pleasant experience. You can actually see what you want to see without advertisers giving you a headache! :-)
No kidding. Count me in the No Flash court. The main thing that makes Flash remotely "useful" these days is playing video, and H.264 is coming to YouTube and probably other sites.
At the very very least, if/when Flash is on the iPhone it needs to be disable-able by the user. Or something like FlashBlock needs to be available. I'd be happiest if it just wasn't there at all. It's not that the technology is so evil, but much of its usage is. I can't even read a simple news page with all the scrolling ads and blinking crap that comes with Flash these days....
Just for fun, everyone try turning off Flash for a couple hours as you cruise the net. It's a much more calming and pleasant experience. You can actually see what you want to see without advertisers giving you a headache! :-)
I haven't checked to see if this is using flash or not, but check out that Toshiba ad on the right. Give it e few seconds to get going.
If another ad appears, try theInquiresite directly, and click on something.
And he's right. I've been trying to tell people who think that "porting" programs over from the Mac will be so easy because OS X is on the phone. It's not.
Two reasons. The first is because of the interface problem, which Jobs brought up months ago. This is not a quick and dirty change.
Two is because the phone is far less powerful than even the least powerful computer Apple has made in the last ten years or so.
Only the simplest programs will make it over without almost totally rewritten code.
So what is on the horizon by way of future CPU's in the iPhone? Memory cant be a problem, there must be plenty already to do what the iPhone does. Are there any constraints (like Bill Aitkinson with Quickdraw on a 1984 128K Mac).
Comments
I think the best way for Apple to handle this is have a strict set of guidelines and have a dedicated team that will test the apps, and then approve them and then have them on board iTunes.
I have this feeling if Apple opened up the device with out such a practice, everyone and their mother would write apps and the iPhone and iPod Touch would not only become unstable but would also muddy up the device.
Agreed. That would solve stability issues without stifling creativity. They could use a "Made for iPhone" logo scheme to identify compliant software. As long as they did nothing to prevent uncertified apps from going public, that would probably keep everyone happy.
What's his Apple email address? His Pixar one was sj@pixar.com.
It's not hard to guess (initial + surname) but he doesn't really read them. His personal assistant culls the inbox and presents the most relevant to him. He is a pretty busy guy after all, and can you imagine the volume of fanboy drivel he must get.
Phil Schiller may be a better bet. Fanboys can't spell.
Actually, no they haven't. 3rd party apps built with an unofficial SDK is caveat emptor. Apple is not responsible for instability if you put something on your phone that isn't blessed by Apple.
Try to tell a customer that when (s)he calls and says that the phone is crashing.
9quote]
More importantly, when someone developes a VOIP package Apple can shrug at AT&T.[/quote]
I have no problem with that. But will business be interested if Apple says that it might not work next week?
As to why it would allow it...it doesn't hurt Apple to have new widgets on the iPhone.
Yes. No argument there.
If Apple releases an official SDK then that's the one most folks will migrate to because it will offer full development support. They can't actually lose control of their own platform because they can simply modify OSX to break other SDKs by requiring a digitital signature to run. After that any hacking by 3rd party SDKs runs afoul DMCA. At least in the US.
That's what I've been saying. Apple can choose, either through intention, or through other needs of their own, to prevent anything developed through the third party SDK's or installers from working.
Personally, I don't think they have the security features they want done yet for either OSX or the SDK. This is probably an area that Symbian is a bit ahead of OSX.
As I said, this is all too new as yet. Apple is still working out the early problems.
come on, even if we cant have an sdk at least give us flash.
Half the guys here want Flash, and half don't.
Hmmm!
I would believe that less than 1% of iPhone users are using any of these hacks. The far majority of users will go with whatever Apple officially supports.
I'm sure I'm technically inclined enough to use the hacks but I don't want to bother with it.
If they start selling them on sites like this, them quite a few will be using them. They are getting easier to use.
http://www.pocketpccity.com/
As I said, this is all too new as yet. Apple is still working out the early problems.
Of all the things I've read back and forth about whether Apple will give us an SDK, the best was from John Siracusa on Ars Technica. The article can be found here:
The Frontier
Among other excellent points, he reminds us that even though this is OS X, Apple is basically in the process of inventing an entirely new interface paradigm. They're still trying to decide a lot in the details about what they think constitute the new rules for interface design.
There are no windows, no close/minimize/zoom widgets, no checkboxes, no radio buttons, no scroll bars, no nothing.
There are analogs to the things we're familiar with (finger-flick for scrolling),,,
But what does an application behave like in this new world? What makes a pleasant, easy to use iPhone application? Where are the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines? No, seriously. Yeah, sure, we're all such old pros that we can just ignore the Mac HIG and riff, right? After over 20 years of the Mac-like GUI, maybe that's true. But you have to know the rules before you can know when to break them. We're all in the dark on the iPhone.
And that includes Apple. Not only does Apple have to figure out what makes a good iPhone application, it has to actually create the APIs to produce such a thing.
Very well put, I think. The entire article is worth a read. Give Apple time. You'll get the SDK, I suspect. But right now, there simply isn't such a thing. Let it cook, and don't push them to take it out of the oven before it's ready.
Of all the things I've read back and forth about whether Apple will give us an SDK, the best was from John Siracusa on Ars Technica. The article can be found here:
The Frontier
Among other excellent points, he reminds us that even though this is OS X, Apple is basically in the process of inventing an entirely new interface paradigm. They're still trying to decide a lot in the details about what they think constitute the new rules for interface design.
And he's right. I've been trying to tell people who think that "porting" programs over from the Mac will be so easy because OS X is on the phone. It's not.
Two reasons. The first is because of the interface problem, which Jobs brought up months ago. This is not a quick and dirty change.
Two is because the phone is far less powerful than even the least powerful computer Apple has made in the last ten years or so.
Only the simplest programs will make it over without almost totally rewritten code.
Try to tell a customer that when (s)he calls and says that the phone is crashing.
Essentially that's what they said today. 3rd party apps are unsupported. Likely support would first ask if there are any 3rd party apps. If so, they'll ask the owner to backup data, wipe, restore to a clean phone and resync without any 3rd party apps installed.
Heck, that's probably their first answer anyway. Wipe, resynch.
Essentially that's what they said today. 3rd party apps are unsupported. Likely support would first ask if there are any 3rd party apps. If so, they'll ask the owner to backup data, wipe, restore to a clean phone and resync without any 3rd party apps installed.
Heck, that's probably their first answer anyway. Wipe, resynch.
It could well be. But customers are a funny lot. If they buy this software at a web site that sells mobile software, which could very well start happening, they won't understand that the software isn't officially supported.
For us, it wouldn't be a problem. we would just curse once, wipe it clean and restart.
Among other excellent points, he reminds us that even though this is OS X, Apple is basically in the process of inventing an entirely new interface paradigm. They're still trying to decide a lot in the details about what they think constitute the new rules for interface design.
Meh...I think he overstates the case a little bit. From an app perspective the UI is (often) abstracted. It sees a scroll event...and it doesn't matter that the scroll is a finger flick or a scroll wheel or a mouse on a scroll bar if properly abstracted. Likewise open, close, etc events.
The paradigm is much like kiosk, (some) web and game UI development where you do not have the full traditional WIMP interface and alternative input devices vs a keyboard and mouse.
Radio buttons you can still have. Just have to be big and the number of items restricted to what you can display on one page.
Pull downs aren't useful but replaced by the list interface common to iPods.
If you want a radical change in UI paradigm try designing a Zoomable User Interface. Raskin loved that concept and with the gesture interface it might actually...not suck too bad. See his Humane Interface book...
The current Phone UI is still fairly traditional with icons and windows...even if the windows occupy the entire screen...with gestures added. That's actually a good thing. Baby steps.
The lack of stylus doesn't hurt the iPhone but for larger touch devices you'll want the capability for a stylus.
But in general, what he says was that Apple wasn't ready to release a SDK and that's kinda obvious. Building an API and supporting SDK/IDE/test env is a lot of work.
It could well be. But customers are a funny lot. If they buy this software at a web site that sells mobile software, which could very well start happening, they won't understand that the software isn't officially supported.
For us, it wouldn't be a problem. we would just curse once, wipe it clean and restart.
I guess it depends on if they bring in to an Apple or ATT store or if they have web/phone support. A Genius would go "Ah...see...you loaded these unsupported apps...let me remove them for you...see...all better."
Then its up to the mobile software dev to handle the irate call.
Not saying the strategy is perfect but it does offer some insulation for Apple since 3rd party apps are unsupported and likely they will make it very clear to any customer that calls. If it becomes a big problem then Apple can ask the vendors to put a large disclaimer on their site or risk getting shut out entirely as Apple defensively applies Trusted Computing.
A lot of these apps will break as they implement security anyway. Do you REALLY want any 3rd party app to have control over the camera?
I guess it depends on if they bring in to an Apple or ATT store or if they have web/phone support. A Genius would go "Ah...see...you loaded these unsupported apps...let me remove them for you...see...all better."
Then its up to the mobile software dev to handle the irate call.
Not saying the strategy is perfect but it does offer some insulation for Apple since 3rd party apps are unsupported and likely they will make it very clear to any customer that calls. If it becomes a big problem then Apple can ask the vendors to put a large disclaimer on their site or risk getting shut out entirely as Apple defensively applies Trusted Computing.
A lot of these apps will break as they implement security anyway. Do you REALLY want any 3rd party app to have control over the camera?
I hope you're right, but, human nature being what it is...
But, as many were disappointed that the phone doesn't do video, if some app managed to make it work, then sure, people would be happy if it took over the camera.
...as long as you KNEW what it was doing, of course.
It's still new. Third party apps could cause problems of their own that Apple can't control.
Not yet. But, this is a phone. Is there a firewall? I don't know. Is there a router with NAT? No. If Apple sells tens of millions of these, they will become a target.
I saw it in an interview lately, but I don't remember it. It's out there though.
Its sjobs@mac.com
Well, its what my research says.
Good Luck
Macintosh computers run Mac OS X
OS X might best be described as the core OS without all of the fancy Mac UI & features
Half the guys here want Flash, and half don't.
Hmmm!
No kidding. Count me in the No Flash court. The main thing that makes Flash remotely "useful" these days is playing video, and H.264 is coming to YouTube and probably other sites.
At the very very least, if/when Flash is on the iPhone it needs to be disable-able by the user. Or something like FlashBlock needs to be available. I'd be happiest if it just wasn't there at all. It's not that the technology is so evil, but much of its usage is. I can't even read a simple news page with all the scrolling ads and blinking crap that comes with Flash these days....
Just for fun, everyone try turning off Flash for a couple hours as you cruise the net. It's a much more calming and pleasant experience. You can actually see what you want to see without advertisers giving you a headache! :-)
I've got short mixes (I DJ) I've wanted as my HQ voicemail message for years...
...Edit your own aiff/wav in desktop/laptop, convert, drag and drop as ringtone.
That program Jobs displayed was extra-lame.
Custom 3rd party voicemail/ringtone drag & drop app ftw.
No kidding. Count me in the No Flash court. The main thing that makes Flash remotely "useful" these days is playing video, and H.264 is coming to YouTube and probably other sites.
At the very very least, if/when Flash is on the iPhone it needs to be disable-able by the user. Or something like FlashBlock needs to be available. I'd be happiest if it just wasn't there at all. It's not that the technology is so evil, but much of its usage is. I can't even read a simple news page with all the scrolling ads and blinking crap that comes with Flash these days....
Just for fun, everyone try turning off Flash for a couple hours as you cruise the net. It's a much more calming and pleasant experience. You can actually see what you want to see without advertisers giving you a headache! :-)
I haven't checked to see if this is using flash or not, but check out that Toshiba ad on the right. Give it e few seconds to get going.
If another ad appears, try theInquiresite directly, and click on something.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42269
Ahh, when I tried my direct link, the ad doesn't show.
try the home page first.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?rfp=dta
And he's right. I've been trying to tell people who think that "porting" programs over from the Mac will be so easy because OS X is on the phone. It's not.
Two reasons. The first is because of the interface problem, which Jobs brought up months ago. This is not a quick and dirty change.
Two is because the phone is far less powerful than even the least powerful computer Apple has made in the last ten years or so.
Only the simplest programs will make it over without almost totally rewritten code.
So what is on the horizon by way of future CPU's in the iPhone? Memory cant be a problem, there must be plenty already to do what the iPhone does. Are there any constraints (like Bill Aitkinson with Quickdraw on a 1984 128K Mac).
Pete