Per the article, from what I've seen on their site, Nokia allows self-signing. I think it takes an extra step to have it operate on the device though, but that makes some sense.
More strictly it's Symbian that manages the application signing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eAi
Lets just hope Apple doesn't try to rip off developers charging them for certification, as that will immediately prevent any freeware apps.
That was the problem Symbian ran up against when it released OS 9.0 a few years back. In the 7.0 days 3rd party devs could just bung any app on their phones without signing. Symbian OS 9.0 introduced application signing so that apps couldn't run without a cert from Symbian. When Symbian first released 9.0, it was prohibitively expensive to open source developers but they quickly amended that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
BTW, anyone thinking that such an environment could have been provided within the first few months of release are delusional, so spare us the 'whoo hoo... we forced Apple's hand' victory chants.
It's not that it 'could' have been provided, more that it 'should' have been provided. Or are you one of the delusional sort that thinks web apps are ok?
Face it, the iPhone would be released 9 months late if they had to do an SDK too and then the hardware would look even more at odds with Nokia, SE and even Moto's phones than it does today. No SDK and releasing Leopard late was the monumental compromise Apple had to make to release a 2G phone in 2007.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
An interesting thing to note is that the iPhone is a very visible, large target for malware writers. Since iPhone runs OS X, Apple have a lot to lose in viruses appearing for the iPhone, as said viruses could (depending on how they work) spread to Apple's computers, and that would be
No, that is impossible. Firstly it's an entirely different architecture and secondly all iPhone apps are signed and will not run without a checksum that matches. OSX on the Mac doesn't run like that. In Leopard they've also now introduced an application sandbox in which some applications run, protecting the OS from the application. Perhaps someone who understands that more than I do would like to comment. Go on - NDAs can surely be broken now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
Everyone who's been calling for a little rationality on this subject has said all along that the reason that an SDK was not released out of the box was precisely for this reason. You don't release a brand new platform built on a powerful operating system and immediately open it up to uncontrolled, anonymous development.
That's quite frankly a load of bollocks. Mac OSX is more powerful than iPhone OSX and less secure and allows completely anonymous development.
The reason they haven't released an SDK yet is simply because users are still beta testing the iPhone and they've not nailed down the API yet. When they do, then you'll get an SDK.
I'd be all over an iPod Touch for VoIP on WiFi if it meant I wouldn't have to pay AT&T's ripoff prices for voice and data plans or ever have to deal with them again.
The only thing I can think of is abandoning secure coding practice in order to get a less secure product out the door sooner, and then trying to mop it up afterwards. I think most people with good coding experience would suggest that's really the worst way to do it, it's short term gain for long term pain.
Only if you build - or let others build - on the code base you'll want to replace. Otherwise it's just a reload/reboot away.
The API's are the critical part of the iPhone software design. You have to make them solid before you can release a SDK to the public. You can't even talk about releasing a SDK before then, or developers will have conniptions.
P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for iPod touch. [Oct 17, 2007]
P.P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for a future PDA/eBook type product, even though we have no intention of announcing such a product at MacWorld SF in January. And since we have a policy of not talking about future products, I can't tell you about its larger screen, stylus support, handwriting recognition or video conferencing capabilities. -Steve
I'd be all over an iPod Touch for VoIP on WiFi if it meant I wouldn't have to pay AT&T's ripoff prices for voice and data plans or ever have to deal with them again.
I'm sure it'll happen, sadly.
Personally I'd rather have my teeth pulled by a Lancastrian into DIY dentistry.
On the other hand, a Gizmo Project or decent SIP client I can use would be extremely useful. Or Apple could just get off the pot and add SIP to iChat properly.
P.P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for a future PDA/eBook type product, even though we have no intention of announcing such a product at MacWorld SF in January. And since we have a policy of not talking about future products, I can't tell you about its larger screen, stylus support, handwriting recognition or video conferencing capabilities. -Steve
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Based on Intel Silverthorne. The wireless computer on your hand. Full Keynote and PowerPoint NATIVE file support for the ultimate presentaton remote. Great!
zomfg! february! why make us wait so long!?!? early adopters should get a certificate to allow us to pick up an SDK two months earlier since we paid so much more. WAHHH and edge is slow, WAHHH and there's no gps. sheesh the camera sux, no video? WAHHH wtf no "massage my balls" feature for when it's in my pocket? i can't believe this thing is so HEAVY. discontinued the 4GIG! wtf?!? i have to use ATT??? visual voicemail doesn't work on other networks? lame [they should set up their networx to accommodate hackers] i can't run halo3 on this thing? lamez. it doesn't fold up to the size of a paperclip in my pocket and then unfold into a laptop size when i take it out? it doesn't have some future technology that's been theorized in yesterday's science journals? soooo antiquated! i can't wait until apple releases iPhone 2.0 so i can bitch about all the great things they didn't include in ver 1.
[SDK is great. so is Apple. if you want something to bitch about, buy stock in MS - that's as good of an investment as stuffing your mattress w/ cash]
I'd be all over an iPod Touch for VoIP on WiFi if it meant I wouldn't have to pay AT&T's ripoff prices for voice and data plans or ever have to deal with them again.
I don't know.. is there microphone input circuitry on an iPod touch?
MSymbian OS 9.0 introduced application signing so that apps couldn't run without a cert from Symbian. When Symbian first released 9.0, it was prohibitively expensive to open source developers but they quickly amended that.
Symbian certified/signed now costs as little as 250 Euro if you are in an operator developer program at premium level (which for some operators is free). That I think is reasonable. OK rules out freeware but you should be able to recoup 250 Euro with donation or beer-ware
Sadly, any attempts by Apple to provide a stable and secure dev environment will be greeted as not enough by the 'we want it all NOW crowd'. Face it... hacking is WAY more fun.
BTW, anyone thinking that such an environment could have been provided within the first few months of release are delusional, so spare us the 'whoo hoo... we forced Apple's hand' victory chants.
But overall... YEA!
Apps for my Touch I'll be able to trust!
You, my friend, are right on the money with your comment. If anybody thinks Jobs is doing this to placate the whining crybabies they need to wake up from their wild fantasy world. This was planned from the very beginning and waiting for the Leopard to be turned loose.
You're also spot on about the 'we want it all NOW crowd'. Nothing will satisfy them. They'll simply find something else to whine about, or file lawsuits over.
The 3rd party app that will surprise people when it arrives (not because it's gonna be good, but the mere fact that no one had thought of it much) Firefox. Safari user myself though.
You mean how all those malware authors have infested Mac OS X? What's so special about the phone version that's supposedly so easily threatened? The only thing I can think of is abandoning secure coding practice in order to get a less secure product out the door sooner, and then trying to mop it up afterwards. I think most people with good coding experience would suggest that's really the worst way to do it, it's short term gain for long term pain.
Hey, I brag on Apple's security as much as anyone. (Work on Windows... I know the difference.)
Just don't want Apple to err on the side of complacency.
I've been saying they were going to do this for months also, I knew they were holding off because they needed Mac OS X 10.5 to be released first. From day 1 I knew the iPhone was designed for use with Mac OS X 10.5 since it is likely running a version of that on board. But since 10.5 was delayed, they wanted to get this out there, so had to release it hampered by the fact that all the options weren't opened. 10.5 allows syncing of to-do lists and notes with the iPhone as well
I said when the iPhone came out that I was going to wait til spring, that is still my plan.
Apple could not announce anything earlier because the reason they didn't was due to the Leopard Delay, and they just didn't want to make that look bad.
Awesome. Now, the real revolution countdown has just started. A million thanks to Apple and Steve. This is a great early Christmas gift for all of us!
Right on.
Aside from the rumored comment Jobs made last week re: iCal functionality on the Touch - I am not a programmer, so can someone answer me this?
Is it possible for a 3rd-party developer to create a Touch/iPhone application that will allow better iCal event creation/editing than iPhone's current application, while still syncing seamlessly with iCal on the base computer?
If so, I've already said I will buy an iPod Touch immediately. I will also jump for joy if they upgrade its storage. And give it a video camera!
Sadly, any attempts by Apple to provide a stable and secure dev environment will be greeted as not enough by the 'we want it all NOW crowd'. Face it... hacking is WAY more fun.
BTW, anyone thinking that such an environment could have been provided within the first few months of release are delusional, so spare us the 'whoo hoo... we forced Apple's hand' victory chants.
But overall... YEA!
Apps for my Touch I'll be able to trust!
In a previous open letter, Steve wrote:
"It is generally not Apple’s policy to trumpet our plans for the future; we tend to talk about the things we have just accomplished. Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple’s desires and plans to become greener. Our stakeholders deserve and expect more from us, and they’re right to do so. They want us to be a leader in this area, just as we are in the other areas of our business. So today we’re changing our policy... Today is the first time we have openly discussed our plans to become a greener Apple. It will not be the last. ... We apologize for leaving you in the dark for this long. "
What got people upset was not the delay in providing an SDK, but Apple's refusal to mention one at all. Steve Jobs said "we're working on a solution" and a few weeks later he says "We have a REALLY SWEET solution-- web apps!". Up until now, it appeared that Apple would never provide an SDK for native applications.
Your last statement shows your hypocrisy. First you blast those "whiners" for demanding more than just web apps, and now you go "YEA! Apps for my Touch". At least those "whiners" stayed true with their demands, unlike the blind Apple defenders who change their story whenever Apple changes its story. So those "whiners" have every right to celebrate Steve's announcement. They certainly did more to get a response from Apple than the blind defenders.
"I try to be a good Christian. I follow all the teachings of the Bible. I even follow the teachings that contradict the other teachings." --Ned Flanders.
zomfg! february! why make us wait so long!?!? early adopters should get a certificate to allow us to pick up an SDK two months earlier since we paid so much more. WAHHH and
That's possibly the quintessential strawman fallacy combined with an ad hominem attack, because you are making people out to be who they aren't and attacking them and mocking them for the fictional position that you invented but say they have. Bravo on exposing yourself.
Comments
Per the article, from what I've seen on their site, Nokia allows self-signing. I think it takes an extra step to have it operate on the device though, but that makes some sense.
More strictly it's Symbian that manages the application signing.
Lets just hope Apple doesn't try to rip off developers charging them for certification, as that will immediately prevent any freeware apps.
That was the problem Symbian ran up against when it released OS 9.0 a few years back. In the 7.0 days 3rd party devs could just bung any app on their phones without signing. Symbian OS 9.0 introduced application signing so that apps couldn't run without a cert from Symbian. When Symbian first released 9.0, it was prohibitively expensive to open source developers but they quickly amended that.
BTW, anyone thinking that such an environment could have been provided within the first few months of release are delusional, so spare us the 'whoo hoo... we forced Apple's hand' victory chants.
It's not that it 'could' have been provided, more that it 'should' have been provided. Or are you one of the delusional sort that thinks web apps are ok?
Face it, the iPhone would be released 9 months late if they had to do an SDK too and then the hardware would look even more at odds with Nokia, SE and even Moto's phones than it does today. No SDK and releasing Leopard late was the monumental compromise Apple had to make to release a 2G phone in 2007.
An interesting thing to note is that the iPhone is a very visible, large target for malware writers. Since iPhone runs OS X, Apple have a lot to lose in viruses appearing for the iPhone, as said viruses could (depending on how they work) spread to Apple's computers, and that would be
No, that is impossible. Firstly it's an entirely different architecture and secondly all iPhone apps are signed and will not run without a checksum that matches. OSX on the Mac doesn't run like that. In Leopard they've also now introduced an application sandbox in which some applications run, protecting the OS from the application. Perhaps someone who understands that more than I do would like to comment. Go on - NDAs can surely be broken now?
Everyone who's been calling for a little rationality on this subject has said all along that the reason that an SDK was not released out of the box was precisely for this reason. You don't release a brand new platform built on a powerful operating system and immediately open it up to uncontrolled, anonymous development.
That's quite frankly a load of bollocks. Mac OSX is more powerful than iPhone OSX and less secure and allows completely anonymous development.
The reason they haven't released an SDK yet is simply because users are still beta testing the iPhone and they've not nailed down the API yet. When they do, then you'll get an SDK.
I'd be all over an iPod Touch for VoIP on WiFi if it meant I wouldn't have to pay AT&T's ripoff prices for voice and data plans or ever have to deal with them again.
The only thing I can think of is abandoning secure coding practice in order to get a less secure product out the door sooner, and then trying to mop it up afterwards. I think most people with good coding experience would suggest that's really the worst way to do it, it's short term gain for long term pain.
Only if you build - or let others build - on the code base you'll want to replace. Otherwise it's just a reload/reboot away.
The API's are the critical part of the iPhone software design. You have to make them solid before you can release a SDK to the public. You can't even talk about releasing a SDK before then, or developers will have conniptions.
P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for iPod touch. [Oct 17, 2007]
P.P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for a future PDA/eBook type product, even though we have no intention of announcing such a product at MacWorld SF in January. And since we have a policy of not talking about future products, I can't tell you about its larger screen, stylus support, handwriting recognition or video conferencing capabilities. -Steve
Skype, Skype, Skype, Skype, Skype!
I'd be all over an iPod Touch for VoIP on WiFi if it meant I wouldn't have to pay AT&T's ripoff prices for voice and data plans or ever have to deal with them again.
I'm sure it'll happen, sadly.
Personally I'd rather have my teeth pulled by a Lancastrian into DIY dentistry.
On the other hand, a Gizmo Project or decent SIP client I can use would be extremely useful. Or Apple could just get off the pot and add SIP to iChat properly.
P.P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for a future PDA/eBook type product, even though we have no intention of announcing such a product at MacWorld SF in January. And since we have a policy of not talking about future products, I can't tell you about its larger screen, stylus support, handwriting recognition or video conferencing capabilities. -Steve
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Based on Intel Silverthorne. The wireless computer on your hand. Full Keynote and PowerPoint NATIVE file support for the ultimate presentaton remote. Great!
zomfg! february! why make us wait so long!?!? early adopters should get a certificate to allow us to pick up an SDK two months earlier since we paid so much more. WAHHH and edge is slow, WAHHH and there's no gps. sheesh the camera sux, no video? WAHHH wtf no "massage my balls" feature for when it's in my pocket? i can't believe this thing is so HEAVY. discontinued the 4GIG! wtf?!? i have to use ATT??? visual voicemail doesn't work on other networks? lame [they should set up their networx to accommodate hackers] i can't run halo3 on this thing? lamez. it doesn't fold up to the size of a paperclip in my pocket and then unfold into a laptop size when i take it out? it doesn't have some future technology that's been theorized in yesterday's science journals? soooo antiquated! i can't wait until apple releases iPhone 2.0 so i can bitch about all the great things they didn't include in ver 1.
[SDK is great. so is Apple. if you want something to bitch about, buy stock in MS - that's as good of an investment as stuffing your mattress w/ cash]
Skype, Skype, Skype, Skype, Skype!
I'd be all over an iPod Touch for VoIP on WiFi if it meant I wouldn't have to pay AT&T's ripoff prices for voice and data plans or ever have to deal with them again.
I don't know.. is there microphone input circuitry on an iPod touch?
MSymbian OS 9.0 introduced application signing so that apps couldn't run without a cert from Symbian. When Symbian first released 9.0, it was prohibitively expensive to open source developers but they quickly amended that.
Symbian certified/signed now costs as little as 250 Euro if you are in an operator developer program at premium level (which for some operators is free). That I think is reasonable. OK rules out freeware but you should be able to recoup 250 Euro with donation or beer-ware
Sadly, any attempts by Apple to provide a stable and secure dev environment will be greeted as not enough by the 'we want it all NOW crowd'. Face it... hacking is WAY more fun.
BTW, anyone thinking that such an environment could have been provided within the first few months of release are delusional, so spare us the 'whoo hoo... we forced Apple's hand' victory chants.
But overall... YEA!
Apps for my Touch I'll be able to trust!
You, my friend, are right on the money with your comment. If anybody thinks Jobs is doing this to placate the whining crybabies they need to wake up from their wild fantasy world. This was planned from the very beginning and waiting for the Leopard to be turned loose.
You're also spot on about the 'we want it all NOW crowd'. Nothing will satisfy them. They'll simply find something else to whine about, or file lawsuits over.
The part that sucks about it is that all that shit we were using for free will probably cost us an arm and leg now.
I hear that giant sucking sound..... oops, it must be your arm and your leg...
Reasons why SDK wasn't announced before:
- Need to shake out the bugs.
- iPod Touch is mentioned and Apple did not want to "show their hand".
- Some features are dependent on Leopard (Xcode 3.0/Obj-C 2.0) so it couldn't be released until Leopard was released.
- Steve wanted to surprise us at MWSF.
Reasons why SDK was announced now:Yes, that does deserve an internet slap. *SLAP*
You mean how all those malware authors have infested Mac OS X? What's so special about the phone version that's supposedly so easily threatened? The only thing I can think of is abandoning secure coding practice in order to get a less secure product out the door sooner, and then trying to mop it up afterwards. I think most people with good coding experience would suggest that's really the worst way to do it, it's short term gain for long term pain.
Hey, I brag on Apple's security as much as anyone. (Work on Windows... I know the difference.)
Just don't want Apple to err on the side of complacency.
I said when the iPhone came out that I was going to wait til spring, that is still my plan.
Apple could not announce anything earlier because the reason they didn't was due to the Leopard Delay, and they just didn't want to make that look bad.
Awesome. Now, the real revolution countdown has just started. A million thanks to Apple and Steve. This is a great early Christmas gift for all of us!
Right on.
Aside from the rumored comment Jobs made last week re: iCal functionality on the Touch - I am not a programmer, so can someone answer me this?
Is it possible for a 3rd-party developer to create a Touch/iPhone application that will allow better iCal event creation/editing than iPhone's current application, while still syncing seamlessly with iCal on the base computer?
If so, I've already said I will buy an iPod Touch immediately. I will also jump for joy if they upgrade its storage. And give it a video camera!
Thanks, Steve -
Sadly, any attempts by Apple to provide a stable and secure dev environment will be greeted as not enough by the 'we want it all NOW crowd'. Face it... hacking is WAY more fun.
BTW, anyone thinking that such an environment could have been provided within the first few months of release are delusional, so spare us the 'whoo hoo... we forced Apple's hand' victory chants.
But overall... YEA!
Apps for my Touch I'll be able to trust!
In a previous open letter, Steve wrote:
"It is generally not Apple’s policy to trumpet our plans for the future; we tend to talk about the things we have just accomplished. Unfortunately this policy has left our customers, shareholders, employees and the industry in the dark about Apple’s desires and plans to become greener. Our stakeholders deserve and expect more from us, and they’re right to do so. They want us to be a leader in this area, just as we are in the other areas of our business. So today we’re changing our policy... Today is the first time we have openly discussed our plans to become a greener Apple. It will not be the last. ... We apologize for leaving you in the dark for this long. "
What got people upset was not the delay in providing an SDK, but Apple's refusal to mention one at all. Steve Jobs said "we're working on a solution" and a few weeks later he says "We have a REALLY SWEET solution-- web apps!". Up until now, it appeared that Apple would never provide an SDK for native applications.
Your last statement shows your hypocrisy. First you blast those "whiners" for demanding more than just web apps, and now you go "YEA! Apps for my Touch". At least those "whiners" stayed true with their demands, unlike the blind Apple defenders who change their story whenever Apple changes its story. So those "whiners" have every right to celebrate Steve's announcement. They certainly did more to get a response from Apple than the blind defenders.
"I try to be a good Christian. I follow all the teachings of the Bible. I even follow the teachings that contradict the other teachings." --Ned Flanders.
WAHH WAHH WAHHHHH
zomfg! february! why make us wait so long!?!? early adopters should get a certificate to allow us to pick up an SDK two months earlier since we paid so much more. WAHHH and
That's possibly the quintessential strawman fallacy combined with an ad hominem attack, because you are making people out to be who they aren't and attacking them and mocking them for the fictional position that you invented but say they have. Bravo on exposing yourself.