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.
I think you have that backwards. Apple delayed Leopard to put developers onto the iPhone, or so the official line goes. I don't think they were telling lies.
iPhone OSX 1.0 wasn't Leopard though. IIRC the kernel was Tiger based.
1.1 added many of the security features that are in Leopard including the signed apps and sandbox. The iPhone hackers found it easy to break into 1.0 phones because most of the apps ran unsigned as the root user. Is iPhone OSX 1.1 Leopard? Probably close enough.
What's interesting is that Apple are adding features from iPhone OSX into Mac OSX. I don't remember them announcing signed apps before.
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".
Well, hypocrisy is a bit strong...
I've just had too much experience with trojan malware, and want apps to be certified.
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.
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, so they have every right to celebrate Steve's announcement. They certainly did more to get a response from Apple than blind defenders who change their story whenever Apple changes its story.
I don't think that word means what you think it does. Were he to have blasted them for whining then whined himself, then you'd have been correct...however...
That said, celebrate whiners whining all you want. I'm sure they'll continue giving you reason for celebration.
Yes, definitely. If he'd only have said this at the beginning there would have been very little bitching.
It was the "write a web app if you want to develop" line that everyone was up in arms about. I could easily have handled "We'll have an SDK next year; they're hard to write and will take time".
Amorya
Didn't Steve say something all along, to the effect, that they are not against an SDK for iPhone and 3rd Party Apps but would only release an SDK until Apple's concerns were quelled. I'd have to review the public announcements Steve made prior to the June 29th iPhone launch but I thought he did. In the meantime he suggested, developer's use web apps?
The only real problem Steve and Apple had was their inherent corporate "Silent Treatment" as to future plans and because of that, the iPhone's introduction was marred by developed hacks, jailbreaks, unapproved 3rd party apps, firmware that bricked 3rd party apps, and not to mention about a dozen lawsuits, that was just getting all out of hand!
See Steve, a little communication can go a long way!
If this turns out, then my last objection to the platform may well be moot, but we'll have to see how it's set up. I think it would have been nice to have this known up front rather than be speculation for months.
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.
I believe this decision was made by the vocal opinions of the iPhone users. If everyone just rolled-over and accepted the Web 2.0 apps then Apple wouldn't have made this announcement. So give thanks to those who stood up and complained.
I believe this decision was made by the vocal opinions of the iPhone users. If everyone just rolled-over and accepted the Web 2.0 apps then Apple wouldn't have made this announcement. So give thanks to those who stood up and complained.
I think it's possible either way. Apple has a tendency to not announce things until it's ready to go, and I think that's kind of a problem in gaging this. Announcing this can deflate the Nokia campaign, which interestingly, the letter mentioned Nokia by name, so there may be a connection.
Personally, I don't think it's likely that security was the primary reason for any delay in the SDK release, but rather, more because the API wasn't finalized or locked in yet, they wanted to get a working device out and making them money first. I think 1.1.1 did involve a change in a good part the API.
I understand that it takes a while to nail down, document, get support in place for a platform SDK, but if it were planned from the start, it should have been announced at the start IMO.
Regardless, this has renewed some of my faith in the iPhone. The 1.1.1 update was a clear shot at the hacking community (and contradicted what Steve said in early interviews) and I was pretty much ready to jump ship for OpenMoko after that. This keeps the iPhone interesting for me.
This news hasn't hurt the stock... it's at it's highest ever.
I would expect this to help the stock a great deal, esp after the analysts all have their say. This will silence the biggest critics of the phone who have beeen harping on this one aspect. It should increase phone sales in areas where, now it isn't selling well, such as big business, where Apple MUST become more involved.
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
Of all the comments I've read so far this one says it all. Good work!!!!!!
I believe this decision was made by the vocal opinions of the iPhone users. If everyone just rolled-over and accepted the Web 2.0 apps then Apple wouldn't have made this announcement. So give thanks to those who stood up and complained.
I don't believe you are correct. As far as I can tell, the iPhone users were satisfied (for the most part) with Apple's product and offerings. It was iPhone user wannabe's that seemed most vocal. There was a ton of "I'm not even going to consider getting one 'till..." type of complaints.
And, my personal opinion is that they're still gunna just bitch, bitch, bitch. I think it's iPhone envy.
I think you have that backwards. Apple delayed Leopard to put developers onto the iPhone, or so the official line goes. I don't think they were telling lies.
iPhone OSX 1.0 wasn't Leopard though. IIRC the kernel was Tiger based.
1.1 added many of the security features that are in Leopard including the signed apps and sandbox. The iPhone hackers found it easy to break into 1.0 phones because most of the apps ran unsigned as the root user. Is iPhone OSX 1.1 Leopard? Probably close enough.
What's interesting is that Apple are adding features from iPhone OSX into Mac OSX. I don't remember them announcing signed apps before.
What developers? Apple is still the only developer for the iPhone, Apple would have separate teams working on Leopard and the iPhone anyway. They delayed leopard because it still had a lot to smooth out, but I believe it was originally intended to have Leopard out before the iphone came out, it only makes logical sense, same goes for the new iMac.
It's great news, but it's interesting to speculate what prompted this sudden announcement. Leopard shipping, pressure from the media and developers or had they just planned it along? I think a little of both. Clearly the same programmers are working on Mac OS X and iPhone OS X which is why they shift them back and forth when needed. I guess they shifted back to the iPhone. The general media buzz seems to be positive, but some are wondering how open the development process will be.
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?
The more that i read on the net about sync'ing problems with the iPhone the more I believe that there are real bugs in the software that Apple is trying to avoid. Since they couldn't get them fixed in time for the Touch they likely just disabled the feature.
Quote:
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?
Sure given the API's and access rights any sort of application can be connected. This is why there is a big demand for a SDK, not to fix Apples software but to build your dream. Or if not your dream then somebody else's in a corporate world.
Quote:
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!
I've been very tempted by the TOUCH after the jailbreaks have come out. The Media Playing aspect of the device is only a small element in its usefulness. Or I should say potential usefulness.
Waiting for a better device may still be in order, but I'd be waiting for more RAM and bluetooth connections. The camera is one item I can live without, at least considering my present employment situation. The iPhone itself is out of the question due to its camera. I'm hoping that Apple gets the message that they need a camera free alternative.
The other reality is that the Touch will have competition in alternative devices. OpenMoko and Nokia's N800 series comes to mind. Yes OpenMoko is a cell also but price wise would be very competitive with the other internet access devices.
I really need a device that is more communicative than the current offerings form Apple. I believe such hardware is on the way, by the way.
Quote:
Thanks, Steve -
I'm not sure I'd want to thank Steve. This whole issue of software development could have been eliminated with a little communications. An announcement like this certainly has the look of responding to public pressure. That is a good thing of course but delivering a product like iPhone to market, in the rather unfinished state that it arrived in and leaving every body in the dark, is just really poor handling of the product.
Comments
I don't know.. is there microphone input circuitry on an iPod touch?
Isn't necessary.
Like the idea of a camera plug-on, a voice plug-on would just need a DSP chip. After that, its just data.
I'd love either/both of them. Probably within a year.
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.
I think you have that backwards. Apple delayed Leopard to put developers onto the iPhone, or so the official line goes. I don't think they were telling lies.
iPhone OSX 1.0 wasn't Leopard though. IIRC the kernel was Tiger based.
1.1 added many of the security features that are in Leopard including the signed apps and sandbox. The iPhone hackers found it easy to break into 1.0 phones because most of the apps ran unsigned as the root user. Is iPhone OSX 1.1 Leopard? Probably close enough.
What's interesting is that Apple are adding features from iPhone OSX into Mac OSX. I don't remember them announcing signed apps before.
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".
Well, hypocrisy is a bit strong...
I've just had too much experience with trojan malware, and want apps to be certified.
(Nice Ned Flanders quote, btw.)
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.
I say we call a truce and party.
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, so they have every right to celebrate Steve's announcement. They certainly did more to get a response from Apple than blind defenders who change their story whenever Apple changes its story.
I don't think that word means what you think it does. Were he to have blasted them for whining then whined himself, then you'd have been correct...however...
That said, celebrate whiners whining all you want. I'm sure they'll continue giving you reason for celebration.
Yes, definitely. If he'd only have said this at the beginning there would have been very little bitching.
It was the "write a web app if you want to develop" line that everyone was up in arms about. I could easily have handled "We'll have an SDK next year; they're hard to write and will take time".
Amorya
Didn't Steve say something all along, to the effect, that they are not against an SDK for iPhone and 3rd Party Apps but would only release an SDK until Apple's concerns were quelled. I'd have to review the public announcements Steve made prior to the June 29th iPhone launch but I thought he did. In the meantime he suggested, developer's use web apps?
The only real problem Steve and Apple had was their inherent corporate "Silent Treatment" as to future plans and because of that, the iPhone's introduction was marred by developed hacks, jailbreaks, unapproved 3rd party apps, firmware that bricked 3rd party apps, and not to mention about a dozen lawsuits, that was just getting all out of hand!
See Steve, a little communication can go a long way!
This is great.
If this turns out, then my last objection to the platform may well be moot, but we'll have to see how it's set up. I think it would have been nice to have this known up front rather than be speculation for months.
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.
I believe this decision was made by the vocal opinions of the iPhone users. If everyone just rolled-over and accepted the Web 2.0 apps then Apple wouldn't have made this announcement. So give thanks to those who stood up and complained.
I say we call a truce and party.
With you, no problem. I had little quarrel with you, just some statements by desarc were just out of sight.
This should be one of those "Red" topics on the front page.
That's automated, if it gets a certain amount of traffic in a certain amount of time, then it will become red.
I believe this decision was made by the vocal opinions of the iPhone users. If everyone just rolled-over and accepted the Web 2.0 apps then Apple wouldn't have made this announcement. So give thanks to those who stood up and complained.
I think it's possible either way. Apple has a tendency to not announce things until it's ready to go, and I think that's kind of a problem in gaging this. Announcing this can deflate the Nokia campaign, which interestingly, the letter mentioned Nokia by name, so there may be a connection.
Personally, I don't think it's likely that security was the primary reason for any delay in the SDK release, but rather, more because the API wasn't finalized or locked in yet, they wanted to get a working device out and making them money first. I think 1.1.1 did involve a change in a good part the API.
Finally!
I understand that it takes a while to nail down, document, get support in place for a platform SDK, but if it were planned from the start, it should have been announced at the start IMO.
Regardless, this has renewed some of my faith in the iPhone. The 1.1.1 update was a clear shot at the hacking community (and contradicted what Steve said in early interviews) and I was pretty much ready to jump ship for OpenMoko after that. This keeps the iPhone interesting for me.
This news hasn't hurt the stock... it's at it's highest ever.
I would expect this to help the stock a great deal, esp after the analysts all have their say. This will silence the biggest critics of the phone who have beeen harping on this one aspect. It should increase phone sales in areas where, now it isn't selling well, such as big business, where Apple MUST become more involved.
Yes, that does deserve an internet slap. *SLAP*
You starting in with that again!
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
Of all the comments I've read so far this one says it all. Good work!!!!!!
I believe this decision was made by the vocal opinions of the iPhone users. If everyone just rolled-over and accepted the Web 2.0 apps then Apple wouldn't have made this announcement. So give thanks to those who stood up and complained.
I don't believe you are correct. As far as I can tell, the iPhone users were satisfied (for the most part) with Apple's product and offerings. It was iPhone user wannabe's that seemed most vocal. There was a ton of "I'm not even going to consider getting one 'till..." type of complaints.
And, my personal opinion is that they're still gunna just bitch, bitch, bitch. I think it's iPhone envy.
I think you have that backwards. Apple delayed Leopard to put developers onto the iPhone, or so the official line goes. I don't think they were telling lies.
iPhone OSX 1.0 wasn't Leopard though. IIRC the kernel was Tiger based.
1.1 added many of the security features that are in Leopard including the signed apps and sandbox. The iPhone hackers found it easy to break into 1.0 phones because most of the apps ran unsigned as the root user. Is iPhone OSX 1.1 Leopard? Probably close enough.
What's interesting is that Apple are adding features from iPhone OSX into Mac OSX. I don't remember them announcing signed apps before.
What developers? Apple is still the only developer for the iPhone, Apple would have separate teams working on Leopard and the iPhone anyway. They delayed leopard because it still had a lot to smooth out, but I believe it was originally intended to have Leopard out before the iphone came out, it only makes logical sense, same goes for the new iMac.
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.
Yeah... PROBABLY A WHOLE $5
Dude, you paid how much for your phone? Obviously you aren't cheap.
I will gladly pay money know that the app I install is stable and will work after every firmware update. Quit your bitching.
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?
The more that i read on the net about sync'ing problems with the iPhone the more I believe that there are real bugs in the software that Apple is trying to avoid. Since they couldn't get them fixed in time for the Touch they likely just disabled the feature.
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?
Sure given the API's and access rights any sort of application can be connected. This is why there is a big demand for a SDK, not to fix Apples software but to build your dream. Or if not your dream then somebody else's in a corporate world.
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!
I've been very tempted by the TOUCH after the jailbreaks have come out. The Media Playing aspect of the device is only a small element in its usefulness. Or I should say potential usefulness.
Waiting for a better device may still be in order, but I'd be waiting for more RAM and bluetooth connections. The camera is one item I can live without, at least considering my present employment situation. The iPhone itself is out of the question due to its camera. I'm hoping that Apple gets the message that they need a camera free alternative.
The other reality is that the Touch will have competition in alternative devices. OpenMoko and Nokia's N800 series comes to mind. Yes OpenMoko is a cell also but price wise would be very competitive with the other internet access devices.
I really need a device that is more communicative than the current offerings form Apple. I believe such hardware is on the way, by the way.
Thanks, Steve -
I'm not sure I'd want to thank Steve. This whole issue of software development could have been eliminated with a little communications. An announcement like this certainly has the look of responding to public pressure. That is a good thing of course but delivering a product like iPhone to market, in the rather unfinished state that it arrived in and leaving every body in the dark, is just really poor handling of the product.
Dave