Apple doesn't have to provide such information to consumers. Apple does have to in the business world because competition does.
Absolutely not. Think about as a general in war.
No company would pre-release information what is in the pipeline. It would be suicide.
Firstly, you are dead if a customer planned their business on a promise of something to come and it didn't. In time or otherwise.
Secondly, can you imagine if a client took the information the wrong way and structured changes accordingly.
Thirdly, why would you release information so that your competition could redesign or restruct to counter your program.
If you really think that Apple doesn't have the where with all in the enterprise market, perhaps you should visit Macworld and start warning the companies that are coming aboard. For example, http://www.macworld.com/article/1324...ts_iphone.html
And before you say anymore, you should really watch the video.
Remember, Apple would not be in the position they are in if they never offered the iPod to Windows users. Even today, I would bet that Apple sells upwards of 90% of its iPods to Windows users not Mac users.
Safari for Windows was released not for consumer browsing but for business applications. Think about it. It goes along with the iPhone SDK. Safari for Windows bridges the gap between iPhone and the notebook/desktop. Something Apple needs to be considered in business. Right now, the iPhone isn't intended to replace a notebook/desktop but rather to work in conjunction with it.
If Apple released the iPhone SDK for Windows what harm could have come out of it? Less Mac's sold in the enterprise realm? Guess what they weren't being sold to begin with. I would like to see the market research that suggests that Windows shops will buy Macs just to try out a free development tool.
If Apple announced the iPhone SDK for Windows what would happen is that Apple would have many, many more potential iPhone developers on their hands. I really don't think that many people aren't going to buy a Mac just to play with the iPhone SDK.
Dave
What environment will the SDK be expected to function in? XCode?
So, Apple is expected to port over XCode to Windows so that some cheap applications can be written? Doesn't sound like a good plan. Besides I can already hear the Windows developers complaining that XCode is no good because it does things differently than what they are used to. Sometimes the simplest ways are the best.
Historically, Apple wrote off the enterprise and the enterprise knows this. Their lack of any business sales strategy, their focus on consumer computers/gadgets, misdirected business software (FileMaker Pro and WebObjects) all contributed to this.
I have a different view. Apple indeed re-focused on the consumer side of the market, and also in some nitch parts of the enterprise, but the things you cite here are a result of that decision, not the cause. I doubt if you really understand their business strategy going forward. As for your comment about FM Pro and WebObjects, I don't see the relevance, but the latter serves as the infrastructure for the Apple online store, the iTunes store, dotMac, as well as other Apple online entities. You can belittle it if you like, but it doesn't strengthen your argument imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K.
Now we are expected to believe Apple is going to get serious about the enterprise because of the iPhone.
Believe what you will. Seen the QT SDK presentation yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K.
Quite frankly, the SDK should have been made for Windows as well. If Apple is truly serious about the enterprise they need to do this (while they are at it, they also need to license out Mac OS X Server).
This is your opinion. Apple's is different. Time will tell who's is right, my money is on AAPL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K.
I work in IT in an all Windows shop. People outside of IT don't realize how embedded the business world is with Windows...
As someone who has managed people trying to do their job using Windows based solutions in a corporate environment, I understand this all too well unfortunately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K.
I see the initial cost of iPhone development very prohibitive. You need to buy a iPhone, Mac, XCODE training (if there is even such a thing), maybe a XSERVE for deployment testing. Seems quite of a lot money just to test out an idea. You better have one hell of an idea.
Sounds like you really don't know. Btw there are training resources for Xcode. If interested, you can find out what's available at http://developer.apple.com/. If you're not interested in the facts, then why bother prognosticating?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave K.
Microsoft is pushing their Windows Mobile platform on your choice of hardware that interfaces very nicely with Visual Studio, .NET, Windows 2003 Server and other related enterprise products (e.g., SQL Server, Exchange, etc.).
Can Apple compete with this?
Yes they can, and they are. Btw, my choice of hardware is iPhone, and Apple has a very rich set of developer tools available, and they now support iPhone.
Ultimately Dave, you can believe what you like. I'm not going to lose any sleep over that, nor will I involve myself in a lengthy debate on these forums about it. I'm a shareholder in AAPL, and I'm satisfied with the strategy and execution of Apple, and I'm totally thrilled with the direction of their iPhone platform.
2) if other devices provide firmware enhancements 'free' its because they see that as the only way they can get the feature distributed, and most likely as a way to enable some other revenue stream.
Wrong. As i said, nearly every consumer electronics device manufacturer provides firmware updates that enhance functionality. The vast majority of these DO NOT ENABLE ANY OTHER REVENUE STREAM. Again, I already mentioned some simple examples. The playstation 3 has been consistently updated with new firmware that adds functionality, such as a new Blu-ray profiles, new upscaling ability, and ability to play new formats of media. The original Zune was updated with the interface and capabilities of the newer models. Many high-end cellphones receive firmware updates that adds new software apps such as Skype or web browser plugins such as flash, and again there is no sign of a new potential revenue stream such as a new a media store or similar. Nokia routinely updates their highend phones and tablets. Their internet tablet recently got a free update that gave them an ENTIRE NEW OS and increased the clock speed of the processor by ~30%. No new rev stream there either. Many Digital cameras have received firmware updates that enable functionality such as direct printing, RAW formats when only JPEG was previously available, the ability to work with larger capacity memory cards, etc. In all these cases, there is NO new revenue stream added to the device.
Quote:
But they are not 'free'... you pay for them in the form of the feature enabled by the update, or in future product. Also, firmware enhancements to enable features are different than bug fixes. bug fixes should be free. I have no expectation that feature enhancements must be.
I've already stated above many devices receiving NEW FUNCTIONALITY with NO NEW revenue stream added in.
When I say people expect updates to be "free" I mean free as in the at-the-point-of-upgrade cost. I don't care whether you believe they are somehow recovering value somewhere in the process, whether through some future revenue model or even just increased market-share or other business metric. People don't care about that, they care about whether they are shelling out cash to the company for a firmware update, simple as that.
Quote:
3) iPHONE UPDATES ARE NOT FREE! THEY'RE PAID FOR OUT OF THE MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES! Do we have to include pictures so that you children can understand that? Nothing's free.
Now you are just playing semantics. The updates are "free" to iPhone users in the sense that they are not paying cash to Apple to receive the upgrade. Again, it doesn't matter if Apple is recovering revenue from their agreement with the cellular provider.
Here is how both approaches work to my knowledge (if I am wrong somewhere, please correct me):
Microsoft (Direct Push)
1. Device initiates a TCP connection to server server. Among other things it sets a heartbeat interval.
2. Server holds the TCP connection until the heartbeat expires (TCP IDLE)
3. If no new mail arrives before the heartbeat expires the device sends "ping" (small data packet) to reset the timer
4. if new email arrives before the heartbeat expires, the server will notify the device
5. The device then pulls the email off the server using the Active Sync Protocol
If the network connection is dropped any time (e.g. device was turned off) the server waits until the device initiates a connection. If there is newer mail since the last sync the server notifies the device and it then initiates an Active Sync. Active Sync is reliable and can handle interrupted transfers.
This is similar to the IMAP IDLE.
Blackberry:
The basic difference here is that the carrier needs to support a local NOC. This is why you have specific Blackberry pricing with your carriers. The BES Server monitors the Exchange Server and when new mail is detected it sends it to the NOC (usually the BES is connected over a VPN tunnel to the NOC).
Once mail it as the NOC it informs the device that new messages are waiting. This needs to be supported by the carrier you are using. The message send to the Blackberry is similar to receive a text message or notifying a phone about an incoming call. The the message is send to the Blackberry. This is similar how two-way pagers worked which are the root for Blackberries. As said it needs to be supported by the carriers to some extent.
What about bandwidth and battery life?
The less information is exchanged the longer the battery will hold. Blackberries are very efficient here. But they always require a NOC infrastructure for it and a carrier that is connected to the NOC.
Also there is a significant difference in transmitted bytes when using Microsoft's Direct Push compared to the RIM solution when attachments are involved. This has something do to with the fact that the Blackberry doesn't really download attachments compared to Microsoft's Direct Push, where the information is always downloaded to the device (or at least in part until you want to download the full message). Therefore comparing bandwidth of the two approaches is not really fair. Also the additional BES server handles know file formats different.
Blackberries use a proprietary protocol and Microsoft uses SSL. Also Blackberries use UDP and not TCP. All this reduced the network overhead. But again we are talking bytes here. With EDGE and 3G this doesn't make a big difference. The TCO of Blackberries rise as mobile data communication get cheaper and faster.
The longer battery life is more theoretical. In real life it is totally negligible as the data packages for the pings and the initial server communication are very very small.
The downside is that a NOC infrastructure is essential for Blackberries. Which means single point of failure, dependent on a specific vendor, security implications (these are IMHO huge) etc.
With Direct Push you are not dependent on a specific vendor or carrier. You simply rely on your own infrastructure and any available network infrastructure. If it is WLAN, Internet, land line, a cellular net it doesn't matter. In the end it is a TCP connection from and to the device and the medium used doesn't matter.
Also Direct Push could make use of NOCs in a similar way to RIM but doesn't require one. If cellular carries support Direct Push in their networks (handing the heartbeats for example) the advantage of Blackberries are gone regarding the signaling of new messages. But you don't require one which makes it easier to adopt the technology, especially for small and medium sized businesses as well as the individual.
In addition you can implement Active Sync and Direct Push very efficient in a Device to optimize data usage. The implementation in the existing WM devices is far from optimal.
It remains to be seen how Apple implements Direct Push and Active Sync and what might be implemented on the carrier side as well. I am sure there will be in-depth reviews and comparisons in late Summer.
Very good post! Thanks for the information. I guess I need to read a lot more about mobile phone technology. I know all the acronyms and understand the basic idea behind CDMA/GSM/UMTS/EVDO/HSDPA etc, but I guess need to learn the fundamentals of how the connections actually work. I know that with the intro of the CDMA/GSM generation that they are no longer circuit based, but I still assumed that when a modern cellphone wants to say, browse the web, it has to "turn on" it's connection, of which is usually "turned off" or at least in an idle standby state waiting for a phone call.
You are saying that because the actual data transfer is very low in Direct Push devices, The battery life is not affected significantly compared to a Blackberry.
But wouldn't the fact that the device has an open TCP connection mean that it is using significantly more power than if it had no connection "open" and was in an 'standby" state? I guess I don't understand how the cellphones going into a standby mode waiting for notification from the tower, and how that notification works. What is running during the standby state, and what is "turned on" when a phone call or text message comes in? How does the Direct Push open TCP connection fit into that?
Remember, Apple would not be in the position they are in if they never offered the iPod to Windows users. Even today, I would bet that Apple sells upwards of 90% of its iPods to Windows users not Mac users.
Safari for Windows was released not for consumer browsing but for business applications. Think about it. It goes along with the iPhone SDK. Safari for Windows bridges the gap between iPhone and the notebook/desktop. Something Apple needs to be considered in business. Right now, the iPhone isn't intended to replace a notebook/desktop but rather to work in conjunction with it.
If Apple released the iPhone SDK for Windows what harm could have come out of it? Less Mac's sold in the enterprise realm? Guess what they weren't being sold to begin with. I would like to see the market research that suggests that Windows shops will buy Macs just to try out a free development tool.
If Apple announced the iPhone SDK for Windows what would happen is that Apple would have many, many more potential iPhone developers on their hands. I really don't think that many people aren't going to buy a Mac just to play with the iPhone SDK.
Dave
Well they would have to first port over Xcode and the many other "helper" applications that goes along with it. Then I wonder how much, if at all, the iPhone emulator uses native OSX Cocoa to actually function, and if Cocoa and other libraries would have to ported to Win32. Anyone with knowledge care to comment about how much work would be required to port the SDK over to windows?
Remember, Apple would not be in the position they are in if they never offered the iPod to Windows users. Even today, I would bet that Apple sells upwards of 90% of its iPods to Windows users not Mac users.
Safari for Windows was released not for consumer browsing but for business applications. Think about it. It goes along with the iPhone SDK. Safari for Windows bridges the gap between iPhone and the notebook/desktop. Something Apple needs to be considered in business. Right now, the iPhone isn't intended to replace a notebook/desktop but rather to work in conjunction with it.
If Apple released the iPhone SDK for Windows what harm could have come out of it? Less Mac's sold in the enterprise realm? Guess what they weren't being sold to begin with. I would like to see the market research that suggests that Windows shops will buy Macs just to try out a free development tool.
If Apple announced the iPhone SDK for Windows what would happen is that Apple would have many, many more potential iPhone developers on their hands. I really don't think that many people aren't going to buy a Mac just to play with the iPhone SDK.
Dave
You're right it would be more convenient for Windows-only shops if the iPhone SDK was available on Windows
- but I'm not sure it makes much difference in practice
- the cost of a Mac is less than cost of a day (or 2) of your time, so I don't think the cost is much of an issue
- the cost of the iPhone itself is more - if you have to sign up for a 2 year contract.
The learning curve would still be the same with a Windows SDK - you'd still need to learn MacOS, ObjectiveC just because that's what the iPhone runs
- but what sort of IDE would they port - the whole Xcode environment?
- what would the simulator run on - a MacOS layer on Win32?
- sounds like quite a project!
- I don't think a port of Xcode to Windows for the iPhone would be practical, nor would it make much difference to the dev costs
- plus, this way, they encourage a lot of dev houses to buy Macs, which in the end will benefit general Mac acceptance.
- so, I think Apple's made the right choice here by only offering the SDK on Macs
Remember, Apple would not be in the position they are in if they never offered the iPod to Windows users. Even today, I would bet that Apple sells upwards of 90% of its iPods to Windows users not Mac users.
Safari for Windows was released not for consumer browsing but for business applications. Think about it. It goes along with the iPhone SDK. Safari for Windows bridges the gap between iPhone and the notebook/desktop. Something Apple needs to be considered in business. Right now, the iPhone isn't intended to replace a notebook/desktop but rather to work in conjunction with it.
If Apple released the iPhone SDK for Windows what harm could have come out of it? Less Mac's sold in the enterprise realm? Guess what they weren't being sold to begin with. I would like to see the market research that suggests that Windows shops will buy Macs just to try out a free development tool.
If Apple announced the iPhone SDK for Windows what would happen is that Apple would have many, many more potential iPhone developers on their hands. I really don't think that many people aren't going to buy a Mac just to play with the iPhone SDK.
Dave
I don't think Apple wants to go out of their way to develop a screwed up version of X-Code or Objective C just so Windows users can start developing Apps for the iPhone. Sorry. It's not going to happen. Too many problems and complications arise when you start to develop an SDK for a platform that is not made to run these Apps to begin with (when has Apple EVER developed an SDK for Windows for Mac Apps - NEVER). The iPhone runs on OS X, it's Apps are built using Objective C and X-Code. If a developer can't afford to buy a $500 Mac Mini (or for that matter start learning Objective C) to start developing Apps for the iPhone, then they really aren't a serious developer for the iPhone are they? It's one thing to develop an App to run on BOTH platforms (iPods, Safari, etc.), it is quite another to develop an SDK for a completely different OS. There are an incredible amount of amazing OS X developers out there. I personally know quite a few programmers and developers that have moved over or are also developing Mac Apps along with Windows. This thing is all about OS X. Get used to it. We Mac developers have had to put up with Windows crap for years. If you don't like it, then don't let the door hit you on the way out.
This thing is all about OS X. Get used to it. We Mac developers have had to put up with Windows crap for years. If you don't like it, then don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Why the attitude against the guy just because he has his own, "don't follow the crowd" opinion. Right or wrong it is his opinion. This is typical of Apple-Zealots (does not include all but encompasses quite a few) mentality: "screw you if you do not fall in line with He that is called Steve", and if you do not worship in Cupertino at the Infinite Loop.
You are saying that because the actual data transfer is very low in Direct Push devices, The battery life is not affected significantly compared to a Blackberry.
But wouldn't the fact that the device has an open TCP connection mean that it is using significantly more power than if it had no connection "open" and was in an 'standby" state? I guess I don't understand how the cellphones going into a standby mode waiting for notification from the tower, and how that notification works. What is running during the standby state, and what is "turned on" when a phone call or text message comes in? How does the Direct Push open TCP connection fit into that?
Cell phones are always waiting for something and they are always checking back to the MSC to see if they are turned on, allowed to make calls, to receive call and if so from whom, are they still in the home country or have they started roaming, etc....
When you get a text message it is because the D-Channel is open and waiting for some sort of communication, in this case a text message. The same would be with Push. The D-Channel would wait until some "do something" message was received. It would then open the connect to the server and receive the mail. It does this without user intervention. You could as easily do this by checking for mail manually.
Cell phones are always waiting for something and they are always checking back to the MSC to see if they are turned on, allowed to make calls, to receive call and if so from whom, are they still in the home country or have they started roaming, etc....
When you get a text message it is because the D-Channel is open and waiting for some sort of communication, in this case a text message. The same would be with Push. The D-Channel would wait until some "do something" message was received. It would then open the connect to the server and receive the mail. It does this without user intervention. You could as easily do this by checking for mail manually.
Well thanks for the input, but I don't follow. First of all, what the heck is the D-channel? Secondly, you say that the notification of a new email comes through this D-channel just as a text message would. That is indeed how a Blackberry should work, but with the direct push system which doesn't have carrier network support, the notification is coming through a open TCP connection.
As I said, I don't understand the indepth details of cellphone connectivity, so I'll have to go do some googling...
...results in an excellent user experience? Yeah, I guess. Unless the NOC goes down (like it has numerous times over the last year), leaving users unable to get to their email for hours at a time (and in a couple of cases, days).
Yeah, that's an excellent user experience.
Sorry, having a single point of failure like RIM has with their system is not an excellent user experience. If Apple's implementation is as smooth as they showed yesterday, RIM's last advantage will be only to those who don't like the touchscreen keyboard and prefer the tactile Blackberry keyboard.
How often has the noc gone down and how excellent the iphone experience will be when AT&T network goes down or is congested?. All devices have points of failure. You are quibbling. Yes, the NOC went down but it does not go down every day. GeeZ!!!!... your rip of Blackberry is senseless.. no one measures the quality of their experience by a rare and occasional blackout!!. Get a grip. Have fun with your iphone without posting something stupid.
But as we all know, that it isn't the case. Much like buying a new car when the salesman says, "Heck, I'll throw in a GPS." Ask him for the cash instead and see what you get. Nothing.
Or better yet, music played on a radio is free.
In the case above, there is a cost for the handset. I'll bet that the carrier or the manufacturer isn't giving it away.
nothing is free but the point is that for blackberries, the user or employee is not bearing the cost. Who says the manufacturer is giving the handset away?. Read the post before you reply.
This has to be the most paranoid thread I've seen (and that's saying a lot.)
Exactly what is your gripe? That apple didn't post to AppleInsider every 20 minutes with SDK status?
That they skillfully leverage and (yes, control) public enthusiasm about their products to their advantage? Should they have just dropped it in a brown bag on a waterfront at midnight?
I really would love to see how massively successful a corporation run by your principles would be.
You mean as successful as microsoft?. I've yet to see microsoft establish a national holiday for stupid minor accomplishments as apple does. No one lines up around blocks for microsoft products or oracle products or dell products or SAP products or any major international company products and yet oddly, they are successful. They must all be doing something wrong!!. Dude, everyone runs their business opposite the way apple does. What the hell are you smoking?
How can Windows 7 screenshots help you plan to purchase your next computer? Furthermore, Microsoft allowed many PC manufacturers to claim they were Vista enabled when in reality they weren't.
Let's compare that scenario with Apple's announcement of OSX, it worked with the iMac as announced by SJ.
Suhail, i think you are being dense here. What he is saying is that enterprises knows that windows 7 will be released. The screen shots are nice but the knowledge itself of when windows 7 may be released is extremely valuable information. Also, very often, Microsoft will detail what the next version of their operating system capabilites would be. We all knew what vista capabilities were supposed to be.. so much that many here on appleinsider accused Microsoft of ripping of mac OS features before the operating system was released.
Oracle does the same.Enterprises know what features to expect in the new release and about what time the new release would happen. Sometimes a company will miss release dates (like microsoft did with Vista) but at least a company does not have to wait for some stupid Event to find out about new products.
Now give apple credit where it is due.. they have released info early about their next operating system. We all knew about leopard (except when it would be released which is extremely frustrating to an enterprise but a non-event to just regular users like yourself suhail).
Well thanks for the input, but I don't follow. First of all, what the heck is the D-channel? Secondly, you say that the notification of a new email comes through this D-channel just as a text message would. That is indeed how a Blackberry should work, but with the direct push system which doesn't have carrier network support, the notification is coming through a open TCP connection.
As I said, I don't understand the indepth details of cellphone connectivity, so I'll have to go do some googling...
Sorry winterspan. The D-Channel is used in ISDN systems for what is called' "out of band signaling". The phone just sort of sits and waits and listens for something to do. As for Blackberry, you know more about the network innerts than I do. It would seem like a waste to continually eat up bandwidth waiting for something rather than being told that something is coming.
Sorry, I don't see any rationale for NOCs surviving long term or why push e-mail has to drain the battery any faster than being on standby for receiving phone calls.
Who said it drains battery faster than the phone being on standby?. The argument is that it drains battery faster than a phone not on standby for email.You are confused. You assumed that when a phone has to constantly send a signal to the network (all phones constantly communicate with the network), it is also simultaneously checking email and that if it took x amount of energy to send a notice to the network that says "here i am ready to receive calls" that somehow it also does not have to send a second message that says "do i have any email?".. is that what you think?. Cause the point is that for RIM devices, they do not have to constantly send that second message, thus saving battery (you do know that the more messages a device sends, the more energy it uses right?.. i presume that somewhere in your life, you have come to this realization).
I really think the biggest thing is not that we have an iPhone SDK and that people are gonna be able to develop apps for the iPhone.
It's way bigger than this, "bigger than the personnal computer" as John Doerr, Partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, said when he introduced the $100,000,000 iFund initiative.
I've developed this opinion over at the hardmac.com blog, come and read it.
Comments
Apple doesn't have to provide such information to consumers. Apple does have to in the business world because competition does.
Absolutely not. Think about as a general in war.
No company would pre-release information what is in the pipeline. It would be suicide.
Firstly, you are dead if a customer planned their business on a promise of something to come and it didn't. In time or otherwise.
Secondly, can you imagine if a client took the information the wrong way and structured changes accordingly.
Thirdly, why would you release information so that your competition could redesign or restruct to counter your program.
If you really think that Apple doesn't have the where with all in the enterprise market, perhaps you should visit Macworld and start warning the companies that are coming aboard. For example, http://www.macworld.com/article/1324...ts_iphone.html
And before you say anymore, you should really watch the video.
I really don't think that many people aren't going to buy a Mac just to play with the iPhone SDK. Dave
Again, watch the video, particularly at the end. It is already starting.
Remember, Apple would not be in the position they are in if they never offered the iPod to Windows users. Even today, I would bet that Apple sells upwards of 90% of its iPods to Windows users not Mac users.
Safari for Windows was released not for consumer browsing but for business applications. Think about it. It goes along with the iPhone SDK. Safari for Windows bridges the gap between iPhone and the notebook/desktop. Something Apple needs to be considered in business. Right now, the iPhone isn't intended to replace a notebook/desktop but rather to work in conjunction with it.
If Apple released the iPhone SDK for Windows what harm could have come out of it? Less Mac's sold in the enterprise realm? Guess what they weren't being sold to begin with. I would like to see the market research that suggests that Windows shops will buy Macs just to try out a free development tool.
If Apple announced the iPhone SDK for Windows what would happen is that Apple would have many, many more potential iPhone developers on their hands. I really don't think that many people aren't going to buy a Mac just to play with the iPhone SDK.
Dave
What environment will the SDK be expected to function in? XCode?
So, Apple is expected to port over XCode to Windows so that some cheap applications can be written? Doesn't sound like a good plan. Besides I can already hear the Windows developers complaining that XCode is no good because it does things differently than what they are used to. Sometimes the simplest ways are the best.
Historically, Apple wrote off the enterprise and the enterprise knows this. Their lack of any business sales strategy, their focus on consumer computers/gadgets, misdirected business software (FileMaker Pro and WebObjects) all contributed to this.
I have a different view. Apple indeed re-focused on the consumer side of the market, and also in some nitch parts of the enterprise, but the things you cite here are a result of that decision, not the cause. I doubt if you really understand their business strategy going forward. As for your comment about FM Pro and WebObjects, I don't see the relevance, but the latter serves as the infrastructure for the Apple online store, the iTunes store, dotMac, as well as other Apple online entities. You can belittle it if you like, but it doesn't strengthen your argument imo.
Now we are expected to believe Apple is going to get serious about the enterprise because of the iPhone.
Believe what you will. Seen the QT SDK presentation yet?
Quite frankly, the SDK should have been made for Windows as well. If Apple is truly serious about the enterprise they need to do this (while they are at it, they also need to license out Mac OS X Server).
This is your opinion. Apple's is different. Time will tell who's is right, my money is on AAPL.
I work in IT in an all Windows shop. People outside of IT don't realize how embedded the business world is with Windows...
As someone who has managed people trying to do their job using Windows based solutions in a corporate environment, I understand this all too well unfortunately.
I see the initial cost of iPhone development very prohibitive. You need to buy a iPhone, Mac, XCODE training (if there is even such a thing), maybe a XSERVE for deployment testing. Seems quite of a lot money just to test out an idea. You better have one hell of an idea.
Sounds like you really don't know. Btw there are training resources for Xcode. If interested, you can find out what's available at http://developer.apple.com/. If you're not interested in the facts, then why bother prognosticating?
Microsoft is pushing their Windows Mobile platform on your choice of hardware that interfaces very nicely with Visual Studio, .NET, Windows 2003 Server and other related enterprise products (e.g., SQL Server, Exchange, etc.).
Can Apple compete with this?
Yes they can, and they are. Btw, my choice of hardware is iPhone, and Apple has a very rich set of developer tools available, and they now support iPhone.
Ultimately Dave, you can believe what you like. I'm not going to lose any sleep over that, nor will I involve myself in a lengthy debate on these forums about it. I'm a shareholder in AAPL, and I'm satisfied with the strategy and execution of Apple, and I'm totally thrilled with the direction of their iPhone platform.
2) if other devices provide firmware enhancements 'free' its because they see that as the only way they can get the feature distributed, and most likely as a way to enable some other revenue stream.
Wrong. As i said, nearly every consumer electronics device manufacturer provides firmware updates that enhance functionality. The vast majority of these DO NOT ENABLE ANY OTHER REVENUE STREAM. Again, I already mentioned some simple examples. The playstation 3 has been consistently updated with new firmware that adds functionality, such as a new Blu-ray profiles, new upscaling ability, and ability to play new formats of media. The original Zune was updated with the interface and capabilities of the newer models. Many high-end cellphones receive firmware updates that adds new software apps such as Skype or web browser plugins such as flash, and again there is no sign of a new potential revenue stream such as a new a media store or similar. Nokia routinely updates their highend phones and tablets. Their internet tablet recently got a free update that gave them an ENTIRE NEW OS and increased the clock speed of the processor by ~30%. No new rev stream there either. Many Digital cameras have received firmware updates that enable functionality such as direct printing, RAW formats when only JPEG was previously available, the ability to work with larger capacity memory cards, etc. In all these cases, there is NO new revenue stream added to the device.
But they are not 'free'... you pay for them in the form of the feature enabled by the update, or in future product. Also, firmware enhancements to enable features are different than bug fixes. bug fixes should be free. I have no expectation that feature enhancements must be.
I've already stated above many devices receiving NEW FUNCTIONALITY with NO NEW revenue stream added in.
When I say people expect updates to be "free" I mean free as in the at-the-point-of-upgrade cost. I don't care whether you believe they are somehow recovering value somewhere in the process, whether through some future revenue model or even just increased market-share or other business metric. People don't care about that, they care about whether they are shelling out cash to the company for a firmware update, simple as that.
3) iPHONE UPDATES ARE NOT FREE! THEY'RE PAID FOR OUT OF THE MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES! Do we have to include pictures so that you children can understand that? Nothing's free.
Now you are just playing semantics. The updates are "free" to iPhone users in the sense that they are not paying cash to Apple to receive the upgrade. Again, it doesn't matter if Apple is recovering revenue from their agreement with the cellular provider.
Here is how both approaches work to my knowledge (if I am wrong somewhere, please correct me):
Microsoft (Direct Push)
1. Device initiates a TCP connection to server server. Among other things it sets a heartbeat interval.
2. Server holds the TCP connection until the heartbeat expires (TCP IDLE)
3. If no new mail arrives before the heartbeat expires the device sends "ping" (small data packet) to reset the timer
4. if new email arrives before the heartbeat expires, the server will notify the device
5. The device then pulls the email off the server using the Active Sync Protocol
If the network connection is dropped any time (e.g. device was turned off) the server waits until the device initiates a connection. If there is newer mail since the last sync the server notifies the device and it then initiates an Active Sync. Active Sync is reliable and can handle interrupted transfers.
This is similar to the IMAP IDLE.
Blackberry:
The basic difference here is that the carrier needs to support a local NOC. This is why you have specific Blackberry pricing with your carriers. The BES Server monitors the Exchange Server and when new mail is detected it sends it to the NOC (usually the BES is connected over a VPN tunnel to the NOC).
Once mail it as the NOC it informs the device that new messages are waiting. This needs to be supported by the carrier you are using. The message send to the Blackberry is similar to receive a text message or notifying a phone about an incoming call. The the message is send to the Blackberry. This is similar how two-way pagers worked which are the root for Blackberries. As said it needs to be supported by the carriers to some extent.
What about bandwidth and battery life?
The less information is exchanged the longer the battery will hold. Blackberries are very efficient here. But they always require a NOC infrastructure for it and a carrier that is connected to the NOC.
Also there is a significant difference in transmitted bytes when using Microsoft's Direct Push compared to the RIM solution when attachments are involved. This has something do to with the fact that the Blackberry doesn't really download attachments compared to Microsoft's Direct Push, where the information is always downloaded to the device (or at least in part until you want to download the full message). Therefore comparing bandwidth of the two approaches is not really fair. Also the additional BES server handles know file formats different.
Blackberries use a proprietary protocol and Microsoft uses SSL. Also Blackberries use UDP and not TCP. All this reduced the network overhead. But again we are talking bytes here. With EDGE and 3G this doesn't make a big difference. The TCO of Blackberries rise as mobile data communication get cheaper and faster.
The longer battery life is more theoretical. In real life it is totally negligible as the data packages for the pings and the initial server communication are very very small.
The downside is that a NOC infrastructure is essential for Blackberries. Which means single point of failure, dependent on a specific vendor, security implications (these are IMHO huge) etc.
With Direct Push you are not dependent on a specific vendor or carrier. You simply rely on your own infrastructure and any available network infrastructure. If it is WLAN, Internet, land line, a cellular net it doesn't matter. In the end it is a TCP connection from and to the device and the medium used doesn't matter.
Also Direct Push could make use of NOCs in a similar way to RIM but doesn't require one. If cellular carries support Direct Push in their networks (handing the heartbeats for example) the advantage of Blackberries are gone regarding the signaling of new messages. But you don't require one which makes it easier to adopt the technology, especially for small and medium sized businesses as well as the individual.
In addition you can implement Active Sync and Direct Push very efficient in a Device to optimize data usage. The implementation in the existing WM devices is far from optimal.
It remains to be seen how Apple implements Direct Push and Active Sync and what might be implemented on the carrier side as well. I am sure there will be in-depth reviews and comparisons in late Summer.
Very good post! Thanks for the information. I guess I need to read a lot more about mobile phone technology. I know all the acronyms and understand the basic idea behind CDMA/GSM/UMTS/EVDO/HSDPA etc, but I guess need to learn the fundamentals of how the connections actually work. I know that with the intro of the CDMA/GSM generation that they are no longer circuit based, but I still assumed that when a modern cellphone wants to say, browse the web, it has to "turn on" it's connection, of which is usually "turned off" or at least in an idle standby state waiting for a phone call.
You are saying that because the actual data transfer is very low in Direct Push devices, The battery life is not affected significantly compared to a Blackberry.
But wouldn't the fact that the device has an open TCP connection mean that it is using significantly more power than if it had no connection "open" and was in an 'standby" state? I guess I don't understand how the cellphones going into a standby mode waiting for notification from the tower, and how that notification works. What is running during the standby state, and what is "turned on" when a phone call or text message comes in? How does the Direct Push open TCP connection fit into that?
Remember, Apple would not be in the position they are in if they never offered the iPod to Windows users. Even today, I would bet that Apple sells upwards of 90% of its iPods to Windows users not Mac users.
Safari for Windows was released not for consumer browsing but for business applications. Think about it. It goes along with the iPhone SDK. Safari for Windows bridges the gap between iPhone and the notebook/desktop. Something Apple needs to be considered in business. Right now, the iPhone isn't intended to replace a notebook/desktop but rather to work in conjunction with it.
If Apple released the iPhone SDK for Windows what harm could have come out of it? Less Mac's sold in the enterprise realm? Guess what they weren't being sold to begin with. I would like to see the market research that suggests that Windows shops will buy Macs just to try out a free development tool.
If Apple announced the iPhone SDK for Windows what would happen is that Apple would have many, many more potential iPhone developers on their hands. I really don't think that many people aren't going to buy a Mac just to play with the iPhone SDK.
Dave
Well they would have to first port over Xcode and the many other "helper" applications that goes along with it. Then I wonder how much, if at all, the iPhone emulator uses native OSX Cocoa to actually function, and if Cocoa and other libraries would have to ported to Win32. Anyone with knowledge care to comment about how much work would be required to port the SDK over to windows?
Remember, Apple would not be in the position they are in if they never offered the iPod to Windows users. Even today, I would bet that Apple sells upwards of 90% of its iPods to Windows users not Mac users.
Safari for Windows was released not for consumer browsing but for business applications. Think about it. It goes along with the iPhone SDK. Safari for Windows bridges the gap between iPhone and the notebook/desktop. Something Apple needs to be considered in business. Right now, the iPhone isn't intended to replace a notebook/desktop but rather to work in conjunction with it.
If Apple released the iPhone SDK for Windows what harm could have come out of it? Less Mac's sold in the enterprise realm? Guess what they weren't being sold to begin with. I would like to see the market research that suggests that Windows shops will buy Macs just to try out a free development tool.
If Apple announced the iPhone SDK for Windows what would happen is that Apple would have many, many more potential iPhone developers on their hands. I really don't think that many people aren't going to buy a Mac just to play with the iPhone SDK.
Dave
You're right it would be more convenient for Windows-only shops if the iPhone SDK was available on Windows
- but I'm not sure it makes much difference in practice
- the cost of a Mac is less than cost of a day (or 2) of your time, so I don't think the cost is much of an issue
- the cost of the iPhone itself is more - if you have to sign up for a 2 year contract.
The learning curve would still be the same with a Windows SDK - you'd still need to learn MacOS, ObjectiveC just because that's what the iPhone runs
- but what sort of IDE would they port - the whole Xcode environment?
- what would the simulator run on - a MacOS layer on Win32?
- sounds like quite a project!
- I don't think a port of Xcode to Windows for the iPhone would be practical, nor would it make much difference to the dev costs
- plus, this way, they encourage a lot of dev houses to buy Macs, which in the end will benefit general Mac acceptance.
- so, I think Apple's made the right choice here by only offering the SDK on Macs
Remember, Apple would not be in the position they are in if they never offered the iPod to Windows users. Even today, I would bet that Apple sells upwards of 90% of its iPods to Windows users not Mac users.
Safari for Windows was released not for consumer browsing but for business applications. Think about it. It goes along with the iPhone SDK. Safari for Windows bridges the gap between iPhone and the notebook/desktop. Something Apple needs to be considered in business. Right now, the iPhone isn't intended to replace a notebook/desktop but rather to work in conjunction with it.
If Apple released the iPhone SDK for Windows what harm could have come out of it? Less Mac's sold in the enterprise realm? Guess what they weren't being sold to begin with. I would like to see the market research that suggests that Windows shops will buy Macs just to try out a free development tool.
If Apple announced the iPhone SDK for Windows what would happen is that Apple would have many, many more potential iPhone developers on their hands. I really don't think that many people aren't going to buy a Mac just to play with the iPhone SDK.
Dave
I don't think Apple wants to go out of their way to develop a screwed up version of X-Code or Objective C just so Windows users can start developing Apps for the iPhone. Sorry. It's not going to happen. Too many problems and complications arise when you start to develop an SDK for a platform that is not made to run these Apps to begin with (when has Apple EVER developed an SDK for Windows for Mac Apps - NEVER). The iPhone runs on OS X, it's Apps are built using Objective C and X-Code. If a developer can't afford to buy a $500 Mac Mini (or for that matter start learning Objective C) to start developing Apps for the iPhone, then they really aren't a serious developer for the iPhone are they? It's one thing to develop an App to run on BOTH platforms (iPods, Safari, etc.), it is quite another to develop an SDK for a completely different OS. There are an incredible amount of amazing OS X developers out there. I personally know quite a few programmers and developers that have moved over or are also developing Mac Apps along with Windows. This thing is all about OS X. Get used to it. We Mac developers have had to put up with Windows crap for years. If you don't like it, then don't let the door hit you on the way out.
This thing is all about OS X. Get used to it. We Mac developers have had to put up with Windows crap for years. If you don't like it, then don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Why the attitude against the guy just because he has his own, "don't follow the crowd" opinion. Right or wrong it is his opinion. This is typical of Apple-Zealots (does not include all but encompasses quite a few) mentality: "screw you if you do not fall in line with He that is called Steve", and if you do not worship in Cupertino at the Infinite Loop.
The guy has an opinion and he is entitled to it.
You are saying that because the actual data transfer is very low in Direct Push devices, The battery life is not affected significantly compared to a Blackberry.
But wouldn't the fact that the device has an open TCP connection mean that it is using significantly more power than if it had no connection "open" and was in an 'standby" state? I guess I don't understand how the cellphones going into a standby mode waiting for notification from the tower, and how that notification works. What is running during the standby state, and what is "turned on" when a phone call or text message comes in? How does the Direct Push open TCP connection fit into that?
Cell phones are always waiting for something and they are always checking back to the MSC to see if they are turned on, allowed to make calls, to receive call and if so from whom, are they still in the home country or have they started roaming, etc....
When you get a text message it is because the D-Channel is open and waiting for some sort of communication, in this case a text message. The same would be with Push. The D-Channel would wait until some "do something" message was received. It would then open the connect to the server and receive the mail. It does this without user intervention. You could as easily do this by checking for mail manually.
Cell phones are always waiting for something and they are always checking back to the MSC to see if they are turned on, allowed to make calls, to receive call and if so from whom, are they still in the home country or have they started roaming, etc....
When you get a text message it is because the D-Channel is open and waiting for some sort of communication, in this case a text message. The same would be with Push. The D-Channel would wait until some "do something" message was received. It would then open the connect to the server and receive the mail. It does this without user intervention. You could as easily do this by checking for mail manually.
Well thanks for the input, but I don't follow. First of all, what the heck is the D-channel? Secondly, you say that the notification of a new email comes through this D-channel just as a text message would. That is indeed how a Blackberry should work, but with the direct push system which doesn't have carrier network support, the notification is coming through a open TCP connection.
As I said, I don't understand the indepth details of cellphone connectivity, so I'll have to go do some googling...
Looks like it was worth the wait. I'm selling my PSP.
I wonder if the makers of the PSP are scrambling to design an accelerometer for the PSP.
my favorite part...
...results in an excellent user experience? Yeah, I guess. Unless the NOC goes down (like it has numerous times over the last year), leaving users unable to get to their email for hours at a time (and in a couple of cases, days).
Yeah, that's an excellent user experience.
Sorry, having a single point of failure like RIM has with their system is not an excellent user experience. If Apple's implementation is as smooth as they showed yesterday, RIM's last advantage will be only to those who don't like the touchscreen keyboard and prefer the tactile Blackberry keyboard.
How often has the noc gone down and how excellent the iphone experience will be when AT&T network goes down or is congested?. All devices have points of failure. You are quibbling. Yes, the NOC went down but it does not go down every day. GeeZ!!!!... your rip of Blackberry is senseless.. no one measures the quality of their experience by a rare and occasional blackout!!. Get a grip. Have fun with your iphone without posting something stupid.
But as we all know, that it isn't the case. Much like buying a new car when the salesman says, "Heck, I'll throw in a GPS." Ask him for the cash instead and see what you get. Nothing.
Or better yet, music played on a radio is free.
In the case above, there is a cost for the handset. I'll bet that the carrier or the manufacturer isn't giving it away.
nothing is free but the point is that for blackberries, the user or employee is not bearing the cost. Who says the manufacturer is giving the handset away?. Read the post before you reply.
This has to be the most paranoid thread I've seen (and that's saying a lot.)
Exactly what is your gripe? That apple didn't post to AppleInsider every 20 minutes with SDK status?
That they skillfully leverage and (yes, control) public enthusiasm about their products to their advantage? Should they have just dropped it in a brown bag on a waterfront at midnight?
I really would love to see how massively successful a corporation run by your principles would be.
You mean as successful as microsoft?. I've yet to see microsoft establish a national holiday for stupid minor accomplishments as apple does. No one lines up around blocks for microsoft products or oracle products or dell products or SAP products or any major international company products and yet oddly, they are successful. They must all be doing something wrong!!. Dude, everyone runs their business opposite the way apple does. What the hell are you smoking?
How can Windows 7 screenshots help you plan to purchase your next computer? Furthermore, Microsoft allowed many PC manufacturers to claim they were Vista enabled when in reality they weren't.
Let's compare that scenario with Apple's announcement of OSX, it worked with the iMac as announced by SJ.
Suhail, i think you are being dense here. What he is saying is that enterprises knows that windows 7 will be released. The screen shots are nice but the knowledge itself of when windows 7 may be released is extremely valuable information. Also, very often, Microsoft will detail what the next version of their operating system capabilites would be. We all knew what vista capabilities were supposed to be.. so much that many here on appleinsider accused Microsoft of ripping of mac OS features before the operating system was released.
Oracle does the same.Enterprises know what features to expect in the new release and about what time the new release would happen. Sometimes a company will miss release dates (like microsoft did with Vista) but at least a company does not have to wait for some stupid Event to find out about new products.
Now give apple credit where it is due.. they have released info early about their next operating system. We all knew about leopard (except when it would be released which is extremely frustrating to an enterprise but a non-event to just regular users like yourself suhail).
Well thanks for the input, but I don't follow. First of all, what the heck is the D-channel? Secondly, you say that the notification of a new email comes through this D-channel just as a text message would. That is indeed how a Blackberry should work, but with the direct push system which doesn't have carrier network support, the notification is coming through a open TCP connection.
As I said, I don't understand the indepth details of cellphone connectivity, so I'll have to go do some googling...
Sorry winterspan. The D-Channel is used in ISDN systems for what is called' "out of band signaling". The phone just sort of sits and waits and listens for something to do. As for Blackberry, you know more about the network innerts than I do. It would seem like a waste to continually eat up bandwidth waiting for something rather than being told that something is coming.
Sorry, I don't see any rationale for NOCs surviving long term or why push e-mail has to drain the battery any faster than being on standby for receiving phone calls.
Who said it drains battery faster than the phone being on standby?. The argument is that it drains battery faster than a phone not on standby for email.You are confused. You assumed that when a phone has to constantly send a signal to the network (all phones constantly communicate with the network), it is also simultaneously checking email and that if it took x amount of energy to send a notice to the network that says "here i am ready to receive calls" that somehow it also does not have to send a second message that says "do i have any email?".. is that what you think?. Cause the point is that for RIM devices, they do not have to constantly send that second message, thus saving battery (you do know that the more messages a device sends, the more energy it uses right?.. i presume that somewhere in your life, you have come to this realization).
It's way bigger than this, "bigger than the personnal computer" as John Doerr, Partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, said when he introduced the $100,000,000 iFund initiative.
I've developed this opinion over at the hardmac.com blog, come and read it.