[steviet]

"Apples and oranges. You were sniping at Rob for having the effrontery to point out the iPhone's limitations. It was the process of critiquing the iPhone that seemed to be the subject of your original remarks."
I was criticising Rob for using the editorial as his feedback to Apple, originally. You have no problem that Rob criticises Apple, but you have a problem when someone critiques Rob? And it's not apples and oranges, telling someone to "get a life" isn't sniping? Robs capable of handling my comments himself, he's had worse before.

"Did you see Steve Jobs' presentation at WWDC? Have you watched any of the iPhone ads on TV? I have no doubt Apple is spending more promoting the iPhone than on any pervious product release. So, yes, Apple is doing it's best to pump up the hype. "
It's marketing just like Microsoft did for windows, Apple does it better for sure, but it's company speak. It's the message boards, editorials, predictions, and assumptions by people who have no idea that spread the hype around.
"it doesn't mean the iPhone isn't due some legitimate criticism."
That was never my point, that it didn't deserve criticism.

"What Rob said was, "...please, Apple, if youre not going to do some of these things yourself, let third parties provide real solutions!" Apple could do any or all of these apps and more. After all, who knows better than they how to write for the iPhone?"
Do you think apple might have a few other things going on right now to fix before marching down the road, in some cases, making things more complicated for themselves? I mean we are talking a week into it's consumer's existance!

" The primary point of the article is the missing applications, not their provenance.If Apple doesn't want to let third parties design these things then it behooves them to do it themselves."
For what reason does it behoove them, Rob wasn't buying an iPhone anyway, and still hasn't, but these are the things he says it needs? I don't want most of those things Rob was writing about, and I certainly don't want them taking anymore memory away from the limited memory thats in there now. Last I knew you can't load and unload apps on your own. The only way this could work is if Apple certified the app or widget (and I don't mean the way that anyone can upload a widget to the downloads area of apple), and gave people a way to install and uninstall an application or widget, and not only through itunes but on the fly as well. Certain conditions may expose certain bugs in sw not seen at home, what do you do when you are away from your computer? These things get exponentially more complicated in the protection of the phone when you start enabling these features.

"If you think Apple doesn't know a good idea when they see one, look what they've done with Cover Flow. It went from a little known third party iTunes utility to an integral part of the new OS in less than a year."
And the same thing could happen if people are writing quality web 2.0 apps for the iphone. But they won't be taking the iphone down to it's knees in the process. We don't notice things like that as being critical when a laptop crashes, but when you have a cell phone that some count on for all their telephony, and need in critical situations you can get a bad reputation for a crashing phone. I have first hand experienced that on a Treo, having to reboot once a day or more becuase some code was not tested right or run under the same conditions as my phone had.
And BTW, Coverflow was not a little known utility, it was in widespread use by the time Apple bought it (thats probably why they bought it), and I'm yet to be sold that it should be used throughout the whole OS. Plus, when beta's and first releases come out they almost always have bugs in them, I know coverflow did cause I had some issiues with it at first. It's expected, thats what betas and first releases contain, glitches, sw bugs whatever you want to call them. But when people are lying in wait to pounce on every bad detail to try to spread a bad buzz, keeping the phone closed for many other reasons as well makes good sense.

[griffman]

"For what reason does it behoove them, Rob wasn't buying an iPhone anyway, and still hasn't, but these are the things he says it needs?"
Just to clarify: I didn't buy one, but Macworld bought me one. I've been using it now quite heavily for a week, and that usage was the basis of my "10 apps" editorial.
-rob.

[whitedog]

steviet, you seem to be advocating two contradictory positions. You said you returned your iPhone because it didn't have the functions you wanted, yet you criticize those of us who have our own list of apps we'd like to see on the iPhone. It appears you are arguing just for the sake of argument. That's not my idea of a productive use of my time so I'll sing off of this quibble. So long.

[steviet]

But then again, all you intended to do was to respond to a post with a 'snipe', and now you want to be productive? Hmmm..... talk about contradictory.
BTW, when the iPhone gets voice dialing and can pair with the BT in my car properly I will be back at apple purchasing one. But maybe we can get some of these fluff apps before that actually happens /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
So long whitedog.

[offsky]

Many of these apps have been created already. My favorite is the to-do list, since this is a critical missing app. Toodledo.com has already filled the void with their easy to use task manager that has an iPhone optimized layout.

[griffman]

Actually, none of these applications have been created yet. Sure, there are lots of web-based solutions that do more or less the same thing, but none of them are apps.
Both the user experience and the capabilities of the "programs" themselves vary greatly between web-based solutions and a fully integrated program. Take your To Do example, for instance. Is it always running in the background, ready to pop up alarms when a To Do comes due? Can you easily move a To Do to your Calendar? Even better, can you convert a Calendar entry into a To Do, or add a To Do directly from the Calendar? Can you run it when you don't have web access, such as when you're sitting on an airplane with the phone in Airplane Mode?
Web-based solutions only work when (a) you have net access, (b) you are looking at that specific page in your browser (or at best, it's one of the eight pages you have open), and © the host is available to provide those services. True applications would suffer none of those limitations. Using a true application would also be simpler, as it would be available directly from the iPhone, and not buried as a bookmark in the browser.
That's why I want applications, not fancy web services formatted to look correct on the iPhone.
-rob.

[whitedog]

Apple's reasons for not opening up the iPhone may be perfectly valid, but web based applications will always be a compromise solution with limited appeal. If Apple doesn't want third parties and users to access the phone, then they will have to provide the missing functions and services themselves. Otherwise, the iPhone will remain crippled in some important and, for many users vital, respects. The iPhone will never reach its potential so encumbered. It will forever be haunted by what might have been. Can we say Newton?

[klimegreen]

More than anything I want to see the SDK come into existance. Your
iPhone apps ideas are good, but so many more can be created. I guess we are all waiting till Feb. Wish Steve said more about it during MacWorld.