[Macworld.com]

Apple released an iPhone software update last week, but Rob Griffiths doesn’t plan on ever upgrading to it. Here’s why. [more]

[chewygoat]

They also need to open the iPod touch up to 3rd party development. Perhaps even especially the iPod touch which doesn't have the luxury of (nearly) always having an internet connection available in order to run web apps. For the iPod touch, Web 2.0 as a development platform is a complete joke. Mind you, if they don't, I'll still be happy with my iPod touch anyway, but it could be so much more. The potential is there, why not exploit it?

[Glenn_Fleishman]

Rob, normally so sensible, kind, warm, and wise, you write:
"What I dont understand is that Apple apparently doesnt see any upside to allowing third party applications on the iPhone."
That's not right. Apple doesn't see an upside to allowing third-party applications that are installed through a variety of hacks. They haven't ruled out allowing third-party apps. They just want to control it.
I don't agree with Apple's decision to create an update that appears specifically designed to lock out third-party apps, but it also doesn't mean that we a) weren't expecting that could be the case and b) we won't see an announcement any day about how third-party apps will be available.
I suspect we will be asked as iPhone users to make a choice: we'll probably be allowed (gosh, how I hate that word in this context) to installed apps that aren't certified or whatever, but be required to accept additional risk, including opting out of certain warranty support.
It's still unclear under US law about the suitability of items to sold to consumers that Apple can either prevent us from running our software or deny warranty service if we do. The unlocking part appears to have different antecedents.

[MacTel]

One way Apple could approve 3rd party applications and prevent unauthorized applications is to require developers to use their certificates. No certificate then no Apple approval to run on the iPhone or iPod touch. The device OS would deny the application execute permissions.

[pgauriar]

Surely it's occurred to many people that there are technical reasons for disallowing third-party apps for now. It's very likely that the first revision of the iPhone had to go out before Apple could build a stable set of programmer interfaces. Sure, they're using it for their own development, but they're fixing bugs in the frameworks along the way. On top of that, they're developing new UI elements and metaphors, design patterns, etc., for each app they create.
A lot of the success of the iPhone depends on the device starting out great. Right now that means a consistent, user-friendly interface and a stable system. But before Apple allows third-party development, they need to create a stable set of APIs and behaviors on top of which third-party developers can make good apps. How would it be beneficial to Apple to open up the iPhone prematurely? If the programmer interfaces are still evolving, updates to the frameworks could break existing applications, which will surely frustrate users and developers alike. Sure, Apple could continue supporting both the old interfaces and the new ones, but that just puts them in the bad situation of having to support a broken interface. It's much better for everyone involved for Apple to work out the kinks in their API and then, perhaps in the next year, release an update to the iPhone that enables support for third-party apps.

[griffman]

Looking forward, I certainly hope you're right, Glenn. But looking at the decisions made regarding the current software, it sure seems to me that the message is "third parties, we don't care about what you've done. Please go away until we allow you, maybe, to come back on our terms."
I would love to be proven wrong as soon as possible on this one -- I will gladly eat my words if Apple releases a free, open, and fully-documented iPhone software development kit. But if they hedge toward the controlled, only-approved-by-us approach, well, I'll be disappointed. Imagine how the Mac would have flopped if only approved apps were allowed onto the machine.
Time will tell of course, but as of now, I'm quite angry (can you tell? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ) at the 'close it up' direction the iPhone seems to be headed in.
-rob.

[chrisgalen]

I totally agree with your article. Apple missed the boat here. The iphone is a new platform not just a phone. I suppose the reason that Apple didn't include iChat with the iphone was because of the billion dollars each year AT&T makes on texting (You know you can text someone for free on their cellphone right from iChat). I'm reminded of Andy Hertzfeld's story of the development of the Macintosh. A couple of engineers wanted to first include an expansion slot and after that was shot down they wanted to include a "diagnostic port" which was also shot down. The reasoning from S. Jobs was that he didn't want users "mucking around" with the insides of their computers. I'm sure it's not just that attitude but I'm sure it's partially that attitude at Apple that is the reasoning behind a lot of the locking down of the iphone. Sure part of the reason is their contract with AT&T but a lot of it is because of their attitude. Just now with the requirement that a lot of ipod accessories have a special chip in them. Greed...pure and simple, greed. They better watch out because it's not just the hackers who are watching what's going on it's also third-party developers. Some I'm sure would love to write for the iphone and some I'm sure would love to see Apple shoot itself in the foot....again. Big mistake here Cupertino guys...big mistake.

[NewGuyontheMac]

Quote:

---

In my opinion, the long-term success of the iPhone is dependent on it becoming more Mac-like and less iPod-like relative to its support for third party applications.

---

Even though the iPod has sold millions more than the Mac? (Sure, there are pricing differences, but some iPods at a time have sold for almost as much as the mini). I'd think this would be a strong signal for aligning with the iPod way of doing business.

[griffman]

The iChat issue, though, is somewhat countered by this: the official method of iPhone app development is to use web apps, right? And guess what? You can run any of about five different web-based IM "apps" today, without ever enabling third party apps on your iPhone.
So if it's OK to do via a web URL, why isn't it OK for Apple to do as a "real" app? Because that'd be too easy for most people, I guess, so they would use it, instead of going through the trouble of finding a web-based chat app?
-rob.

[griffman]

Different target markets entirely. Not everyone who buys an iPod is in the market for a Mac (or a computer at all, for that matter). And yes, while some of the high-priced iPods cost nearly as much as a mini, Apple's most popular iPods have been the nanos and/or Shuffles, which are substantially less expensive.
Also, the purchaser of an iPod doesn't necessarily expect it to work like a full-blown computer -- they're buying an MP3/video player. The purchaser of an iPhone is buying something that's pitched as a revolutionary tri-use machine, covering internet, ipod, and phone uses. It was also heavily discussed that it used OS X for its core system, subtly pointing out that there was a full OS hiding inside the iPhone.
The iPhone should be compared to other smart phones, not one of which that I can think of (Nokia, BlackBerry, Palm) has a development platform that's closed to third parties. Both Palm and BlackBerry have very active developer bases that provide a huge assortment of unique applications.
-rob.

[rjwill246]

I agree with you and a couple of weeks ago I posited the same thing as Jason Snell has suggested. There will be 3rd party apps... having OS X in the phone makes it a computer, no matter what S Jobs says. He knows, when he says that it's not, he is full of it. This is a PDA- if emasculated at the moment.
I think that an iPhone store with approved and PROPER 3rd party apps is coming and we will pay a "tax" on those apps so that Apple continues to make more and more money. I can't argue with that BUT somewhere in there, Apple appears to be losing the plot. Cutting off the current, albeit far from stunning, 3rd party apps was silly, at best and makes SJ look as if he were just going to stick to his guns no matter what. I hope the current noise will get his attention, and while he is not one for admitting mistakes, I pray that Phil or someone at Apple can dig up an excuse that will let SJ save face and then do the right thing by its customers.
Too often, it appears to me that Mr Jobs forgets that most of us loyal fans bring two attributes-- the willingness to stick with the company when it looked like the mini-Titanic and a belief that Apple makes for the best computing experience (for the most part). It is said, SJ expects loyalty. But loyalty should come from a mutual respect, not a God-given right, and Mr Jobs needs to reward the incredible loyalty that Apple customers bring to the table.
SJ is now one of the greatest success stories in business-- not solely because of him and his team, but because of US, the ever-faithful Apple fans. Supporters, who, having ever and still, to keep battling to increase Apple's base, in a world still somewhat hostile to that concept.
SJ--- now be a real leader-- that means that you can see both sides, not just your own and that listening to the customer-- as you just recently did, bravo-- is something you need to do always. Slapping developers and the bright-eyed bushy tailed geniuses who have been the one of the other reasons Apple has survived, is ungrateful. This is not a good time to be surly and stand on ceremony. It is a time to see that Apple now has a great opportunity to make it a dominant company in both the the consumer and business world and it takes willing partners to do that. MS did many things right and one of them was to encourage 3rd party products. Apple once decried such a thing and it didn't help!!!
As a shareholder, I now ask you to "Think Different."

[TheCount]

Quote:

---

Apple released an iPhone software update last week, but Rob Griffiths doesnt plan on ever upgrading to it. Heres why. <a href="http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/10/iphoneno111/index.php">[more]</a>

---

Thats exactly what i dd also.... 1.02 and app.tap.... (with all its toys)....1.1.1. is for the birds...and you know what? i dont care what apple's wisdom (or lack thereof) is... i bet there will be a bunch of completely alternative iphone OS out soon... linux anyone?.... that will really burst Steve's bubble...

[NewGuyontheMac]

Quote:

---

A couple of engineers wanted to first include an expansion slot and after that was shot down they wanted to include a "diagnostic port" which was also shot down. The reasoning from S. Jobs was that he didn't want users "mucking around" with the insides of their computers.

---

Funny that you should mention this as in a way it highlights the problems of actually doing what engineers want /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif The first of the new macs, the Bondi Blue iMac had a mezzanine port that was mainly for diagnostics, but wasn't supposed to be used for any products. Third parties reverse engineered it and found you could use it to upgrade the CPU! What a find! Soon a market of products to use an undocumented port popped up.
Of course, when the next version of the iMac appeared, this port did not exist (and, officially, I guess it never DID exist /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif so it was viewed that Apple was "taking something away". It's for reasons like this I believe Steve Jobs says he's as careful about what features to put in (the iPod) as they are are about what features to leave out, because once it's officially there, it'll be hard to remove it and you don't want to be stuck with requiring each iPod ship with an FM tuner when HD radio is where all the action is (because, if you drop it, the FM tuner people will begin speaking of the "end days of Apple").
I have no wide ranging pronouncements about if or when third party apps appear, BUT that's probably because I owned no cell phone before two years ago, didn't install apps on that one, and this is only my second phone. I didn't really NEED it, but it's cool. Would it be cooler with extra apps? Maybe, but I'm no power phone user, so I can wait. If I REALLY needed apps, there are other, better phones on the market anyway that are OPEN to that /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[t0ny]

Update 1.1.1 is the STUPIDEST and I mean the STUPIDEST move and decision that Apple has made hands down. I hope to God they fix this SOON before bricked phones start making their way ONTO Apple stores.
What the HELL were you thinking Steve???? I mean COME ON MAN!!!!! Aren't YOU the one that asked developers to BUILD apps for the phone?? That's exactly what they did. What is your problem???