[zensunni]

ahalvor said:

....and please check your facts. Since 2004 (eons in internet age) you have had the option to not be logged of when closing an AIM client. Come on Rob....research!

Why have AIM clients had this feature for 'eons'? Because they were programmed so by their developers. Obviously AIM for the iPhone (which is totally new) could be programmed to keep running in the background if Apple allowed devs to do it, but doing so is currently against the dev agreement and it seems the iPhone itself will shut the application down if it doesn't close gracefully after loosing focus. I wouldn't be surprised if AOL is allowed to do this, but that says nothing for developers that don't have a special relationship with Apple.

[Olu]

"Of course. That's their rationalization behind every restriction on the iPhone. Though I find it ironic that security and stability aren't an issue on my MacBook Pro and iMac (at least, not for Apple. They are for me. And like others I've found Leopard itself to be less stable than prior versions of OS X). Apple hasn't restricted development on either of these, yet security and stability are just as important. Of course, no one would accept such silly restrictions on a personal computer, so are we accepting them on the iPhone?"

You're kidding right?

The name of the device is iPHONE. It is 1st and foremost a phone. I would say it's next primary function is an Email device. I would be pissed if a program prevented either of those functions from performing the way they should.

Also the MBP and iMac have several orders of magnitude more powerful then the iPhone. Programming for desktop platforms is very different then programming for the iPhone (see posts above).

I think Apple's approach is great. See what happens with the most restrictions and ease them up IF necessary.

[griffman]

But it is, however, several orders of magnitude more powerful than other existing smart phones, at least some of which (Palm OS, Windows Mobile, not sure about Blackberry) seem to be able to run third party applications in the background just fine.

Why is Apple's iPhone different?

Keep in mind that a consumer's use of the device is up to the consumer, not Apple. To you, it's primarily a phone. To myself, and many others, its abilities as a phone are well down on the list of reasons we like the iPhone. I've probably spent a grand total of 60 minutes using the phone part of the iPhone in the last 30 days, but it's been with me and used for everything but calling at least 10x that often in that same timeframe.

Third party apps are optional. Nobody has to buy them or use them if they don't want to. I'm sure we're going to see a big disclaimer from Apple on anything we do buy and install -- there's no way Apple is guaranteeing that these apps are safe, any more so than they do for apps on OS X today. So why can't I, the consumer, make the decision on what goes on my device, just as I can make the decision about what goes on my computer? (Within the restrictions of network security, etc. that Apple has stated.) I have yet to hear a good argument against consumer choice in this thread. It would be different if Apple were forcing these applications on consumers, but they're not.

-rob.

[zensunni]

Quote

{quote:title=Lonestar1 wrote:}
I know this is going to sound harsh, but if you can't even understand that there are real security, stability, and performance tradeoffs -- not "rationalizations" -- then your technical opinion is not worth very much.

I'm not going to lower myself to personal attacks.

I will remind you that despite these platform differences which you seem to think inherently make security/stability for the iPhone more important than for my Mac (which has significantly more confidential and important information; and I can always redirect my mobile number and use a landlind if need be), there are examples of other smartphone manufacturers that have and continue to allow open development on their devices. Sure, they may be less stable when running the apps, but at least their users have the ability to make that choice for themselves.

If Apple truly opened the iPhone for developers and you were worried about stability/security issues with installing third-party apps, you'd have the choice to not install any. Security and stability would be unaffected for you. The reverse isn't true, and Apple's excuses remain rationalisations for a pure decision based on milking every penny they can out of the product.

[bslayerw]

Lonestar1 said:

"I'd hardly call Macworld a random blog. Many have already filed bugs for these type of things (I know because mine get closed as duplicates)."

Every developer closes duplicate bugs. That's hardly shocking.

So you weren't really trying to get Apple's attention, since you already knew the request had been reported to Apple.

"So yeah method 2 is more likely to get better results because instead of a bug report we have a thorough discussion about the topic in a public forum where instead of an Apple Engineer closing filed bugs we have Apple PR possibly accessing the situation."

Sorry, but technical decisions are made by engineers, not PR people.

Exactly what kind of developer are you?

There's a big difference between technical decisions and business decisions. I'm the kind of developer that has worked at big companies where I get the fuss over the technical details but what we build is dictated by our customers (developers are customers too). What kind of developer are you?

[Lonestar1]

Quote

I will remind you that despite these platform differences which you seem to think inherently make security/stability for the iPhone more important than my Mac

I think they're more important because they are. Everyone in the
mobile industry knows that. What makes you so certain they're wrong?
Have you done any market research to back up your opinions? Or do you
just assume all of your customers (and all of Apple's customers, who
are a great deal more diverse than yours) feel the same way you do?

Quote

I can always redirect my mobile number and use a landlind if need be),

You're kidding, right? You think that's a better solution to security
problems than what Apple's come up with?

Do you really expect your customers to forward their phone number just
so they can run your killer app? How many customers have you talked to
about this?

Quote

there are examples of other smartphone manufacturers that have and continue to allow open development on their devices.

Which manufacturers? Android is the only open-source mobile I know of,
and they haven't shipped any phones yet. When they do, I'll bet the
manufacturers build security features into them.

Windows Mobile has security features to limit the distribution of
malware. So does Blackberry. Do you think Apple invented certificates
and code signing?

Quote

Sure, they may be less stable when running the apps, but at least their users have the ability to make that choice for themselves.

Exactly. Users can make choices for themselves. They can choose to buy
Apple's phone or Microsoft's or RIM's or Zensunni's, if you choose to
build one.

You also have the ability to choose. You can develop for Android or
Win Mobile or Blackberry. No one's forcing you to develop for iPhone.
If you think Apple's so evil, then pick a better platform.

You're demanding that Apple design its products solely to meet your
tastes. Sorry, but that isn't reasonable. You're making the first
mistake in marketing: Assuming that the entire world wants what you
want.

Quote

If Apple truly opened the iPhone for developers and you were worried about stability/security issues with installing third-party apps, you'd have the choice to not install any.

Right. So, most people would choose not to install any third-party
apps. That would harm Apple and the iPhone but how would it help you?
Apple is creating an environment in which customers can download your
app with confidence, knowing that it is safe and secure. They're
providing a store to help you distribute and market it. They've even
gone out and found VC money to fund people like you.

Most people think that's a pretty sweet deal. If you don't, great. Go
develop for Android. Although I'm willing to bet that when
manufacturers start to ship Android phones, they'll build in security
features you consider evil.

Security and stability would be unaffected for you. The reverse isn't true, and Apple's excuses remain rationalisations for a pure decision based on milking every penny they can out of the product.

Ah, now we come to the root of the problem. You don't think Apple has
a right to make money on the products they sell?

Sorry, I can't agree with that. (Are you in academia?)

[Chris Breen]

Moderator jumps in:

This is veering into the personal. Let's veer out, now.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[kimhill]

This is the best article I've seen about why Apple's SDK limitations matter very much:
http://whydoeseveryt...eal-mobile.html
Excerpt:
Applea??s new platform will make it possible to create lots of great games, and really pretty more functional user interfaces. But personally, Ia??ll take one paradigm shifting application over a thousand cool games any day. So if you agree, I strongly suggest you say something. Link to this piece or restate the arguments elsewhere.
Apple does respond to customer uproar, and right now the SDK feedback is way too positive given the significance of what is missing. The market excitement is a response to the eye candy, which is great. Perhaps even necessary. But it is not sufficient. In attempting to keep all innovation to itself, Apple is really doing a disservice not just to us, but in a shortsighted manner, it is also doing a disservice to itself. In fact, Apple is slowing down the kind of innovation that will most assuredly drive the next generation of mobile experiences.
And so I say, Please, Mr. Jobs, tear down that wall.

[Lonestar1]

"Appleâ€^TM^s new platform will make it possible to create lots of great games, and really pretty more functional user interfaces. But personally, Iâ€^TM^ll take one paradigm shifting application over a thousand cool games any day. So if you agree, I strongly suggest you say something. Link to this piece or restate the arguments elsewhere."

Funny how many other companies think they can write paradigm shifting applications with the iPhone SDK.

Several people here are claiming it's impossible to write an instant messenger without background apps, but AOL has already ported their instant messenger to the iPhone.

If you're complaining that you can't write an instant messenger on the iPhone when AOL has already done it, then obviously Apple isn't stopping you. You just need to be as clever as AOL.

If you think you need to run in the background, why not talk to Apple and find out what's necessary to get approval to run in the background?

If you can't get approval, find some other way to do it. I can think of at least four architectures for doing instant messaging without background processes, and I'm not an IM developer. I can also think of architectures to do everything that "whyeverythingsucks.com" claims is impossible. (That domain name ought to give you pause. Why would you take someone who thinks "everything sucks" seriously?)

If you're complaining that Apple won't let you architect your application exactly the way you want, so what? There are compromises every time you're working with another person. (And remember that Apple is made up of people, not demons, even if you disagree with them.)

And if you're not as clever as AOL, you might want to ask yourself if you really want to competing with AOL Instant Messenger. They already have a big lead, and you're going to have to work like a dog to catch up.

Maybe you should write something else? Calling everything that doesn't run in a background process a "game" is nonsense. More than 100,000 people have downloaded the SDK. If 100,000 people are developign applciations with the SDK (and not just games), while a few are saying it's impossible to develop applications with the SDK, that should tell you something.

[bslayerw]

Lonestar1 said:

"Appleâ€^TM^s new platform will make it possible to create lots of great games, and really pretty more functional user interfaces. But personally, Iâ€^TM^ll take one paradigm shifting application over a thousand cool games any day. So if you agree, I strongly suggest you say something. Link to this piece or restate the arguments elsewhere."


Funny how many other companies think they can write paradigm shifting applications with the iPhone SDK.


Several people here are claiming it's impossible to write an instant messenger without background apps, but AOL has already ported their instant messenger to the iPhone.


If you're complaining that you can't write an instant messenger on the iPhone when AOL has already done it, then obviously Apple isn't stopping you. You just need to be as clever as AOL.


If you think you need to run in the background, why not talk to Apple and find out what's necessary to get approval to run in the background?


If you can't get approval, find some other way to do it. I can think of at least four architectures for doing instant messaging without background processes, and I'm not an IM developer. I can also think of architectures to do everything that "whyeverythingsucks.com" claims is impossible. (That domain name ought to give you pause. Why would you take someone who thinks "everything sucks" seriously?)


If you're complaining that Apple won't let you architect your application exactly the way you want, so what? There are compromises every time you're working with another person. (And remember that Apple is made up of people, not demons, even if you disagree with them.)


And if you're not as clever as AOL, you might want to ask yourself if you really want to competing with AOL Instant Messenger. They already have a big lead, and you're going to have to work like a dog to catch up.


Maybe you should write something else? Calling everything that doesn't run in a background process a "game" is nonsense. More than 100,000 people have downloaded the SDK. If 100,000 people are developign applciations with the SDK (and not just games), while a few are saying it's impossible to develop applications with the SDK, that should tell you something.

You're making some major assumptions here. How do you know AOL doesn't have a deal with Apple to run in the background? How did they show off their IM client on an iPhone already when the rest of us can't test on anything other than the simulator at the moment?

I'd love to see your architectures for sending INSTANT MESSAGES to a friends whos IM client is not running using INSTANT MESSAGING protocols (not email, SMS etc).

I'm sure everyone would also take you more seriously if you had something to add to the conversation without personally attacking people for having an opinion.

[Lonestar1]

"You're making some major assumptions here. How do you know AOL doesn't have a deal with Apple to run in the background?"

I am not making that assumption at all. They may very well have a deal with Apple -- which would disprove your assumption that it's impossible for developers to get such a deal, wouldn't it?

The one thing I know is that they do have a deal, they didn't get it by posting on a MacWorld blog. They got it by doing the same thing I suggested you do. They talked to Apple.

Just pick up the phone and call one of the Apple's developer evangelists. Then, if they spit in your face and kick your dog, you can complain about it. Right now, you're just assuming they will do that because they're Ferengi.

"How did they show off their IM client on an iPhone already when the rest of us can't test on anything other than the simulator at the moment?"

Maybe they're working with the Illuminati?

Or maybe because Apple invited a select group of companies to send engineers to Cupertino two weeks before the release and try out the SDK, as Apple stated just before the demo?

Personally, I'd go for the non-conspiracy theory, but that's just me.

> I'd love to see your architectures for sending INSTANT MESSAGES to a friends whos IM client is not running using INSTANT MESSAGING protocols (not email, SMS etc).

I didn't say I would do it solely using instant messaging protocols. In my experience, there's generally more than one way to do things. If you think there's only one true way to do everything, then I'm not surprised you're upset.

> I'm sure everyone would also take you more seriously if you had something to add to the conversation without personally attacking people for having an opinion.

Laugh. You started out by accusing Apple of lying and rationalizing. When you post an opinion that isn't a personal attack on Apple, then I will take you seriously.

To start with, I would like to see your technical analysis to show that security and performance are not important on mobile phones.

[bslayerw]

Lonestar1 said:

Quote

Laugh. You started out by accusing Apple of lying and rationalizing. When you post an opinion that isn't a personal attack on Apple, then I will take you seriously.

you're putting other peoples words in my mouth.

Quote

To start with, I would like to see your technical analysis to show that security and performance are not important on mobile phones.

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said performance and security where not important. This is my last post, I'm going to stop feeding the troll.

[griffman]

"Several people here are claiming it's impossible to write an instant messenger without background apps, but AOL has already ported their instant messenger to the iPhone. "

I never made such a claim, in case you're lumping me in the "several people" group. However, what I'd love for you to point out is where I missed the demo of the AIM client running in the background, alerting the user to a request for a new conversation, or of a new message in an existing conversation? The only time the AIM client was shown was when it was the running app.

Nothing in the demo disproves Apple's stated position that background apps will not be allowed.

And without a background process of some sort, there's simply no way a real time program like Chat, Twitter, or IRC can work: if it's not running, it's not running. You can talk about workarounds all you want, but unless you're somehow running a process in the background (which Apple states they will not allow), then you can't update your app unless it's frontmost. Game over.

As for asking Apple, I did. We're still waiting for a clarification on exactly what "only one app at a time and no background processes" means relative to net-connection-required apps.

-rob.

[tazzben]

First, let me say, that it's just a device... no one here is insulting anyone's Grandmother or anything, could everyone be a little respectable of each other, even if you disagree.

griffman said:

Third party apps are optional. Nobody has to buy them or use them if they don't want to. I'm sure we're going to see a big disclaimer from Apple on anything we do buy and install -- there's no way Apple is guaranteeing that these apps are safe, any more so than they do for apps on OS X today. So why can't I, the consumer, make the decision on what goes on my device, just as I can make the decision about what goes on my computer? (Within the restrictions of network security, etc. that Apple has stated.) I have yet to hear a good argument against consumer choice in this thread. It would be different if Apple were forcing these applications on consumers, but they're not.

-rob.

Hi Rob-

I actually think I already made a reasonably good argument to why apple might be against "consumer choice" in my post comment here:

http://forums.macwor...e/622888#622888

But if I might add to that a bit. One other aspect is Apple's way of protecting it's consumers. The Windows Mobile platform is less stable in at least part because of the ability to run multiple applications at once. But when you hear bloggers or commenters complain about WM, they don't tend to say "gosh the program written by the 12 year old kid crashed my phone", they say "My phone crashed, Microsoft shouldn't let that happen". You're right, apple may put a big sign up that says any crash resulting from a 3rd party isn't our fault, but do you really think that is going to stop people from blaming them?

Having a completely open platform is a legitimate approach has lots of advantages. But having a protected platform, is also a legitimate approach with it's own set of advantages and disadvantages. That's why it is absolutely wonderful/necessary that there is competition in the marketplace with lots of choices. The only approach that is terrible, in my opinion, is trying to do it half way. For instance, if you had a checkbox to allow you to install an app without it being approved of by Apple, I think that would be really bad because people would expect the stability of the closed system.

Apple, obviously, is choosing the protected system. I personally agree with that decision, especially given the success of the iPod. Which, to me, says most people want something that just works. That may not be everyone, but trying to please everyone is how you end up making a terrible product.

That's my business argument, as for my technical one, please refer to my previous post.