Quantcast
You are not logged in, click here to log in.
11 Replies Last post: Jun 15, 2007 1:41 PM by griffman  
Click to view MW Forums's profile New Member 12,220 posts since
Aug 2, 2004
Reply

Jun 14, 2007 12:30 PM

Mobile developers disappointed with iPhone news

Steve Jobs's WWDC announcement that there will be a "new way to create applications for the iPhone" via the Safari browser engine disappointed many Mac developers who were hoping for the ability to design native apps. But there's also disappointment from another quarter: mobile developers who focus on the mobile-device world. more
Reply
Click to view MacTel's profile Enthusiast 1,030 posts since
Jun 6, 2005
1. Jun 14, 2007 3:33 PM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Mobile developers disappointed with iPhone news
How many articles do we need on "Developers Disappointed by the iPhone"? My count so far on MacWorld alone is 4.
Click to view MGP's profile New Member 50 posts since
Dec 22, 2006
2. Jun 14, 2007 3:51 PM in response to: MW Forums
I agree with the above post, not to mention...
Who ISN'T disappointed with this news? It's lousy and hopefully it will change, but it is what it is...
Click to view seanmcg's profile New Member 128 posts since
Jan 11, 2005
3. Jun 14, 2007 3:53 PM in response to: MacTel
Re: Mobile developers disappointed with iPhone news
Quote:<hr />
How many articles do we need on "Developers Disappointed by the iPhone"? My count so far on MacWorld alone is 4.

<hr />


I second that, and ask this: how many developers were scrambling to put apps on the iPod, but were disappointed?

So basically, developers REALLY want to write apps for this new device from Apple because they think it is going to be revoultionary or a hot seller because
.....Apple made it and they've got a great reputation because
.........Apple did a great job with the iPod, a very reliable device, because
..............Apple restricted developer access.
Click to view Jason Snell's profile Macworld Editorial 2,185 posts since
Dec 11, 2000
4. Jun 14, 2007 4:06 PM in response to: MacTel
Re: Mobile developers disappointed with iPhone news
I hear you. We picked up this InfoWorld story because I thought it was interesting to hear from people in the mobile space, rather than in the Mac space, opine about the iPhone and the developer strategy.

I'm not sure taking the InfoWorld piece and sticking it at the end of our existing stories would have worked. But I agree it was a toss up, since I do think the story's been done. The people in this one were different, which pushed it over into the "post" category for me.


Jason Snell, Editorial Director, Macworld
Click to view tony_d's profile New Member 89 posts since
Jan 19, 2007
5. Jun 14, 2007 4:21 PM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Mobile developers disappointed with iPhone new
Just curious. Being none of us have actually played with the thing, is possible that its hackable, like the AppleTV is? Although I suspect besides voiding the warranty it might violate the contract AT&T. Any thoughts?
Click to view wmd's profile New Member 1 posts since
Jun 14, 2007
6. Jun 14, 2007 10:34 PM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Mobile developers disappointed with iPhone news
We're talking about a telephone - not an iPod. When I type in 911 and hit send I fully expect to reach emergency services because it could well be a matter of life and death.

Life and Death - that defines the reliability required by the public of a telephone. I don't want an open iPhone platform where Microsoft can show me a blue screen of death when I type 911. I want someone, preferrably the phone's manufacturer, testing the heck out of ANY software put on the phone - and THEN even having that software firewalled off from critical functions. That's what Apple is initially doing - Safari is there and firewalled off from the OS.

So lets just get the bugs out of the initial release before Apple opens development up. Then, only open it to a VERY small subset of developers who are willing to work closely with Apple to ensure the security and validity of the API's. Then, we have a device that stands the "life or death" test - because surely someone's life will depend upon the proper operation of the iPhone.
Click to view rjwill246's profile New Member 72 posts since
Jan 14, 2005
7. Jun 14, 2007 10:34 PM in response to: wmd
Mobile developers disappointed with iPhone news
Quote:<hr />
We're talking about a telephone - not an iPod. When I type in 911 and hit send I fully expect to reach emergency services because it could well be a matter of life and death.

<hr />


Yep! Your mouse hovers over the "agree" "disagree" buttons! "Agree"--- the EULA said they were not responsible for loss of property and, in essence, any of the catastrophes that could render the phone useless. You hit "agree" and your phone is toast.

Apple - "Sorry about that but we are not responsible for "X's" application."
"X"- "We cannot be responsible for any conflicts our software may have caused on your phone."
AT&T - "Sorry but your contract is for two years and you have to pay. And, no we did not guarantee 3rd party apps. Who told you THAT?"
You -"But my phone is not working-- it won't turn on!!"
AT&T- "Have you read your license agreement?"
You - "Well, who's responsible for this? It's not ME. I didn't do anything wrong! I followed the instructions."
ALL OF THEM - "YES, it IS you!!! What do you think the EULAs say? Have a good day!"
QED.
Click to view dbutenhof's profile Member 170 posts since
Sep 15, 2004
8. Jun 14, 2007 8:41 PM in response to: wmd
Re: Mobile developers disappointed with iPhone news
Quote:<hr />
We're talking about a telephone - not an iPod. When I type in 911 and hit send I fully expect to reach emergency services because it could well be a matter of life and death.


<hr />

And people who won't take any risk at all of the phone "not working because of 3rd party software" simply doesn't load any on a Palm or WinMob. No big deal. They don't want it, they don't miss it.

But many people are not in that category. I have no interest in "just a phone", or even in a "dumb smart phone". What I want, and the reason I have a Treo, is a "connected PDA". And I think we're a big audience who'd love to have OS X on a phone; not just because it's OS X, but because it's a great application platform. (What PalmOS could have been had they cared; what WinMob definitely is not and will never be.) But Apple says it's not an application platform, it's just a phone. The fact that it's running OS X is therefore irrelevant and uninteresting (except in that it delayed Leopard, which I want now. :-( )

Apple is telling me I can't have an iPhone, and, yeah, that's pretty disappointing. But, heck, my disappointment is a little tempered by the fact that regardless of applications they'd already told me they don't want me to get one by making an exclusive deal with AT&T. So I just have two giant reasons instead of only one.
Click to view danviento's profile Member 175 posts since
Mar 7, 2007
9. Jun 15, 2007 3:06 AM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Mobile developers disappointed with iPhone new
Despite the wonderful avenue these posts allow for venting/arguing/defending, I'm surprised no one has further speculated on the reasons behind at first saying "no apps. allowed" to "mobile apps. for now." I personally see it as a baby-step process. If things go well with the system of apple getting the big stamp of approval on their app. before Apple lets them post it, I could see it moving beyond web apps. when there's no real outcry against censorship. Plus, you know they're going to work against "hacking" the device, so they want time to develop all of those safe guards.

If the product takes off like everyone says, it could be like the iPod: our software, our store, our rules, and the vast majority of people are happy. Because they put up with it for the media features, (not just internet access, etc.) people could have a happy surprise if and when it opens up to do more. Of course, the iPod is still primarily a closed system.

Perhaps in 5 years, you won't see any more simple media devices from apple like the iPod, but rather a focus on these all-in-ones. Once solid-state memory becomes more of a reality, there would be much more space available at a cheaper rate, and it would only make sense to get an all-in-one package.

As much as people whine and complain about a little product not being everything they've drooled over, it's got possibility and room to grow. The market is there for all-in-one devices, and when components and data plans get cheaper, the client base and demographic could widen out substantially. Hell, I'd buy an iPhone to replace my aging 2nd and 3rd Gen iPod if I didn't have to pay for the data service.

My desire would be to skip the internet, email, and IM and just give me a phone with all the media that you don't need a network to say the magic words to port it over (curse you Verizon!) There are plenty of people out there who have the phone, the camera, and the iPod in their bag/purse/pocket that don't need access to the web all the time. Since Apple came out with dumbed down version of the iPod once it got hot (mini,nano,shuffle) that might be a possibility in this case to if there's an obvious demand and apple has the ability.

Hell, I'd even hold out for just the widescreen iPod.
Click to view ElianGonzalez's profile New Member 11 posts since
Sep 10, 2004
10. Jun 15, 2007 1:29 PM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Mobile developers disappointed with iPhone new
I too, am a little dismayed over the high level of bib-dribbling and spoon-clanging over developer access. I certainly don't discount the concern or the interest, but who exactly is this phone for? Developers? Or people who want to pony up the money and use a device that in many ways, is unlike other smartphones out on the market? When I bought my Treo 650, the last thing on my mind was how many applications I could add to it. I just wanted it to work.
Click to view griffman's profile Macworld Editorial 8,044 posts since
Jan 9, 2001
11. Jun 15, 2007 1:41 PM in response to: ElianGonzalez
Re: Mobile developers disappointed with iPhone new
And the main reason I chose the Treo 650 was access to third party applications. Those who don't want third party apps are under no requirement to use them. But by not making it even possible, those who want them will not be able to get them.

-rob.