MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Growing discontent in 3...2...1...

After viewing the Keynote yesterday, I think I will stick with T tiger.

The dock only works at the bottom of the screen in Leopard? OUCH

Yeah, it blows. You could see even in their demo the lag time between scroll and screen refresh. It's a bullshit solution. Daring Fireball's take on the whole event resonates with me.

I'm not a developer and I could smell the "poo on my shoe". HOWEVER, with most things software there is a natural progression. Welcome to step 1.

RE: The dock only works at the bottom of the screen in Leopard? OUCH

----------

WRONG!

Did you even see the keynote video??

I think you need to get your eyes tested.

SJ showed the dock working on the left and right hand side.

I recommend you actually watch the keynote before stating any obvious errors.

I myself couldn't believe Steve Jobs would say that to a bunch of developers. It's like he forgot who he was speaking to.

Of all the people that might be able to see through that bullshit, you picked them?

It sounded like he was talking to a random crowd of young iPod users that would clap, nod and grunt like seals. "Oooo, no SDK necessary!"

That RDF isn't bulletproof, Steve.

> The dock only works at the bottom of the screen in Leopard? OUCH

What are you talking about? In the demo, Steve Jobs showed it working on the left side.

And what does that have to do with iPhone apps?

I think the developers who are complaining are short-sighted. Web-based apps are the future. Looking back 2-3 years from the future, these complaints that they can't write apps that reside on the device will look silly.

@ pr

The dock works on all 3 sides as it does now. He demonstrates this in the keynote...

@pr "The dock only works at the bottom of the screen in Leopard? OUCH"

Except for the times when you put it to the sides of the screen like they did in the keynote.

There are still plenty of great reasons to upgrade to Leopard, it's just that we found out most of them last year and now they seem old hat. A lot of them are under the hood. Full 64-bit support will increase speed as developers take advantage of it. Leopard has not been introduced with Apple's usual flair for PR, but it's still a solid improvement.

Gruber never says that the dock won't work on the side. He's complaining about how it looks while parked there.

RTFA, people.

Remember this is the 1st generation iPhone - developers should be bloody relieved that there IS actually a way of developing 3rd party apps for iPhone!

Apple could have quite easily just locked it all down and said "fuck you - we aint having crap software ruining the user experience on our new product".

Yes it's using web standards, BUT remember web standards are there for a reason, and that reason is almost guaranteeing that ANY app you right will work on iphone or on ANY mac at without any re-coding.

Whether people like it or not, this is the future of app development.

Everyone in the software business is starting to concentrate on 'web apps' - going soon are the days of installing software on your mac.

Apple knows this and to be honest all the developers do too but are affraid to make the leap of faith to do it.

Just look at Google - they beat Microsoft to the post to develop a web 'office' suite. Microsoft know they are in danger of losing Office's domination because of this.

You can bet your family fortune that Microsoft is working 24/7 on a web suite of Office.

The future is web apps - and Apple knows this.

Daring Fireball's take

Apple is still learning how to play nice with "partners." They're very used to getting their way when it comes to the user's experience, but in this field, they're going to have to learn to give up some control, I think-- or have less than stellar sales performance for iPhone.

I think Apple/Steve is only on the verge of realizing that many people would hoist Apple up as the next Microsoft. So, here's the rub-- to be that big means to have to be a little more like M$ perhaps. I'm not working in this field, but I wonder why Apple doesn't implement some sort of pay and play membership for iPhone developers that would require a great deal of scrutiny of the code used. This would help to promote security and keep the riff-raff out.

Anyone have any idea why this isn't being done?

Ditto from developer Will Gomez who wrote similar disssssatisfaction with Apple and the iPhone.

OK I'm not a programmer and I do take the point that they want full access to the OS on the iPhone.

But that's no reason to throw the baby out the pram.

If Google are writing all their apps on Web 2, it can't be all bad, and arguably it's the future.

I for one don't blame Apple for restraining the use of apps on iPhone. We'll end up with duplicate Mail progs, browsers, antivirus and a lot of other bollocks we don't need.

Let's learn to live with it and see how it goes. It is a revolution after all.

I say the kiddies should grow up frankly.

And, no, they are not being Microsoft, they are being sensible. Microsoft would have the whole think cocked up in no time with a free for all in an endeavour to take the whole market.

Oh, but then Microsoft never invented ANYTHING like this before.

I think as soon as the developers see how many iPhones are sold they will start developing the apps using the Apple tools whether they like it or not.

Lets face facts, the iPhone is going to be MASSIVE.

And when is does you can bet that the clients of developers are going to DEMAND their apps be written for iPhone.

And if the developers dont do it... then they will lose their client to a developer that will do it!

Developers miffed about Apple’s third-party iPhone apps solution

Well you know what developers?

95% of exploits are on applications, yea YOUR FSCKING SHODDY CODE!!

Why is it shoddy? Because your G-Dammed marketing departments want your insecure crap out the door first and fix it later approach, if it gets fixed at all.

So because of this, your FSCKING SANDBOXED!!! Good for us consumers!!

And to those third party developers who demand a admin password (aka sudo/root) to install your programs/hacks when it's really not needed (system level/cloning software excluded naturally).

A big FSCK YOU from those of us needing security.

You install your hacks in Mac OS X and it leaves a pathway to root through your shoddy coding practices.

Sure nobody is frigging perfect, but you plan for that and keep your frigging code out of root and in user space where it belongs so a compromised app doesn't have access to Mac OS X.

BUT NOOOO!!! Your marketing departments want root so they can install marketing ware, knowing exactly what time and day we are launching what programs, how often we use the competitors software and evil privacy crap like that.

And we all know full well you plan to use EFI to bypass any OS installed outgoing firewall software to catch you, to verify apps and other DRM crap invading our privacy and security.

We buy your apps to solve a need/want, not to be exploited and probed and labeled thieves automatically.

Get out of root space, stay out of EFI because I'm on a campaign to educate everyone to avoid software that installs in these areas.

Apple is guilty too for trusting developers to care about security. They realize shoddy security by third party coders is going to ruin their hardware sales.

So sit in your friggning sandbox where you belong, you earned it!

After viewing the Keynote yesterday, I think I will get a Pro system to move from Panther to Leopard. As soon as the Adobe bloatware runs on it.

There's one huge group of developers that I guarantee you are very happy with Apple's iPhone development solution: web developers. Last time I checked, they outnumber Mac OS X developers by a hefty margin.

Relax people, more options will come in time. I for one will be happy to see apps with similar quality to Dashboard Widgets running on iPhone. They'll still beat every other phone platforms apps any day.

Perhaps there will be many buyers who want the best iPod, and the best phone. They may not care about other applications running on the device. For now, anyway.

If you've seen the iPhone commercials, I'd have to sum it up as WOW, those "kinda sorta look like" applications!

Hey Jobs, if you want to bend over your developers, please don't do it in public and expect them to applaud you while you do it!

the web will be the future of software development the day HTML is replaced by something a lot better.

it's just too limited, there are completely categories of software that just can't be made in HTML.

i was planning to write a game that uses the iPhone's accelerometer to move a ball through a labyrinth, that is not be possible with the Web API.

Apple went with the web 2.0 option because it does not want to compromise the quality of the iphone user experience.

This is totally understandable.

Imagine the iphone in 2 years time if Apple didnt, the user experience would be as crap as all the other phones out there.

This is the right way for Apple and developers to proceed imho for a co-hesive, sustainable and stable user experience.

re: he web will be the future of software development the day HTML is replaced by something a lot better.

it's just too limited, there are completely categories of software that just can't be made in HTML.

i was planning to write a game that uses the iPhone's accelerometer to move a ball through a labyrinth, that is not be possible with the Web API.

----

Solution... write the game in flash! )

To anybody defending this announcement:

Please tell what it is was really good about the announcement for you! They already announced that a full version of safari was running on the phone, so you already knew you could write web-applications back at their original announcement. They already showed full websites before. People are not bad about that, they are mad that apple tried to pawn web-applications off as real applications.

Stop defending this announcement! It was pure spin intended for the press, and it shouldn't be tolerated by technology literate people of any form, web-developer or app-developer.

If Google are writing all their apps on Web 2, it can't be all bad, and arguably it's the future.

That's Google's bread and butter. Some of us live on a different diet. And web apps aren't the future. And the internet won't end the paper industry.

You install your hacks in Mac OS X and it leaves a pathway to root through your shoddy coding practices.

You shouldn't argue with your imagination. It's too easy. Pick a real opponent and argue with them.

Anyone who sais that AJAX and web 2.0 technologies don't allow full app development has no idea what he is talking about.
Developers are now only scratching at the surface, most are too lazy to try something really new.
Have a look at picnik.com or the Google apps!

Remember the promise of OpenDoc, write once play anywhere. Developers didn't like that, sell small apps that do what you want rather than big apps that cost loads of money but most people only use 10% of the features.

Remember Java, write once play anywhere. That got shafted too, mostly because of a developer, ie Microsoft.

Maybe third time around.

This is a way to stop the bad guys getting in, the viruses etc, work to standards that are enforced. Bloated apps leave holes.

iPhone will be memory/storage limited too - imagine what would happen if the iPhone was truly 'open' and Microsoft 'supported' Apple by developing some software for it!

The point is not whether the phone should or shouldn't allow applications. It's that they shouldn't say that they support applications when they don't.

Don't defend Apple treating people like idiots. We know the difference, we know what a browser is and what an app is.

I'm excited about the idea of being able to use the same web apps on Windows, Mac and iPhone. I think people are generally resistant to change. I remember when I first moved to the Mac, OSX was just coming out and you would have thought it was the end of the world reading sites like this. Nothing but negative comments about NEXT and how it was ruining Apple.

Well, here we are again, resisting change whether or not it's change for the better.

I think Apple will be first out of the gate with iLife and iWork that will work as Web 2.0 apps on all three platforms. Can't wait.

John Q. Public or even CEO Joe Blow won't really care about who writes what app in what language (or on what platform) for the iPhone. All that is going to matter is will the darn thing work as advertised. All this discontent is for naught. I'm sure that a majority of the buyers of the phone will more than likely stick with the default application set and not even worry about (or even care about) if he/she can download some pick-your-nose-widget made by developer X.

This is a nascent product, so let Apple have some time to perfect and tweak it before they let any old person with an iPhone SDK make crap that ruins the overall experience of owning an iPhone.

It's not about being resistant to change, its about being resistant to being mislead.

WEB-APPLICATIONS ARE WONDERFUL. Nobody disagrees.

Being mislead and fed a bunch of BS is not wonderful. Stop changing the topic.

Developers, that title is a laugh these days, like software 'engineer'. It's more like technical drawing than engineering. Like technical drawing most of the job is in error checking, not doing the drawing and checking it all afterwards like releasing betas but doing the checking on the job, as the work progresses. And then checking it all afterwards. Some software engineers/developers these days that I know don't know real coding, it's all object-oriented. I'd call it writing (as do many others), that's what it is, a set of instructions within certain parameters.

Most of the basic stuff was done way back, now it's user interface stuff aka design.

What's the point of bluetooth and all the connectivity if you can't use it. Imagine what you could do with a blue-tooth GPS. I can guarantee a website can't access that!

I agree though, the issue here isn't apps or no apps. It's about SPIN

WTF?

Developers needs?!?!?! This is an Excellent Solution! No troublesome code tweaking needed. Just do what you want. Easy+Fast+No Ridiculous Testing Needed+Cheap! SWEET INDEED. Wait a little = 2 weeks and READY! I Love It! I do not have to wait for another 6 months to get the app I need. Study more WebObjects and do what you what ever you LIKE!

MDN Magic Word: Simple

Safari for Windows is not simply for money.

When window user use Safari,

(1) More Web pages will be compatible with SAFARI.
(2) Easy to sync with iPhone
(3) More windows people can taste and realize the superiority of Apple software
(4) Open opportunities for Windows people to create
softwares for iPHONE.
(5)Make easy to switch to Apple, definitely help switching.

WRONG ! The Dock works on either side or the bottom just like Tiger. Jobs even demoed it putting it on the left side at one point in his presentation.

As far as I'm concerned Leopard Rocks! And I for will be there when it is released in October to get my copy.

Petey wrote:

"Apple went with the web 2.0 option because it does not want to compromise the quality of the iphone user experience"

did developpers ruin the UI of the mac ? i don't think so.

Apple did this for business reasons, because of AT&T, not for the users.

Petey wrote:
"Solution... write the game in flash"

1 the web 2 UI will not have access to the hardware, no accelerometer

2 the flash plugin (and probably any other web plugin are also banned from the iPhone.

Halix wrote:
"Anyone who sais that AJAX and web 2.0 technologies don't allow full app development has no idea what he is talking about."

i have been developing software for 30 years, including web 2 apps.

u can't do photoshop with a web 2 app, or serious games, u don't get access to the hardware, all u can do is what HTML allows u to do, no client side rotations, no 3D, no voice of video over IP, it's slow (very very slow), the UI is limited.

google made some great web 2 apps, they reached the limit of what can be done.

none of the iPhone's built in applications have been written with Web 2.

Can you save a web page onto the iPhone, to use it like an application when you are offline?? If you can do that, then their golden.

What are developers complaining about? Just what can you do with a native app that you can't do on an AJAX type webpage?

Wow! I haven't seen this many posts since the $50 iBook fiasco.

My take: Gruber is way off base with his statement: "It’s insulting, because it’s not a way to write iPhone apps, and you can’t bullshit developers. " I could swear I saw an app demonstrated on stage that worked through the browser. WTF!

So because The Steve doesn't want to have the iPhone turned into an unstable POS, with JoeBlowHack "developer" having access to the iPhone's innards, "developers" are miffed? Fuck 'em. (that expletive was for Mr. Daring).

Rock on Steve!

The safari thing and making money. Isn't that why Apple is in business? You know, to make money. Hello? Stupid pointless gripe as far as I'm concerned. And I think jobs didn't count out the fact that developers can't develop apps on the iPhone. Just right now they want to make sure it's secure and what does get on the iPhone won't crash. To me that sounds reasonable that you want your product as reliable as possible.

Leopard is a HUGE step in the right direction with AMAZING capabilities. It's just that many people are so farking stupid they don't realize it.

"The new Dock that only works visually at the bottom of the screen."

The operative word is "visually."

Look it up.

@ JadisOne

Hey now.Can ya tell me where I can get me one of them there "nose pickin widgets"





MDN Magic Word = old As in...All this whining is getting old

Petey: Right on, bro. Very well-stated.

I agree with a post I read around here over the last few days that suspected that the reason they weren't truly opening up the phone to developers was that AT&T is afraid that someone will build a VOIP app for it. Makes sense. You'd still need the 2 year agreement to get the phone, but what's to stop someone from discarding their AT&T contact after that and only using VOIP?

@pr

"The dock only works at the bottom of the screen in Leopard? OUCH"

Gruber meant that it didn't look good when you put it anywhere but the bottom, not that you can't.

I usually agree with John Gruber. His blogs are usually very insightful. But in his latest missive, I think John has really missed the point. Writing for the Web is no longer what it used to be. With the advent of programming tools like AJAX, developers who understand how to use Web 2.0 tools have formidable power at their disposal. This isn't your father's Internet.

A case in point: the new apple.com update. Say what you will about some aspects of its look and feel, if you have not really delved into its underlying technology and function, as Gruber has apparently failed to do, you will miss the power available in Web 2.0. Play with the interactive scrolling, or the pull-down bars, or the Spotlight-like search. It's interactive, and requires no screen refresh. That is a fundamental change from Web 1.0. And it is a showcase of what is possible to a programmer who understands the power of AJAX. Likewise, look at Google Maps. Or a host of other amazing new Web 2.0 sites.

As much as I enjoy reading the blogs of John Gruber, he is not a programmer. And that's the failing of so many blogs. They're opinions of bystanders like you and me. Gruber might be persuasive in many cases, but he does not have the expertise that a good programmer does, and here, he is speaking out of his posterior rather than his mouth.

I am appalled at the ready-fire-aim assessments in the past 24 hours by people who aren't at the WWDC, who aren't programming experts, and who have not seen the other 90+ developments and enhancements to 10.5. I suspect that many of the most significant advances in Leopard are not things that Steve Jobs showed off yesterday. Hardly any mention was given to Leopard being fully 64-bit compatible, to the code base in the Finder being completely rewritten, and many other things that I do not even know about yet.

My advice: blow off what Gruber has to say. Ignore many of the breathless blogs and hastily written, badly researched articles. Step back from your browser and wait a week, a month, even until October. We have yet to clearly understand the significance of what Apple is doing with Leopard and the capabilities available to developers to create fantastic third party applications for the iPhone. And remember too, that AT&T will have a say in all this too, as what needs to be developed for the iPhone has to appease the telco giant as well.

It's not as simple as a mere blogger might make it seem.

Sorry, John. Love your work. But this time, you got it wrong.

"I could swear I saw an app demonstrated on stage that worked through the browser. WTF!"

Actually, I chuckled at that. Did anybody notice the URL that they went to?

Keep in mind what happened--they built a fake phone book app on the web, optimized for iPhone. And how do you get to it? With a bookmark in your web browser.

Again, I want to use my Bluetooth GPS with my iPhone for a custom application. Tell me how to do that with a web app.

"So because The Steve doesn't want to have the iPhone turned into an unstable POS, with JoeBlowHack "developer" having access to the iPhone's innards, 'developers' are miffed? Fuck 'em. (that expletive was for Mr. Daring)."

Well, this brings up an entertaining question...

iPhone runs OS X. OS X is the core of Mac OS X, one of the most stable operating systems on the planet, as all of us Mac users know.

So how is my little app going to the iPhone into an "unstable POS"?

Or is there something else going on that we're not aware of. Again, the excuses don't match.