MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Apple is still in full control, but we don't have to jail-break our iPhones to get these new features. I don't know where Mellisa's coming from, but I'm looking forward to what comes out of the SDK.

Mar 07, 08 - 04:19 pm Comment from: Ampar

"Developers will need to do so in a Mac environment, though."

Hmm. A computer manufacturer wants to sell more of their computer hardware. That is a puzzle.

wow. Iphone wow.

ban PC users from it.

Stifle: "To prevent from speaking or to prevent a view being heard." The Windows PC are being gaged or stifled in developing iPhone apps. Ok.

Apple does not have to let anyone make apps. The fact that the Windows PC programers get to use a Mac is not a road block. If they ever choose to go back to the Windows PC, I would be surprised.

FREE THE PROGRAMERS! ONCE THEY GO MAC THEY NEVER GO BACK!

Mar 07, 08 - 04:31 pm Comment from: occams razor

in June, it will transform the iPhone into the mobile phone to beat

Sorry, it's been the phone to beat since last June

One question for Melissa:

Is there a .NET IDE for Mac? No?

Apple wants developers to use OS X to develop OSX apps for the iPhone. That is just so, … ugh, wow, crazy?

And then they are going to use a completely internet based method of marketing, distribution and payment which will be open to anyone on the planet willing to part with $99? That is just so, so, let-me-think, ugh, yeah, gosh-darn, unfair?

Like the one analyst said, "Prepare for 20 years of Apple dominance in the mobile space."

If they're so offended by being forced to use a Mac to program for the iPhone, they can always install Windows via Boot Camp on them too....

Mar 07, 08 - 04:41 pm Comment from: 84 Mac Guy

I read the article yesterday and did not find it very offensive. The writer is correct that by Apple tightly controlling the apps that make it to the iPhone, some innovation will be stifled.

But, unless Apple does something stupid and keeps good apps off the iPhone, the type of innovation that will be stifled is the kind of innovation that has loaded PCs with malware, spyware, viruses, etc. etc.

Be my guest Apple, stifle away!

Of course some can argue that Apple shoudn't walk towards becoming a monopole as M$ choosed to. Others will applause to any sort of money making...
Apple is yet quite in a position where its marketshare % doesn't makes it look like any monopolistic superpower and therefore Apple has still some rights to go along assuring good and well done products.
Naturally, some IT are screaming about some stifling inovation, just because they'll have to change few hard ankered habits of monomaniac developpement.
Maybe, 10 years from now, when M$ will just be a far souvenir, some will seriously debate about Apple's worldwide dictats... Before that, let's see what Apple does when it'll reach the 30% marketshares limit...
Then, what once was called "smartphones with windows" will be evoked, everybody will just laugh their brains out!

Mar 07, 08 - 04:47 pm Comment from: shen

" So, Apple not allowing malware to be spread throughout their platform is somehow a bad thing?"

that explains it!

i thought windows sufferers were just dumb or uninformed. turns out, they LIKE malware! they want those viruses! they enjoy defrag!

Melissa = Hit whore
PC World = Pimp

Can't you just see the meeting at PC World, all of them around the conference table, yelling and screaming at one another trying to figure out what to write about in the PC world except how Sony is talking to MS about BR and somehow this is news.


"How are we going to sell stories and make money if the whole freak'n PC world can't give us anything to write about. Let's jump on the Mac train but don't write how amazingly cool everything is but figure out how to write something bad about it so we can sell more stuff to dumb ass PC people. If you don't you'll be out a job sooner then they will."

hehe

For business Apps, you want something that you can run on both desktop and mobile platforms.

You don't necessarily want to recode your application for a different platform.

That being said... I think that if your application is able to sync with your business back end over the wire using web services, that it could work... but I don't know enough about developing using xcode to know for sure.

Mar 07, 08 - 04:58 pm Comment from: Ampar

"If you don't you'll be out a job sooner then they will."

That's funny!

@Rob: Actually, there is Mono... which is .Net for a Mac.

The entire .net library can also be run inside Silverlight, inside a browser.

Say what you will about Microsoft, but the .Net platform is very extensible and well thought out.

Mar 07, 08 - 05:00 pm Comment from: mossman

Here's an example of a gray area application: a network traffic or packet analyzer.

Would this be considered malicious? To anyone with brains, it's no more malicious than a kitchen knife. But then you have wacko groups that see any type of sniffing as hacking.

Right now the balance is fine, but it won't be long before special interest groups (even the US government) pressure Apple into banning certain types of applications, and we'll have a Napster situation (single-point of failure).

Heck, P2P apps (even if impractical for today's iPhone) are a perfect example of something certain groups would want to prevent being distributed.

"Edith, stifle yourself!" -- Archie Bunker

Mar 07, 08 - 05:30 pm Comment from: boyweho

Well, Steve said no pr0n, so that's a dealbreaker right there. Can you imagine Hustler getting its hands on the accelerometer and coding up some multi-player (one-handed) 'game'? Strictly for 'entertainment' purposes only, of course.

Mar 07, 08 - 05:37 pm Comment from: Ampar

"Can you imagine Hustler getting its hands on the accelerometer and coding up some multi-player (one-handed) 'game'?"


"Super Terrific Monkey Balls"? Or "Titris"?

One drawback. The tongue does not work on the iPhone's multi-touch surface. Yet.

@Apple Pi:

I don't think Salesforce.com did any recoding, at least not any they mentioned in the presentation. They just created an app for the iPhone which used their data.

Apple has a real trojan horse here: a new way to get OS X into corporate/enterprise arenas:

1. Corporate execs, sales forces, etc. want to have an iPhone, so they pressure the IT department into getting their stuff to work on an iPhone.

2. IT (or more likely, the firm hired to do their software) BUYS A MAC so it can use the iPhone SDK.

3. Within a short time period (oh, I don't know, say 2 weeks?), the iPhone app is up and running and all the corporate execs are happy.

4. IT realizes just how easy it was to create the iPhone app, and starts looking at other ways to use Apple's SDKs to create other solutions.

This is a new way for Apple to demonstrate the power and ease of use of OS X, particularly aimed at developers and other people who may never otherwise consider using a Mac.

Jeeze, do people in the PC world not get it or what?

There is this principle, K.I.S.S.

KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID

Apple gets it, they understand the simplest way of doing something is the best way of doing something.

Single source for all content is the best way for users to get the apps they will want.

Mar 07, 08 - 05:54 pm Comment from: jocknerd

Article:
"But without a third-party download source and a bonafide application installation/deinstallation manager, Apple will have the ability to constrain the needs of its consumers if and when it so chooses."

MDN response:

"So, Apple not allowing malware to be spread throughout their platform is somehow a bad thing?"

Maybe you should think before you speak MDN. How much malware have you seen in Linux? Ubuntu/Debian STILL has the best package management system around. And some people have ported it to the jailbreaked iPhone, which makes it very simple to install apps on it.

Mar 07, 08 - 06:02 pm Comment from: amyhre

@Ampar

One drawback. The tongue does not work on the iPhone's multi-touch surface. Yet.

Thank God! Can you imagine Ballmer secretly buying one just for the privilege of licking the latest starlet and getting a recording of her moans? The thought nearly made me spew tea all over my PowerBook (spewing it back into my cup saved my keyboard!).

On the subject of the article, I really don't see why the need to complain. Personally I'm all for anything that will get people taking a second look at developing for Mac OS X be it mobile or desktop. And is the fact they'll be programming it on other machines that also run OS X such a bad thing? Seems to me that most of us who have been using it as long as we have don't want applications programmed that have the Windows look and feel to them. Besides, does Windows have Darwin or Cocoa or anything like that to take into consideration in programming? I look forward to see what kinds of things will "Surface" due to this development, despite the fact I don't have an iPhone or iPod Touch. =(

I imagined from the headline that this was going to be a bash Apple's control over the access. If you listen carefully SJ said "this is going to be the exclusive wireless" and in the Q&A;he said we are working on a method for wired installation. That was specific to a question about company specific enterprise software. So it sounds like there will be a channel stuff won't include in the App Store.
Wow, just think of the creative porn games with touch, squeeze, rotate, and shake. No wonder Apple doesn't want these on their servers.
iPhone and the SDK!!! Game changer for sure. That $600 within 2 years may turn out to be a very fair prediction indeed. I'm salivating at all the cool apps that are going to be coming. I'm already mapping out 2 apps myself.

MacDailyNews Take: So, Apple not allowing malware to be spread throughout their platform is somehow a bad thing?

I'm curious- would MacDailyNews take the same position if Apple decided that all Mac software could only be distributed through Apple? Or is the iPhone, which uses a variant of Mac OS X, so much more vulnerable to crappy software than the "full" version of Mac OS X is?

Apple’s iPhone SDK strategy both promotes and stifles innovation

Has Apple hired John Kerry as well?

the apps aren't allowed to run in the background? yikes. makes AIM on the iPhone very limited...

The only thing Apple wants to stifle is CRAPPY PROGRAMMING!

Mar 07, 08 - 11:58 pm Comment from: ElderNorm

I just get a kick out of how these topics go from on topic to out in left field.

For a long time to come there will be people that will hate Apple. Sorry but when you dislike something strongly for no good reason, it is usually called Hate. They may get paid for it, they may just be paranoid, but they will like terrible things and dislike things that work well.

Sorry, I could care less (mostly) I am going to try and get a few more shares of Apple while its still low and just enjoy owning one of the most advanced, caring, and technologically superior companies in the world. And I love using their products.

PERIOD.

And please stop trying to KILL the iPhone before the apps even get released. Sheeeezzzeee.

en

What????

Sending the app through the app store is limitation???


Do you know how much developers make, after they go through publishers, to distrubutors, then through the sales chain and lastly through massive advertisements...
they get

5%


of what we pay for.

What Sir Jobs is offering is 70%

That is bloody good. And it means the programs will cost less.

Obviously PC world never makes any programs so they're probably not bright enough to know this fact.

How does it stifle innovation? Because of 70%, AppStore?

Ridicules, actually it promotes innovation, developers spend less time marketing and worrying about finances.

"the apps aren't allowed to run in the background? yikes. makes AIM on the iPhone very limited..."

You are foolish for wanting to receive instant messages while not actually in the instant messaging application. Why do you see this as a limitation rather than an expression of Steve Job's genius in forcing you to focus on only doing on thing at once?

"Do you know how much developers make, after they go through publishers, to distrubutors, then through the sales chain and lastly through massive advertisements...
they get

5%
"

So Steve is going to advertise your application for you? Great. I thought Apple was just creating a monopoly on iPhone software downloads and clipping the ticket for 30% of all iPhone software sales without doing anything other than provide an ecommerce server to download them from. Good to hear they'll be doing something to earn that 30%. Have you got more details on the advertising program?

Also I can assure you that most software houses get much more than 5% of the final retail price of any package they sell.

OMG! Next thing you know, they'll be wanting you to have a windows box to write windows apps! Oh, wait...

Mar 10, 08 - 10:01 am Comment from: Mr. Peabody

@almux - While Apple has certainly "dominated" in the personal music/media player market, and is a very real competitor in personal electronics in general. I think we're still quite a ways off from Apple having any real significant overall share, especially with its computer lines.

But, having said that, I've always said that I hope we [the consumers - personal and enterprise] have finally learned that we never ever want to see another Microsoft happen again - ever.

IF Apple ever gains something close to 50% market share with its computing devices, then I like to think that, by then, there will finally be true and diverse (if that's not redundant) competition in that type of market - totally the opposite of what we have now. And in a scenario like that I personally would not be overly fearful of Apple even being able to become another MS because they would have to keep on doing what they're doing now - innovate, cut the edge, and ultimately, keep drawing consumers based on developing products that people really want to buy - Something MS doesn't have to do so they don't - they've got us all by the proverbial balls.

I'd love to see Apple get a good solid, long term 20-40% market share, but until we actually see that I don't believe that we have much need of any real-world concern that we're going to trade being locked in by MS for being locked in by Apple. Sometimes I get the strange feeling that Apple doesn't necessarily care about gaining significant market share - I don't know.