Slashdot Log In
AT&T Welcomes Programmers for All Phones Except the iPhone
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Oct 02, 2007 09:46 AM
from the come-out-and-play dept.
from the come-out-and-play dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Apple's reasoning for keeping the iPhone a closed platform is that they don't want to 'potentially gum up the provider's network'. An article in the New York Times, though, points out that there are hundreds of phones out there working on open platforms that don't seem to be causing network interference. AT&T and Palm, in fact, welcome experimentation on their platforms. In AT&T's case ... on every phone but the iPhone. 'Hackers who have explored the workings of the phone say it uses the frameworks and structures that Apple uses on its other platforms to enable development; it just hasn't been documented. So if Apple is going to allow applications later, is there any reason -- other than vindictiveness or obsessive interest in control -- that it would want to cut off those developed by the pioneers who figured things out ahead of the official launch?'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
vindictiveness? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:vindictiveness? (Score:5, Informative)
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphones/meizu-m8-pricing-revealed-most-affordable-iphone-clone-yet-241069.php [gizmodo.com]
as well as many others. I have touched one of the cooler ones that accepts 2 sim cards. I love it when some of the international sales people come back from HongKong with neat toys.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Though I feel the need to point out that ANY cell phone is going to require at least some kind of service to be useful, and for any smartphone you will probably want a unlimited data plan. In the US that means $20 with T-Mobile or $20 with AT&T
Security Security Security (Score:5, Interesting)
The big reason that Windows machines are riddled with Trojans, is that every user's process runs with the same permissions as the user, and that current systems do not allow finer-grained control over these permissions. (I removed 18 Trojans from my girlfriend's mom's computer the other day!) Stuff like this is one of the big reasons why the user experience on Windows can SUCK. (And yes, it's terrible that all iPhones have the same root password and that's already been cracked.)
The OLPC folks are addressing this by running apps in a sandbox. There are many others thinking along these lines -- that the security model we've been using is not the right one. The current Access Control List security model was designed to keep individual users on a mainframe from interfering with each other while under the supervision of a benevolent and all-powerful root Super-User. Now, in the 21st century, essentially everyone, their mom, their grandparents, and anyone else who runs Windows as Administrator and installs programs is root.
Think about it. There's something seriously wrong here, folks.
Now that we are entering the era of dual and quad core computers becoming mainstream, there is no reason why we can't have more secure models like capabilities. (Especially on quad core machines, where a micro-kernel can lock itself to one processor to prevent context-switch overhead without undue loss of performance.) In order to ensure security on the iPhone, and thus retain total control of the user experience despite malicious hackers, something like sandboxes with a capability model is needed. (Capabilities without context switch overhead could also be enabled by using a VM platform like Java.)
See Rik Farrow's Google Tech Talk [google.com] on this subject. It's over an hour, so download it and watch it while working out. It's a *fact* that we've been barking up the wrong tree security-wise.
Parent
Re:Security Security Security (or not?) (Score:3)
Perhaps it's also worth mentioning that the initial programs written for the iPhone exploited security holes in the software? It's possible that the death of the Installer.app applications was just a side effect of a security tightening.
Then again, that doesn't explain the ringtones, does it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have an iPhone (yet), but I have had many PDA phones and I think Apple have made the right call here for iPhone v1.0 but they will have to change if they want iPhone v2.0 to be a success.
The big problem with most PDA phones is that they are worthless pieces of S
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And the original MAC used a 68000 with a memory manager that was completely capable of supporting protected memory but Apple never used it.
The fact that the platform may
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
As with most of their products, Apple tends to dictate the user experience to an unusually high degree.
For whatever reason.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds like your girlfriend's mom has been busy.
Re:Security Security Security (Score:4, Insightful)
Steve Jobs can't come right out and say this, as it can be seen as tantamount to saying that users are stupid. Security. Not on the cell network, but the iPhone as a new platform. User's can't be trusted to install their own apps!
So you're putting the blame on the user rather than the engineer? I thought we like to put the blame on the engineer around here (example: Microsoft).
I honestly do not think that the reason why the iphone is closed is simply due to security concerns. The reason why the iphone is closed is because cellular networks in the United States have enjoyed a monopolized control over their networks. Their biggest fear is that the cellular networks become more like the internet as it is now; a network where they are only seen as the provider to everyone else's services. Cellular networks have enjoyed making extra business by doing stupid things like selling ring tones, restricting accessible services (unless an additional cost is paid), and locking phones to their services. The basic deal with a cell phone is if you want to sell your service or software on the network, you either pay the provider or the provider hires you and pays you in a contract basis. Furthermore, once you're in, you play by the provider's rules. They dictate to you want you can or can't do.
Parent
Is there? Yes.... (Score:2, Insightful)
My guess is that the short answer is "Yes", and the long answer is "Yes, AT&T cut them a big fat check to do exactly that."
Re:Is there? Yes.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd see everyone whining that the API Documentation isn't out yet, or that the provided samples aren't good enough, or simple enough, or advanced enough. Or the API doesn't match what was released w/ the last iPhone bios update. (see rolling-target-at-the-moment, above ^^).
All of that stuff takes resources (ie money) to make it. And time.
They're trying to do a new OS rollout. If you were Steve Jobs, and you had just rolled out the iPhone (w
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is there? Yes.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Is there? Yes.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple didn't think there was going to be a fucking backlash because this is normal fucking pricing for phones. The price drops off quickly. It's not a scam, it's standard business practice at AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc. Everybody's just pissed because Apple did it this time, and not Motorola or Nokia.
Parent
Re:Is there? Yes.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The design of good APIs is several orders of magnitude harder than getting a program to stand up & run in time for release. It tends to take several iterations to get things right. It's likely that they have given rough-cut APIs to internal teams (and perhaps some select partners) for developing apps. (perhaps the iTunes WiFi store is one example). Feedback from such developer projects may result in changes to, and perhaps even radical restructuring of, the underlying frameworks.
And, to answer your question, that is why an update could break something. If I have a program that calls a library, and the interface to that library changes, my program falls down, goes boom.
I bet they'll release a kit when they're sure they've frozen the API.
Parent
Re:Is there? Yes.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple recently released the Human Interface Guidelines [arstechnica.com] for the iPhone, which says at one point: "Currently, developers create web applications for iPhone, not native applications." (emphasis added). I suspect the iPhone API is still very much in flux, which probably explains the fairly small updates we've seen so far.
Apple hasn't shied away from games on the iPod, so why not the iPhone? Because the API isn't set in stone yet. Once Apple firms it up, you'll probably start to see third party games from companies like EA. If that works out, then you may finally see a public API.
Parent
I've said that all along (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with Apple intent on the iPhone. It's their product and they can market and sell it how they see fit. If you don't like it, don't buy an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem of course is that the market has really changed since the days of the Mac SE.
Re:I've said that all along (Score:5, Interesting)
It was a conseqence of using off-the-shelf components, itself a consequence of the very short development cycle of the PC. IBM just did not have enough patents in there. Hell, we even bought the software from some small outfit... A lot of people opposed this from the start, FYI, since they could see where it was going.
Was not lack of focus due to 'big iron' mentality, (although that certainly existed, and does explain why PCs were a bitch to network - apart from to a
Parent
Re:I've said that all along (Score:4, Insightful)
For the record, I bought an iPod Touch. I feel that it was worth the purchase despite being so locked down because it is, hands down, the best iPod there is (except for the lack of hard drive space, but that doesn't concern me yet). I really wanted an iPhone, but my employer provides me with a Blackberry, so I couldn't justify another cell phone plan.
Now that I have the iPod Touch, I hope that some day Apple opens it up for development. After surfing the web on this thing, I think it is the best pocket computer I've ever seen. I've used some small Fujitsu Lifebooks and other tablet computers, but this blows all of those away. The potential of this device is amazing, and it confuses me that Apple wouldn't want to give people every excuse to buy one. I'm not complaining about mine, it does everything I wanted it to perfectly and I'm extremely happy with it. But I also think that Apple is passing up on an amazing revenue stream because they're so obsessed with control.
Parent
It isn't their product (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait just a minute... (Score:5, Funny)
errr....
never mind.
Why are the Apple lovers surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has always been proprietary and exercised iron-fisted control over what THEY want done with the hardware they sell for a profit. Why are the iPhone actions such a surprise?
Corporate Speak Keeps Coming (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, if it were actually the case that the service providers in the States actually wanted developers to do nifty stuff, then I think the pace of innovation on mobile phones would be quite different. Most of the wireless network providers don't want you to do neat things because that's money out of their pocket.
If there's a benevolent provider, please speak up.
my personal guess (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well there is certainly that, or that at this point in time the APIs are undocumented. As any developer can vouch, depending on undocumented APIs will break your program come some future system update.
No one really knows whether Apple, in the form of Steve Jobs, is intending to open up the iPhone at some future point, but it is fair t
Re: (Score:2)
If that were the case, then why wouldn't they offer an SDK for the iPhone and set up an "iPhone App" section on iTMS?
The iPhone is a psychology experiment (Score:2, Funny)
No, you can't THAT with an iPhone.
We are going to bill you so hard you'll wish you were never born.
No, you can't do THAT with an iPhone either
We'll drop the price right away just to rub in what a stupid amount of money first adopters forked over
No, no NO! stop trying to use your iPhone in any way we haven't sanctioned
Doctor:
Notice how the subject keeps coming back for more and thanking us for it? The next update will cause the phone to shock the user at random times. We wil
avoiding responsibility for the API? (Score:5, Insightful)
* extensively documenting the API for a broad base instead of only for internal usage
* testing for possible bugs for usecases which are not relevant in Apple's internal usage
* making it feature complete
* making it secure
* when upgrading the API, supporting older applications built on that API (in other words, keeping full backwards compatibility)
All in all, this can be summed up as the basic fact that officially releasing the "mini OS X" that Apple uses on its portable devices as a development platform requires a whole different approach then simply using it themselves and not publishing it. All these responsibilities are easily avoided by simply not publishing the API and is a no-brainer if the company is on a tight deadline. Given the iPhone's short development lead time, i can fully understand that there was no time to get all of the above in order, so avoiding responsibility of the API for the time being seems like a logical thing to me.
That said, the above reason would steer them towards a tolerance stance regarding 'hackers', while Apple seems to be leaning more towards an 'active prosecution' stance, which i considere pretty much unjustified, together with the rest of the world.
All good points (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who are they kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and I'm sure that's why they're keeping the iPod a closed platform, too.
People, get a grip. (Score:3, Insightful)
And, why would anyone be surprised by this? It's very much in keeping with the way Apple has done business for years and years.
Apple isn't selling a cell phone (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is like the bad old IBM (Score:2)
Remember the bad old IBM that was incompatible with everyone else (remember EBCDIC), which you had to go through a select priesthood in order to do your job, and you had to wait three months for a trivial change to your report?
Apple is just like that: it's a platform so complicated that you cannot develop yourself software easily, you have to put yourself at the mercy of the high priests for software that does what you want, and worse than the original bad old I
More conjecture from the NYT (Score:3, Interesting)
From the article:
What is especially odd is a NYT reporter creating a conspiracy story... wait I'm sorry that is normal operations at the times lately.
But seriously, maybe the real reason that Apple is not opening the iPhone right away is something more mundane. I base this on some of the minor clues given in the above quote.
1. The firmware API is not yet set in stone. Apple may be planning some "tweaks" to smooth over any rough edges in the firmware after releasing the phone into the wild and before publishing the currently undocumented API.
2. They haven't formulated a plan to keep the phone secure, and allow third-party programs (Sandbox anyone?).
3. The one thing that this article failed to mention that the other AT&T phones are handsets with limited OS installed and low data rate capabilities, and this is a smartphone with a reduced feature version of OS X installed and alledged high data rate capabilities. The point being that the iPhone is a little more complicated than a free Nokia or Motorolla phone.
Just wanted to point out some obvious scenarios, before the mac, windows, and linux fan-bois start the flamefest.
Get over it (Score:3, Insightful)
Why doesn't Apple allow 3rd party dev? Summary. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Stability. Whenever third party apps are on your device, instability develops. Of course, sometimes the OS is unstable with no third-party apps running at all. Before the 1.1.1 firmware, Safari used to crash all the time. There haven't been a lot of reports about third party iApps being any worse behaved than the built-ins.
2. Support. Support issues are a perennial nightmare for any platform. It was speculated that lots of Apple and AT&T's support time was for applications that weren't native. Anyone have any numbers for this?
3. Development. It could be that the APIs are still in motion. The iBricking may be due to some bad updating; Mac OS X does have problem occasionally.
4. Developer support. Let's face it, lots of apps on other mobile platforms are ugly as all get-out. Apple's only now released human interface guidelines for the iPhone. If it's been this long for the HIG, the real developer docs'll take even more time.
So...there are lots of possible reasons for Apple's stance...before getting to the negatively-tinged personification excuses (control, vindictiveness, etc).
The Question of VoiP (Score:4, Interesting)
In light of this article, here is my questions: do VoiP apps exist for these other phones? If so, are such apps widely used? If not, why not?
Has a VoiP app been written for hacked iphones? If not, why not?
I have no experience with either the iphone or unlocked gsm phones that allow third-party development because I'm on Verizon. (They are the only network provider with decent coverage over the vast swathes of non-urban areas that make up the majority of where I need a mobile phone in the US.)
"Network interference" my butt... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it predated the RJ-11 jack.
Here we go:
The New York Times, February 17, 1951, p. 30: Phone Company Upheld In Ban on Hush-a-Phone
The Hush-A-Phone was a simple cup-like acoustic isolation device that snapped onto a telephone handset and provided a measure of privacy and quiet. No wires, no electrical connection. The phone company banned it as a "foreign attachment." In the Times story, the FCC agreed such devices were subject to A. T. & T. control. The punch line:
"Unrestricted use of the device could, in the commission's opinion, result in a general deterioration of the quality of telephone service."
Yes, seriously.
Later, the phone company was to claim that wired connections to third-party devices (answering machines and, later, modems) could not only bring down the network but put their linemen at risk of electrocution. Anyone who wanted to connect a computer had two choices: buy a very pricey "Dataphone"--never sold, of course, but leased by the month--or buy a third-party modem anduse a pricey phone-company-supplied "Data Access Arrangement" device, which was never sold but only leased by the month.
It took decades to get the FCC to agree that it had the regulatory authority to set specifications for third-party interconnects, and to allow them.
I recall an amusing Racal-Vadic advertisement showing "Ma Bell" depicted as a grandmotherly figure, staring out of her window in horror at a huge dump truck pouring hundreds of DAA boxes onto her lawn, now that Racal-Vadic modems no longer needed them.
Experimental (Score:3, Interesting)
I expect Apple prefers to keep it closed while it settles down and they see how it all pans out, to have time to see where best to take it next, and to develop and sell the new services themselves without losing out to some fleeter third-party developer.
Consumers may have a lot to gain from an open iPhone, but I don't see that Apple does right now.
That's just one reason though. If it were fully open and documented, the first thing people would do is throw VOIP & IM onto it, which would piss off AT&T.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple has the potential of crushing RIM and Microsoft in the handheld market if the full capabilities of the device are unleashed.
-b.
Feeling like a fool... thanks Apple (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it unreasonable for me, an Apple customer and shareholder, to want this?
When I'm buying a technology product, there are several factors that weigh into the decision. One is the quality of the technology. Just as important is the future outlook. Is there a good chance that missing features I want can be easily added later? Are there a lot of people, either in a company or on their own, working to improve it? Will I be able to adapt it to some niche problem that I'm working on that may not be important to most people, but is important to me?
Apple has a great technology, but lacking those other ingredients I just can't get too excited about the whole package. In a year's time, there will be other very similar phones on the market:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/29/nokias-iphone-no-seriously/ [engadget.com]
And some of those will likely be infinitely customizable. Nokia is already running with this Apple blunder:
http://www.nseries.com/index.html?l=campaigns,open [nseries.com]
So Apple, am I going to feel like an idiot for buying into a closed platform when similar but open models come out from other companies?
Barring a shift in policy of some kind, such as a released api or "binary application approval program", I am thinking it's time to get out of AAPL and think hard before buying more Apple products.
Openness (Score:3, Informative)
Also, for those bent on arguing the legality of such things, keep in mind that as a privately held network, AT&T has no requirements to allow devices access to its network if it doesn't want to. Currently, they allow zero devices without a contract or signed agreement of some kind, and in that contract they can easily apply device restrictions even if they seem ludicrous. Until this is actually challenged in a real court case (read: not class action fappery) then there is no reason to believe there are grounds to suggest the actions are unlawful. It's more practical to simply avoid the network entirely. Avoid the iPhone entirely.
Unless you have a significant Apple investment it's not the end-all be-all phone. The next generation of Nokias have as good of a browser (rendering-wise, it's based on the same KHTML engine) and have been open platforms for years. I use an iPhone because I have a strong library of media coming from iTMS, I don't really care about open platforms for my phone at this point. I did for a while, even developing for Symbian myself, but that time has come and gone.
However, if the situation was different, I don't even know why I would look at the iPhone. It's shiny sure, but it's not THAT amazing, the Nokia E90 is a lot cooler of a device imho. The iPhone's touch screen is ok, but hardly groundbreaking. Two touch senses at once... so? The pinching gesture gives me hand cramps, and even with all the smarts I still fat finger things all the time. With a keypad interface that's designed for interface and situation appropriate limits (i.e. single handed use in keypad mode of S60 phones) it's far faster and easier to navigate than a touchscreen. The learning curve is higher, yes, but that's not a problem, especially not for the target audiences.
So let us recognize the reality, and put your jealous tendencies aside for a moment. Realize that the iPhone, while technically interesting, is an embedded, developer unfriendly, locked down media device. It's not a portable computer, it's not a PDA. It's nothing more than exactly what it's advertised as being and that's what Apple intends. Why should we expect more from it? There are other companies offering what you want. Don't be so Apple obsessed.