AT&T Welcomes Programmers for All Phones Except the iPhone 283
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?'"
vindictiveness? (Score:2, Insightful)
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."
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.
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?
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.
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)
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).
Re:Is there? Yes.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is there? Yes.... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
The same argument again? (Score:2, Insightful)
It isn't their product (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Experimental (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.
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.
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.
Re:Security Security Security (or not?) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is there? Yes.... (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 (which you pulled engineers from the OSX project to the iPhone) and now you want to get the new version of OSX out (along w/ API, XCode, etc) what decision would you make?
Oh, let's announce that we'll be coming out w/ API Docs for the iPhone. Don't know when, because OSX Leopard isn't done yet. And they're not done writing the API yet. But what the heck, let's announce it anyway.
Yeah, right. Without an announcement, they are not beholden to any time table to release anything wrt iPhone/iPodTouch development.
My guess is, if we're lucky and Leopard goes OK, we'll see something in the Jan08 to Jun08 timeframe for iPhone Development. That talk about "Apple said that the public will never be able to develop for the iPhone, because it would break AT&T's network from #20824059 [slashdot.org] I think is hogwash. Just an excuse for the moment. I think once an API is out, everyone'll forget about all the comments and excuses.
Re:vindictiveness? (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
Re:Is there? Yes.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well there's your problem...