iPhone SDK May Be 1-3 Weeks Late

tuxeater123 writes "According to a blog posting at BusinessWeek.com, the iPhone SDK could be pushed back by another 1-3 weeks. Unfortunately, the evidence provided, such as the media announcements that are usually made before most Apple releases, suggests that this may indeed be true. Apple usually sticks to their announced deadlines, however they have been known to break them occasionally."

Apple just wants

[EEPROMS (889169)]

to make sure no one can create an alternative version of iTunes with it.

Re:

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

They already can easily enough.. accessng the media directory is easy and doesn't even require any kind of jailbreak - and apple haven't made any effort to stop people doing it.

The hard bit isn't itunes, it's the rest of the application.

Re:

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

Dammit.. that should have read:

The hard bit isn't the iphone, it's the rest of the application.

Re:

[gleffler (540281)]

Right, because every [microsoft.com] other [s60.com] platform [blackberry.com] that lets you run your own applications has been subject to malware that has actually existed in the wild, right?

Oh, what? They haven't?

Sorry to say, but this story smells apocryphal, given that you explicitly mention she had a "high-end" Nokia, which would be running S60. No S60 "viruses" ever existed that sent MMS messages. If you can find one and identify it, I'd be interested in seeing it. The only S60 viruses that have ever been shown to exist in the wild propaga [ukonline.co.uk]

Re:Security

[daviddennis (10926)]

It was a Nokia 6600. Interesting phone. As I remember the hardware was very attractive but the UI was confusing. I remember it taking more time to figure out where the web browser was in the thing than to actually download and eradicate the virus.

Here's your proof that this virus exists:

http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/commwarrior.shtml [f-secure.com]

You are clearly wrong that no phone virus causing monetary harm has ever existed. MMS messages cost money to send. This virus sent hundreds of them. I will admit I only have her word that the virus caused her a $300 phone bill. But I believe MMS messages cost about two Philippine pesos (at the time $ 0.20) to send. When she discovered the problem, her phone was continuously sluggish and so I have no problem thinking she might have sent a thousand or so messages, so close to $300 in MMS.

I am not an expert about virus propagation, but I suspect you need millions of users for it to be financially worthwhile to write a virus. Nokia/Symbian does have that critical mass. I do not believe there are enough jailbroken iPhones to be a sufficiently fertile market for a virus, but if you could do it on all iPhones it might be. Furthermore, if you jailbreak you iPhone, you and not Apple are responsible for your acts. So you could get a virus on your phone but Apple would not be liable in any way.

Curiously enough, the iPhone's third party software development is done through a model surprisingly similar to what we expect Apple to do. Installer.app is a centralized repository for iPhone software. I would certainly assume that if someone added a virus to installer.app's list of software it would be rapidly removed and the developer blacklisted. Most people are relying on installer.app instead of searching the Internet for software.

While the existing mechanism is probably very safe, I think Apple is right in being concerned about viruses,especially as adding software to the iPhone spreads from what is probably a community of a few hundred thouand at most to a community of millions.

Hope that was of interest.

D

That's terrible!

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm devastated by this. It makes my entire life valueless. How could a company like Apple even think about delaying a software release by almost a month. Oh, woe, woe is me. etc etc etc

Most pointless statement ever?

[psp (7269)]

Apple usually sticks to their announced deadlines, however they have been known to break them occasionally.

Slashdot article summaries usually are shock full of valuable comment, however they have been known to be totally pointless.

Re:

[laird (2705)]

" if this were Microsoft, who has about the same track record as Apple (but don't tell the fanbois!), they'd have let you know "Microsoft is late again. Someone should sue them, they're clearly trying to screw all the small-time developer houses who were anxiously awaiting an official SDK. Anti-trust, anti-trust!""

Actually, and speaking as a developer for both Windows and Mac (http://www.pando.com, check it out!), ever since Mac OS X came out Apple has a very good track record for hitting deadlines. Release

1-3 weeks late?

[WK2 (1072560)]

1-3 weeks late? So, I guess it is going to come out last year?

Re:1-3 weeks late?

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

It was originally announced for February. Remember that we weren't going to get a proper SDK... Steve Jobs announced the web SDK and said that everyone would be using that from now on (what, over GPRS? Get real steve). It was only when they realized that (a) nobody gave a shit about web apps, and (b) millions of users were running native apps anyway, and apple wasn't getting a cut, that he announced the SDK.

Re:1-3 weeks late?

[Fahrvergnuugen (700293)]

So you're insinuating that Apple withheld releasing a proper SDK when the iPhone launched because they purposefully wanted to stunt the platform?

Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the API for mobile OSX 1.0 might have been last priority behind everything else that had to be done to get a 1.0 product out the door? Talk to any iPhone app developer and they will tell you the same thing - iPhone 1.0 looks pretty darn good on the surface, but under the hood its quite ragged as the developers were obviously under pressure to meet a deadline.

Re:1-3 weeks late?

[Space cowboy (13680)]

Right, because the iPhone has suffered terribly from the lack of 3rd-party applications. Sales are in single digits, and frankly owning one is an embarrassment. Not.

I'm an iPhone app developer. The API is actually pretty nice "under the surface". UIKit is a lean-and-mean version of Cocoa, and behaves just like it in most respects. Being able to write Leopard-style ObjC on a device that goes in your pocket is frankly awesome. Unless you have *specific* examples of this "ragged" nature, I'm just gonna call bullshit on your entire comment, and leave it at that.

Now a proper SDK will be a step forward, no doubt, but that's because we'll get things like named-constants rather than use 0x02 to specify values. Classdump, which is how the API was recovered, can only give you the method signatures and names. We'll also get the official C compiler, not one that works 98% of the time, real debugging, and perhaps even a simulator built into XCode, so you don't have to deploy to a target device in order to test the code. Oh yeah, and I'd expect to see some documentation too...

Lacking any of these things doesn't point to it being "ragged" architecturally, every single point is a consequence of the hacks that were required to get *any* development going on the iPhone. Apple don't have that problem...

Simon.

Re:1-3 weeks late?

[Fahrvergnuugen (700293)]

"Unless you have *specific* examples of this "ragged" nature, I'm just gonna call bullshit on your entire comment, and leave it at that."

How about the fact that everything (on 1.0) runs as root?

Root is *GOOD*

[MacDork (560499)]

How about the fact that everything (on 1.0) runs as root?

Being unable to run as root is where problems occur for developers. Behold the market for Nokia S60 v3 smartphone software. Half of the most popular apps are written by Nokia, because everyone else is busy jumping through flaming hoops to get their apps signed. The process is so damned bureaucratic, innovation freezes, developers loose interest in frustration, and Nokia ends up developing most of what little appears on the platform. Worse yet, the stated goal of providing security through signing is obvious bullshit when signed spyware [theregister.co.uk] starts popping up. It's all about Nokia controlling who gets signed and who gets to compete.

You're root comment is a user security issue and has NOTHING to do with the availability of an SDK. If iPhone is unable to run at different user levels it is NOT Mac OS X, because user levels are a fundamental property of any *nix OS.

Macintosh computers aren't riddled with viruses and security breaches, what makes you think Macintosh phones would be any different? If Apple's SDK "solution" is to sign apps instead of fixing their obviously broke ass permission system, then their SDK will be useless anyway just like their other iPhone "SDK." If Apple can't provide a hand held platform as open to developers as their desktop systems, then they will join the long list of companies that failed to revolutionize the mobile market.

Right now they're blowing it, just like they blew it with the Macintosh two decades ago. I wouldn't be so upset about it if I wasn't such a huge fan of the company.

You don't know much about web dev I guess

[SuperKendall (25149)]

Steve Jobs announced the web SDK and said that everyone would be using that from now on (what, over GPRS? Get real steve).

You. and everyone else that says that web development over GPRS (EDGE) ignores the whole point of what makes javascript based web dev so powerful - it greatly reduces traffic by only loading new data, not refreshing the whole page.

Web dev over GPRS is MORE practical that straight HTML as it makes everything go faster and use less bandwidth.

There are many things that are better to do as n

Re:

[gleffler (540281)]

The initial page load required to load your fancy-dance web 3.5 JavaScript AJAX all-singing all-dancing magic app over EDGE is the problem, not the concept of incremental updates with AJAX.

Without AJAX the apps would basically be useless, now they're just merely ridiculously slow, especially if you haven't recently been using data. The time spent waiting for Safari to load, then for EDGE to activate, then the hostname to resolve, then the page to load, is all not insignificant, especially when compared to j

Re:

[kiddailey (165202)]

Yes, there are a great number of interesting and impressive web based apps, but I agree with "get real" in regards to them. Web apps on the iPhone (and mobile phones in general) ALL SUCK for a few important reasons:

Lack of signal breaks the web application.
Whether because of poor coverage, network trouble or signal interference, loosing access to apps on a device in your hand because of network issues SUCKS. For example, I tried to use a shopping-list web application, but discovered it was useless because

Interesting

[wamerocity (1106155)]

My big problem with this is that EVERY program for the iPhone has to come from iTunes, which means it will most likely be sold. I doubt Apple is going to host any freeware programs that people write out of the goodness of their hearts. I've actually been very surprised by the quality and ingenuity of some of the programs written for jailbroken iPhones, and I know that these programs will only increase in quality once real tools are released, but I just wonder how hindered it will be because of the inability of people to "just install" programs on it that they like.

Re:Interesting

[wootest (694923)]

It's interesting that everyone takes for granted that "getting from iTunes and then syncing it over" will be the only way to get apps. It's likely to be one of the ways, but Apple has revealed nothing. It's all speculation so far.

I doubt Apple is going to host any freeware programs that people write out of the goodness of their hearts.

They already host downloadable Dashboard widgets and provide links to all sorts of software on their site and host the world's biggest podcast directory at no fee for anyone, producers or users. I don't see how helping to host applications that could solve every non-hardware related aspect ("3G!") of their product would be *bad* for them, even if some of those applications were free.

I expect to see some way that Apple will help people sell their apps if they do end up with some sort of iTunes app store, but one approach doesn't rule out the other, especially since it likely won't be that easy to get access to their payment/transaction system.

Re:Interesting

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

There's already a means to get ipod applications in itunes, and has been for some time - it'll just be extended to the iphone/itouch. The ipod touch 'option pack' ($20 to do the equivalent of set a registry entry), was the dry run of the delivery method.

From that we know that applications will be signed.. which means some kind of approval method, and its associated cost. No great surprise there - all mobile platforms have something like it. Whereas you *could* distribute an approved app for free you'd be paying apple for the privilege.

Presumably users will be able to sign their own apps limited to one phone with the SDK (development would be a bit hard without it.. simulators still aren't real hardware and nobody in their right mind would release an app that hadn't had real world testng), which means if you want to distribute 'free' apps then there's the extra step of getting end users to sign it themselves.

It comes down to the SDK - if that's free then distributing free software will continue with the extra step of signing those apps yourself. If it costs money it'll kill free distribution because there won't be enough users who will pay money simply to get free stuff.. they'll pay the fees to itunes instead.

Re:Interesting

[wootest (694923)]

Signed applications means that the applications have a cryptographic signature attached to them with *any* trust root, not that they have to be attached to any specific trust root. There's a leap from "applications have to be signed" to "applications have to be signed by Apple" or the more likely "applications have to be signed by an authority whose certificate is trusted by Apple". But let's say that happens: unless all development happens inside a simulator in software (and good luck testing multi-touch then), I definitely think that there'll be a way to run "untrusted" apps, and this way will be exploited to run free apps. I think Apple knows this.

The iPod touch update was curious - the apps were already in the new firmware, and the update just "unlocked" them. (The update weighs in at 9 KB.) Since people won't get to download new firmware every time they get an app, this doesn't confirm much, although I agree that it was probably a dry run of some component in the whole scheme, most likely signing.

Payment for one is not payment for all

[SuperKendall (25149)]

From that we know that applications will be signed.. which means some kind of approval method, and its associated cost.

My guess is that you'll probably be required to be a paid ADC member (~$500) to warrant delivery of apps via iTunes.

That says nothing however, about how much you have to charge for applications...

Re:

[ZInkDifferent (1228956)]

Right, I guess the free podcasts which Apple hosts on iTunes are being sold... oh, wait... I guess not. By the way, Apple (Steve Jobs) has already alluded that apps through iTunes will be available for various rates, including Zero/Free.

Re:

[vlad30 (44644)]

I don't think that will be the only option. Just thinking about potential programs I could write for some companies but would never see use in another company and a few the company would demand be kept in-house. iTunes store would kill this however needing to use iTunes would not be a problem

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

I doubt Apple is going to host any freeware programs that people write out of the goodness of their hearts.

I don't see why they wouldn't. iTunes already has free content such as podcasts, and Apple hosts a lot of free software at their OS X download site.

http://www.apple.com/downloads/ [apple.com]

Re:

[Tom (822)]

My big problem with this is that EVERY program for the iPhone has to come from iTunes, which means it will most likely be sold. I doubt Apple is going to host any freeware programs that people write out of the goodness of their hearts.

There's a lot of free podcasts on iTunes. Why do you assume it would be different for iPhone apps?

Pointless?

[Serious Lemur (1236978)]

What kind of /. user would buy a locked-down phone anyway?

Re:

[Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745)]

Me. Its a great phone

Re:

[cduffy (652)]

One sick of phones having nearly-useless web browsers, when the only phone with a useful one is locked.

Sometimes pragmatism wins.

Re:Pointless?

[mdwh2 (535323)]

One sick of phones having nearly-useless web browsers, when the only phone with a useful one is locked.

Any cheap old phone can run Opera Mini [operamini.com]. I too was annoyed by the poor quality of my phone's built in browser, but now I never have any trouble. It even has features like server-side downscaling of image sizes, thus reducing download times (and costs) - so even if your phone does have a decent browser, it's worth a look.

Developers, developers, developers

[Ilan Volow (539597)]

One of the most frustrating parts of being a mac and Apple platform developer has always been being the veil of secrecy around API's, and for anyone who's used to the mac development lifestyle, the iPhone SDK isn't an exception. Personally, I can't understand it; keeping customers in the dark may be smart marketing, but keeping developers for your platform in the dark is suicide.

Thousands of developers are already writing code for Google's Android platform because Google released the API early, even before they released a device. By the time Apple releases their SDK, Google will already be ahead of them in the numbers of developers experienced with their API. I wish Apple could understand the enormous competitive disadvantage they are putting themselves in.

I would LOVE their disadvantage

[SmallFurryCreature (593017)]

They managed to break records with a phone that lacked many features people have come to accept as standard, with a horrible choice of plans/carriers at a premium price.

Nobody at all seemed to care about the lack of 3rd party apps on it when they handed over their cash for the device. They broke into the cellphone market with just 1 product in record time and you say they got the disadvantage?

Android may do even better BUT it will do in a totally different way. First off there will be NO google phone. Android is closer to Symbian or even MS Mobile OS (whatever they renamed it to this month) then the iPhone. With the iPhone you bought a Apple product, with Android you will buy a phone from any number of phone makers that just happens to run a software suit in which Google had a hand in the development.

Their most likely won't be a google branded phone and none of the others have enough status to sell a phone just because their logo is on it.

Android and the iPhone are completly different products and Apple doesn't need to worry about the same things Google has too. I might buy an Android phone for its openess, but I think absolutly nobody bought an iPhone for any similar concerns. It would be like saying that Ferrari needs to publish the specs for their new car early so 3rd parties can develop roof racks and child seats for it early. Sorry, Ferrari and the people who buy them could care less about that.

Re:

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

More like releasing a Ferrari with no ABS, no traction control, no airbags, and no.. hm, windshield wipers? Sure people can drive it around and show it off, which is what you bought it for, but engineers aren't going to pounce on one with measuring tape and voltmeters to try to figure out how to add new features- features that have long been standard in competing models. Anyone making something interesting isn't going to care about how shiny the body is, the only people who care about that nonsense are the

Eh, you mean like a classic car?

[SmallFurryCreature (593017)]

Do you have any idea exactly what a classic Ferrari goes for, a car with no ABS, no traction control, no airbags, no radio etc etc etc? Yes it probably does have windshield wipers, I give you that.

In fact for these kind of car nuts the LACK of these features is the attraction.

different markets, why do people find that so hard to accept? Android and the iPhone are designed for different customers.

Do you really think that anybody at Ferrari or any of their customers CARE that you can't go into the local ca

Re:

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

Whoa whoa, consumers have already proven themselves a terrible judge of a platform- buying millions of crazy-expensive shiny iPhones and not caring about extensibility or restrictive DRM. Judge a platform based on its merits, not based on how much money the public pours into the designer's pockets to look cutting-edge.

Re:

[cduffy (652)]

What DRM? Sure, the iPhone will play content "protected" by Apple's DRM, but it certainly doesn't require it. The only thing that bugs me is that it doesn't play vorbis, and the interface for adding/removing content is locked down unless it's jailbroken.

And it has plenty of merits -- namely, a WebKit-based browser with a multitouch interface, and a multitouch-centric Google Maps interface. Those two features do it for me -- I've been waiting for years for a phone-based web browser that doesn't suck (and as

Re:

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

You are aware that iphone location is only accurate to within several blocks right? That's essentially useless for road navigation..

Re:

[cduffy (652)]

Of course I'm aware of its level of accuracy -- I used it for getting around Dallas on a business trip last week. It's more than good enough.

Re:

[Graymalkin (13732)]

From a young age I've never really had much trouble reading a map. Apparently this is a rare and magical gift.

I don't understand the fetish for turn-by-turn GPS directions. I guess it's because I can read maps and have a sense of direction. Last night I looked up my friend's address on my iPhone. I used the map to figure out where to get off the freeway and what side streets I needed to use to get there. The Google Maps location finder is pretty accurate in the cities I've tried it in and at least let me kn

Re:

[swb (14022)]

Do you have any idea exactly what a classic Ferrari goes for, a car with no ABS, no traction control, no airbags, no radio etc etc etc? Yes it probably does have windshield wipers, I give you that.

In fact for these kind of car nuts the LACK of these features is the attraction.

No, the attraction is that there were only hundreds and in some rare cases maybe single-digit thousands built. Scarcity, not simplicity.

Re:

[vijayiyer (728590)]

Do you realize there are people value simplicity? That means no ABS, traction control, airbags, etc because that's all feature bloat leading to heavier, more "disconnected" cars - it's the driver-road interface that matters. Real drivers don't care about such things and would in fact rather drive the car than let the computer do it.

JavaME

[krischik (781389)]

Even that I am not a Java fanboy I moved mobile development over to JavaME and I think it is the only way to go. The (Smart)phone market moves so quickly - you don't know what platform you need next and with JavaME at least porting to a new platform won't be a pain in the arse.

Martin

Re:

[dreamchaser (49529)]

Eh, you obviously haven't used JavaME at all, or maybe just not recently. It's not perfect but it works quite well and it makes it fairly easy to target code to multiple mobile platforms.

Re:

[gilesjuk (604902)]

True, but is the Android hardware any good? having numerous devices running one platform is a poor approach if you want the hardware and software to integrate well. Phones have a limited interface and the easier you can make the interface to use the better.

Re:

[Tom (822)]

As someone who has bought a ton of 3rd party apps for OS X, for all I care you and your kind can rot. Let me explain before you hit me in the face:

Writing code for a pre-release, beta or pushed-out-too-early API is just one of the things that shows immature coding practices. When the API changes, you'll do what? Refactor? No, you won't, you will patch it up, put in a hack here and a workaround there.

I much prefer the mature code written by mature people that I've come to experience on OS X. Yes, Apple is le

I think that's his point

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

Is that there are other platforms, indeed there are much larger platforms, and Apple is putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by being all locked down with their APIs.

In the case of mobile smart phones, Windows Mobile and Symbian are the major competitors (and both are much larger in terms of market share). Windows Mobile uses Microsoft's standard development tools, and has no special restrictions on software, there's lots of free stuff you can get your hands on. I don't know as much about Symbia

Re:

[ThePengwin (934031)]

Also, Most smartphones have Java, which is quite uniform across devices. It only seems to be used for games, but there is great potential for it.

I think it would be smart for apple to include Java into the iphone, it would give it a pretty level playing field with other devices.

This is good...

[HumanEmulator (1062440)]

I'll be able to get real work done for an extra 1-3 weeks before I starting hacking my phone.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, when one, single model from one, single manufacturer outsells ALL Windows Mobile smartphones from ALL manufacuturers for two quarters, that sure is a failure.

Re:

[Lars T. (470328)]

Nokia will be pleased: Interview in LeFigaro [google.com]