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."

Re:Interesting

[wootest]

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

[__aapdpi4193]

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:Good News. Bad News.

[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:Interesting

[vlad30]

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:Interesting

[Tony Hoyle]

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:Good News. Bad News.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice strawman arguement. The Windows Mobile Smartphone market was already in the millions, with most people would would have bought one already having done so. You fail at logic, but you certainly are a very good fanboi.

I would LOVE their disadvantage

[SmallFurryCreature]

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:Interesting

[wootest]

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.

I think that's his point

[Sycraft-fu]

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 Symbian, but a simple web search shows plenty of freeware, an IDE for Eclipse developed by Nokia (one of the owners of Symbian, and major users of the OS) and so on.

Eh, you mean like a classic car?

[SmallFurryCreature]

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 carshop and buy decals for it?

The iPhone simply didn't launch like that, it was shiny, it was Apple and that is why it sold so well. You might as well talk about how hard to upgrade the Apple Mini is. Sorry, nobody buys it to upgrade it.

In the meantime we got two products that have NOTHING in common (iPhone is a phone, android a platform) of which one sold millions and the other sold NOTHING yet. Lets wait a bit and see what happens when the first Android phone actually arrives shall we? Then we can make any kind of judgement on what will be the biggest success, but remember, specialist car makers making cars that do not offer any of the 3rd party extra's and ease of use of bigger makers are still around making a profit.

Not everything has to be same grey goo aimed at the largest market share. If Android outsells the iPhone a hundred to one, Apple still had a huge success.

Re:Pointless?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Me. Its a great phone

Re:Pointless?

[cduffy]

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

Sometimes pragmatism wins.

Re:I think that's his point

[ThePengwin]

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.

closed platforms suck but...

[stokessd]

I don't like the hardware I own to be controlled by some other entity like any good slashdotter, but the cell phone market is a little different than traditional computers. I'm watching Android very closely, and I hope it lives up to the hype. But needing a phone NOW and looking at the smart-phone landscape (s well as the plain old phone landscape), the iPhone is so insanely better to use than anything else out there that it is a no brainer. I've tried mobile web on co-worker's phones, and it's a joke compared to mobile safari. So putting my idealism aside I got the phone that actually made my life better. And after 6 cell phones, it's the first one that doesn't piss me off.

The one thing that I think Android needs (from looking at the video demos) is the whole pinch zoom feature. I suspect that will be tough to get legitimately. It makes the iPhone usable with such a small screen. And after using an iPhone and watching the android videos it seems lie a glaring omission.

Frankly as a small time developer of largely worthless code, I wouldn't have a problem tossing apple a few dollars to host my application.

Sheldon

Re:1-3 weeks late?

[Fahrvergnuugen]

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.

GPL incompatible?

[argent]

If you can't install self-signed apps on your own phone, then wouldn't that make it GPL-incompatible regardless of what Apple charges free-as-in-beer developers?

Re:Most pointless statement ever?

[laird]

" 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. Releases sometimes get stuck in QA for a few extra weeks (e.g. Apple TV's latest release, and rumor has it iPhone SDK will be a few weeks late), and they did slip 10.5 by a few months, but I don't recall any massive, multi-year development failures, or repeated slipping, in quite a while. Fairly often there are rumored release dates, which Apple doesn't hit, but Apple itself is pretty cautious about announcing future release dates. Also, when compared to Microsoft, Apple's development model is for frequent, smaller releases, which by definition are lower risk than Microsoft's less frequent, larger releases.

The last time Apple seriously missed a deadline that I can think of was the whole Taligent/Pink debacle.

Re:I would LOVE their disadvantage

[vijayiyer]

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.

You don't know much about web dev I guess

[SuperKendall]

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 native apps but you would be surprised at the number of very good web based ones there are.

Re:Pointless?

[cduffy]

Let me back up a bit here.

Do you think the Nintendo Wii has a decent web browser?

I find it unbearably frustrating to use -- and that's Opera running with a much bigger screen at a higher resolution with a much higher-bandwidth input device than what your average phone provides. So call me a snob when it comes to my web browsers -- but the iPhone's browser doesn't make me want to throw the device at a wall, and in that regard it's the first decent mobile web browser I've touched.

Look -- Opera Mobile may be good enough for you. It's probably good enough for most people. If their Wii port is any indication, I'm pretty darned sure I'd hate it. I'm not trying to argue that everyone should have an iPhone -- just that some subset of those who do may well have made that purchase for a reason other than wanting to look trendy.

Re the large-high-res-screen thing -- I've seen other mobile devices with comparable or better screens; some of Nokia's internet tablets are great in that respect (and while I haven't used them long enough to compare the browser to Mobile Safari, the screens are fantastic). However, those devices don't double as phones except over VoIP (when appropriate connectivity is available), and I can't justify purchasing a Nokia tablet and a separate cell phone, complete with separate plans for each.

Re:Security

[daviddennis]

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

Re:Developers, developers, developers

[Tom]

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 less kind to developers than MS is. The result is that MS has more developers. The result also is that every immature fuckup who can't write 10 lines without a bug and can't stand being told that he sucks, writes software for windos, not OS X.

The software quality of most of the shareware released for OS X tops a good part of the "enterprise software" that I know for windos. I don't think that's a coincidence.

So please, if you want to write software for an API that was released too early, instead of one that has been refined, worked over, and matured, by all means by my guest and please do it to something different, not my iPhone.

Re:Interesting

[Tom]

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?