Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Businesses Programming Apple IT Technology

iPhone SDK May Be 1-3 Weeks Late 157

Posted by kdawson
from the say-it-ain't-so dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iPhone SDK May Be 1-3 Weeks Late

Comments Filter:
  • Apple just wants (Score:2, Interesting)

    by EEPROMS (889169)
    to make sure no one can create an alternative version of iTunes with it.
    • by 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.
      • by Tony Hoyle (11698)
        Dammit.. that should have read:

        The hard bit isn't the iphone, it's the rest of the application.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 24, 2008 @06:11AM (#22533700)
    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
  • by psp (7269) on Sunday February 24, 2008 @06:12AM (#22533704)

    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.
  • 1-3 weeks late? So, I guess it is going to come out last year?
    • Re:1-3 weeks late? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Sunday February 24, 2008 @06:57AM (#22533840) Homepage
      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? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Fahrvergnuugen (700293) on Sunday February 24, 2008 @11:36AM (#22535168) Homepage

        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? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Space cowboy (13680) * on Sunday February 24, 2008 @01:46PM (#22536120) Journal
          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? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Fahrvergnuugen (700293) on Sunday February 24, 2008 @02:27PM (#22536504) Homepage

            "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* (Score:4, Interesting)

              by MacDork (560499) on Sunday February 24, 2008 @09:55PM (#22540730) Journal

              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.

          • by yabos (719499)
            I've heard the same thing but nothing first hand. That was with the 1.0 version too, not any newer version. I think the 1.0 was pretty raw but has gotten a lot better since then.
      • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by 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
          • Since I have an iPhone, and use web apps on both EDGE and WiFi, I have a good sense for what works and what doesn't. And as much as the technical aspects of what must occur in an AJAX app over EDGE is correct, the reality is that all those steps are not at all unusably slow and many web apps actually feel pretty snappy.

            True web apps are not the same as real applications but neither was the idea as pointless as you would seem to imply. I use EDGE all the time for many web uses, both AJAX and non, and it wo
            • by gleffler (540281)
              I definitely agree they were a good stopgap but would have been pretty miffed if they had left them as the only development option. I love my native apps and couldn't imagine replacing them all with web pages.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by 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
          • I love my iPhone and I love surfing the internet on it, but I prefer my native apps over their web-based equivalents any day. And for what it's worth, a native app really only has to send data back and forth over the network, not the interface as well, so I'd argue that they are even more efficient in terms of bandwidth than web versions.

            I agree with all the points you made about web apps, but this last point really is not much better for web apps than native - both can choose to receive only pertinent data
  • Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wamerocity (1106155) on Sunday February 24, 2008 @06:20AM (#22533726) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wootest (694923) on Sunday February 24, 2008 @06:43AM (#22533794)

      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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Sunday February 24, 2008 @07:08AM (#22533866) Homepage
        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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by wootest (694923) on Sunday February 24, 2008 @08:17AM (#22534096)
          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.
          • The iPod touch was based on the iphone so that update may of just turned on apps that where on the iphone but not turned on yet on the touch.
          • by tlhIngan (30335)

            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.

            Could be another SOX thing.

            After all, if they added applications ("features") to the iPod Touch in the new update, then they couldn't have accounted for a

            • by wootest (694923)
              Yes, accounting reasons is probably why they did it, although not *really* because then they would have charged just a few bucks like with the N enabler.

              If the update is to be seen as a dry run, I still think it's curious since most of this process is not at all how applications will be delivered with the SDK. (I know as little as anyone, but I have a very hard time imagining new firmwares for delivering third party software.) And my takeaway from this is that the update was not a dry run, or a dry run of a
        • 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...

        • 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

          My phone (Spring Mogul AKA HTC Titan/Hermes) is a Windows CE device. I've yet to find a single native application that I can't install on the device because of some problem signing it. In fact, it's only with the Java sub-system that I run into these kind of issues.
          • by Tacvek (948259)

            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

            My phone (Spring Mogul AKA HTC Titan/Hermes) is a Windows CE device. I've yet to find a single native application that I can't install on the device because of some problem signing it. In fact, it's only with the Java sub-system that I run into these kind of issues.

            Same is true of my HTC Apachee (aka. PPC-6700). By default IIRC, on my particular carrier's firmware there was some sort of warning when installing unsigned apps, but disabling it was entirely possible, and not terribly difficult. My experience with a Palm-pased phone indicated no aplication-signing system. On the other hand, my understanding is that a few phone platforms may require signing, but I have no experience with this, and may be wrong.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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.
      • GPL incompatible? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by argent (18001)
        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?
        • Make what "GPL-incompatible"? That's a term that is usually only applicable to software licenses, and you didn't seem to mention any others.

          It's usually pretty hard to set up an operating system such that running a GPL application on top of it is a violation of the GPL, but that seems to be what you're concerned about. Care to elaborate about how that might work?
          • by argent (18001)
            I'm talking about the Tivoization of applications on the iPhone, and the anti-Tivoization changes in the GPL3. If you can't install a binary on your iPhone if it's not signed by Apple, then having the source code doesn't do you any good... which is one of the things that motivated the GPL3 in the first place. The GPL3 restricts the distribution of GPL3 code

            So the question is, what restrictions on self-signing code or on installation of unsigned code are in the iPhone SDK and the iPhone operating system. Tho
            • There will still be a mechanism with the SDK to sign code (for testing, obviously), so the only problem would be elements of the SDK not being GNU (as the compiler is still GCC).
              • by argent (18001)
                There will still be a mechanism with the SDK to sign code (for testing, obviously)

                I am not sure requiring the recipient to acquire their own key meets the letter of the GPL3.

                the only problem would be elements of the SDK not being GNU (as the compiler is still GCC).

                Oh, that at least wouldn't be an issue, because those are components of the iPhone operating system, and there is an explicit cutout in the GPL for that.
        • 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?

          That doesn't make any sense. You are claiming that developers would not be able to test apps on a real phone (thier own) before release. No way is that going to be the case.

          If people can download and compile apps they sign in development mode to run on their own phone, that does not in any way preclude the GPL. Heck, even if what you said was tru
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 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: (Score:2, Informative)

      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]
    • by yabos (719499)
      Says who? Did you use your time machine to go in to the future or what? Just because that's the theory doesn't mean it's true.
    • 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.

      And what exactly is your basis for thinking that? Podcasts are free and done through iTunes. Do you have an inside source or something?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Serious Lemur (1236978) on Sunday February 24, 2008 @06:26AM (#22533738)
    What kind of /. user would buy a locked-down phone anyway?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Me. Its a great phone
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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? (Score:5, Informative)

        by mdwh2 (535323) on Sunday February 24, 2008 @12:17PM (#22535430) Journal
        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.
        • by mdwh2 (535323)
          Correction to my previous post - apparently that's "any old phone except the iphone", since OperaMini requires Java...
          • by cduffy (652)
            Given the priorities I outlined (re mobile device selection), Java support is a non sequitur. I don't doubt that it's legitimately important to other people, but I never once installed a Java app on my Blackberry in over two years and personally couldn't care less.
            • by mdwh2 (535323)
              Good for you - but just like all the other basic features that the iphone seems to lack (MMS etc), the point is that even if I use them rarely, I still expect them to be there for the one time I need it. I don't want to go "Oh, I can't do that, because I got an iphone".

              I might make compromises for a cheap phone, but not for one that's way more expensive! I just don't get it.
              • by cduffy (652)
                Why would I want to send a photo by MMS (and have to have a MMS-supporting plan or pay my service provider per-message) when I can send it in its original format and size as an email attachment for free?

                Sure, some functionality I don't care about is gone, but what's actually there is better.
                • by mdwh2 (535323)
                  Why would I want to send a photo by MMS (and have to have a MMS-supporting plan or pay my service provider per-message) when I can send it in its original format and size as an email attachment for free?

                  Because the person I'm sending it to doesn't have a computer/Internet connection chained to his ankle, but he does have his phone on him?

                  but what's actually there is better.

                  I'd rather have the choice of both.

                  (Can the iphone at least receive MMS at least? Or does it not even do that?)
                  • by cduffy (652)

                    Because the person I'm sending it to doesn't have a computer/Internet connection chained to his ankle, but he does have his phone on him?

                    [snotty_iphone_owner]...and his phone can't receive photos as email attachments? What a POS.[/snotty_iphone_owner]

                    Can the iphone at least receive MMS[...]?

                    Damned if I know. Damned if I care. Never received or sent a single MMS message since I bought my first cell phone in '99 or so.

                    Remember, I'm talking about the phone that's best for me, not the phone that's best for you.

  • by Ilan Volow (539597) on Sunday February 24, 2008 @06:55AM (#22533836) Homepage
    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.

    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Sunday February 24, 2008 @08:10AM (#22534074) Journal

      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.

      • 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
        • 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

          • 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.
            • by 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
              • You are aware that iphone location is only accurate to within several blocks right? That's essentially useless for road navigation..
                • by 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.
                • by cduffy (652)
                  Let me follow up here, and explain why a little inaccuracy is acceptable:

                  When reading a map, I don't turn off my brain.

                  So -- if I have a set of directions starting from a slightly inaccurate starting point, I look at my environment, I look at the map, I figure out where I'm really at, determine how the given directions need to be modified, and get to driving. It's not as good as the real thing, sure -- but it works well enough to stop me from needing a dedicated GPS unit, and that's good enough. If it saves
                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by 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
            • Is a pretty big merit in and of itself. It's important not to construct a whole value system around openness without considering that; software is a tool, not some form of moral action.

              iPhones aren't vert extensible, it is true, but consumers don't seem to mind. I think the lesson of the iPhone in this regard is that Java on cellphones isn't really a platform for development as much as it is a way for the cellphone manufacturers to offload their own work on other developers. Want a good web browser or s

          • by 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 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.
      • by fermion (181285)
        The last first. In that they likely had to go with a single carrier to meet profit goals, ATT is a good choice. Verizons tends to have the mindset that they are too good for the average customer, which works for them, but would have meant that many who wanted an iPhone would not have been able to sign up.

        As far as the features go, this is how apple has always operated. Early computers did not have a parallel port. New computers only have a few USB ports. No Apple has a built in card reader. No Apple

    • 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
    • by 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.
    • by yabos (719499)
      You've heard of ADC Select developer account right? You know you get pre release versions of the OS right? And a free final version when it's released right? And with your advanced beta copies you get all the access to the new APIs months before the software comes out right?
      • Actually, I'm a select developer member.

        And even with the money I paid to get access to the Leopard pre-release API, I was still banned from asking fellow developers on mailing lists questions about any parts of the pre-release API in question. People on the cocoa-dev list who might have a question about some finer point of NSDictionaryController would routinely get a "Beware of Leopard" nastygram from the moderators. This is the archetypical example of "keeping developers in the dark" I'm talking about.

        Co
        • So, that's not a veil of secrecy around APIs, that's a veil of secrecy around *unreleased* APIs. There's a world of difference. Until I read your second comment, I was thinking "what's that guy smoking ?" Apple give away the complete "professional version" of their developer kit, they publish documentation on all their APIs on the net, and frankly they seem a lot more open to developers than Microsoft are, to pluck an example out of the air.

          But what *you* mean is that they don't want their thunder stolen be
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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
    • by metamatic (202216)

      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.

      It's sad that crap like this, which is just plain wrong, can get moderated up to +5.

      Apple has always been very open with their APIs. Just go to developer.apple.com [apple.com] and look. You don't even have to register to get the documentation.

      Want the entire QuickTime file format specifica

  • by HumanEmulator (1062440) on Sunday February 24, 2008 @08:23AM (#22534120)
    I'll be able to get real work done for an extra 1-3 weeks before I starting hacking my phone.
  • 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 co
    • Although I like Apple products I was personally always hoping for a really good Palm phone as I had loved my Palm Pilot ages ago. I really wanted a smartphone but I hated all of them until the iPhone...

      Like you said, it's the first cell phone (even outside of smartphones) that doesn't piss me off. And there's a lot of practical value in that, no matter how nice they may look.
    • by ibbey (27873)
      The iPhone is a (mostly) great phone, but a pretty mediocre PDA. It's calendar is particularly weak. It also lacks some pretty common features such as voice dialing (more important than usual with the iPhone since it lacks a real keyboard-- it's dangerous to dial an iPhone while driving), voice notes, and a few other things that are slipping my mind right now. It's also pretty weak for email, though it might have gotten better in the last upgrade or two. I use the Gmail iPhone interface (http://m.gmail.com)
  • Just wondering. I'd like to write a personal app, but I'm not willing to pay big bucks for the SDK just for that purpose.

...when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. - Fred Brooks, Jr.

Working...