User Abuse: Apple's confines third-party iPhone applications to the web
Today Steve Jobs of Apple announced that the iPhone will not allow third-party developers to create offline apps for the iPhone, or really any iPhone apps at all. According to Apple, the iPhone's built in version of the web browser Safari will be able to run normal web applications, but OS-level applications are off limits to third parties. This is a disappointing move from Apple that really constitutes an announcement of the iPhone being closed to third party development.
From Bloomberg:
What a crock. He didn't "find a way" to let them add programs. He merely realized that, if the iPhone wants to claim that you can use the "real" web, as they did in a recent television commercial, standard web apps have to be feasible on the device. Here's the commercial:
So in a PR dance, Jobs claimed that this was a move that was actively made for the sake of developers, when really it was passively the only option. That, or neuter the web like some similar devices.
The real reason Apple did this: money.
I think this limitation of third-part developers is necessary if Apple intends to keep control of the device's music-playing functionality and the dollars associated with it.
I (and likely many others) planned to write a Flex media player that would stream music from my webserver or home computer, removing many file redundancies from my life and making iTunes' DRM (digital rights management) irrelevant by also allowing a user to load files directly onto the iPhone's memory in mp3 format. If Apple wants iTunes and their DRM and continue to gain power over the music industry, they have to cut these kinds of applications off at the head.
While a web-only version of such an iTunes-killer is feasible, it will be stopped short by an inability to run offline via something like Apollo or Google Gears, and by the browser's restricted access to local files. This means that, when the Blue Line in Chicago or the streetcar in San Francisco goes underground or you lose signal in some other way, your music would no longer be accessible. This lack of offline functionality may guarantee Apple's control of the device for the near future. However, especially for users that never lose internet access, I can still think of several ways to undermine -- err -- extend the iPhone's feature set :)
Sources:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJw25UvZ47DQ&refer=home
http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/11/apple-announces-third-party-software-details-for-iphone/
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6114686 which has a terribly inaccurate title, "Apple opens up iPhone for programmers"
From Bloomberg:
Jobs, 52, at first said he wouldn't allow any access for developers and then hinted May 30 that he had changed his mind, saying at a conference he would "find a way" to let them add programs while keeping the iPhone secure.
What a crock. He didn't "find a way" to let them add programs. He merely realized that, if the iPhone wants to claim that you can use the "real" web, as they did in a recent television commercial, standard web apps have to be feasible on the device. Here's the commercial:
So in a PR dance, Jobs claimed that this was a move that was actively made for the sake of developers, when really it was passively the only option. That, or neuter the web like some similar devices.
The real reason Apple did this: money.
I think this limitation of third-part developers is necessary if Apple intends to keep control of the device's music-playing functionality and the dollars associated with it.
I (and likely many others) planned to write a Flex media player that would stream music from my webserver or home computer, removing many file redundancies from my life and making iTunes' DRM (digital rights management) irrelevant by also allowing a user to load files directly onto the iPhone's memory in mp3 format. If Apple wants iTunes and their DRM and continue to gain power over the music industry, they have to cut these kinds of applications off at the head.
While a web-only version of such an iTunes-killer is feasible, it will be stopped short by an inability to run offline via something like Apollo or Google Gears, and by the browser's restricted access to local files. This means that, when the Blue Line in Chicago or the streetcar in San Francisco goes underground or you lose signal in some other way, your music would no longer be accessible. This lack of offline functionality may guarantee Apple's control of the device for the near future. However, especially for users that never lose internet access, I can still think of several ways to undermine -- err -- extend the iPhone's feature set :)
Sources:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJw25UvZ47DQ&refer=home
http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/11/apple-announces-third-party-software-details-for-iphone/
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6114686 which has a terribly inaccurate title, "Apple opens up iPhone for programmers"
Labels: apple, flex, iphone, user abuse, web applications
posted by Kyle Wild at
12:55 PM
10 Comments:
Good News Bad News I guess
That really sucks that they had to lock down the iPhone, it would have been the scare tactic for other phone manufacturers.
What I don't understand is why? This is not something I buy seperate, They're not making any more money off of me after I buy the phone, So why can't I hack the sh!t out of there OS and other Apps.
I could understand if the OS and phone were sold separately, but thats not the case.
Because like I said, the iPhone is going to use iTunes to sync your music collection with your home version of iTunes. This piece of software is worth a ton of money to Apple because it serves as a store for content. They don't want to give users a way to avoid their iTunes->iPod funnel (which is now going to be paralleled by iTunes->iPhone)
Their music business may not be the only reason. Aren't they avoiding the problem that plauges your treo usage most now - apps that don't run ideally? By disallowing os level apps aren't they protecting their operating system from apps that could break it or muddy the user experience? Aren't web apps less of a threat to overall performance than OS apps?
Limiting the amount of things people can do with their phones will negatively affect the power users, but it will protect the ordinary people who will download mulititudes of crappy programs that ultimately bog down their phone. It's facebook vs. myspace (until recently when facebook started letting people develop apps).
Whatever their reasons, they are being kind of shady and misleading about it.
No. It's much more likely that AT&T is afraid of VOIP than that Steve is afraid of streaming audio. The iPhone will support DRM-free music, guaranteed.
iPhone could allow Apollo if it were really a performance issue
it's just a Flex player without the browser as a middle man
I dont' think it's any of Apple's business if I wish to write and/or install an application.
This is why many users need Windows Mobile... plenty of tools to write apps, and thus thousands of available apps. Even custom themes and start pages, something not possible on iPhone.
Big disappointment. If they had ported Safari to WM, now that would've been a coup.
This post has been removed by the author.
Looks like this guy had the same thoughts you did:
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/06/iphoneapps/index.php
(I tried posting this early but the link was bad. Also, this site really bogs down firefox fyi...)
Michelle, did you mean:
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/06/iphone/
Kevin: agreed. It's too bad the UE of Windows Mobile is wretched (requiring stylus for some of the silliest things).
My biggest hope for the future is that Palm's upcoming Linux OS will be the kind of stable and developer-friendly platform that Palm OS should've been.
Post a Comment
<< Home