“Perhaps it’s playing well in the mainstream press, but here at WWDC, Apple’s ‘you can write great apps for the iPhone: they’re called ‘web sites’’ – message went over like a lead balloon,” John Gruber writes for Daring Fireball.
Gruber writes, “It’s insulting, because it’s not a way to write iPhone apps, and you can’t bullshit developers. It’s a matter of spin. What Apple should have announced is something like this: “We know that you want to write your own apps for iPhone, and we’d like to see that too. We love the apps you write for the Mac, and we’d love to see what you might be able to come up with for iPhone. We’re thinking about it, and working on ways that we might make that happen, but we don’t have anything to announce today. The good news, though, is that because iPhone has a real Safari web browser, you can write web-based apps that work great on iPhone.”
Gruber writes, “That wasn’t what the developers here at WWDC wanted to hear, but at least it wouldn’t have been insulting.”
Another reason why Apple developed and released Safari for Windows, according to Gruber, “is simply money. Safari is a free download, but it’s already one of Apple’s most profitable software products.”
It’s not widely publicized, but those integrated search bars in web browser toolbars are revenue generators. When you do a Google search from Safari’s toolbar, Google pays Apple a portion of the ad revenue from the resulting page,” Gruber explains. “My somewhat-informed understanding is that Apple is currently generating about $2 million per month from Safari’s Google integration. That’s $25 million per year. If Safari for Windows is even moderately successful, it’s easy to see how that might grow to $100 million per year or more.”
Full article, with more about Leopard, Jobs’ scant list of “top secrets,” that the new Dock that only works visually at the bottom of the screen, and more, here.
Growing discontent in 3…2…1…
After viewing the Keynote yesterday, I think I will stick with T tiger.
The dock only works at the bottom of the screen in Leopard? OUCH
Yeah, it blows. You could see even in their demo the lag time between scroll and screen refresh. It’s a bullshit solution. Daring Fireball’s take on the whole event resonates with me.
I’m not a developer and I could smell the “poo on my shoe”. HOWEVER, with most things software there is a natural progression. Welcome to step 1.
RE: The dock only works at the bottom of the screen in Leopard? OUCH
———-
WRONG!
Did you even see the keynote video??
I think you need to get your eyes tested.
SJ showed the dock working on the left and right hand side.
I recommend you actually watch the keynote before stating any obvious errors.
I myself couldn’t believe Steve Jobs would say that to a bunch of developers. It’s like he forgot who he was speaking to.
Of all the people that might be able to see through that bullshit, you picked them?
It sounded like he was talking to a random crowd of young iPod users that would clap, nod and grunt like seals. “Oooo, no SDK necessary!”
That RDF isn’t bulletproof, Steve.
> The dock only works at the bottom of the screen in Leopard? OUCH
What are you talking about? In the demo, Steve Jobs showed it working on the left side.
And what does that have to do with iPhone apps?
I think the developers who are complaining are short-sighted. Web-based apps are the future. Looking back 2-3 years from the future, these complaints that they can’t write apps that reside on the device will look silly.
@ pr
The dock works on all 3 sides as it does now. He demonstrates this in the keynote…
@pr “The dock only works at the bottom of the screen in Leopard? OUCH”
Except for the times when you put it to the sides of the screen like they did in the keynote.
There are still plenty of great reasons to upgrade to Leopard, it’s just that we found out most of them last year and now they seem old hat. A lot of them are under the hood. Full 64-bit support will increase speed as developers take advantage of it. Leopard has not been introduced with Apple’s usual flair for PR, but it’s still a solid improvement.
Gruber never says that the dock won’t work on the side. He’s complaining about how it looks while parked there.
RTFA, people.
Remember this is the 1st generation iPhone – developers should be bloody relieved that there IS actually a way of developing 3rd party apps for iPhone!
Apple could have quite easily just locked it all down and said “fuck you – we aint having crap software ruining the user experience on our new product”.
Yes it’s using web standards, BUT remember web standards are there for a reason, and that reason is almost guaranteeing that ANY app you right will work on iphone or on ANY mac at without any re-coding.
Whether people like it or not, this is the future of app development.
Everyone in the software business is starting to concentrate on ‘web apps’ – going soon are the days of installing software on your mac.
Apple knows this and to be honest all the developers do too but are affraid to make the leap of faith to do it.
Just look at Google – they beat Microsoft to the post to develop a web ‘office’ suite. Microsoft know they are in danger of losing Office’s domination because of this.
You can bet your family fortune that Microsoft is working 24/7 on a web suite of Office.
The future is web apps – and Apple knows this.
Daring Fireball’s take
Apple is still learning how to play nice with “partners.” They’re very used to getting their way when it comes to the user’s experience, but in this field, they’re going to have to learn to give up some control, I think– or have less than stellar sales performance for iPhone.
I think Apple/Steve is only on the verge of realizing that many people would hoist Apple up as the next Microsoft. So, here’s the rub– to be that big means to have to be a little more like M$ perhaps. I’m not working in this field, but I wonder why Apple doesn’t implement some sort of pay and play membership for iPhone developers that would require a great deal of scrutiny of the code used. This would help to promote security and keep the riff-raff out.
Anyone have any idea why this isn’t being done?
Ditto from developer Will Gomez who wrote similar disssssatisfaction with Apple and the iPhone.
OK I’m not a programmer and I do take the point that they want full access to the OS on the iPhone.
But that’s no reason to throw the baby out the pram.
If Google are writing all their apps on Web 2, it can’t be all bad, and arguably it’s the future.
I for one don’t blame Apple for restraining the use of apps on iPhone. We’ll end up with duplicate Mail progs, browsers, antivirus and a lot of other bollocks we don’t need.
Let’s learn to live with it and see how it goes. It is a revolution after all.
I say the kiddies should grow up frankly.
And, no, they are not being Microsoft, they are being sensible. Microsoft would have the whole think cocked up in no time with a free for all in an endeavour to take the whole market.
Oh, but then Microsoft never invented ANYTHING like this before.
I think as soon as the developers see how many iPhones are sold they will start developing the apps using the Apple tools whether they like it or not.
Lets face facts, the iPhone is going to be MASSIVE.
And when is does you can bet that the clients of developers are going to DEMAND their apps be written for iPhone.
And if the developers dont do it… then they will lose their client to a developer that will do it!
Developers miffed about Apple’s third-party iPhone apps solution
Well you know what developers?
95% of exploits are on applications, yea YOUR FSCKING SHODDY CODE!!
Why is it shoddy? Because your G-Dammed marketing departments want your insecure crap out the door first and fix it later approach, if it gets fixed at all.
So because of this, your FSCKING SANDBOXED!!! Good for us consumers!!
And to those third party developers who demand a admin password (aka sudo/root) to install your programs/hacks when it’s really not needed (system level/cloning software excluded naturally).
A big FSCK YOU from those of us needing security.
You install your hacks in Mac OS X and it leaves a pathway to root through your shoddy coding practices.
Sure nobody is frigging perfect, but you plan for that and keep your frigging code out of root and in user space where it belongs so a compromised app doesn’t have access to Mac OS X.
BUT NOOOO!!! Your marketing departments want root so they can install marketing ware, knowing exactly what time and day we are launching what programs, how often we use the competitors software and evil privacy crap like that.
And we all know full well you plan to use EFI to bypass any OS installed outgoing firewall software to catch you, to verify apps and other DRM crap invading our privacy and security.
We buy your apps to solve a need/want, not to be exploited and probed and labeled thieves automatically.
Get out of root space, stay out of EFI because I’m on a campaign to educate everyone to avoid software that installs in these areas.
Apple is guilty too for trusting developers to care about security. They realize shoddy security by third party coders is going to ruin their hardware sales.
So sit in your friggning sandbox where you belong, you earned it!
After viewing the Keynote yesterday, I think I will get a Pro system to move from Panther to Leopard. As soon as the Adobe bloatware runs on it.
There’s one huge group of developers that I guarantee you are very happy with Apple’s iPhone development solution: web developers. Last time I checked, they outnumber Mac OS X developers by a hefty margin.
Relax people, more options will come in time. I for one will be happy to see apps with similar quality to Dashboard Widgets running on iPhone. They’ll still beat every other phone platforms apps any day.
Perhaps there will be many buyers who want the best iPod, and the best phone. They may not care about other applications running on the device. For now, anyway.
If you’ve seen the iPhone commercials, I’d have to sum it up as WOW, those “kinda sorta look like” applications!
Hey Jobs, if you want to bend over your developers, please don’t do it in public and expect them to applaud you while you do it!
the web will be the future of software development the day HTML is replaced by something a lot better.
it’s just too limited, there are completely categories of software that just can’t be made in HTML.
i was planning to write a game that uses the iPhone’s accelerometer to move a ball through a labyrinth, that is not be possible with the Web API.
Apple went with the web 2.0 option because it does not want to compromise the quality of the iphone user experience.
This is totally understandable.
Imagine the iphone in 2 years time if Apple didnt, the user experience would be as crap as all the other phones out there.
This is the right way for Apple and developers to proceed imho for a co-hesive, sustainable and stable user experience.
re: he web will be the future of software development the day HTML is replaced by something a lot better.
it’s just too limited, there are completely categories of software that just can’t be made in HTML.
i was planning to write a game that uses the iPhone’s accelerometer to move a ball through a labyrinth, that is not be possible with the Web API.
—-
Solution… write the game in flash!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />)
To anybody defending this announcement:
Please tell what it is was really good about the announcement for you! They already announced that a full version of safari was running on the phone, so you already knew you could write web-applications back at their original announcement. They already showed full websites before. People are not bad about that, they are mad that apple tried to pawn web-applications off as real applications.
Stop defending this announcement! It was pure spin intended for the press, and it shouldn’t be tolerated by technology literate people of any form, web-developer or app-developer.
If Google are writing all their apps on Web 2, it can’t be all bad, and arguably it’s the future.
That’s Google’s bread and butter. Some of us live on a different diet. And web apps aren’t the future. And the internet won’t end the paper industry.
You install your hacks in Mac OS X and it leaves a pathway to root through your shoddy coding practices.
You shouldn’t argue with your imagination. It’s too easy. Pick a real opponent and argue with them.
Anyone who sais that AJAX and web 2.0 technologies don’t allow full app development has no idea what he is talking about.
Developers are now only scratching at the surface, most are too lazy to try something really new.
Have a look at picnik.com or the Google apps!
Remember the promise of OpenDoc, write once play anywhere. Developers didn’t like that, sell small apps that do what you want rather than big apps that cost loads of money but most people only use 10% of the features.
Remember Java, write once play anywhere. That got shafted too, mostly because of a developer, ie Microsoft.
Maybe third time around.
This is a way to stop the bad guys getting in, the viruses etc, work to standards that are enforced. Bloated apps leave holes.
iPhone will be memory/storage limited too – imagine what would happen if the iPhone was truly ‘open’ and Microsoft ‘supported’ Apple by developing some software for it!
The point is not whether the phone should or shouldn’t allow applications. It’s that they shouldn’t say that they support applications when they don’t.
Don’t defend Apple treating people like idiots. We know the difference, we know what a browser is and what an app is.
I’m excited about the idea of being able to use the same web apps on Windows, Mac and iPhone. I think people are generally resistant to change. I remember when I first moved to the Mac, OSX was just coming out and you would have thought it was the end of the world reading sites like this. Nothing but negative comments about NEXT and how it was ruining Apple.
Well, here we are again, resisting change whether or not it’s change for the better.
I think Apple will be first out of the gate with iLife and iWork that will work as Web 2.0 apps on all three platforms. Can’t wait.
John Q. Public or even CEO Joe Blow won’t really care about who writes what app in what language (or on what platform) for the iPhone. All that is going to matter is will the darn thing work as advertised. All this discontent is for naught. I’m sure that a majority of the buyers of the phone will more than likely stick with the default application set and not even worry about (or even care about) if he/she can download some pick-your-nose-widget made by developer X.
This is a nascent product, so let Apple have some time to perfect and tweak it before they let any old person with an iPhone SDK make crap that ruins the overall experience of owning an iPhone.
It’s not about being resistant to change, its about being resistant to being mislead.
WEB-APPLICATIONS ARE WONDERFUL. Nobody disagrees.
Being mislead and fed a bunch of BS is not wonderful. Stop changing the topic.
Developers, that title is a laugh these days, like software ‘engineer’. It’s more like technical drawing than engineering. Like technical drawing most of the job is in error checking, not doing the drawing and checking it all afterwards like releasing betas but doing the checking on the job, as the work progresses. And then checking it all afterwards. Some software engineers/developers these days that I know don’t know real coding, it’s all object-oriented. I’d call it writing (as do many others), that’s what it is, a set of instructions within certain parameters.
Most of the basic stuff was done way back, now it’s user interface stuff aka design.
What’s the point of bluetooth and all the connectivity if you can’t use it. Imagine what you could do with a blue-tooth GPS. I can guarantee a website can’t access that!
I agree though, the issue here isn’t apps or no apps. It’s about SPIN
WTF?
Developers needs?!?!?! This is an Excellent Solution! No troublesome code tweaking needed. Just do what you want. Easy+Fast+No Ridiculous Testing Needed+Cheap! SWEET INDEED. Wait a little = 2 weeks and READY! I Love It! I do not have to wait for another 6 months to get the app I need. Study more WebObjects and do what you what ever you LIKE!
MDN Magic Word: Simple
Safari for Windows is not simply for money.
When window user use Safari,
(1) More Web pages will be compatible with SAFARI.
(2) Easy to sync with iPhone
(3) More windows people can taste and realize the superiority of Apple software
(4) Open opportunities for Windows people to create
softwares for iPHONE.
(5)Make easy to switch to Apple, definitely help switching.
WRONG ! The Dock works on either side or the bottom just like Tiger. Jobs even demoed it putting it on the left side at one point in his presentation.
As far as I’m concerned Leopard Rocks! And I for will be there when it is released in October to get my copy.
Petey wrote:
“Apple went with the web 2.0 option because it does not want to compromise the quality of the iphone user experience”
did developpers ruin the UI of the mac ? i don’t think so.
Apple did this for business reasons, because of AT&T, not for the users.
Petey wrote:
“Solution… write the game in flash”
1 the web 2 UI will not have access to the hardware, no accelerometer
2 the flash plugin (and probably any other web plugin are also banned from the iPhone.
Halix wrote:
“Anyone who sais that AJAX and web 2.0 technologies don’t allow full app development has no idea what he is talking about.”
i have been developing software for 30 years, including web 2 apps.
u can’t do photoshop with a web 2 app, or serious games, u don’t get access to the hardware, all u can do is what HTML allows u to do, no client side rotations, no 3D, no voice of video over IP, it’s slow (very very slow), the UI is limited.
google made some great web 2 apps, they reached the limit of what can be done.
none of the iPhone’s built in applications have been written with Web 2.
Can you save a web page onto the iPhone, to use it like an application when you are offline?? If you can do that, then their golden.
What are developers complaining about? Just what can you do with a native app that you can’t do on an AJAX type webpage?
Wow! I haven’t seen this many posts since the $50 iBook fiasco.
My take: Gruber is way off base with his statement: “It’s insulting, because it’s not a way to write iPhone apps, and you can’t bullshit developers. “ I could swear I saw an app demonstrated on stage that worked through the browser. WTF!
So because The Steve doesn’t want to have the iPhone turned into an unstable POS, with JoeBlowHack “developer” having access to the iPhone’s innards, “developers” are miffed? Fuck ’em. (that expletive was for Mr. Daring).
Rock on Steve!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />
The safari thing and making money. Isn’t that why Apple is in business? You know, to make money. Hello? Stupid pointless gripe as far as I’m concerned. And I think jobs didn’t count out the fact that developers can’t develop apps on the iPhone. Just right now they want to make sure it’s secure and what does get on the iPhone won’t crash. To me that sounds reasonable that you want your product as reliable as possible.
Leopard is a HUGE step in the right direction with AMAZING capabilities. It’s just that many people are so farking stupid they don’t realize it.
“The new Dock that only works visually at the bottom of the screen.”
The operative word is “visually.”
Look it up.
@ JadisOne
Hey now.Can ya tell me where I can get me one of them there “nose pickin widgets”
MDN Magic Word = old As in…All this whining is getting old
Petey: Right on, bro. Very well-stated.
I agree with a post I read around here over the last few days that suspected that the reason they weren’t truly opening up the phone to developers was that AT&T is afraid that someone will build a VOIP app for it. Makes sense. You’d still need the 2 year agreement to get the phone, but what’s to stop someone from discarding their AT&T contact after that and only using VOIP?
@pr
“The dock only works at the bottom of the screen in Leopard? OUCH”
Gruber meant that it didn’t look good when you put it anywhere but the bottom, not that you can’t.
I usually agree with John Gruber. His blogs are usually very insightful. But in his latest missive, I think John has really missed the point. Writing for the Web is no longer what it used to be. With the advent of programming tools like AJAX, developers who understand how to use Web 2.0 tools have formidable power at their disposal. This isn’t your father’s Internet.
A case in point: the new apple.com update. Say what you will about some aspects of its look and feel, if you have not really delved into its underlying technology and function, as Gruber has apparently failed to do, you will miss the power available in Web 2.0. Play with the interactive scrolling, or the pull-down bars, or the Spotlight-like search. It’s interactive, and requires no screen refresh. That is a fundamental change from Web 1.0. And it is a showcase of what is possible to a programmer who understands the power of AJAX. Likewise, look at Google Maps. Or a host of other amazing new Web 2.0 sites.
As much as I enjoy reading the blogs of John Gruber, he is not a programmer. And that’s the failing of so many blogs. They’re opinions of bystanders like you and me. Gruber might be persuasive in many cases, but he does not have the expertise that a good programmer does, and here, he is speaking out of his posterior rather than his mouth.
I am appalled at the ready-fire-aim assessments in the past 24 hours by people who aren’t at the WWDC, who aren’t programming experts, and who have not seen the other 90+ developments and enhancements to 10.5. I suspect that many of the most significant advances in Leopard are not things that Steve Jobs showed off yesterday. Hardly any mention was given to Leopard being fully 64-bit compatible, to the code base in the Finder being completely rewritten, and many other things that I do not even know about yet.
My advice: blow off what Gruber has to say. Ignore many of the breathless blogs and hastily written, badly researched articles. Step back from your browser and wait a week, a month, even until October. We have yet to clearly understand the significance of what Apple is doing with Leopard and the capabilities available to developers to create fantastic third party applications for the iPhone. And remember too, that AT&T will have a say in all this too, as what needs to be developed for the iPhone has to appease the telco giant as well.
It’s not as simple as a mere blogger might make it seem.
Sorry, John. Love your work. But this time, you got it wrong.
“I could swear I saw an app demonstrated on stage that worked through the browser. WTF!”
Actually, I chuckled at that. Did anybody notice the URL that they went to?
Keep in mind what happened–they built a fake phone book app on the web, optimized for iPhone. And how do you get to it? With a bookmark in your web browser.
Again, I want to use my Bluetooth GPS with my iPhone for a custom application. Tell me how to do that with a web app.
“So because The Steve doesn’t want to have the iPhone turned into an unstable POS, with JoeBlowHack “developer” having access to the iPhone’s innards, ‘developers’ are miffed? Fuck ’em. (that expletive was for Mr. Daring).”
Well, this brings up an entertaining question…
iPhone runs OS X. OS X is the core of Mac OS X, one of the most stable operating systems on the planet, as all of us Mac users know.
So how is my little app going to the iPhone into an “unstable POS”?
Or is there something else going on that we’re not aware of. Again, the excuses don’t match.
Advertising, I hate it, it wastes my time and most of it is unbelievable. Coke – poison your body slowly, Microsoft, waste your time rapidly, the one rule of advertising we all should learn is that the more it is advertised the worse that the product is.
So Safari is supported by advertising, well that’s OK provided I can turn it off otherwise I’ll stick with FireFox and adblock and flashblock. I can do the math, maybe it loads slower but if I waste less time with adverts I am winning.
Maybe it’s a bit sad to see that Apple is profiting from Google advertising – but I knew that already and that is the ‘real’ world that has been created for us. Apple would be foolish not to take advantage, I guess. But Apple discovered the better way of marketing some while ago, if your products are good put them on display where people can seen and use and test them. That’s why the stores are so successful, way better than advertising already and there are loads of places without Apple stores.
Worst of all advertising is a tax on everyone, time and money. Makes our visual and audio environment worse and produces loads of landfill.
Every advert should carry two additional prices on it, (1) the cost of the advert, production and space (2) the advertising cost allocated to the purchase of the product. People would soon stop. The minimum ‘recommended’ advertising spend is 10% of the retail price of the product, some products over 50% of what you pay goes on advertising.
Third rant of the day over!
For those Canadians wondering when/if the iPhone will come to Canada and even whether Rogers has publicly commented on the iPhones’ availability here was my response from their Manager of Corporate Communications:
Dear Dan,
I would love to be able to give you some sort of indication but unfortunately, I can’t. Despite all the speculation in the media, Rogers hasn’t made any public announcements regarding the iPhone.
Best regards,
Odette Coleman
Manager, Corporate Communications
Rogers Wireless
and who have not seen the other 90+ developments and enhancements to 10.5.
Actually, there are some of us who have. I am very happy that Apple has created the NSOperation API. I’m very happy about the plug-in architecture for QuickLook. And I fucking love Back to My Mac and built in Remote Desktop.
But I don’t love iPhone development thru the web browser. Anyone who says that web apps offer as much as local apps don’t know what they’re talking about.
3rd party web apps only…yeah Kool AId, drinkers it is a real Mac alright….ROFLMAO
Just my $0.02
“Somehow, I told ya so, doesn’t even begin to cover it” Wil Smith, I Robot
From now on, those of you who have no idea about technology, please stop posting. Don’t believe all the crap that Steve throws out. This is a cop-out. You could already write apps for Safari. Sure, they’re adding a couple of links to services in the iPhone. But the problem is that only Apple is writing these services. There will be no innovation.
Web 2.0 + Ajax does not equal desktop apps. Think you can replace Photoshop with a web app? Think you can replace Final Cut Studio? How about Aperture?
I’m going to give Apple the benefit of the doubt here. I believe they would love to release an SDK but they can’t. They probably signed a contract with AT&T preventing this. Why? Because the first app written for the iPhone would be an instant messenger. The second app would be a Skype client. AT&T doesn’t want this. It cuts into their profits.
I think I’ll sit this one out and look forward to a true mobile device that has a SDK where apps will be written that would provide things like SSH, VPN, VNC, instant messenging, Skype, and even games.
The silence at WWDC when Steve dropped this bomb was deafening. That said, it can still change because we all know it runs OS X. I think it is very important to Apple that the iPhone be stable in its first couple of years while they sort out the bugs. Reputation is everything. After that they can open up the platform because everyone will know that it will be their own fault if they use 3rd party apps and the phone crashes.
Hey Gandalf,
Apple isn’t profiting from Google advertising. They profit from when you use the search bar. The Mozilla Foundation earned over $50 million in 2005 because of people using the built-in search bar in Firefox.
I can’t blame Jobs for the BS, though. If Jobs had said a true SDK was coming, then he would have promised something that he might not be ready to talk about. When you promise nothing, nobody can punish you for not delivering. That said, I think Apple knows that 3rd party apps are crucial if iPhone to succeed in the enterprise market. So, AJAX gives the way for people to develope web apps for iPhone now. Besides, promising an SDK now may give developers a reason to wait until the SDK before creating apps is out but Apple needs the developers now.
Everybody complaining about the lack of a software development kit for the iPhone needs to read Download Squad’s take on it.
Download Squad explains this MUCH better than I can so click the link.
JOHN GRUBER IS 100% ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!!
APPLE, YOU GUYS ARE A BUNCH OF MORONS TO NOT OPEN UP THE IPHONE TO 3RD PARTY DEVELOPERS!!
I WILL ***NEVER*** BUY AN IPHONE UNTIL I CAN PUT POCKET QUICKEN AND FILEMAKER PRO ON IT, SO YOU WILL ***NEVER*** GET A SALE FROM ME.
APPLE, YOU SUCK!
Everyone needs to just calm down about this.
Did Apple go back on any promises? No. They have never told anyone they could put their own compiled apps on the iPhone.
Will the iPhone be at a real disadvantage to other (smart)phones because it can’t run third-party compiled apps? I doubt it. I work in IT and support Blackberries, and 95% or more of our users just use them with the default apps. They want a nice email device that works out of the box, no fuss.
Did Apple insult developers by implying that web apps can replace native apps? Maybe they felt that way. But no one that I know has actually tried Apple’s web app solution yet, and Steve did say “You’ll be surprised what you can do…”
Did Apple make a mistake by making a big deal that the iPhone runs OS X? Yes, I think they did. This created a false set of expectations. In Apple’s thinking, this meant “we can build in some really advanced features not found in other phones.” But in the minds of developers (and the public to a lesser extent), this meant “it’s a miniature Mac, and I want all my Mac apps running on it yesterday.”
For anyone who hasn’t figured this out: THE iPHONE IS NOT A MINIATURE MAC. It’s not a small tablet Mac. It’s not a general-purpose computer at all. It’s an APPLIANCE. Like the AppleTV. Like the iPod. Made to do one set of things, and to do them well.
I have a Palm Pilot something…
When I got it, I loved it! I used it every day. I got a card for it, that had, among other things, chess. I used the game card only for chess, and it crashed my Palm Pilot so hard that I had to reset it… multiple times!
I got to the point where I realized that I could not depend on it, and I stuffed it onto a shelf somewhere.
That was a $599 device.
I do not want that experience on my iPhone.
Gandalf,
I think you are seriously confused about how Apple makes money from Google with Safari. There aren’t any ads in the browser – they make money because they put a Google search bar at the top of the browser that allows you to search for something without having to go to Google’s site first. They get a small percentage of ad revenue every time someone uses that bar for a search.
FYI, Firefox works the same way.
Now would be a good time to quote Roseanne Rosanna Danna, “Oh. Nevermind.”
Who would need to run photoshop, Final Cut Pro, or Maya on an iPhone?
Who here wants Microsoft to develop their slow and buggy software for the iPhone?
Who here wants spyware and worldwide hackers to ruin the iPhone? For a while I ran SafariBlock on my mac, and it was sending various information to those people without my knowledge.
The issue here is that once the door is open, the party cannot be shut down. Better to take it slow and establish the rules of the garden first. Those who can innovate and take advantage of the situation will do so. If I had a business I’d locate a good web app developer.
After years of Treo use, I had to limit my installations of third party software down to a few items, and many of them are now in the iPhone or the online google apps.
I’m not a developer, but something seemed off about trying to encourage building app’s only in Safari.
It seems like Apple has the chance to make the iPhone the next Mac, and basically win the platform wars, but they’re making mistakes right out of the gate. Macs are pretty secure, and it would seem the phone could make calls and still run app’s without going ape$/*T!
I like Daring Fireball quite a bit, but I do not agree with Mr. Gruber’s comments on yesterday’s keynote:
http://thesmallwave.blogspot.com/2007/06/disagreement-with-daring-fireballs-take.h
I like Daring Fireball quite a bit, but I do not agree with Mr. Gruber’s comments on yesterday’s keynote:
http://tinyurl.com/yukfvh
Can I ask a practical question?
Is anyone clear from Job’s announcement whether web2.0 apps will be able to be LOADED onto the phone, or if he’s talking about running them OVER THE INTERNET from a website?
I can understand why people want so much in such a little box. The fact that is has a browser that works is insane.
Watch the keynote… Really pay attention to the iPhone bit. Those are services running on the iPhone accessed via safari.
I think the non-sdk solution might actually be a GOOD thing.
http://crankyslacker.blogspot.com/
My guess is that this is just an interim solution. The iPhone is coming out in just over 2 weeks. This solution allows developers to start creating apps that’ll be ready in time or soon after the iPhone is released. I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple is working on a true SDK for the iPhone, but that won’t come until Leopard is out the door.
Of course I realize how Apple, Firefox profit fromGoogle. IT IS ADVERTISING. Google make their money from advertising, biggest on the web, a link to Google is a link to ADVERTISING, it is virtually their only source of income. Have you tried searching for an item on Google recently, top links are mostly sales sites. I remember when Google first started and I switched from ixquick, gone are the days when top links were academia etc. I often use -ebay in my Google searches because too many unrelated eBay auctions appear.
Sorry if that wasn’t obvious to some of you guys.
One point I don’t think has been mentioned here about iPhone software is FCC regulation/approval.
Mobile phones are different to computers so far as they are regulated as to what they can do. Maybe apps that run on mobile phones have to be approved, I don’t know but maybe. If so web 2.0 standard apps may be part of Apple’s negotiation with FCC.
I think Gruber got it spot on.
As a user, I’m really excited about Leopard and will happily upgrade. Not at ALL disappointed in Leopard, and it’s fine if not that much was new. What we need is for it to work reliably. THAT is what would make it “not vista”.
But the look of the iphone in the demos and ads had me real excited about it as a platform. Because it “has OSX inside”. Now, as a developer I know that OSX inside is meaningless. It’s an ipod plus safari. Instead of the coolest and most powerful damned platform ever to fit in a pocket.
As to those who say letting developers write apps would make it look like crap… (1) nobody makes you install such apps and (2) How the hell do you think the Mac came to be? Apple wrote guidelines, had a toolbox to support it, and users voted with their feet against anything that wasn’t “mac-like”.
But what Gruber especially got right is that it was insulting. OF COURSE we can write Web apps for the iphone… it’s been advertising all week that it’s the “real internet”. We KNEW that. We’re not the press, we know how things work
And guess what all you fanboys and girls… That web app for iphone will work in a browser on any device.
What some of us were excited about is another 1984–contributing to the coolnest of a brand new insanely great platform. SJ told us to go away, and he did it with bullshit. Gruber was right, he should have just admitted they weren’t opening up the platform.
Now, web 2.0 fans… WHY should anyone develop for Leopard? Why should developers pay 1000s to go to WWDC to learn about Core Animiation? After all web apps have a much larger audience.
Leopard looks great. But my phone and ipod are fine– there’s not going to be an ipod revolution.
And, ironically, I am intrigued by programming small ubiquitous mobile devices. I hope SJ hasn’t inadvertently recruited me for Windows Mobile… but one can only play where they let me in the door.
As Andy C mentioned Dashboard. Thats what I see as the solution to 3rd party apps on iPhone. Simply the widget option. Only reason why SJ hasn’t mentioned it yet IMHO is that they havent’ decided how they want to handle the widget object.
So…. he says make web 2.0 apps. well thats what a widget is for the most part with some system glue if necessary. Besides if we had widgets for the iPhone right now then then there would be no ‘big announcement’ for widget support later… ya know?
OK a fourth rant, well less of a rant than education for some folks.
Google started with the mantra “do no evil” which was all well and good for a couple of students at Stanford but they listed on Wall Street. The primary duty of quoted corporations is to maximize returns for shareholders, so even if “do no evil” is no longer true they can’t drop it if it would reduce returns to shareholders. In short the bankers are in charge.
There’s an old saying, “that which is free is worth the price that you paid for it”. Now that’s not true in every instance but there’s a message in there to be learned.
I am not suggesting that you don’t use Google, or any other search tool for that matter, but bear in mind what the quality of the information is that you receive.
There’s another old saying, “follow the money”.
Ah and another thing. Safari on Windows is so Windows people can verify that their site or 2.0site works on Safari (you do test more then IE don’t you Windows people?) and that means it works on iPhone Safari….. Interesting how that happens like that…. Almost like they planned it.
Is anyone clear from Job’s announcement whether web2.0 apps will be able to be LOADED onto the phone, or if he’s talking about running them OVER THE INTERNET from a website?
I’m certain he meant over the internet. Steve mentions in the keynote that distribution isn’t a problem, you’ve got the internet. And something about code updates are easy since you just update the code on your server.
From Download Squad’s take:
If Apple were to actually make a proper SDK for the iPhone, it would mean the SDK would have to support the Cocoa framework on OS X, and either port Cocoa to Windows (possible), or use 3rd party framework for Windows (not likely, given how much Apple likes to be in control).
Er, how about: “You can develop web apps that will run on the iPhone on either a Mac or PC. Or you can develop iPhone apps with all of Cocoa if you just buy a Mac.”
Expect to see the third-party apps and hacks about an hour after iPhone is released. As the iPhone is really a handheld Mac, there are ways of getting under the hood.
The GOOD coders won’t let a lack of an official SDK get in their way. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t an open one in beta already.
Jeff’s comments:
“From now on, those of you who have no idea about technology, please stop posting….” are the best, most well balanced today yet. I’m not a developer so I can’t comment either. But I can say this:
Please, please, please! We need to remember that in only a few months we have gone from;
“Wow, a full version browser, an iPod, OSX, random access voice mail — on a phone?!”
to “What an insult, Apple won’t let us do this or that on the iPhone”.
Short sighted knee jerkers.
We already have the best OS, the best browser, the best music player and the best music app, the best laptops, the best desktops, the best towers, the best most profitable stores, the least viruses AND we don’t ever ever have to deal with Micros**t unless we choose.
Here’s what Windows suckers have:
http://www.ntk.net/media/developers.mpg
What the heck do you people want????
Ok, I’m done.
This just in … Here’s an amazing example of what can be done very quickly with Web 2.0 application development for the iPhone:
http://davidcann.com/iphone/
(It may be somewhat slow, the digg.com effect)
So much for Gruber’s bullshit.
I think the issue is not that people are upset about the state of the iPhone; its still going to be awesome. It’s how the information was presented. It has resulted in countless articles stating “Apple allows third party development” etc. when actually not much has changed.
All said, I’m sure *everyone* is really just looking forward to the phone’s release to see what happens.
– “Think you can replace Photoshop with a web app? Think you can replace Final Cut Studio? How about Aperture?”
Why the hell not? Web apps can do all those things, and more.
Just check out this demo.
These guys are making an entire Operating System that exists inside a web browser.
The times are changing. Web apps (and multi-touch, fwi) are the future, and Apple obviously has the insight to see this.
http://demo.eyeos.org/
Er… this is why not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_Distributed_Computing
Nothing about the web 2.0 based apps really gets around these. Everyone just ignores them and assumes it’s all going to magically work like it does on their dev machines.
Web2.0 isn’t going to replace heavy desktop apps (and it’s pretty stupid to try) the desktop apps are just going to become more and more network aware. Say like iTunes…
http://crankyslacker.blogspot.com
Jeff, even if you could write local apps for the iPhone, I doubt you’d be able to run Photoshop, Final Cut Studio, or Aperture. Heck, you can barely run those acceptably on a Mac mini. There’s a very real difference between an iPhone and a Mac. So just dump that argument. It’s a loser.
Now, Martin makes a good argument for the ability to read certain inputs from the iPhone’s resources in writing a game or GPS based app. But Apple could make those inputs available to a web app, and that would still be pretty safe and secure. But when you get down to it, the issue with the web app will be the latency for performing certain types of functionality. It’s in these cases that a local app is the only way to go.
@ slackerdave
A web app is not inherently vulnerable to the fallacies of distributed computing. All you would have to do is download the app and run it. It would probably only take a couple of seconds of distributed computing to download a common web app on most wifi connections. Once it’s cached locally, the fallacies of distributed network are irrelevant.
“The web is the future of apps?” Not quite. While network connections are important to the future of apps, it will be a fine day when browsers no longer see the light of day. While it will certainly be quite some time before web browsers fade away, technologies similar to Adobe’s Integrated Runtime (formerly Apollo) understand the desire of many to get the browser out of the way and allow for functionality even when not connected to the Net.
P.S. To the snippet on Apple one day being the “next Microsoft”, what a sad, sad day that would be. “Fiscal success” does not equate to becoming Microsoft. Watch your tongues people!
We all expect a lot from Apple so it’s easy to see why some feel a little short changed. Go spend a half an hour on a Windows machine and you’ll quickly be reminded how green the grass in MacWorld really is.
Mac Developers keep up the stellar work, and don’t lose hope!
Traveller,
What your describing isn’t really a web app now is it? You’re describing pretty much every desktop app and linux distro.
Distributed computing is about communication between cooperating processes over a network. Web browser, web 2.0 app, server all have to work together to provide functionality of that eyeos thing. If you assume any of the 8 are a given then you’ll run into problems. Some of which are minor, and some of which are not.
The whole point of an app like eyeos is that it’s distributed… Downloading the whole thing is pointless… you’ve already got a native desktop and all it’s higher fidelity services already.
Will it be possible to make a direct link to the web app from the home screen?
I think it would be a lot easier that to have to open safari and then go to favorites or type or w/e.
By web apps, I mean an application that runs in a web browser, for example something made with html, javascript, css, and xml.
I don’t know of any desktop apps or linux distros that are written in html or run inside web browsers.
Although most web apps do make use of an internet connection, it is not absolutely necessary. If someone made a calculator program using html and javascript, it wouldn’t really need an internet connection except to initially download it. All it needs to run is a web browser like Safari. I don’t so why it would be much in any way worse then a native app.
Using html, javascript, and css, xml, someone could make a program like final cut pro, photoshop, itunes, or anything else. Javascript can be about as powerful as C++ or Java, if not more so. They are all as slow as anything compiled from a high-level programming language.
The only way a native app would be significantly faster then a web app is if it were programmed in binary or assembly language. All of the mac developers who write software this way should complain, but as far as I know there aren’t any. (Which is kind of a shame since programs written in assembly language are lightning fast, such as NOD32 antivirus for windows)
But you pointed us at eyeos… which sure looks to be a nominal web app. I think a minimal definition of a web app is something that executes in the browser (in a sandbox of some sort) and uses services from the hosting server. This would include java applets, flash, web 2.0y (ajax/dhtml) apps. The key being they don’t have access to the local resources and rely on the server for basic services.
What is not a web app IMHO is something that is just downloaded like a webstart based app or desktop style apps that use (but don’t require) web services (iTunes). Or along this axis you could even include os’s (windows, osx, linux, etc) since you can download them, and they can use the web, but they don’t require it.
Two different types of apps. You appear to claim the first type can completely replace the second type. I suggest not.
Oh dear… I’m feeding a troll.
If you really believe that then you clearly haven’t built an actual desktop app using a native toolset (or even java for that matter). Go ahead… build quake in javascript. I’m sure id will hire you.
The only way that your vision would even begin to be true is if the browser bridged all the local os services (like say an applet and the JRE!) or just gave the downloaded code free access to everything ActiveX.
In any event… I think the topic has gone on long enough…
Have a nice day.
I watched the keynotes and felt deeply insulted. Apple havent changed their stance on 3rd party apps at all, and their style of propaganda is clearly not well-suited to developers. Does nobody ever boo at these keynotes?
Just one example of something you cant do with web-based apps would be to add support for more video formats to the iphone. The list could go on and on.
They didnt even make a tiny gesture such as letting developers web-apps for the iphone have their own icon on the iphone.
It may have been my imagination but I didnt think Jobs looked too comfortable at certain points during the speech.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Have a nice day too, slackerdave.
I agree with slackerdave – web 2.0 applications just aren’t going to hack it on iPhone. For many applications it will be too limiting, it will require that you have a decent signal, and I’d hate to see my data bill at the end of the month after using a few apps.
No, a proper SDK is needed – one which can sandbox apps if they aren’t properly signed and trusted. Jeez… why did they decide to leave out Java again?
> Traveller
Sorry about the troll thing… and yeah.. we’ll all see what eventually ‘wins’.
> Thustle
For he iPhone I don’t think a web 2.0 thingy is all that bad. Notice they show that w2 app using the local resources on the phone. Sure looks like the browser is providing local runtime services to the webapp… so it could have a phone local cache for data etc… They would be better off with java for the sandbox but the unwashed masses loves them some ajax.
See my lame blog for a bit longer post.