“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.
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.