VentureBeat

Mark Sigal said:

There are far more reasons for optimism than skepticism around the nascent iPhone SDK, but for those playing the “look at the downside first” angle, I have written a post called, ‘The Scorpion, the Frog and the iPhone SDK’:

http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2008/03/the-scorpion-th.html

For what it’s worth, there are five other posts on my blog that look at this topic from perspective of the end consumer, the role of the iPod touch in this equation (since non-telephony SDK apps will run on that device as well) and of course, why developers SHOULD be excited.

Cheers,

Mark
My Blog: http://www.thenetworkgarden.com

Todd said:

I’m in two minds on Apple’s restrictions. Yes, I’d definitely like the ability to develop network level code for the iPhone just like we have for OS X. On the other hand, developers already have a phone where they can run all over the system and do pretty much anything. It’s called PalmOS and the user experience and stability is uniformly terrible…

MG Siegler said:

@Mark - interesting, I’ll check it out thanks.

MG Siegler said:

@Todd - 100% agree with your assessment there, it’s not so black and white as ‘apple should completely open it up’ - there will always be give and take. in the end, i think this is the right play for apple to maintain the system that they (and most users) will want.

Pete said:

Initially, Apple said no to native applicaion development. Now, they are encouraging it in a limited way. Yet it seems an army of pundits are making it look like Apple is somehow worse off than six months ago. The fact is, Apple has addressed several issues that these guys had raised at the launch of the iPhone. Instead of noting how this move will help sell more iPhones, they write about some businesses preferring their Blackberry servers to ActiveSync.

The same is true of AppleTV. Apple adds more features and these guys insists that it will fail. I just don’t see how a product will sell less in the absence of new competition, once it addresses some of the concerns of its customers and incorporates major new functionality.

Apple never intended the iPhone to be a hacker’s toy. There are plenty of opportunities for consumer and corporate development to address the device’s initial shortcomings. This can only be positive for the iPhone.

MG Siegler said:

@pete - All valid points. It’s a classic case of “if you give a mouse a cookie” - in my opinion. Apple was wrong not to have a native platform to begin with, the consumers spoke and they adjusted. to demand complete access to the device seems a bit of a reach at this point. Would it be nice? Sure, but it would cause problems people aren’t thinking about as well.

Marc Fawzi said:

Here is what I would do if I was an open handset (OHA) carrier:

I would launch my own Applications Store and I would let developers develop whatever they want as long as I get to manage the certification/verification process.

I’d charge developers some amount of money (not too much) and outsource the certification/verification to say Wipro, like MS does for 3rd party device drivers for Windows.

This way, developers can build applications such as the missing MMS application for the iPhone which has to run in the background (to alert you of messages as they come in) and use edge to send tens or hundreds of kilobytes of data, which is not possible with the SDK’s legal limitations.

In fact, this is probably what T-Mobile will do for their Android handsets.

I’m no fan of Google but one thing I support them on is their Android initiative.

Marc

MG Siegler said:

@marc - good perspective. instant messaging is a tricky situation, perhaps that is why Apple made their texting application look like iChat but not really be iChat? i’m all in favor of the Android initiative as well, it’ll be very interesting to see where the two take the industry.

Marc Fawzi said:

It goes well beyond instant messaging.

If this was an idea pad I could describe 10 more compelling applications that must be able to run in the background.

For example, an application that delivers location-based advertising as you pass by store fronts and restaurants (i.e. ads from those places) You don’t want such application to bug you with ads on constant basis but you may want to set a filter for a specific item, e.g. ice cream. If I happen to pass by any place that sells ice cream then I want to be alerted immediately. There are many things that people want to be notified about in real time context, not just chat messages.

And that’s just one application.

The wiser choice for Apple (in my personal view) is to charge developers a higher price for certifying/verifying their applications. They can outsource the job to companies that specialize in certification/verification.

Now add to that the strategic mistakes of banning Firefox and Opera from the iPhone. The Firefox team has been working on a touch screen version of Firefox specifically for devices like the iPhone.

I know that they wish to control the quality of the user experience because they make their money off of hardware not applications. So they need to assure that people have such a great experience with it so it dominates its space like the iPod did for mp3 players.

But they can control the quality of the user experience through a sound/tight certification/verification process.

They don’t need to ban competing browsers (that doesn’t sit well with anyone) and they don’t need to put shackles around the hands of application developers.

After all, the iPhone is a single hardware/software platform and verifying the safety/sanity of applications against a single platform is feasible, IMO, especially if they outsource the job to companies that specialize in that.

My 2.0 iCents.

Pete said:

Look Marc, I don’t think iPhone’s problem was or is not having a choice of several browsers. You have to admit there are more pressing priorities. Safari does the job well. As for ads popping out as I walk down the street, I’ll pass. I get pissed enough with text messages and phone calls. If I want icecream, I use google maps. And I certaily don’t want useless background applications cutting my battery charge down to only an hour or two. And I don’t want to fill my pockets with extra batteries.

The iPhone as it is, is very close to perfect. Its features still leave me in control instead of controlling me. Exchange and Notes connectivity and corporate networking enhancements will make it indispensible in the enterprise.

The device has been out just short of six months. Be patient. Let’s see what happens in a year’s time.

Marc Fawzi said:

Granted, consumers who love the iPhone for what it is won’t care about the SDK limitations, until they wake up one day and find out that their favorite application only runs on Android.

An analogous question is:

What if MS controlled what gets published on the PC? Would we have gotten Netscape, Napster, BitTorrent, Skype and Firefox?

I don’t think so.

Same goes for Apple and the iPhone.

Let’s say that a developer comes up with an idea that could change the world, but it changes the game for Apple in some way. Would Apple approve it? I doubt it.

The subtext to my argument is that they’re not afraid of viruses. They’re afraid of developers running ahead of their own strategy.

If you do not have your own strategy, you’re part of someone else’ strategy.

Apple wants the developers to be part of its strategy.

Some developers want to set their own strategy.

There is the conflict.

MG Siegler said:

@Marc - I think that will be interesting to see how consumers react to the iPhone apps versus the more open Android ones. Lets also remember though that this is a very new, and very rapidly evolving area — as Pete pointed out, initially Apple said no to any native development and was only going to allow it through Safari. They of course changed their mind when the users demanded it. Perhaps they will again or maybe they won’t, but it’s too early to suggest the SDK’s limitation will doom it IMHO.

rick said:

android is the real platform opponent for the iphone. There is no way I’d want to have a phone with crap going on in the background. There is limited resources and I wouldn’t want java picking its nose while I’m trying to send an email.

Comparing the iphone costs to other sdks that are on the market(not google since it is still in planning stages). Wii 10K, ps3 10k, xbox 360 15-20k, xcode tools free, visual studio express free with many catches(but .net sdk is free), RIM, and many others cost thousands of dollars just to look at the SDK. I personally believe *every* computer should come with a developer toolkit that is easily accessible. That is what made me the programmer I am today (BASIC on the apple II).

btw javame is crap. It lost when there was CIDP MIDP, etc et etc. More crap.

Limitations breed creativity

Marc Fawzi said:

@Siegler, I’m not saying the iPhone is doomed in any way. It’s a great piece of art/technology.

What I’m saying is that Apple wants to control the developers not the user experience, and there is a difference.

If they want to control the user experience then they can set quality criteria that must be validated during the certification/verification process.

But what they have done is to enforce limitations on what the developers can or cannot do.

You can control the user experience by setting quality criteria, e.g. 1) the app must not interfere with the operation of any other app, 2) the app must use memory conservatively, etc.

But to force black and white rules on what type of application, e.g. browser, music store (will be rejected for sure), background, multi-threaded, should be allowed is more about controlling what can be developed so as not to have developers build game changing applications that will harm Apple (e.g. think Amazon’s mp3 store).

Apple cares about the quality of the user experience only because they care about their brand.

But if they ALSO cared about the greater good they would let Amazon, Firefox and a million other developers bring their applications to the iPhone with Quality being the only crietria.

Some of those 3rd party applications may be positioned to replace existing iPhone applications because they offer certain popular features that the iPhone versions will not offer (due to Apple’s business model or lack of focus on a particular area.)

Marc Fawzi said:

Having spoken my mind, I agree with the “Let’s wait and see” sentiment…

Good discussion.

MG Siegler said:

@marc - right on. thanks for all the comments.

daykitchenun said:

I go back and saw home horizontal up across And grapes, up to and foxes Forest.