« Stupidity in large numbers doesn't equal smart | Main | Some days, the proof just writes itself »
In another "letter to the world", Steve Jobs announced that there will be an iPhone SDK in February.
Gee, what a shock. Let's see, Leopard comes out on the 26th of October, and about 4 months later, there will be an SDK for the iPhone and the iPod touch. Why, one would think that you'd need Leopard to properly develop applications for the iPhone, and that it was silly to think that you'd get an SDK prior to Leopard. I wonder why, in all the screaming and crying and whining about the lack of an SDK on the iPhone, no one every pointed that out. Oh wait, a few of us did, but when you're the voice of reason in a room full of cranky infants, well, you don't get heard. But there were some voices saying that you probably wouldn't get an iPhone SDK until after Leopard.
The point is, unlimited third-party development on an embedded device with stringent operational requirements is not the magic spell of good and light that people think it is. That's not to say that I don't think Apple should release a "proper" SDK for the iPhone, just that I'd rather they take their time and create one that, above all else, does no harm. It's an iPhone -- I expect that part to never be troubled by anything other than carrier signal.Mmmm...sweet, sweet reasoned analysis, even sweet 'cause it's mine.
But there's another possible reason as to why Apple didn't release an SDK at the iPhone release: The version of OS X the iPhone is running. I'm going to make an educated guess, based on the way the iPhone does certain things, and how the iPhone's launch delayed Leopard, and say that the version of OS X that the iPhone is running is not, in fact, an embedded version of Mac OS X 10.4, but an embedded version of Leopard.This is speculation, but I'm pretty happy with the reasoning behind it. If this is the case, then it would be quite difficult to release an SDK that allowed you to build features that don't run on the current OS release. Apple could build a "simulator," but unless that simulator included the full iPhone OS, it wouldn't be something you'd want to trust. True, Apple could have released an SDK at the recent WWDC, but then you'd have a (probably) beta SDK that used beta developer tools running on a beta OS release that targets a device with a tiny margin for error. This is not a recipe for reliability.
So I do think we'll see a "real" SDK, but it won't be until after the release of Leopard, at the earliest.
Hmm...let's see...without screaming or whining, but a bit of critical thought, I was right. No screaming, no demands, none of that shit. Just a bit of thinking about what the iPhone is running, what Apple is doing, and the timing of various things. Maybe some other people getting all dramatic about stuff should think that over a bit.
Nah, it's the "blogosphere". Who wants "thinking" in that?
Oh, and Nick Winfield? Contrary to what you think, Apple never said "No non-web applications ever", so no, they did not in fact reverse their position.
Technorati Tags:
iPhone, Critical Thought
Posted by John C. Welch at 11:09 | Permalink
Comments
You sir are a very sore winner. And Apple still completely fumbled the whole 3rd party app thing. If they had simply made this announcement when the iPhone was released, they could have avoided a whole lot of hullaballoo. The PR for this was handled in a completely amateur fashion, and the blame for all the ill effects can be laid at Apple's door.
Posted by: DBL | October 17, 2007 11:51 AM
Thanks for refuting all those dumbasses, Wingfield included. Sometime it really seems that someone locked that whole bunch of people in an echo chamber.
Anyway, from http://d5.allthingsd.com/20070530/steve-jobs-ceo-of-apple/
"1:15 p.m.: Is the iPhone’s platform closed? And if it is, will it be open to developers in the future? Jobs says it’s a security issue, but Apple is working to find a way to allow developers to build applications for it. Jobs says he doesn’t want the iPhone to be “one of those phones that crashes a few times a day.” He adds: “We would like to solve this problem and if you could just be a little more patient with us, we’ll do it.”
He said it then and said it again about native apps elsewhere after the iPhone (and its Web2.0 apps) was released. (I'm trying to find those articles)
Posted by: mark | October 17, 2007 12:45 PM
DBL: Apple does not promise things before it believes it can do them (unlike MS with Longhorn). Jobs would not promise an iPhone SDK until he was sure Apple was going to deliver (like he just did today). But Jobs did say that Apple was working on it from day one, if you were listening. (I'm still looking for the articles, which were on June 29 and 30th.)
I hope the "ill effect" would be that the hackers gain some humility through this. But, alas, your response, if typical, shows that will not be the case. So you sir are a very sore loser.
Posted by: mark | October 17, 2007 12:59 PM
So by this reasoning, developers will only be able to program for iPhone/iPod Touch using Macs? Not PCs, or other operating systems? If true (and I don't think it is), why would Apple impose such a limitation? The iPhone/iPod Touch are not restricted to Mac users.
Posted by: Question | October 17, 2007 1:11 PM
DBL: Apple does not promise things before it believes it can do them (unlike MS with Longhorn). Jobs would not promise an iPhone SDK until he was sure Apple was going to deliver (like he just did today). But Jobs did say that Apple was working on it from day one, if you were listening. (I'm still looking for the articles, which were on June 29 and 30th.)
I hope the "ill effect" would be that the hackers gain some humility through this. But, alas, your response, if typical, shows that will not be the case. So you sir are a very sore loser.
Posted by: mark | October 17, 2007 1:12 PM
@question - Yeah, I imagine that will be the only way to develop apps for the iPhone. That limitation will be imposed because the development tools will be XCode, and the apps are coded in Cocoa and Obj-C. You will be able to upload from either, but development will be done on the Mac. I see nothing wrong with this.
Posted by: e | October 17, 2007 1:32 PM
DBL...I'm a Sore Winner? BAAAHAHAHAHAHAA...dear lord, I haven't seen that since grade school. Screw that. I was right, and more importantly, I gave it a bit of thought as to WHY it might play out the way it has. I wasn't alone in that line of thought.
Of course, now that you can't whine about that, you whine about the PR, which of course translates too "APPLE DIDN'T KISS MY ASS". Pfah.
Question...The issue here is, as e said, one of "HOW" you develop applications. If it's using Cocoa frameworks, then while you in theory could develop from other platforms, it would be a pita.
Posted by: John C. Welch | October 17, 2007 1:39 PM
Yep, you called it right, John. I thought this would likely be the scenario, too -- they would release an SDK but not until they were good and ready.
Some of Jobs' announcement is fluff -- "vibrant ... community ... revolutionary" -- but this is true enough:
"It will take until February to release an SDK because we’re trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once—provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc."
What Jobs -- unsurprisingly -- didn't mention, but what we can hardly forget, is that ISE already found a problem in Safari:
http://www.securityevaluators.com/iphone/
And, since Jobs' mentioned "privacy", too, there's this issue:
http://blog.dave.cridland.net/?p=32
Mobile phones, as they become both more powerful and more popular, look like they might become an increasingly attractive target. The iPhone launch date was not not the time to rush out a half-baked kit for third-parties just because some people were too impatient to wait.
One suspects the iPhone is already running a version of Leopard (not Tiger). And, again, I think you were spot-on to say: "it was silly to think that you'd get an SDK prior to Leopard."
Nokia's opportunistic sloganizing looks silly now, too. Nokia makes some nice phones, but, in comparison with the changes Apple have brought to the industry, Nokia have nothing to be proud of. Never mind that I could have some (often pretty overpriced and underperforming) third-party applications right now on a Nokia; Nokia hasn't itself offered anything as paradigm-changing as Apple. Nor has it been pushing out regular updates to its phones' software at all let alone via a well-thought-out update mechanism such as iTunes. Their business model, and that of the operators, has been push out phones, leave 'em be, and sell the customer a new one in one to two years with the real hardware cost hidden in a contract price.
Posted by: Nick | October 17, 2007 1:39 PM
I tend to side with DBL on this one.
For example, if I were Steve, I'd have mentioned this at WWDC. Will Apple allow third-party developers? "We plan to, once we overcome some technical obstacles." And leave it at that.
Perhaps also have a session at WWDC where Apple says, "If you want to write applications for the iPhone, here are the technologies we recommend you use and here are the technologies you should avoid."
As developers, we're an understanding group because we've been there and done that. If Apple says, "Yes, we are planning on opening this up at some point in the future." that's good enough for me. I can understand there are technical issues and contractual issues and a bunch of other issues that need to be dealt with. But the fact that Apple is planning on opening it up (versus something like, "Well, your input on this issue is appreciated...") means that I can start doing things--designing model classes and such--knowing full well that someday I'll be able to implement them.
By the way, "mark", I wish you luck finding it. Pretty much all levels of Apple have said, "We're considering this," which can mean many different things. I can't go to my company and say, "I want to develop this product" based on what Apple has released to the public so far.
Posted by: Peter | October 17, 2007 2:37 PM
For example, if I were Steve, I'd have mentioned this at WWDC. Will Apple allow third-party developers? "We plan to, once we overcome some technical obstacles." And leave it at that.Peter, if you really think that wouldn't have created even MORE of a constant stream of whining, and completely killed off all Web development for the iPhone, then you're new to the Mac web. That's a fantasy, if you think it would have done anything but created more whining about "bogus invented problems to keep us from what is rightfully ours".
Perhaps also have a session at WWDC where Apple says, "If you want to write applications for the iPhone, here are the technologies we recommend you use and here are the technologies you should avoid."Now you've gone from an announcement to a session on something that they might not have even started on. Again, the idea that you'd get an SDK before leopard was inane. What good would it do to tell people "here, stay away from this, but we can't actually tell you for sure what TO use, because we haven't figured it out ourself in a final enough form to tell you." That's REAL useful.
As developers, we're an understanding group because we've been there and done that. If Apple says, "Yes, we are planning on opening this up at some point in the future." that's good enough for me. I can understand there are technical issues and contractual issues and a bunch of other issues that need to be dealt with. But the fact that Apple is planning on opening it up (versus something like, "Well, your input on this issue is appreciated...") means that I can start doing things--designing model classes and such--knowing full well that someday I'll be able to implement them.If you read what Apple *actually* said vs. the "blogosphere" whiny bitches, they DID say they were thinking of how to do it, because they knew they couldn't do it all. As well, without knowing what frameworks will be implemented in the SDK, you can't do much at all beyond some vague GUI work.
By the way, "mark", I wish you luck finding it. Pretty much all levels of Apple have said, "We're considering this," which can mean many different things. I can't go to my company and say, "I want to develop this product" based on what Apple has released to the public so far.Since the return of Steve Jobs, when has Apple engaged in MS-like vapor PR campaigns? Do you men to say that you'd prefer "Oh yeah, we'll do that...some day" with meaningless details that would have no grounding in reality? Is that really how you do your product development planning?
Posted by: John C. Welch | October 17, 2007 4:13 PM
Hey Peter,
I sure hope you didn't go to your company asking to develop a piece of software around Microsoft's shouted-aloud promises for Vista nee Longhorn. Ha ha ha!
Posted by: mark | October 17, 2007 6:18 PM
