This is pretty disappointing...

Reply

- it will be interesting to see how resistant the screen is to scratches and smudges. also, it will be interesting to see if the touch-screen will work with an invisible shield. i have an invisible shield on my iPod video and it still looks brand new.

- wireless synching does not really bother me, with power concerns you are probably going to need to plug this thing in nightly anyway to keep it juiced up.

Reply

That's a shame. As a Mac developer, I'd love to be able to write software for the iPhone. Who am I kidding though, I'll probably still get one...

Reply

reminds me of a redmond based firm.

Reply

But really, how long until some resourceful developer (scratch that, hacker) figures out a way around that? I'm pretty sure getting homebrew stuff on there will be a high priority for some people.

Reply

I'm sure it's cingular who said 'NO THIRD PARTY APPS'... That's all they need - script kiddies writing apps that run on iPhones...

Reply

Either Job is lying or the VPs are, they are seing conflicting stuff to what Jobs told Pogue.

VPs know what they have been told to say, apple is not spilling all of the iPhone beans today. There are many things yet to be told about this. Maybe the user installable cocoa apps will be called Widgets too because you can run only one at the time and are light, even some important apps like Camera, SMS and settings are in the iPhones widget area.

Not allowing user installable apps is just stupid, if they don't allow it it will never have a chance against real smartphones, even simple phones allow installable apps.

Reply

Well, I think it was more of Apple's doing than Cingular. This is the device that puts Apple up with the big boys, and they want to make sure this thing works perfectly. Any bad press due to dodgy third party software, and sales could dive (gee, Apple changed the Nano back to the Mini-style for a pretty good reason).

Smart move by Apple, in the early stages at least. Get the iPhone out there, open up the API later in its product cycle.

Reply

This is a real shame, and a backwards decision from a (usually) forward-thinking company, IMHO.

One of the attractions of so-called "smartphone" technology is that, using third-party applications, plugins, etc., they can be tailored to a user's particular needs. In other words, one size does NOT fit all.

For example, I do a fair amount of computer work for others, and in these duties, often have a need to remotely login or control servers and workstations. On my T-Mobile MDA, therefore, I have clients for Windows Remote Desktop and the free, open-source Virtual Network Computing (VNC) screen-control applications. I also have a text-based SSH client, which, while clumsy to use due to the MDA's small screen and slide-out keyboard, is still enough to let me textually log in to the various UNIX/Linux/BSD servers I need to manage, check status on processes, kill runaway processes, etc.

A doctor would probably load patient management applicatioins as well as a pharmacological (drug) and medical (symptoms/diagnoses) databases on their smartphone.

An engineer would load things like materials analysis tables, commonly used engineering formulae, etc.

Lawyers would want to load legal dictionaries, and search apps for the various case law databases that are out there.

You get the idea.

For Apple, a company that has always associated itself with freedom of choice and "the right solution to fit the job at hand," this is an incredibly short-sighted decision.

I certainly hope that enough people complain about this, and that Apple decides to reverse this decision before the product ships, or at the very least, in a software patch released shortly after it ships.

Reply

they better add a terminal and ssh ability.
as a sysadmin those 2 things are on top of my must-have list

Reply

I'm starting to get the feeling that the iPhone isn't really designed for the power-user/smartphone crowd. It seems to me like they want it to be more accessible to the general public. 1% of the market share isn't alot... there's still plenty of room for people who want to run third-party apps to keep buying other smart phones.

As with the iPod, the device isn't about features. There are many portable music players out there that can do way more than the iPod can. It's about general consumer appeal.

Reply

The biggest downer is "there won't be any WiFi or cellular data syncing, only sync-via-docking." I'm not worried about not being able to download stuff from iTunes, but what are they thinking? Shouldn't there have been at least .Mac syncing of contacts, bookmarks, etc? That way I could always sync new contacts or iCal events that I entered on my phone while on the road. Then if the phone is lost or dies, I have a backup, even if my Mac has been 2000 miles away for a week. I'd buy .Mac for that!

Reply

Developers: Support iPhone Indie App Development
http://rentzsch.com/cocoa/iphoneIndieAppDevelopment

Reply

Didn't any of you people see the keynote? The prsentation slide said:

* Runs OS X[1]


And in 3-point font at the bottom it said:
[1]: Not really

Do I have to do all the reporting around here?

Reply

I would imagine that data (contacts, calendar, etc.) will be synced over bluetooth as it is currently with 3rd party phones and PDAs.

If you read through the Gizmodo article completely, you will notice that they have very little hard data. As far as syncing goes:

"WiFi or Cellular Data Syncing? No, only docking (This may be for iTunes only. Maybe data does sync, but I don't have any facts here.)"

This seems a tad bit ambiguous to me.

Reply

if that is the case, there is no way i would buy it. there is no way that apple would or could produce all the programs that people use, it would be a dumb phone, look at palm and windows mobile a large part of there success is that there is a large number of developers who write programs for there platform. imagine if you could only use apple programs on your mac, most people would not buy one.

Reply

In some respects, with a full-featured web browser, the no user installable apps becomes less of an issue. I'd also imagine that Cingular would have had more to do with that decision than Apple. OSX doesn't get bad press because some 3rd party apps are poorly written, the same should hold true for the iPhone. My guess is that Cingular wanted $ for any apps the users installed and Apple decided against it.

Reply

If anyone with comments about the iPhone or the MacWorld experience would like to comment on my radio show this afternoon, please call the host of "Dr. Andy's Poetry and Technology Hour" (KDVS-FM) today, Wednesday the 10th, between 5:30 and 5:55 pm California time at 530 752-2777. I'll give bloggers and other relevant site owners to mention their home URLs after their comment or questions. Thanks!

Andy Jones

Reply

This is fantastic news. I can finally feel that reciprocated smugness as the rabid Apple lunatics slowly lose their reservoir of hot air.

The funniest bit is those reacting to the closed-dev news with "oh, applications? I didn't want those anyway. what a preposterous idea, I mean where would the dock go?".

Reply

If this is really true, it will be a major set back for a five-years-infront-of-any-smartphone phone.

I do not believe Cingular has any say in this. Hell, Apple did not and would not take any intervention in the design or features of the iPhone. That is just not Steve's way. Just see how you do not have to pay $$ for downloadable wallpapers (and probably ringtones). Cingular may fear VoIP, but it is not Apple's fear. And any carrier is just eager to be Apple's carrier of choice, they want to stand in the halo of the Apple / iPod brand.

Reply