Filed under: Apple Corporate, WWDC, Apple Financial
AAPL down after disappointing WWDC Keynote
AAPL shares were down almost 3% to 121.40 just minutes after Steve Jobs wrapped up his World Wide Developer Conference 2007 keynote. The keynote failed to deliver any wild or exciting news, instead offering participants an advanced look at Apple's new 10.5 Leopard operating system features and Apple's port of its Safari web browser to Windows. Many participants had hoped that Apple would deliver a full third party software developer kit for its upcoming iPhone. Instead, Apple suggested developers work on Web 2.0/Ajax solutions for iPhone.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Victor Agreda Jr said 3:26PM on 6-11-2007
Don't forget the market went down a couple of weeks ago when the gov't announced positive news about the economy. Stox scare like a little chicken, don't they?
Sounds like a good time to buy AAPL ;)
Reply
WillGonz said 3:30PM on 6-11-2007
Price will fall down to the time before all the rumors pumped it up.
Reply
Jeremy said 4:13PM on 6-11-2007
I don't think you get it. Those "web apps" will be full iPhone apps. He said they can access all of the iPhone features and everything. It's not saying "no third-party apps"... it's saying "not only can you write apps, it's going to be easier than it is for any other smartphone platform."
It's not some cheesy workaround... it's the same thing as the built-in apps, with the same capabilities. They're not just running in a browser, they have access to the iPhone features. This is completely good news -- now anyone can write an iPhone app with no disadvantage versus Apple's "blessed" ones.
Reply
jh said 4:43PM on 6-11-2007
You clearly have never programmed in AJAX/Web2.0
It _IS_ a cheesy workaround. It is not a "feature." The apps have to be served from a server. That's how AJAX works. Even if they are served from an internal server, that doesn't mesh with how he said that its "distributed."
This is NOT any third party development of value. It's simply not.
Pretend like it is all you want, but in the end, this can be done on the Treo as well, and nobody there would give up their "more programmability" in favor of this "better method"
Reply
Jeremy said 4:47PM on 6-11-2007
Actually, I do it for part of my living. And I'm pretty psyched.
It's the same way Apple's own apps are being done. Distributing the code from your server is a plus, not a minus -- it makes it easier, makes updates automatic, and removes the "installation" step that would (and does, on the desktop) confuse users.
And it's different from normal web apps in that you get access to the iPhone features. That's what makes the difference. You're not just sitting in a browser like you are with a normal web app.
Reply
jh said 4:52PM on 6-11-2007
Then why do no other "SmartPhone" methodologies use this or even consider it viable? Remember, this is OLD news for people who've been doing this smart phone thing for awhile.
Reply
Jeremy said 4:55PM on 6-11-2007
Show me a web app that can make a call on a Treo, or any other smartphone for which this is allegedly "old news".
This isn't simple "web apps". It's more like writing widgets for the iPhone. It's not the same thing you could do on any other smartphone.
Reply
jh said 5:06PM on 6-11-2007
I don't NEED to show you a webapp that could "make a call" on a Treo, because they don't NEED to be webapps. They have direct access to the API.
Do you want to know what's really going on here? Cingular/AT&T has a number of rules about what they allow to run on their network. Draconian rules, really. Part of their deal with Apple was likely to limit the amount of "non-approved" traffic that could go out over their weak little network.
Come on. This is a "FULL LEOPARD" according to Steve Jobs. Running things through the shell of a web browser and calling it a "Development Solution" is a crock of crap and an insult.. and if you are buying into the selling point that this is a great service, then you're certainly enjoying the kool-aid.
Me? It'd be like giving me a programmable calculator and then telling me that I'm not trusted to program using anything but the "+ , - , x , /" functionality.
It's holding back the potential of this device. Stop deluding yourself into thinking anything different.
Reply
Jeremy said 5:21PM on 6-11-2007
You can do anything you could do with a "normal" app, only it'll be easier to write. I fail to see how it's holding anything back. After all, Apple's own apps are done exactly this way, except they come with the phone. It must not be very limiting if Apple themselves are doing it.
Reply
Jeremy said 5:21PM on 6-11-2007
You can do anything you could do with a "normal" app, only it'll be easier to write. I fail to see how it's holding anything back. After all, Apple's own apps are done exactly this way, except they come with the phone. It must not be very limiting if Apple themselves are doing it.
Reply
jh said 5:26PM on 6-11-2007
Uhh..
No.. Apple's normal apps are not done this way. Steve himself said that this was a full blown Leopard installation, and that those applications were actual Apple applications.
Not Web2.0 apps. But an actual version of Ical. An actual version of Itunes. An actual version of all the stuff. That's why he said that the phone runs an actual version of Mac OSX.
Seriously.
Reply
cbisquit said 5:39PM on 6-11-2007
@Jeremy
You can do ANYTHING you can with a normal app, eh? how about... hmm... voice recording? Video? Vector graphics? Any input other than text?
Yeah I don't think so. Sounds really versatile.
Reply
Kendal said 6:03PM on 6-11-2007
Not disappointing at all. It's only disappointing to those who hang off every word of rumour-mill sites and expect the world. Leopard looks extremely good, and extremely polished. All the features we need are there. They look fantastic.
As for the iPhone, those who were expecting some kind of OSX SDK...why? As Jeremy has been stating, these web apps will be able to access all the core 'APIs' on the iPhone.
Reply
bobby said 6:21PM on 6-11-2007
Here's why other smartphones don't do it:
because their browsers are absolute garbage and can't handle it.
Talk all you want about how great Treos and Blackberries are, but their web browsing experience is anemic at best. That alone makes this announcement interesting.
Reply
Catt said 9:01PM on 6-11-2007
I'm not sure why folks were expecting tons of new stuff during the keynote. It is a developer conference and the rest of it hasn't even finished yet. Since there is no way a new iPod is being released until after the iphone makes it debut and the laptop line was already upgraded few weeks ago, I figured that Steve would spend a bulk of the time chatting about Leopard and give a few mention to the iPhone. The Safari for Windows was a surprise to me. It seems to me that in the world of Firefox Safari on Windows is a few years too late but you never know what will happen, maybe people will download it just for the curiosity but it will need to include a bit more than supposed speed to garner some of that market share. Remember Steve usually does a special announcement sometime in September maybe he will do it in October this time when Leopard is finally released. This is where I'm expecting to see the new goodies like updated iLife and iWork, updated Mac Mini or a new Mac something else, and the unveiling of some final touches to Leopard. Notice on the Leopard website there is this fine print "All features referenced in the Mac OS X Leopard website are subject to change." There might be a few surprises yet. I liked what I saw and think the new features in Leopard are cool. Now I'm determined to wait on that replacement for my ever so slowing 1st Gen Mac Mini.
BTW I must say that I've seen some of the ideas behind the new Leopard desktop before. Anyone remember Sun's Project Looking Glass? http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/details.xml
That blending of the desktop into the background, stacks, and new dock look is mighty familiar. The only thing missing is flipping over the web-page and adding notes to it. Of course Leopard has much more features and has that oh so saavy Apple GUI goodness.
As for developing apps for the iPhone with Web 2.0 noting to add there I'll let you guys duke it out since I'm not a developer and would not add anything but dirt to the already heated debate.
LOL
Reply
joao.carvalhinho said 5:22AM on 6-12-2007
This is like saying that if you build a webpage with iphone's "theme and colors" it will be an Iphone webpage...
It's a let down...
I hope it will at least support Flash technology for games... or the game swf file il be off base for it?
And how about the "network rates" that starved the 3g data model? ho will it survive this model? Let me look a phone number on my company... wait... call the yellow pages... it's cheaper!
Reply
algal said 5:35AM on 6-12-2007
Here are some app that you could certainly do on the phone if you could install apps natively and had a full SDK, but which would be very difficult under any sort of traditional Web2.0/AJAX framework:
1. a Skype client, or some SIP-based VOIP client
2. innovative use of the multitouch screen, using gestures not already supported by Apple's apps (e.g., something besides click, swipe, pinch)
3. adding new audio / video codecs (DivX, xvid, ogg, Flash, etc.)
4. a Java VM for running apps that depend on MIDP and other mobile Java profiles
5. basically any convenient access to local device storage, and synchronization of that data with the mac via docking.
That's a lot of restrictions. (The first three strike me as pretty important.) We should get word which ones of them are real pretty soon, as soon as developer's experiment with the dev tools in Leopard and learn just how much access these Web2.0/AJAX/widget-like apps will have to the iPhone's facilities. I would hope, for instance, that number 5 is not real, and that apps will at least have access to data structures in languages besides javascript.
The details will leak out soon enough.
Reply