Filed under: iPhone
Dueling bloggers on the AWOL iPhone SDK
As the samizdat iPhone toolchain and development kit rapidly advances, no small thanks to our favorite iPhone developer, the availability of an Apple-blessed SDK beyond the browser becomes a little less relevant (with the notable exception that without a graceful method of installing applications, the third-party application market is likely to remain extremely small). Even so, there are some powerful differences of opinion on the topic of Apple's reticence to release a full SDK for the iPhone.On the damn-the-torpedoes side, there's a fairly irate post by Hadley Stern at AppleMatters calling Apple's decision not to release a full SDK "stupid and arrogant," and arguing that the incredible potential of open development for the iPhone far outweighs any security considerations for the device. Even though the post is billed as "10 reasons to open iPhone" and by my count there are only 7 listed, there's little doubt that the imaginations and energy of independent developers would create wonders on the iPhone platform -- taking note of what's already been accomplished. Hadley's crankiness notwithstanding, the post raises interesting parallels between iPhone and previous Apple 'closed' platforms, including one spectacular success despite a private API (the iPod).
On the watchful-waiting side, there's our colleague Alex Hung over at Download Squad, with a more thoughtful piece on the reasons why an iPhone SDK isn't ready for prime time yet. While a fully functional toolset with Apple's documentation and support is both a good idea and seemingly inevitable, Alex points out that locking down the APIs at this stage of the product's lifecycle would box in the engineers who are still working to make the iPhone everything it can be. Any iPhone SDK would also be (most likely) tightly linked to the Leopard code base, so trying to regress the SDK to Tiger while simultaneously developing for OS X iPhone's future would be a useless exercise in platespinning.
I'd put myself pretty firmly in the latter camp. While the work of the #iphone folk in compiling a working development environment for the iPhone is both astonishing and commendable, I can't see the point in opening the iPhone to official 3rd-party development with a fully-blessed SDK until everything is completely baked. On the heels of the Leopard release, with an eager installed base of devices and a dev community primed by the unofficial tools to make the best of it, a true SDK for iPhone -- ready for prime time -- will be a Good Thing.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
iara said 2:51PM on 8-15-2007
I think what most people don't realize is that Apple needed to make sure that their first phone would be as stable as possible. Anything else, might have severely undermine their credibility when trying to compete with established vendors. I think the SDK will eventually surface, but only after it has been clearly established that the iPhone is rock solid (which it is).
Reply
brian said 11:27AM on 8-14-2007
I'm absolutely amazed at how much these hackers (in the best sense of the word) have been able to accomplish without an SDK. My initial hope was that this would be like Boot Camp--remember that? There was a contest to get Windows running on a Mac, it was won, and a week or two later, out came the kit from Apple. Unfortunatly, that was a different case. Apple had said all along they wouldn't go out of their way to prevent Windows from running on Macs, but at the WWDC he stood right up there and said there *would not be* 3rd-party apps except web apps. Now, he's flopped in the past--remember him saying there would be no movie-playing iPod, just a couple months before the video iPod came out?--but I think this is different. That was just a statement of what they would or would not be making, which of course could change as the market demanded. But their stance on not supporting 3rd-party apps seems more serious to me, and is based (in part, at least) on the idea of maintaining the integrity of the cellular network.
Reply
KeynoteKen said 11:34AM on 8-14-2007
I have no problem waiting, mainly because I want my iPhone to "just work." Are there features I'd like to have? Sure, but my desire for having a phone that "just works" trumps creating my own ringtones and playing native games.
Reply
Richard said 11:55AM on 8-14-2007
The whole “cell network integrity” thing is a red herrings. I think there is one example of something like happening and that might be even be apocryphal. If it is an issue, it more appropriate to ask what flaw makes the network unstable, and not blame the devices that interfaces with it.
The only reason we don’t have an SDK is two words: DOLLAR SIGNS
An SDK would allow the easy use of VOIP, tethering and ringtones, to name a few...but oh no, we don’t want to give consumers a choice on how to use their iPhone. Sure, Steve Jobs says they believe in choice and Microsoft does not, however, its Microsoft who is freely providing an SDK for their mobil OS and Apple who is holding back…. Yeh, is that how ‘choice’ works, guess I did not get the memo or something.
Reply
Ryan said 11:56AM on 8-14-2007
I totally agree with this post. As I continue to use Installer.app to add apps to my iPhone I am patiently waiting for Apple's move. The "hackers" are doing the real work and they should be praised. Athe same time, Apple is doing the right thing by waiting for Leopard. As for KeynoteKen's comment (#2)... Let me just say that I can tell you have no knowledge of what is really going on here. The creator(s) of Installer.app and the developers that he/she is working with to provide "sources" (who provide the apps) is amazing! These apps are not chopped together, they are awesome and look like something Apple themselves put together. I am SO impressed by the work of #iphone. I don't know much about the coding aspect of it all but I am doing my best to help the community with graphics, etc. I think it's great that the non-SDK iPhone has come this far already and like many others, I waste a lot of time each day opening Installer.app checking for new apps and updates to current ones. :)
Reply
David Chartier said 12:02PM on 8-14-2007
I'm all about stability over features. I've owned both regular and smartphones from SonyEricsson, Nokia, BlackBerry, Motorola, Samsung - you name it. All of them - *all* of them - turned into varying levels of glorified bricks if I installed a few apps on them, especially the Windows Mobile and BlackBerries.
I would prefer Apple to take their time to get it right, instead of rushing out unpolished garbage. That's what they do as a company, that's why they're Apple.
Reply
Aron Trimble said 12:13PM on 8-14-2007
It just seems short-sighted for Apple to say third-party apps are not going to happen because of network security. Given that the AppleTV was hacked wide open within days to add third-party apps you would think Apple would realize that if it is even remotely possible - the hacker community is going to figure it out.
If Apple is indeed planning an SDK than they should have owned up to it rather than flat-out lying to consumers.
I just don't think Steve understands that while most Apple products are amazing - at the end of the day, people will ALWAYS want choice and the freedom to customize and modify.
Reply
shawn said 12:25PM on 8-14-2007
When the FIC Neo1973 by openmoko (www.openmoko.com) sells commercially later this year, you'll have a fully open linux OS on an unlocked GSM phone sold outside of any provider. This won't be the first phone like it, either. The point being, this horse has already left the barn, trotted around, and sired his own herd.
Whatever Apple's or AT&T's actual reasons are, "network security" isn't one of them.
Reply
Christian said 12:25PM on 8-14-2007
@all
You're all right!
But i can understand Apple's and Steve's point as well. The iPhone MAY NOT have bad press!
Imagine the "one" app that crashes and destroys everything - calling super surcharge phone services in the backround, sending thousands of SMS in backround and so on!
As far as i understand there is no "user-level" on the iPhone - all tasks are running with root permissions?
I exspect the SDK to appear with 1.1 or higher firmware (can we call that firmware!) when SDK generated applications are run a unix user level.
On my RAZR the java apps (Google Maps, Opera Browser) are OS forced to ask me if they may connect.
Al this is currently missing on the iPhone so no SDK - yet!.
Reply
JH said 1:11PM on 8-14-2007
I think an SDK is needed to fully unleash the iPhone's capabilities. You should check out iPhailure.com for some good alternative views on the iPhone
Reply
cashmonee said 2:47PM on 8-14-2007
I think anyone who has ever used a Windows Mobile phone knows exactly why there is no SDK. Once you start installing apps, they start grinding to a halt. For me the biggest selling point to the iPhone is that it actually works pretty much as advertised. A Windows Mobile device, however, quickly becomes a frustration and Apple cannot have that happen.
Reply
Mark Scrimshire said 4:32PM on 8-14-2007
I believe Apple will release a propoer SDK - after the iPhone has gained market acceptance. Apple still has to deal with the carriers and as a new start, if he does not play nice and protect the revenue stream he could easily be shut out of the market.
When the iPhone has become an indispensable device and a large user population is out there then Apple has the clout to issue an SDK without the carriers being able to retaliate. At that point tools such as VOIP, IM and other services can be delivered without the carriers being able to stifle the innovation.
Reply
aj_robins said 3:43PM on 8-14-2007
My wild-*ss guess is that Apple's agreement with AT&T has a lot to do with it. With an SDK:
* You can kill the lucrative SMS text messaging market (which is why I predict that we won't see an iChat application for a LONG time, if ever).
* You can kill the lucrative ringtone market (yeah, many people really are willing to pay, sigh).
* You potentially reduce AT&T's revenue if you allow VOIP.
It's not about choice and flexibility. I think it's all about the contract between Apple and AT&T.
Reply
KeynoteKen said 4:44PM on 8-14-2007
"Let me just say that I can tell you have no knowledge of what is really going on here."
I do know that it's voiding my warranty and, for me, that's all I need to know :) Plus, I don't have to worry before downloading any updates wondering if it will affect any of the apps I've come to depend on.
Reply
Craig said 6:24PM on 8-14-2007
A lot of the pressure probably comes from AT&T and other carriers who want to keep the system closed to prevent 3rd parties from making very profitable applications, while they can develop their own profitable applications.
Apple doesn't care if bedroom hackers are developing for the iPhone with their own SDK, but when a 3rd party starts trying to build a commercial application, they can smack them down with the DMCA. Which, as far as I know, has no clauses requiring a company to constantly protect their product. (Like copyrights, for instance.)
If this is the case we may never see an SDK, but Apple won't try to stop third parties unless they attempt to distribute commercial applications.
Reply
sunny said 8:31PM on 8-14-2007
The missing killer iPhone app is iTunes. I would love to see someone hack that up.
Reply
jackson191 said 11:29PM on 8-15-2007
5star Mobile Video - The movie converter for your mobile device! Supported are: Apple iPod, Playstation PSP, PocketPC, Nintendo DS / GameBoy Advanced (SD Video), Mobile Phones (3GPP/3GPP2/MP4 compatible devices) , iRiver, Cliod CP, Palm, Archos, Creative...
http://www.mobile-video-converter.com/
Reply