Gruber's got a good post up on the topic du jour for most Mac blogs-- the iPhone's newly announced SDK and how its release will affect already created (and to-be-created, for that matter) web apps. I'm not sure I agree with him that web development for devices like the iPhone will be bigger than native app development after February (assuming Steve gives us a full SDK, and not a widget maker), but I do agree that web apps for the iPhone need more-- either Flash, Silverlight (shudder), or some other quality runtime.However, I think the most interesting part of Gruber's article is in the note at the end. When we say iPhone (as I've done throughout this post), we really mean "iPhone and iPod touch." While lots of people have picked up touches, I tend to still consider the iPhone the vanguard of this situation. And so, while the SDK will also be able to create applications for the iPod touch (even Steve himself relegated it to a PS in his big announcement), the iPhone tends to get all the press.
But I'd like to know what you think, readers. Is it OK for us to say "iPhone" and mean both devices? Should we spend the extra time typing to point out that everything that runs on iPhone runs on the iPod touch? Or should we use them interchangeably-- make "iPod touch" mean both the iPhone and the iPod/iPhone Frankenstein monster that is the touch? What do you think? It's a small issue, sure, but little things can mean a lot.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
10-20-2007 @ 1:12PM
jonathan ober said...
1. Apple made an iPod with touch screen?
Well I needed the iPhone, since my SLVR went in the wash so I wouldn't have bought the touch if I wanted too.
I don't think it's a big deal, but maybe it should state both anytime we are talking about the interchangeable-ness of the situation.
Anyone who knows the TUAW community will know that they are interchangeable. Those n0obs or perhaps parents/grandparents looking to make their teen...or younger...happy may not.
He/She/It complex I suppose?
...and the voting thing isn't working
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 1:21PM
Nate said...
You could say Apple touch devices.
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 1:26PM
Sparks said...
Off-topic, but why the shudder at Silverlight? I know it's Microsoft, but in my dinking-around testing thus far, Silverlight seems way, WAY more CPU-and-memory efficient than Flash (which, I grant, is legendarily resource-hungry on Mac OS, so not a hard target to beat). Granted, Flash has a bigger audience just through its pervasiveness, but still.
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 1:28PM
BJ Nemeth said...
I think "iPhone" will work just fine for sites like TUAW. If a new shareware/software program works on both the iPhone and the iPod Touch (which should apply in most cases), then just say "iPhone."
If a specific application only works on one or the other, that would be the exception, and it should be noted in those cases only. ("This software is iPhone only, and will not work on the iPod Touch for reason XYZ.")
I'd say the name of the software operating system would be *more* correct, but mobile OS X hasn't caught on -- for the foreseeable future, everyone will be saying "iPhone."
This is my recommendation for sites like TUAW, where you can assume a certain level of understanding. For larger mainstream audiences (an ad or a product page), you should clearly list all compatible devices. ("XYZ Software is compatible with iPhone and iPod Touch.")
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 1:31PM
kapeka said...
Call them iTouch ;-)
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 1:32PM
Mike Schramm said...
Is it just me or is the poll broken?
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 1:32PM
dtsomp said...
How about "the iTouch devices"?
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 1:33PM
Alex Bratu said...
I think you should just call them the IP and IT and make a note at the top of the page for a while. People will catch on very quickly and that'll be the end of it.
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 1:41PM
ryan said...
Just treat them as a singular unit: iPhone Touch
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 1:45PM
clockskew said...
Just call them Touchables
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 1:48PM
punkassjim said...
SO not worth the bother. The "politically correct" movement now extends to inanimate objects? Oh brother.
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 1:51PM
ivat said...
Ooo, I 2nd that one. "The Touchables" Kind of like The Untouchables, but with turtlenecks.
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 1:55PM
Shaun McLane said...
or maybe iPhouch or iTone
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 1:56PM
Aaron Harpole said...
How about if it's called Mobile OS X? Or OS X Mobile?
Well, maybe not OS X Mobile. It sounds too Windows Mobile-ish.
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 2:15PM
STrRedWolf said...
Wait wait wait. First, it's the same damn firmware in both. It runs MacOS X as root 100% of the time, and it runs dedicated software that's pre-bundled.
Folks, what we have here is the Mac nano.
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 2:43PM
PaperQueen said...
I’m with number 4 - call them Apple touch devices. If you start lumping them together now, you just know some hot program will come out that fits one but not the other. Then, instead of typing “iPhone” you’ll have to type “the iPhone but not the iPod.”
Simplify, simplify, simplify......
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 3:10PM
Macskeeball said...
It's definitely a good question. I don't know of a generic name for both that's really caught on. I like "OS X mobile" but I imagine many mainstream people are not aware that the iPhone runs OS X, what OS X is, or even what an operating system is in general. "Apple touchscreen handhelds" is correct and can be understood, but is a mouthful. "iPhone and iPod touch" would probably be the best choice for a mainstream audience, but there ought to be a generic term for both that simplifies it.
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 3:26PM
Geoff said...
I imagine we'll see it branded soon enough, perhaps as "Leopard Mobile," paving the way for future successors to share in the hoopla surrounding their desktop counterparts.
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 3:38PM
Heron said...
I vote for Mobile OSX or MOSX for short :P
Reply
10-20-2007 @ 4:01PM
Mo said...
Bear in mind that the iPhone doesn't exist in an awful lot of countries (yet) where the iPod Touch does. My personal experience in the UK is that a lot of people I know aren't waiting for the iPhone with its 18 month contract, and just buying the iPod Touch instead.
Also, as Gruber points out, the “Classic” label has very distinct connotations. Apple's strategy would appear to be that all iPods (except perhaps the Shuffle) run OS X, and the iPhone is just part of the line-up. As far as Apple's strategy, and how most people will see it longer-term, the iPhone is just a kind of iPod, and this SDK will be for the newer-generation iPod family (as opposed to the other way around).
Reply