Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends, iTunes, Steve Jobs, Developer, iPhone
iPhone apps through iTunes?
Here's another thing you may have heard on last week's talkcast (which again, I'm told, is this close to being edited and posted): we were talking, of course, about the new iPhone/iPod touch SDK, and knocking around ideas for how Apple might implement apps on the iPhone. Someone in the Talkshoe channel suggested something exactly like this suggestion, sent to us by reader Thomas. They'd like to see apps distributed through iTunes, just like podcasts. Choose which apps you want (submitted by their creators to Apple), dock the iPhone, and voila, apps on the iPhone.Not really a new idea, and it is pretty obvious in its implementation (I had the same idea about games for the Mac a while back). I'd love to see it happen. But the problem, of course, is just how open Steve wants to (or can be) with the iPhone SDK. I really doubt we're going to see something freely distributed, and I know for sure that we probably won't see anything that anyone can place unsigned content on. I'd love to see a quick, easy way for anyone to simply publish apps for the iPhone, but from what I've heard, there are so many security holes in the system right now that that's not really a possibility.
Jobs clearly wants to fix things (if his iPhone SDK note is to be taken honestly), but unless Apple starts plugging holes fast, I don't see it happening. More likely, I'd see a few trusted developers given SDKs, and asked to create applications of their own which might then be listed on iTunes, for sale or download. Other developers could probably apply, but Apple will likely try to keep control over the whole thing, pulling an application off of iTunes (and possibly even the iPhones themselves) when a problem is discovered.
It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. As I said, it would be great to see apps on the iPhone from anywhere and everywhere, but the concern we're hearing is that security is far from tight, and Apple is watching its back as closely as it can.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
WiLLGT09 said 8:07AM on 10-24-2007
another idea could be an "iphone wifi apps 'store'", which would be Apple's version of Installer.app, allow you to install apps on the fly (hopefully for free...hence my use of 'store').
Although, this idea of going through iTunes is probably the most realistic.
Reply
tones said 8:23AM on 10-24-2007
My main concern about apps distributed via iTunes:
1) No free/open source apps - whether developers want to charge or not, there might be a minimum cost per app, with a share for Apple, justified by maintaining and hosting the app distribution service aka iTunes. Although the GPL allows charging, I question an app projects longevity if you cannot install it outwith the paid for iTunes version.
2) Set price? As in music and games, are we likely to see a fixed price for apps ($19.95), no matter the complexity or functionality of the app. Yes this has advantages as you know what you are expected to pay, but really doesn't cater for say comparing a simple copy/pase app to a full blown mobile office suite app.
Reply
zofo said 8:29AM on 10-24-2007
I'd like to see the ability to install apps not only through iTunes but also on-the-go, via any website
Also, like with a Nokia, send an app via Bluetooth to your handset. Oh wait, Apple totally crippled Bluetooth.
I think users can determine for themselves if an app is safe or not. If they can't then well, that's evolution for you, survival of the fittest (and smartest)
I don't want a "training wheels" phone and service like AOL is/was with the internet, let me just do whatever I want
Reply
krye said 8:45AM on 10-24-2007
Security should be the number one concern. We don't need anyone jeopardizing the integrity of the iPhone or the AT&T network because of a poorly or maliciously written app.
Reply
Mike said 8:53AM on 10-24-2007
Could someone please explain to me why the iPhone has three seperate inboxes anyway? It's the only device out there that recieves email, SMS, and voice mail and handles them as distinct elements, but why do I have to chase across three separate apps to work with them? Why can't we have a unified inbox that shows email, SMS, and visual voicemail messages?
Reply
James said 9:14AM on 10-24-2007
Can anyone confirm that the iPhone is to be released in Ireland on February 9, 2008?
Reply
Bob said 11:01AM on 10-24-2007
The idea of having Apple approve all applications is a deal-breaker for me. I would really like to develop some applications that give our management a clean view of our divisions operations. I'm sure I am not alone and every application envisioned for the iPhone would not be for public consumption. Having Apple test/distribute all applications would cause me (and others I am sure) to abandon the dream of using the iPhone as a platform to distribute information.
Reply
Pete Zich said 11:28AM on 10-24-2007
Hmm, not much to that image. I like the idea of the wifi store for apps, basically like the current macosx downloads page. http://apple.com/downloads/iphone/ would be great!
Reply
Big John said 12:11PM on 10-24-2007
This idea has been around since Steve the Jobs introduced the idea of an iPhone SDK. I would expect applications to appear for sale in iTunes but I wouldn't rule out "anyone" being able to submit an app for free or sale.
I like the point krye makes, regarding security. SDK + malicious coder + dumb users = disaster for Apple. The user would blame Apple, even though the application writer would be to blame.
Reply
WillGonz said 12:35PM on 10-24-2007
Two problems.
One, you can't sync from mutliple computers natively (at least it doesn't work for me.).
Two, I don't want to have to go home to install the latest app. I want to be able to install it like I did with Installer.App.
Reply
Fritz Laurel said 1:48PM on 10-24-2007
I just wonder when they're going to change the name of iTunes to something that better describes what it actually does. They keep adding so much connectivity-type functionality to it, It's becoming the iHub.
Cheers,
FL
Reply
starkruzr said 1:56PM on 10-24-2007
@4: No one is going to "Bring down AT&T's network." That has been proven, repeatedly, to be a red herring. There are plenty of worse-designed Windows Mobile phones on which this isn't a problem.
As for the security of the iPhone itself, Apple could go a long way toward fixing that by moving SpringBoard and other userland programs into running on the mobile account rather than the root account. I should think that would be one of Apple's top priorities, actually, and I'm confused that it isn't.
@9: It is very easy for Apple to absolve themselves of responsibility for this. All they have to do is make a "Time Machine" button for the iPhone (read: restore-at-will). Oh, your phone is giving you trouble? No problem, just hit the time machine. Yes, all your important data will be saved, no worries about that.
Reply
sheldon said 8:31PM on 10-24-2007
Now that Leopard is bringing on a new Finder that's soo much like iTunes in interface, it's not hard for me to imagine it being the roots of a new application delivery system for the whole Mac ecosystem. What if the iTunes store morphs (in a future OS rev.) to a sort of store/delivery system for iPhone apps, media AND desktop/laptop Applications. ... For example, buy Photoshop CS5 online via the "store" engine, download it via the iTunes/Finder and it installs directly into your system in the proper place, licensed etc... seems a very likely future step, huh?
Reply
Philometalist said 3:23AM on 10-25-2007
If Apple started offering factory unlocked phones with no warranty side by side with the standard proprietary phones, giving their customers a choice, they could make allot of money by selling specialized warranties for them separately and then outsourcing those warranties out to local venders and Apple certified retail chains. It would be an elegant solution to a growing problem for Apple while at the same time pleasing and supporting their customer base.
Reply