Waiting for what? Nothing happened. Apple didn't change a thing, the iPhone is still totally closed off for any worthwhile development. There is really no such thing as a good 'web app'. Is this the 4th of July or April Fools?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Posts Web Development Guidelines for iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Waiting for what? Nothing happened. Apple didn't change a thing, the iPhone is still totally closed off for any worthwhile development. There is really no such thing as a good 'web app'. Is this the 4th of July or April Fools?
The thing is, a development environment and SDK take an awful lot of effort.
Seriously. Having a set of dev tools and an SDK (incl. docs) good enough for internal development is one thing... having the same, but suitable for Joe Programmer is entirely different. There's probably a raft of methods and guidelines followed by habit by the Apple devs which haven't been either properly codified in documentation or enforced by the toolset.
Sure, they could throw out an SDK and a template project for Xcode, but that'd just invite devs to make lousy iPhone apps.
So, making good, publicly-usable SDKs, dev tools and docs is one problem. The next is manpower. Leopard was already delayed due to iPhone development. Apple aren't going to want to keep OS X developers working on polishing the iPhone's dev environment when their skills are probably more aptly used to get Leopard (including its SDKs, dev tools and docs) out the door. They'd be a riot if Leopard didn't ship with an Xcode fully capable of targeting Leopard's technologies -- and the same applies if Leopard were to ship with half-baked APIs.
I'd suggest Apple's game-plan may well have been:
- Customise and create an iPhone-suitable version of OS X
- Get building the iPhone OS, environment and applications, making the best of whatever tweaked-up Xcode they could manage
- Leave 3rd-party iPhone development in the province of the technologies already supported by WebKit
- Get back to polishing Leopard, ensuring all aspects are up-to-scratch, including development tools, SDKs and docs.
- After Leopard's gone GM, get back to turning the in-house iPhone development tools to something useful to the outside world.
Seriously. Having a set of dev tools and an SDK (incl. docs) good enough for internal development is one thing... having the same, but suitable for Joe Programmer is entirely different. There's probably a raft of methods and guidelines followed by habit by the Apple devs which haven't been either properly codified in documentation or enforced by the toolset.
Sure, they could throw out an SDK and a template project for Xcode, but that'd just invite devs to make lousy iPhone apps.
So, making good, publicly-usable SDKs, dev tools and docs is one problem. The next is manpower. Leopard was already delayed due to iPhone development. Apple aren't going to want to keep OS X developers working on polishing the iPhone's dev environment when their skills are probably more aptly used to get Leopard (including its SDKs, dev tools and docs) out the door. They'd be a riot if Leopard didn't ship with an Xcode fully capable of targeting Leopard's technologies -- and the same applies if Leopard were to ship with half-baked APIs.
I'd suggest Apple's game-plan may well have been:
- Customise and create an iPhone-suitable version of OS X
- Get building the iPhone OS, environment and applications, making the best of whatever tweaked-up Xcode they could manage
- Leave 3rd-party iPhone development in the province of the technologies already supported by WebKit
- Get back to polishing Leopard, ensuring all aspects are up-to-scratch, including development tools, SDKs and docs.
- After Leopard's gone GM, get back to turning the in-house iPhone development tools to something useful to the outside world.
The planet already "saturated with a universal high-speed network connection" Its called Iridium. You and I just aren't allowed to use it because its needlessly over-priced (also requires line-of-site to the satellites). Even then I think off-line storage may have its uses. We need local Apps from third-parties. We need Apple to include 1st party apps that are still missing. I think we'll get all of that, in time.
It's only five days old!
I was going reply to several recent posts. But my reply to each would have been It's only five days old...
I wish there were a full Objective C/Cocoa SDK. I wish there were a plethora of apps - Cocoa, remote web-based, and local web-based. But this whole thing is new, so sit back and relax. If you need a particular function and the iPhone doesn't have it - don't buy it.
I think we'll see decent (if not miniscule) web apps within a week or two. The Accuweather radar app isn't bad, it's the first one I've bookmarked. A few more weeks and you'll see some decent stuff, maybe even a few "must have" items. But please don't complain there aren't any good web apps yet. Developers and users got this thing the same day. To expect anything else is quite insulting to developers.
I'll give a completely uneducated forecast:
In three months (September/October) we'll have a software update which allows users to load web apps/widgets that can store data locally. The web apps will be packages, very similar to desktop widgets. Authoring might even be through a Dashcode for iPhone. Data storage will be through Google Gears and/or WhatWG stuff, maybe even CoreData. This will allow some good stuff. No action games, no VOIP, no iChat (although I think Apple will release that). But offline storage will be huge, and will allow more functionality than you might thing.
In six months (January) we'll have a beta XCode SDK. This will support real application development. There will be no direct access to some core iPhone technologies, but more than through widgets. Mainly it'll be for processor-intensive apps that run too slow in WebKit. The SDK will be final sometime Spring 2008.
Both the above updates will be accompanied by iPhone OS updates, to support the above new features.
Again, this is based on nothing but guesswork. To me this is reasonable for a new platform.
In the long run, I'll agree with others that a lack of SDK's and local apps/storage will seriously harm the iPhone platform. Apple has some time to make that happen.
I was going reply to several recent posts. But my reply to each would have been It's only five days old...
I wish there were a full Objective C/Cocoa SDK. I wish there were a plethora of apps - Cocoa, remote web-based, and local web-based. But this whole thing is new, so sit back and relax. If you need a particular function and the iPhone doesn't have it - don't buy it.
I think we'll see decent (if not miniscule) web apps within a week or two. The Accuweather radar app isn't bad, it's the first one I've bookmarked. A few more weeks and you'll see some decent stuff, maybe even a few "must have" items. But please don't complain there aren't any good web apps yet. Developers and users got this thing the same day. To expect anything else is quite insulting to developers.
I'll give a completely uneducated forecast:
In three months (September/October) we'll have a software update which allows users to load web apps/widgets that can store data locally. The web apps will be packages, very similar to desktop widgets. Authoring might even be through a Dashcode for iPhone. Data storage will be through Google Gears and/or WhatWG stuff, maybe even CoreData. This will allow some good stuff. No action games, no VOIP, no iChat (although I think Apple will release that). But offline storage will be huge, and will allow more functionality than you might thing.
In six months (January) we'll have a beta XCode SDK. This will support real application development. There will be no direct access to some core iPhone technologies, but more than through widgets. Mainly it'll be for processor-intensive apps that run too slow in WebKit. The SDK will be final sometime Spring 2008.
Both the above updates will be accompanied by iPhone OS updates, to support the above new features.
Again, this is based on nothing but guesswork. To me this is reasonable for a new platform.
In the long run, I'll agree with others that a lack of SDK's and local apps/storage will seriously harm the iPhone platform. Apple has some time to make that happen.
The basic iridium phones only support 9600 or 19200, but there are Iridium based data solutions that support significantly faster speeds (rivaling Edge). Obvioulsly , you could push IP voice over those data rates, but I guess we're getting off-topic.
Haha no, from the very beginning it was "here's our ****** webapp solution (that everyone already knew about)! look how great address book is in safari! it looks just like the addressbook app on the iPhone!" err wait, if you think it's such a great idea, why the **** isn't the addressbook a webapp then?
I don't know either. I was sorely disappointed that Apple would shove one of the obvious answers down our throats and leave everyone just dangling.
I understand this, but basically every single iPhone session I went to at WWDC was ONLY about creating webapps and designing webapps for the iPhone, in addition to the ridiculous amount of time showing devs that the only available way to create apps for the iPhone was through Safari.
I want native apps. I'm sure everyone else in this thread does too. I'm sick of EDGE speeds being total crap, I don't think I should have to open Google Docs to edit a ****ing document on the iPhone, or go to a website to play a game I feel like playing while I'm waiting and bored. Like I said, a lot of this would be better suited to be full fledged apps on an iPhone, not as a webapp.
SANDBOX, need I say more?
It is also not like Apple's own applications on the iPhone aren't crashing or having issues.
Also, it's not like wm6 or symbian or palmos are open source. Look at how many apps there are for those...
You think Apple would have done this with Mac OS X? Cause that's practically the same idea, not releasing any sort of app dev tool just because you want it to remain somewhat pristine. The iPhone is a worthless piece of junk without the applications, just like your Mac would be if you couldn't install any applications on it.
Uh huh. Stable and secure huh?
/me eyes some sploits..
Apple had years to develop the iPhone. Obviously something was used to create the apps already on the iPhone. Are you really trying to tell me that Apple's done a great job not releasing tools they definitely have and are using?
Apple's product security team is a joke, but sandboxing is in Leopard for sure. http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/technology/security.html
If you honestly think they haven't done any work in the past...what is it, two years?...on Leopard...It's definitely in Leopard, it works, and they knew plenty about it at WWDC. Plenty. They just haven't yet said anything about it yet to the public.
Basically my points: Apple has had YEARS to work on the iPhone. Apple is obviously using something to create the apps for the iPhone. Apple had all the damn time they wanted to work on this, even pre-MWSF and WWDC 2007 keynotes. Even if it's only been 5 days since release, it's been well over that since they started, we know Apple was first interested in the iPhone idea since 2002 at the latest, when they applied for trademarks. WHY haven't they even addressed this yet, why did they fail to address this in an acceptable manner at WWDC in front of all sorts of devs, why are they dragging their feet on one of the biggest issues in regards to the iPhone...?
Janey wrote "The iPhone is a worthless piece of junk without the applications, just like your Mac would be if you couldn't install any applications on it."
Janey, I am sure you know that is not quite true and also not a valid comparison. It is a phone, it is an ipod and it is a web browser. That is what was advertised and that is what was delivered.
Janey, I am sure you know that is not quite true and also not a valid comparison. It is a phone, it is an ipod and it is a web browser. That is what was advertised and that is what was delivered.
It's not? Because that's what it is currently - a device where you can only run preinstalled apps from the device manufacturer and noone else.
People would be outraged if any phone failed to include some way to develop and run 3rd party applications. People are outraged the iPhone doesn't do this. Even my dinky cheapo moto razr had a bunch of games on it that I installed.
I know it's just a stupid phone, but app development for the iPhone is obviously not impossible. I can deal with my web-based workarounds, even with crappy edge speeds, but it's just shameful that Apple hasn't done this yet.
I am with you on those points, janey. I was objecting to the 'worthless piece of junk' characterization and the straight comparison to a general purpose computer. Anyway, I get you now.
it's a drastic comparison, but even you get it. it would be ridiculous if a general purpose computer couldn't run 3rd party apps. it's just as ridiculous that the iPhone can't.
Why local apps are coming
Not sure if this has been pointed out yet or not. But I believe local apps are indeed in the works and on the way. (probably from hand-picked developers similar to ipod games).
The reasoning is iPhone's home screen. Apple has 3 rows of 4 widgets in a grid. Then at the very bottom, Apple has put an anchor bar.. or a dock if you will, of the 4 major phone functions. by putting the core apps on this dock, you can grow the widget grid to be scrollable (flickable?) and never lose site of those 4 items.
Not sure if this has been pointed out yet or not. But I believe local apps are indeed in the works and on the way. (probably from hand-picked developers similar to ipod games).
The reasoning is iPhone's home screen. Apple has 3 rows of 4 widgets in a grid. Then at the very bottom, Apple has put an anchor bar.. or a dock if you will, of the 4 major phone functions. by putting the core apps on this dock, you can grow the widget grid to be scrollable (flickable?) and never lose site of those 4 items.
This is the first gen iphone after all. I am sure apple will move to a more open and mature model as dev picks up in second, third, fourth...ect. generations. The first mac was not completely polished, nor was the ipod. New markets need dev time to flush out the bugs and design misses. I think the iphone has done very well considering its emerging technologies.
Two problems: one technical and one business
Since the iPhone is not Intel or PowerPC (it's ARM), a new cross-compiling environment has to be created for release. Also, a new remote debugger may also be required. Writing SDKs is a huge amount of work. It is often believed that SDKs come for free but they are much more difficult to write and debug because you can't anticipate all the different ways the SDK will be called. The book The Mythical Man-Month talked about this.
Sadly, there is a deeper problem to open development. It is not technical-- it is business. The current ATT plans allow for unlimited Internet. What would happen if somebody ported Skype or some other VOIP application to the iPhone? Nobody would use their voice minutes! Everybody would sign up for the most minimal plan. This would put a dent in revenue for the carrier. I feel that a lot of thought will go into how Apple allows native applicaiton development for the iPhone.
Since the iPhone is not Intel or PowerPC (it's ARM), a new cross-compiling environment has to be created for release. Also, a new remote debugger may also be required. Writing SDKs is a huge amount of work. It is often believed that SDKs come for free but they are much more difficult to write and debug because you can't anticipate all the different ways the SDK will be called. The book The Mythical Man-Month talked about this.
Sadly, there is a deeper problem to open development. It is not technical-- it is business. The current ATT plans allow for unlimited Internet. What would happen if somebody ported Skype or some other VOIP application to the iPhone? Nobody would use their voice minutes! Everybody would sign up for the most minimal plan. This would put a dent in revenue for the carrier. I feel that a lot of thought will go into how Apple allows native applicaiton development for the iPhone.