Steve Jobs made a very interesting announcement today at the WWDC Keynote. Wanna write for apps for the iPhone? Make them web apps that work on Safari. Done.
That is a bold idea. Very forward thinking. A whole new product with the opportunity for a whole new platform. But instead Apple chooses simple and familiar: HTML and Javascript. Tens of millions of developers already know it. Instant developer uptake and an instant batch of apps that likely already work with the iPhone.
This is the coming out party for web apps. We are very excited about this. These are exciting times.
And one more thing… Something else that makes us smile is a paragraph on this page at the Apple Site:
Mac OS X is now the ideal platform for all kinds of script-based development. Ruby 1.8.6 and Python 2.5 are both first-class languages for Mac development, thanks to Cocoa bridges, Xcode and Interface Builder support, DTrace monitoring, and Framework builds — plus AppleEvent bindings via the new Scripting Bridge. Leopard is also the premier platform for Ruby on Rails development, thanks to Rails, Mongrel, and Capistrano bundling.
Hells yeah.
Thijs van der Vossen
on 11 Jun 07I fully agree. And these are scary times for those who try to push RIA technology like Flex and Silverlight.
Allen Pike
on 11 Jun 07I got the impression it was a bit more than a simple web app that works in Safari. They’re offering some extensions for dealing with custom iPhone effects and systems, like they did for Dashboard widgets. Still, coupled with the release of Safari for Windows, today could be a big day in the history of the web.
Thijs van der Vossen
on 11 Jun 07Yeah, judging from the keynote you’ll probably get a few JavaScript classes you can use to better integrate with the iPhone, just as with the widgets.
Anonymous Swine
on 11 Jun 07Yawn. I need Objective-C for the types of applications I’m want to write. No offense to the web crowd but Safari+WebKit won’t cut it for everything.
Scott Becker
on 11 Jun 07Cheers to less competing APIs. Already know HTML and JavaScript? Done.
Jeff
on 11 Jun 07Only one reason for this. AT&T doesn’t want VOIP applications on the iPhone.
Marc Hedlund
on 11 Jun 07I agree as long as the HTML app can run when the network isn’t around. I agree with dhh’s earlier comment that the “plane scenario” is going away soon, but until then, an app that only works online is no better than a safari page.
Hartvig
on 11 Jun 07Very neat indeed, but I’m I the only one who wonders what the (quote) “Web 2.0 standards” are?
Allen Pike
on 11 Jun 07It’s not just about no VOIP (which is definitely a factor), but also providing a sandbox. There isn’t a whole lot that Javascript can’t do do that Objective-C can, other than linking to libraries of existing code. Although the idea of using only CSS/Javascript may make you cringe if you’re used to supporting old an obsolete browsers, you’d be surprised how many Safari-only and non-IE features can be incredibly useful.
Michael James
on 11 Jun 07I think the biggest reason for this (apart from having to appease the phone service companies), is that it will be far quicker and easier to develop a web app than a traditional app with an iPhone SDK.
This way, Apple still controls the look and feel because they can make changes to how Safari renders and treats HTML. Also, by releasing Safari for Windows, Windows web developers can test their “iPhone apps” using Safari.
What’s really going to be interesting, is how much control the iPhone-specific extensions to Safari (namely in HTML and Javascript) will allow web developers. Can we come up with custom user interactions for our web apps using multiple fingers and the iPhone’s orientation accelerators?
Jonathan LaCour
on 11 Jun 07Well, doesn’t surprise me at all. I called this from day one!.
It is indeed very forward thinking, and I am excited to create some great apps for the iPhone.
Chris Messina
on 11 Jun 07Can you guys please get behind microformats now? Clearly the open web is where the future is—they’re cross platform, work in all browsers and give you a way to pull data from the pages that you’re already generating without a specialized view. With the iPhone clearly being marketed as a “web device”, the tools we build to take advantage of microformats in the browser will also be available on this new platform.
You’ve already made a move towards OpenID—it’d be great to see the same commitment to open web semantics.
Christopher Cachor
on 11 Jun 07Jeff, good comment. I’d make the same decision if I was AT&T. It’ll be interesting to see how businesses use this technology and make webapps an important part of their infrastructure.
Anonymous Swine, what types of applications do you write? Sure webapps can’t cut it for everything, but I think they could for communicating on a device. For personal organizers and groupware, I really think we’ll see some cool stuff.
Better get to work!
BTW—I love the new apple.com Well done.
Jonathan LaCour
on 11 Jun 07Oh, and in addition to calling it, I also defended just such a decision. I know a lot of developers are probably mad about this, but I think its largely because it means that they can’t use their beloved Cocoa and Objective-C to develop for the iPhone. Well, kids, its time to finally learn HTML, CSS, and a decent dynamic language like Python or Ruby!
Will
on 11 Jun 07This might be a nice interim solution I suppose, but not replacement for an actual iPhone SDK.
By limiting 3rd party development to web apps only, suddenly 3rd party iPhone apps can’t be used without a network.
Additionally, valuable screen real estate is eaten up by the Safari shell around the app.
Users weren’t asking for 3rd party Web apps. They were asking for 3rd party apps. This isn’t it.
Anonymous Swine
on 11 Jun 07@ Christopher Cachor:
I’m interested in writing games for the iPhone. I can’t think of a way that a Javascript/Safari combination will cut it for what I want to do. I’m sure it’ll be wonderful for the class of apps you’re discussing though.
@ Allen Pike:
“There isn’t a whole lot that Javascript can’t do do that Objective-C can, other than linking to libraries of existing code.”
I don’t want to start a flamewar here but I think that is an incredibly uninformed comment. If that were the case I’d like to know why Apple would choose to write all of its own iPhone apps using Objective-C/Cocoa instead of this great Javascript/Safari combination that is apparently just as good. Please do tell.
Anonymous Swine
on 11 Jun 07@ Jonatahn LaCour:
“Well, kids, its time to finally learn HTML , CSS, and a decent dynamic language like Python or Ruby!”
We’re not “kids,” we’re professional developers. Objective-C is a dynamic language. I’m not sure why I should need to muck around with HTML/CSS when Interface Builder works just fine, but it looks like we’re stuck with it (for now).
heri
on 11 Jun 07i thought it was a bad news for apple today. their new browser for windows is full of bugs I have taken screenshots of random websites here
http://heri.madmedia.ca/articles/2007/06/11/new-safari-for-windows-full-of-bugs
If the iPhone safari is as good as the windows safari, then it will be a nightmare
OnTheTech
on 11 Jun 07@Chris Messina:
iPhone microformats:
I agree. Browsing to a site with a hCard or hCal that can be imported into your iPhone’s directory/calendar would be a great example of using a site like an API.
Mark
on 11 Jun 07It’s the natural progression of Dashboard Widgets, and renders Adobe’s AIR (Apollo) silly. Why do you need a runtime when others are treating the browser as UI, relying on and reinforcing existing conventions that we’ve gotten users accustomed to.
Very exciting, indeed.
random8r
on 11 Jun 07You can use these “3rd party apps” without a network. They’re not saying “use safari as your web browser”, they’re pretty much saying that if you wanna dev for the iPhone, use widget-like behaving apps built in a widgety way (ie widgets are web 2.0 mini-apps, too!).
redux
on 11 Jun 07Microsoft have always had this as an option for developing software for SmartPhones. I never really came across anything that used it.
@heri It clearly says that Safari 3 is a beta (both windows and os x).
Apple are clearly following the trend of web apps to have wide open public betas. For the web apps, beta has been redefined as they are generally relatively simple apps that work as advertised. A web browser is probably a lot more complicated but people would not expect software they download from the Apple website to be buggy. Even if it does say beta.
Will
on 11 Jun 07Random8r, if they do in fact work like widgets then that’s one thing, but from the few keynote photos I’ve seen so far, it looked like the “apps” were literally being pulled up in Safari. So they’re not apps on the phone using Web 2.0 tech, they’re literally websites you pull up that happen to have a few JS hooks into the OS.
I don’t want Web apps I can access via the phone. I want apps on the phone.
But correct me if I’m wrong. I’m just basing this on what I saw from the keynote. It’s entirely possible I misunderstood.
Will
on 11 Jun 07And if they are, in fact, external web apps run through Safari then they are very dependent on a network connection to function, hence my original complaint.
Peter Cooper
on 11 Jun 07All those people who wanted an SSH client are going to be pretty disappointed now ;-) Well, unless there’s some really clever work with Flash or similar.
J
on 11 Jun 07The fact that I can develop iPhone apps with CSS/Javascript will be nice, but Safari is a terrible browser for Mac, let alone for Windows.
B
on 11 Jun 07a terrible browser for Mac
Sweeping generalizations! Terrible how?
Michael James
on 11 Jun 07I think a lot of the talk here depends on how capable the Safari HTML and Javascript extensions are. Unless you’re at WWDC this week, you probably don’t know.
I think during Steve Job’s appearance at the D5 conference, he said they were hard at work finding a way to allow 3rd party development on the iPhone. I take this to mean that either:
1. The phone companies (namely AT&T) are restricting how 3rd-party iPhone apps can be developed, or
2. There’s quite a bit of new functionality in the iPhone’s version of Safari. It has to be more than just Dashboard widgets, that functionality is already in Safari on Tiger.
Tim
on 11 Jun 07Too bad Apple doesn’t distribute Helvetica with Safari for Windows :(
nicky peeters
on 11 Jun 07Very cool that they’re bundling mongrel and capistrano, but it’s not that installing from gem is rocket-science.
I wonder how easy updating the bundled versions is going to be. I hope they’re using gems…
Todd Sieling
on 11 Jun 07I haven’t seen the whole video yet, but the liveblog I read said the quote was wider than Safari, as in ‘do it with web standards’. That is, if you design well, your design will work on Safari be it on the desktop or the iphone. That’s a bit of hair splitting and the observations are still spot on: Apple did something very clever here.
Eamon
on 11 Jun 07This is right on the money. You can’t write an ssh client in JavaScript. Widgets are nice and all, but they’re a very small subset of what I would consider “applications”.
Aaron Alexander
on 11 Jun 07@Michael James: The iPhone Safari has the exact same underpinnings as the Safari running on your Mac. There is NO difference. Full HTML/CSS3 and Javascript support. In fact, Steve actually used the acronym “AJAX” to tell us what kind of apps can be created.
Arik Jones
on 11 Jun 07I love that companies like Apple and Facebook are starting to create small eco-systems for themselves.
AdobeLuvr
on 11 Jun 07As a web developer, I live for Flex. The Flash/Flex development environment totally trumps javascript and incompatible browsers. My real question is “can I run flash and flex on this thing?”
Apple has always kind of beent he leader in flashy apps, but if Adobe isn’t there on iPhone, I have to wonder if we will soon see a phone from an Apple competitor like Nokia that is flex based and ends up being a much more powerful and much more widely deployed than iPhone?
rob
on 12 Jun 07Need VOIP on the iPhone?
Flash Media Server + Safari
Should skirt the meddlesome phoneco easily.
Funny that those bastards aren’t happy charging a boatload for data AND calls AND SMS, but they want to limit what you can do with it.
Eli
on 12 Jun 07Ok, two things:
First, Safari is not the first mobile browser to support AJAX/javascript apps or widgets. Symbian’s S60 browser (which is open-source and also based on WebKit—www.s60.com/browser/) does pretty much everything that Safari does. Opera Mobile is also a very good mobile browser (and Opera has been doing mobile browsing for a long time). There are also probably a dozen Widget runtimes for mobile apps. Opera has one that runs on desktop and mobile, Nokia has widgets, there are many others.
Second, the “sandbox” argument is kinda BS. Symbian requires that all applications be digitally signed before they can be deployed (which involves testing and a security scan). Similar system with
Ev
on 12 Jun 07Why are you excited? Because web apps is all you can do? To me it is not “forward thinking”. In fact there is no thinking at all. It is called cost cutting: to time/money to have a decent SDK for the phone.
Do you guys realize, that people have real problems to solve that they want some help from software? Computers can do so much more than ta-da lists.
steph
on 12 Jun 07about rails in leopar, does that mean it already comes with the os?
Killian
on 12 Jun 07Is Apple saying this iPhonamajig won’t support FORTRAN!!
Kevin
on 12 Jun 07Very excited to see what you guys come up with. Count me as a vote for the future.
Mike Rundle
on 12 Jun 07@Will: I agree, it’s exciting to me as I know JS/HTML/CSS like the back of my hand, but this pretty much kills advanced applications like…. oh I don’t know….. kick-ass GAMES. Games written in JS don’t hold a candle to games written in Flash, and games written in Flash don’t hold a candle to games written in a native language, so it’s a bit disappointing. I was all ready to see people do some crazy shit with the motion sensor and using the iPhone like a Wii-steering apparatus, but maybe I was hoping for too much.
And the Safari URL chrome at the top really needs to be hidden programmatically or it’s going to kill the UI experience for many applications since the screen is so diminutive.
Raven Zachary
on 12 Jun 07I agree on some points, Jason, but I am not going to run a web-based password keeper on my iPhone. There are some apps that are better suited for running locally and not over hte network – whether performance (remember, EDGE), security, or otherwise.
Tx
on 12 Jun 07Jesus… these guys (37 signals) are so pumped up on the fact that web apps (their area of expertise) is the only thing this phone will be able to do…
Safari? SDK? Wooo… If I want to roll out my own address book version for an iPhone, how the hell will I do that with Safari? Or at least some address book integration? Or how about making/receiving calls programmatically? How about using any of iPhone hardware to do anything?
For 37signals, and companies like them, the ones who build ta-da lists and write books on how to build ta-da lists, that is a very welcome announcement.
But for software engineers/entrepreneurs this is pretty sad news…
Justin Bell
on 12 Jun 07No way in hell will be putting my passwords on some web-based application, and without SplashID, I can’t see myself dumping my Treo 600 anytime soon, no matter how desperately I’d like to dump it for an iPhone.
Sure, web apps will cover most of the useful apps I’d like for the iPhone, but what about applications they need extra security? Security is even more important on a phone, since you take it everywhere and it’s easy to steal.
B
on 12 Jun 07But for software engineers/entrepreneurs this is pretty sad news…
Ahh, just like those software “engineers” to poo poo something “below them.”
Joshua
on 12 Jun 07Lame. How is this forward thinking? This is not news, we already knew we could write web apps for the iphone, it’s got a browser. So they threw in a few hooks to the phone, big deal. Web apps are great for allot of things, but I’m certainly not paying $600 for a “smartphone” without an ssh client.
Rich
on 12 Jun 07Is it me or does this announcement amount to…nothing. This is spin as far as I see it. Like it or not, the photo app, the contacts app, all those snazzy looking apps in the TV ads – they’re not web apps. They’re first class citizens on the iPhone.
It’s a remarkable achievement in portable hardware/software. But it’s not truly being made available to the development community.
Tim
on 12 Jun 07Sorry guys. Not drinking the Kool-Aid on this one at all.
This is far more about keeping developers away from the goodies outside the Safari sandbox, than keeping nasty code inside.
VOIP apps? Impossible (AT&T are happy though) Access to your music and video files? Off limits. Access to the iPhone camera? Doubtful. Multimedia capabilities? Severely limited.
How the hell is this “forward thinking”? This is Steve Jobs throwing you a bone from the table. And you’re rolling on your back and wagging your tail in thanks.
anon
on 12 Jun 07Every other smart phone supports developing actual applications, why does the iPhone have to be different?
Web apps means you can’t access bluetooth, sim information, gps, etc. It pretty much limits you to what Apple and AT&T say you can do, which is horrible.
Apple takes us so far ahead in terms of UI & user experience and manages takes us so far back with carrier/hardware restrictions.
It’s quite unfortunate.
Kishor Gurtu
on 12 Jun 07When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Just because you guys are into web apps, doesn’t mean that web apps can solve all problems. If that was so, the iPhone should have only had Safari and no other app. Gruber at least gets this right -
http://daringfireball.net/2007/06/wwdc_2007_keynote
nexusprime
on 12 Jun 07heri,
its a bit silly to get on apple’s case about bugs in an application on a new platform the day it is announced.
i do think apple should have labeled the windows version alpha though.
but the os x version 3 is definitely beta quality, installed it as soon as it was announced with zero crashes or bugs, and it is quite zippy.
Austin Marshall
on 12 Jun 07Give it six months. I expect to see natively-run Obj-C/Cocoa apps sold through iTunes. Extending Safari for iPhone-AJAX functionality is brilliant for tapping into the broad developer base for app support, but web apps can only go so far. How long before someone makes the judgment call to not use a web-app because they know it will cost them (assuming they don’t have an unlimited data plan and don’t have free wifi avail).
And with Safari all abuzz, why still no mention of Flash or Java?
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/ultimate-iphone-faqs-list-part-2/
Tom Greenhaw
on 12 Jun 07OMG, Steve Jobs takes something obvious that’s been done for years and stamps it an Apple innovation?
We have been writing web based apps for internet connected phones for nearly 8 years – this is not new or innovative.
While this is certainly a great idea, it misses an extremely important point: how do you write an app for Safari that interacts with the iPhone hardware?
E.g., I want to work with pictures, how to access the storage on the iPhone? I want to dial a phone number from my app, how do I access the phone hardware. I wan’t something to happen on a timed basis, how does the hardware wake up my web based app. How about a speach recognition application – Javascript? I think not…
The biggest problem with the iPhone concept is that the hardware is too closed. Need to change a battery – buy a new one. Want to add expansion memory to move data around quickly – sorry no expansion whatsoever. Want to add a scanner – nope. How about adding the GPS they left out (until the new one comes out someday) – no.
Apple should have at least supported SDIO. I hope they have some kind of wireless expansion up their sleeve.
This is starting to smell like an interesting but very disappointing version 1.
Tom Greenhaw
on 12 Jun 07By the way, Basecamp formatted for smartphones is a good idea and is an example of an application that would not be diminished by a lack of hardware interactivity.
B
on 12 Jun 07Just because you guys are into web apps, doesn’t mean that web apps can solve all problems.
Who said “web apps can solve all problems”?
Brandon Eley
on 12 Jun 07It is brilliant for another reason too… not only do millions of developers know Javascript and HTML, but there are already thousands of web apps that will likely run on the iPhone.
I’m putting money on all of 37 Signals products working on my new iPhone…
Mike
on 12 Jun 07I think Jeff above is 100% correct. This decision is all about VoIP. As soon as you open up a full API, someone is going to write a VoIP app for the phone. If you think about who the initial target market is for this phone (early adopters), these are the EXACT people who are going to be near a wifi connection for a large part of their day. If that’s the case, you could avoid using your peak calling minutes on AT&T’s network by using voip over wifi. AT&T would not be happy about that.
Smile
on 12 Jun 07From: http://daringfireball.net/2007/06/wwdc_2007_keynote “Perhaps it’s playing well in the mainstream press, but here at WWDC, Apple’s “you can write great apps for the iPhone: they’re called ‘web sites’” – message went over like a lead balloon.
It’s insulting, because it’s not a way to write iPhone apps, and you can’t bullshit developers.”
Well apparently you can. But maybe Jason isn’t a developer.
Benoit
on 12 Jun 07Apple has just now to announce the new prefered SDK is GWT and the collaboration with Google will be complete :)
JF
on 12 Jun 07To all the “serious” developers and “engineers”... Keep your minds closed. We’ll be openly embracing the iPhone as a great web-app device. While you’re complaining, we’ll be building.
Of course web-apps aren’t the be all and end all. We never said they were nor believe they are. But they are fantastic for a lot of things. We’ll be working on some of those things.
carl
on 12 Jun 07There’s an easy way around the VoIP problem that keeps coming up. And the funny thing is, Apple has already implemented it. Have a relatively closed ecosystem where apps are sold through iTunes. They already do this with iPod games.
Which is a great segue to my issue with the iPhone: where are the games?!!
Back to the webapp problem. Webapps are great and all but without hardware access, how are you gonna develop games or anything that needs a custom interface? With the sophisticated iPhone touchscreen, you can probably do lots of really cool things. But probably not through a webapp.
Anyway, I just thought of an awesome iPhone webapp so I’m off to go write it.
Seth Weintraub
on 12 Jun 07I agree and disagree. I agree that the Web is a fantastic, leveling open, SDK and that any application that can be ported to it should be. There are too many benefits not to.
That being said, Apple’s presentation that this is their new Web 2.0 SDK and yes, the iPhone is open to developers and smacks of spin…in fact it made me write up a nastygram of a blogpost about it. indulge me if you will
Dan
on 12 Jun 07It’s not bold or forward thinking, it’s a cop-out. To say otherwise is just spin on top of spin.
Alex Cabrera
on 12 Jun 07I don’t understand why everyone thinks you’ll need an internet connection to run these applications. The entire webapp announcement is pretty much Apple saying they’ve created an implementation of Dashboard on the iPhone. You don’t need an internet connection to run a dashboard widget unless that widget is pulling info from the net.
It would be relatively trivial for Apple to set up a queue system in the iPhone that allows these applications to go out and grab updated info from the web whenever a wifi connection is present.
Apple also announced that they’re going to be providing hooks into the iPhone hardware, presumably through javascript; and if widget development on OS X is any indication that means you’ll be able to access the file system, the camera, and a myriad of command line tools.
Two days ago nobody knew if third party apps would be allowed in any way on the iPhone; now, Apple’s committed to giving developers a way to deploy applications on the iPhone and most of you are still crying like a bunch of 10 year old girls with a skinned knee.
carl
on 12 Jun 07You need to stop reading into things. Fact is, if Apple did in fact create Dashboard for the iPhone, why did they run their demo app in Safari? If that is in fact the case, well great, but don’t you think they’d have branded it as Dashboard for iPhone and called it as such?
ajslikdfjsakf
on 12 Jun 07You want to run VOIP and a ssh client? Sounds like other people do, also. I predict some smart person will hack it. After all, any official SDK probably wouldn’t allow VOIP. So, you’d be on your own there, anyway. I agree that it would be nice if they made an official low level SDK available. But, I can’t believe no one will be able to figure this out. At some level, the iPhone is OS X. It can’t be impossible.
Tom
on 12 Jun 07JavaScript is extremely capable. The few places where something lower level would be good are those dealing with hardware, like GPS integration, accessing the camera, etc.
Tom Greenhaw
on 12 Jun 07Seems that Apple has opened up some hooks to interact with hardware – this is really good.
Only now that begs the question of security. How about a web page that suddenly dials 1-900-porno for 10 bucks a minute and spawns 50 additional pages of the same sort of crap.
Read the full InfoWorld article at http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/06/11/apple-iphone-open-to-software-developers_1.html?source=NLC-TB&cgd=2007-06-12
Gutter
on 12 Jun 07Wow thats a good news! I can’t wait for the 37signals team to come up with a wifi stumbler, a voip client, a ssh client, or work with ubisoft or gameloft to port their game library to the iPhone.
You go guys!
Mike
on 13 Jun 07Wow, 2 troll caps handed out in one post. The 37s boys are a tad delicate when it comes to their Apple toys.
Cornelius Toole
on 13 Jun 07To answer those complaining that their apps won’t work offline, what about Google gears? I thought of that almost instantly. I just figured it only would be a matter of time before Google released it for Safari, and I imagine they will have to port to whatever architecture the iPhone runs on. Seems like they already have gears for webkit according the GoogleMac blog: http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2007/05/google-gears-for-webkit.html
If the GWT thing is true, the combo of gears + GWT should give web app developers a good bit of flexibility.
All that said I’m still disappointed and the lack of 3rd party app support is a deal breaker for the iPhone for me.
I don’t see what the big deal b/c I can access cellular data networks thru a card on my laptop, and I can run whatever I want there. Are people using their laptops to topple wireless carrier networks?
Jake
on 13 Jun 07Cornelius: Can’t run Google Gears (or similar) if you can’t run third-party apps.
anonymous
on 13 Jun 07Check out this application for the iPhone it was announced at wwdc…
http://www.ipling.com invite code: wwdc2007
Kimiko
on 13 Jun 07I think I read somewhere that Flash can’t run on the iPhone because of the hardware (the CPU) being incompatible. Not sure why they didn’t Java though.
I think webapps with Safari can and will be great. The only thing I thought was a little silly is how little real estate you’ll get (two bars on the top and one on the bottom). Then again, I haven’t seen the iPhone in real life, so can’t really comment on that quite yet.
And seriously, why are people mentioning games? This is a highend phone, not a portable gaming device. I really doubt a 12 year old would buy this one to play games.
Also, remember that Safari 3 is still in beta. I tried the Windows version and didn’t have any problems. Give the beta some slack and report the bugs instead of insulting Apple for making an honest attempt.
James Tyre
on 13 Jun 07I don’t think the iPhone needs to support Google Gears. After all, you are always online on a phone. If not, you can’t even make calls.
carl
on 13 Jun 07Games: because current iPods have games. And because all cell phones have games. If Apple wants us to get rid of both of those, give us some games! Nothing like serious 3d games but some simple things like Tetris and the others already available on the iPod.
Nobody wants a PSP or Nintendo DS, just something to pass time waiting for the subway.
Tom
on 13 Jun 07As demonstrated in the keynote, iPhone will require the user to confirm a phone call request before it is placed. If they wanted to go a step further, they could require a user interaction to initiate the request, and not allowed JavaScript to automatically do it.
Matt
on 14 Jun 07It’s not bold or forward thinking, it’s a cop-out. To say otherwise is just spin on top of spin.
Matt, Editor Gary Carvolth Voice of the Common Man www.garycarvolth.com
Russell
on 14 Jun 07SECURITY is the number one reason that Apple is being stingy with the SDK. The iphone is going to be locked down from day one so that Apple can tout its awesome security. They might loosen up once this thing is more mainstream but until then they don’t even want to hear the word virus.
James Head
on 14 Jun 07“Bold idea” is absolute spin.
The problem was this was announced at WWDC. It’s not a web-developer conference.
John Gruber with more: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2007/june#wed-13-tsai_sweet
Fits with 37signals perfectly, – but all in all, it is a definite disappointment.
Mike Sax
on 16 Jun 07Jason, I’m loosing some respect for you: this is not forward thinking, it’s spin on preventing developers from building apps that would reduce Apple and Cingular’s control (like Skype). Perhaps Daring Fireball said it best: “If all you have to offer is a shit sandwich, just say it. Don’t tell us how lucky we are and that it’s going to taste delicious.”
Anonymous Coward
on 17 Jun 07So I have an app( see http://www.techavid.com ) that works on Windows Mobile IE and I tried it out on Windows Safari and it works; an embedded WMP player app. Since it works in Windows Safari will it or will not work on Iphone Safari?
Does the Iphone have Itunes built in? Same Itunes seen on your PC where you can tune into INternet Radio?
Streaming wont be significant on the IPhone til it 3G capable. Sticking my WIndows Mobile EVDO connected phone til it goes 3g.
Thanks, Ryan
This discussion is closed.