digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

CONFIRMED: Real iPhone SDK in February 2008

apple.com — Steve Jobs: "Let me just say it: We want native third party applications on the iPhone, and we plan to have an SDK in developers’ hands in February."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • postalblowfish7, on 10/26/2007, -38/+8Here we go...
    • arbulus, on 10/23/2007, -44/+4I don't understand why people are excited about this. People should be seriously pissed off. There have been third party apps for the iPhone, but Apple threw a tantrum, bricked phones that had them and now are saying they will turn around and (more than likely) charge you for what they just took away from you.
      • Kerr, on 10/18/2007, -6/+28I would check your facts first, the only phones being bricked were the ones that were being unlocked; and not the ones that had 3rd party apps on them.
      • postalblowfish7, on 10/23/2007, -8/+27i don't think you understand the situation.

        there were apps that required you to hack your iphone to get on. a system update made these apps broken, and in turn bricked phones. apple didn't intentionally brick anyone's phone.
      • ketha, on 10/27/2007, -0/+6Apple is allowed to exercise reasonable control over its OS. Its model is one of user experience... and people pay for this. This is a good thing to do from Apple because they will get the balance right.
    • dcharti, on 10/19/2007, -2/+21Apple didn't brick iPhones that had third-party apps on them. Those iPhones updated fine, but the apps got blown away because each update is a full OS install and not simply a few cherry-picked files (makes updating the device easier if you don't have to tip-toe). Only unlocked iPhones were bricked with the update, and it wasn't Apple's fault.
    • HonoredMule, on 10/23/2007, -7/+4Not so fast. Notice how quickly he breezes over the terms "developers" and "3rd party" without saying WHO said developers will be, while rushing on to talk about digital signatures and protection against "viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc."

      Don't expect to be able to write your own software or see any community development that can afford to purchase Jobs' expensive approval stamps.

      In other words, there'll be some expensive, shoddy toys, but no innovation or valuable, quality software written by users for users.
      • ketha, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4I think somewhere in the middle. If he was just going to licence it out to third parties he wouldn't offer an SDK, he would just commission a few companies to write for it... he's not dumb enough to make this only the really big players.. i can actually see there being another layer of programming written for the iphone to sandbox it in that won't require the licence, kinda like Javascript or Flash, possibly by a third party, as well as the SDK.
    • brundlefly76, on 10/23/2007, -1/+3I will have switched cell phones and probably carriers at least twice between now and February ;)
  • tomchow, on 10/26/2007, -38/+5Only Five minites Later to submit it!!!
    • DeadFox1, on 10/23/2007, -3/+2I don't know why you are being dugg down for this. I think this is a GREAT comment to how entrenched diggnation is to the pulse of the internet.
  • silver31u, on 10/30/2007, -18/+388Someone check, has Hell frozen over?
    • kingkilr, on 10/21/2007, -6/+60Holy *****, the cubs just won the world series!
    • rtilford, on 10/19/2007, -12/+5yep you could go skating down there!
    • Amazetbm, on 10/19/2007, -12/+5It will by February...Hell, Michigan, that is.
      • IEatHamburgers, on 10/19/2007, -13/+3That joke is old as hell. Excuse the accidental pun.
    • sakuraz, on 10/19/2007, -7/+28Not sure about that, but I think I just saw a pig fly by from the window.
      • surfing, on 10/21/2007, -3/+68that's just your girlfriend on the trampoline.
        • colto, on 10/21/2007, -3/+21LMFAO. I just spit coke all over my desk when I read that.
          • antdude, on 10/19/2007, -1/+15Drugs are bad, mmmkay? [grin]
          • iChainsaw, on 10/19/2007, -6/+3                      ^^hahahahahaha
        • iChainsaw, on 10/19/2007, -1/+10Jesus Christ! i detect immense amount of ownage!
        • homer420032003, on 10/19/2007, -0/+9Its over 9000
      • kaplanfx, on 10/20/2007, -1/+12It's just a little airborne, it's still good!
    • dagamer34, on 10/20/2007, -14/+5Nope, Apple must sell unlocked iPhones in the US first.
    • Mariachi94, on 10/19/2007, -7/+3Boy, you better get a sweater right now.
    • TVarmy, on 10/20/2007, -2/+24Apple actually officially declared that happened when they released iTunes for Windows XP. Everything else, be it Intel, Boot Camp, an Open iPhone, are just more signs of the end times.
      • Bamborzled, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5But iTunes for Windows XP sucks, so Hell never actually froze, the temperature just dropped by 5 degrees.
        • TSSaloic, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Actually it just came to Earth by means of Al Gore's global warming machine.
    • Cloud7654, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3Nope, still pretty hot down here.
    • MrFluffZ, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2It did freeze over. By the way, The Devil says 'Hi'.
    • cubeeggs, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5It froze over in 2005 as well. They announced a switch to Intel and a two-button mouse.
    • amfr, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3http://www.fallingrain.com/world/NO/10/Hell.html
      Nope, still above freezing.
    • RoflMyWaffle, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3k, ill be there in about a week
    • tracydanger, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2One positive out of this wait (although I'd rather it was 3rd party from the beginning) is that now, some websites already have made versions of their website optimized for the iphone - the so called "3rd party applications". It only makes it easier to surf web pages that way - which really comes down to not being the 'real internet', but actually better for the user. Hopefully, some developers are already in this mode and will continue to make 3rd party "apps" this way to make internet browsing more enjoyable for iphone users.
  • LaughingMan11, on 11/03/2007, -0/+441It's great that we're hearing more and more from Steve directly these days, rather than waiting for big events like Macworld to get any news whatsoever about Apple. They're becoming a little bit less secretive.
    • Ireland, on 10/19/2007, -0/+23In a way that's true, but he never mentioned the 11" 'Mac touch' multi-touch tablet that's currently in development ;)
    • h3smith, on 10/19/2007, -15/+6You actually think he writes those?
      • miriv365, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5Katie does....

        http://fakesteve.blogspot.com
        • stoppedcode12, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5Gotta love FSJ

          "Microsoft trying to patent the iPhone
          No kidding. Wired has the story here. Big news for Microsoft. We're trying to patent evil. Which will put them right out of business."
      • lharrod, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6Jobs is known for being very hands-on, especially for a CEO.
      • rspeed, on 10/19/2007, -0/+7Why not? Are you going to tell me that's not actually him making keynote speeches?
        • iChainsaw, on 10/19/2007, -1/+6you stupid fanboy, everyone knows that is a robot on stage and the real steve is in the back stepping on newborn puppies.
      • neonfunk, on 10/19/2007, -1/+4yes, absolutely. does it sound like anyone else!?
    • Avian00, on 10/19/2007, -0/+13Agreed! I've been so sick of all this speculation about official third party apps on the iPhone/iTouch. I'm glad Steve finally stepped in and settled it. That was a good move for him. If other people are like me, they were waiting for that EXACT news to finally go out and buy one!
      • zoom1928, on 10/19/2007, -6/+3It's still closed. Why would this change your mind on buying one? You're still not allowed to write or install applications w/o Apple's blessing.
    • MrNonchalant, on 10/19/2007, -1/+12Maybe next he'll start blogging. And calling people Microtards. I can dream, right?
    • MauiMac, on 10/23/2007, -0/+13Does this make it possible for Adobe to bring Flash to the iPhone and iPod touch?
      • neonfunk, on 10/23/2007, -4/+4adobe can bring flash to the iphone when its about 10x more efficient than it is on the mac now!
    • GreenAlien, on 10/19/2007, -1/+8I ordered an iPod Nano and was about to order a new Sony Ericsson smartphone because I didn't think 3rd party apps were coming to the iPhone. Glad I'm wrong. I'll be ordering an iPhone now. Wise decision for Steve to announce it now rather than wait. You just gained a lot more customers in the meantime. Also wise to take your time making it secure and robust - which isnt an easy thing to do. It has taken Symbian years to get to where they are now on the security front.
    • frostieDude, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5I think this is part of "going for it" with iPhone this Christmas season.
    • willynilly, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5People, think about one of the likely reasons for this announcement: To undermine the motivation of much of the hacking community, which in the process of enabling third-party apps also discovers things that allow them and others to UNLOCK THE PHONE. With this announcement, a lot of people are going to drop out of the hacking game and wait. Anything that reduces the ranks of hackers will make Apple happy, mainly because it'll placate AT&T.
  • imcquill, on 10/18/2007, -59/+14Jobs is an arrogant control freak who is making the biggest mistake apple has ever made. . (paraphrasing all of digg over the last year).

    Think of all the wasted hours.
    • johnnybluejeans, on 10/18/2007, -2/+16What in the world are you talking about?
      • Me1000, on 10/18/2007, -3/+1He is talking about how apple came back to apple and made Apple stock worth $170 more than it was when he came back!

        (this could be a bad thing if you are say, Dell)
    • zabouth, on 10/18/2007, -5/+36Jobs is an arrogant control freak: True
      who is making the biggest mistake apple has ever made: False
      Apple was going under in 1997 Steve took over and now look at apple he saved the company.
      PS
      I am not an apple fanboy but anyone who knows anything about the IT industy knows steve jobs had the Midas touch when it comes to business.
      eg
      1. Dreamworks - a little subsidiary or lucasarts before he took over.
      2. NeXT - The internet as we know it was crated on a NeXT (http).
      • frostieDude, on 10/18/2007, -0/+30I think you mean Pixar, not Dreamworks.
      • afx1, on 10/18/2007, -0/+6Good points except Dreamworks was created by Stephen Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen (Dreamworks SKG).
      • robbh66, on 10/18/2007, -3/+7"Saved" the company is a little bit of an understatement.
      • zabouth, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1opps i was close anyway
    • physivic, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1i tried to digg you out. some of us been saying he's got to do it. It did, however, look like a big mistake to people who have grafted 'ego' onto decisions about the iPhone. it was the "osx" running on the device that got everyone all excited. it comes out w/o apple saying anything... which they never do anyway, so I'm not so sure why anyone thot AAPL too blunt to open it up except for Jobs' empowered behavior
  • reposed, on 10/18/2007, -15/+2I'm just waiting for the "I told you so" remarks...
    • insomniac8400, on 10/17/2007, -2/+3I'm waiting for the, "This is either going to be very limited, or going to come out when/after the newton is announced" remarks. Oops, too late.
    • bsolidgold, on 10/17/2007, -1/+12I won't say "I told you so"... but I will say I'm glad I waited. Native apps developed with the Apple iPhone SDK will be *much* higher quality than the hacked together, jailbreak crap.
      • senatorpjt, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1The "hacked together, jailbreak crap" already is developed with the iPhone SDK. The frameworks are quite similar to those in Cocoa, and are right there on the phone.
  • zeffy5, on 10/18/2007, -27/+2The only downside to this is that it will probably discourage people from developing good iPhone web apps.

    Overall I'm still glad that they announced it now, because it will allow people to prepare for the release of the SDK.

    I have been working on an iPhone webapp, and honestly I am probably just going to quit now and wait for the real thing. It works and everything, so it will be usable until then, but there's not much point in me trying to refine it and it still not being what I want it to be because of the limitations of webapps.
    • tizz66, on 10/18/2007, -0/+18I disagree, I think people will still make iPhone webapps for the same reason they still make other webapps as opposed to desktop applications. Rapid development, access anywhere, easy updating on the server.
    • sleepwalkers, on 10/18/2007, -5/+9Isn't "good web app" an oxymoron?
    • SirZRX, on 10/18/2007, -6/+2who cares about webapps? they suck , they are ugly and slow!!!!
    • CryoNine, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4I don't understand why this would render web apps obsolete, they still do many things desktops cannot. Not to mention February is still a bit off, and no one knows the limitations for the time being.

      As far as web apps being "ugly and slow" that's only true if they're poorly designed.
  • bpapa, on 10/26/2007, -30/+205Awesome. Now hopefully people will stop hacking their phones like idiots and then crying later when the hacks break.
    • jeepish, on 10/18/2007, -16/+2...and people still wonder why there's an entire culture of Mac users who swear they'll never buy a version 1.0 Apple product. Patience has its rewards.
      • Chewie67, on 10/18/2007, -3/+11This has nothing to do with 1.0. Sounds like you'll still be able to run these 3rd party apps on the version 1.0 phone.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/22/2007, -8/+16I doubt it. Apple's not going to let you unlock your phone. Or install free ringtones.

      As long as Apple wants to be asses about their business model, there will be hackers.
      • etandrib, on 10/22/2007, -1/+19Their agreement with AT&T probably stipulates they can't unlock the iPhone and their agreements with music labels don't allow them to create free ringtones.

        I don't think it is their business model but rather negotiated agreements that need changed. And I do think these will all happen sooner than later.
        • digudown, on 10/18/2007, -3/+4They donot have to unlock it, just not disable it with every update..
          • Smoozle, on 10/18/2007, -1/+8Apple have no obligation to make their updates work with every and any hack out there. If you decide to unlock your phone, you have to be quite daft not to realize that there has to be a trade-off. In this case it is that you don't get the goodies of an update on the day it is released. It doesn't mean you don't get them at all - the iPhone hacking community usually figures a way to unlock the new versions of the software in only a few weeks. What you whine about is that you can't have your cake an eat it too. The real world is harsh and cruel, isn't it.
      • byleth, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1If you didn't like Apple's business practice when you bought your phone, then why did you buy it?
        • HappyScrappy, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1I didn't buy one.

          Thanks for playing.
      • HappyScrappy, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1If their agreement says this, then they should never have signed the agreement.
    • streak, on 10/18/2007, -7/+6If Apple doesn't provide a Terminal app with ssh client before the winter holidays, I'm going to have to jailbreak my iPhone and do it myself, in order to manage systems while away on holiday.
      • digudown, on 10/18/2007, -2/+4Dude jail breaking is no big deal, my advice if you have 1.0.1 firmware go ahead and do it. No need to wait.
    • Phatt138, on 10/18/2007, -3/+8I don't think that there's anything remotely idiotic about hacking the phone; when I got mine, I was way more interested in the 3rd party additions than crap lile visual voicemail, and many others were too. Now O.P.'s right that you'd be stupid to take your warranty into your own hands without some basic understanding of what's involved on the *nix side of things, but the process is pretty painless these days, and I think it would be far more idotic to buy what is essentially a mobile computer without pushing it to the limits of what it can do. Sure people shouldn't cry when they break it, but if bpapa doesn't understand why people would hack it in the first, he's simply not the adventurous type and should stick to nice, safe products like the jitterbug. : )
    • lmtis, on 10/18/2007, -3/+0Hopefully? Why would you care what some fool wants to do with the expensive toy they bought?
      • lharrod, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3I don't care what people do, but when they flood forums with their whining because their hack was busted by an update, it's irritating and pointless.
    • willynilly, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Why would this ***** remark be modded up on a site like Digg? Much of the hacking has less to do with third-party apps than unlocking the damned thing and enabling OWNERS to use the device as they please.
  • postalblowfish7, on 10/25/2007, -9/+284the SDK will work for developing for the iPod touch as well.
    • Ireland, on 10/22/2007, -16/+69It's good to know you can read.
      • lharrod, on 10/19/2007, -2/+12It's good to know you can point out the obvious, while attempting to make people feel dumb.
        • michigander, on 10/20/2007, -1/+5It is good to know you can point out the obvious of the obvious, while attempting to make people who make other people feel dumb even dumber.

          Ouch, my brain hurts.
    • digudown, on 10/19/2007, -3/+22It's a service to those who did not bother to read the aritcle ;)
    • punkrockxtian, on 10/19/2007, -2/+2Maybe I'm dreaming a little bit but wouldn't this open the doors for VOIP iPods?
      • DerekJ212, on 10/19/2007, -1/+10Mine didnt come with a microphone.
        • frostieDude, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3People have grafted third party microphones onto iPod before.
    • theprez, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3You could have at least quoted:
      "P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for iPod touch. [Oct 17, 2007]"
  • Kerr, on 10/20/2007, -7/+70This is good news indeed, not only iPhone but iPod touch...
    • dylan420, on 10/18/2007, -11/+5So are we touch users waiting until Feb 08 as well? I might have to jailbreak before that....
    • xerexes1, on 10/22/2007, -5/+19Sorry, I meant to digg you up. Too bad Digg doesn't have an "undo" feature.
      • justinviger, on 10/22/2007, -0/+17I agree. I have done that a lot.
      • DharmaTurtle, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Excellent! Instead of 30 seconds of loading time, you've just increased it to 5 minutes. Muy bien.
    • insomniac8400, on 10/18/2007, -17/+1Why good news? The newton is going to come out, and make the iphone pointless.
      • BHSPitMonkey, on 10/18/2007, -1/+17The Newton already came out, and I'm afraid you missed it.
        • insomniac8400, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Some kind of pda is coming. Otherwise an sdk would have been available from day one for the iphone.
      • alefox, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2yeah, it came out then apple discontinued it :(
    • darkciti2, on 10/18/2007, -3/+1I think it's going to be based on Adobe's AIR or something similar (seriously - this isn't spam).
      http://www.adobe.com/devnet/articles/air_sample_ap ...
  • onus88, on 10/20/2007, -4/+76Sweet, I can't wait. I'm glad that we can stop playing the "cat and mouse" game now.
    • dcmjzero, on 10/18/2007, -17/+7supposedly it is only signed apps... which will pretty much mean nothing free and/or open source...
      • Me1000, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2Stop talking out of your ass, and wait like the rest of us!
      • byleth, on 10/18/2007, -0/+0Why was he/she buried for saying that? If I pay full price for ANY piece of hardware, I expect to be able to do whatever I want on it.
  • anteyekon4myst, on 10/18/2007, -18/+7Confirmed: Duplicate Story appears above another!
  • hellogoodbye, on 10/17/2007, -3/+4Awesome! Can't wait.
  • PunkFenixJT, on 10/19/2007, -6/+30does that mean by February I can have an IM client that won't get removed after software updates? Still waiting for native ichat....
    • sleepwalkers, on 10/22/2007, -2/+29Why did you update when you had a hacked iPhone?
    • nariposa, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1Does meebo.com work in the browser?
  • udahlen, on 10/18/2007, -3/+8Very good news.
  • puddi, on 10/23/2007, -3/+112While this is a duplicate, I do prefer the link straight to Apple over the link to Engadget. Dugg this one, buried the other!
    • cakeeating, on 10/18/2007, -3/+14Yeah. I was thinking the same, but the Engadget one is a permalink - this one just goes to the Hot News homepage - which means in a week or whatever, something entirely different will be living there - Leopard-related, most likely.

      Quite a conundrum.
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/18/2007, -18/+5They aren't really third party apps if Apple has to digitally sign them all. That makes Apple the publisher, which gives them control and a cut of the profits.

    Plus the thing is still SIM locked.

    Apple, you're still having trouble with openness.
    • CryoNine, on 10/18/2007, -3/+10Sorry, where did they say they had to be digitally signed by Apple? They said that Nokia did something with digital signatures for applications, BUT they never said they were going to use this system. As far as the SIM being locked... that's not because Apple doesn't want to be open, it's because they have signed exclusive contracts to provide the iPhone only through particular cellular companies. They can't exactly just ignore that for the sake of giving you your non-AT&T / insert-Europe-Carrier iPhone.
      • HappyScrappy, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5'Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example, is not allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known developer. While this makes such a phone less than “totally open,” we believe it is a step in the right direction.'

        RTFA.
    • sholt, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4Well, really, Apple need only act as the keymaster for their own PKI implementation.

      Do one of the TLS cert authorities publish every SSL webpage? Of course not.
      • HappyScrappy, on 10/17/2007, -2/+3Oh, you think Apple will require the apps to be digitally signed just by accident?

        They wouldn't bother requiring them to be signed if they could be easily signed by anyone. There would be no point.
        • sholt, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2Of course not by accident. Signed code can be traced back to the author(s) in the event of malicious/dangerous code. Non-repudiation - look it up.
      • Ben174, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5That's a good point. Signing and approving are two different things, and so far - he's only mentioned signing. Let's hope it is just some (free) fingerprint you obtain from Apple, which they can easily revoke if they discover a malicious application.
        • sholt, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Well, revoking a public key is simple; all the tech is already there, Apple just needs time to engineer and test the infrastructure.

          4 Months is plenty of time to do that.
  • nunofgs, on 10/18/2007, -11/+3Hmm, it seems the software will have to be digitally signed in order to be executed.

    They mention only "known developers" will be able to have these signatures. I'm assuming you'll have to submit your software to Apple for review and, if they approve, they will give you a signature.

    In other words, developers will only be able to create apps (read: no access to the hard-drive), so no hacks for Springboard, etc.

    Of course people will find a way around this so I guess it will be the same cat-and-mouse game.
    • postalblowfish7, on 10/18/2007, -1/+6no, he sited digital signing as a way that other phone companies have protected their hardware - nothing has been confirmed yet.
    • mrgreen4242, on 10/18/2007, -1/+6Even if they do a digital signing system, I doubt they will review all the code for all iPhone projects - that really opens them up to significant liability in that they've actively endorsed something and if they're wrong people will blame them. What's more likely is that in order to make get XCode (I'm assuming this will be based in XCode) compile an iPhone/touch application you'll need some sort of certificate that you apply for and download through ADC, and that unique number will be embedded in the application. If Apple catches wind of some program that is harmful in some way, they can revoke that particular developers code in a software update as well as track them down via whatever info they gave during the registration process. This lets them protect members with only minimal resources devoted to it and lets them cover their ass as well.

      At least, that's how I'd do it, unless they want to have very tight control over applications and only sell them through iTunes, etc, which also wouldn't surprise me.
  • blondon, on 10/19/2007, -21/+11ok now STFU
  • colincornaby, on 10/20/2007, -3/+82Now we can prepare for iPhone dominance.
    • skinfitz, on 10/17/2007, -5/+8So long as we also get iSend-text-messages-to-more-than-one-person-at-once and i3G and iUpload-files-using-safari then maybe.
      • lharrod, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5Give it time. Those features will come for sure.
        • skinfitz, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Well if they do I might consider one. Until then I'm not holding my breath.
  • Ben174, on 10/23/2007, -23/+69I wouldn't get too excited yet. By "developers" he might just mean big players like PopCap Games, etc., just like the iPod. I seriously doubt it'll be open season for anyone to install anything they want on their iPhone, as installer.app allows now.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/18/2007, -10/+11Yeah, glad you're not getting dugg down for this. Several of us pointed out the same stuff directly above you and are getting buried for it.
    • johnnybluejeans, on 10/18/2007, -3/+28Honestly, I don't think they would make this public announcement if that were the case. I think they would just silently recruit developers and announce to the world that 3rd parties have begun work on "exciting new products".

      I'm sure their distribution model will have restrictions, but I expect it to be in line with how the Sidekick works -- only allowing you to sell software that has been approved by Apple.
      • HappyScrappy, on 10/23/2007, -7/+6I personally think they're making a public announcement because the device's image (and perhaps sales) are suffering due to the perception that Apple is stifling the device with their policies.

        So a big showy announcement is in order, and this is it.

        What we really don't know yet is who will be allowed to develop, and if individual products will be vetted. There's a good possibility Apple will be controlling on what individual apps and capabilities are added, keeping 3rd parties from advancing the device in the way you might otherwise think.
        • Refrag, on 10/18/2007, -1/+5This is a big showy announcement? I don't think you've paid much attention to Apple if you think this is big & showy.
          • HappyScrappy, on 10/20/2007, -0/+1It made the front page of cnn.com and news.bbc.co.uk. That's plenty enough. They're only really trying to turn the impressions of the press anyway. If they can turn the press (as they did when Steve returned), the press will stop writing nasty things about them and the problem is solved.
        • milkmage, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1you DO realize that only a very small fraction of the iphone user base even knows this discussion is happening, and an even smaller percentage knows what a 3rd part app, or SDK is, right? perception is not an issue.. oh, and check the this morning's WSJ. phones are a huge source of revenue this quarter - i doubt sales are suffering.
      • Ben174, on 10/23/2007, -6/+6Approved apps means a very expensive signing process. Only giant companies will be able to afford Apple's signing fee. And you can be sure as ***** those apps won't be free. No thanks.. I'll stick with installer.app for now.
    • mrgreen4242, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Even if that is the case, it opens another door for people to get their own software on there as they're expanding the number of people with access to the SDK and the scope how how (official) software is loaded to the device (now it's only through factory loads or system updates from Apple - this would presumably mean there's some kind of standardized installer available, etc).
    • Ansible, on 10/17/2007, -4/+4Got to agree - they're going to cling to their business model any way they can, and that business model doesn't include people installing VOIP and pissing off AT&T. I'm very skeptical about this. Didn't they already announce '3rd party apps' and it turned out to be nothing but web/javascript apps? I anticipate some kind of limitation here at the very least to appease AT&T.
    • AndrewWiggin, on 10/18/2007, -0/+8I don't think he means just big players because otherwise he wouldn't have had to say anything about viruses and malware. If the SDK was restricted to the big players then they wouldn't have to be worried about malware, obviously it would be a controlled environment.
    • EdwardsNH, on 10/18/2007, -0/+21Uhhh... did you read the article? "...and enabling hundreds of new applications for our users."

      Hundreds, he said. And, they're doing stuff to avoid malware and viruses. That doesn't sound anything like just a few "big players".
      • HappyScrappy, on 10/17/2007, -3/+4Yeah. 20 from PopCap, 20 from EA...
        • EdwardsNH, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Ok, once again... Uhhh... Have you been to the iTunes store lately? Do you see hundreds of games?
      • GreenAlien, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1"As long as the SDK exists, then it doesn't really matter. It will leak soon enough."

        If you need to obtain a signed certificate then it will matter. That can cost money and no amount of hacking will sidestep that otherwise there would be no point to signing apps.
      • physivic, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1'doesn't sound anything like a few big players'

        Yes it does!!! Hundreds for a phone that sells in the millions, especially to technophiles, and is projected into the tens of millions in its first major iteration?

        anyway... I truly think it will be as open as they think safe
    • GreenAlien, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3I highly doubt the SDK will only be available to the big players, but I do think there will be some restrictions to do with security. Developers may need to get their apps digitally signed. Steve essentially alluded to that in his post when he mentioned about Nokia/Symbian apps. I think the only thing in doubt is whether it will be free to make apps, which will affect freeware/open-source developers.
    • dagamer34, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3As long as the SDK exists, then it doesn't really matter. It will leak soon enough.
    • virtualball, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Even if it's to their company friends, at least we'll get some fancy looking and useful apps out of it :)
  • RadicalEdward, on 10/20/2007, -14/+8edit: removed stupid comment.
    • digudown, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5nothing is too stupid for digg. Actually it might have been funny.
      • neuropsychguy, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4Not true. A lot of things are too stupid for Digg. The parent just had the good sense to delete whatever he/she wrote unlike so many other Diggers. :)
  • SirZRX, on 10/18/2007, -14/+1who is my bitch now steve?
  • tocheeba, on 10/18/2007, -3/+5Now everyone can finally rest....and perhaps I'll revisit the idea of purchasing one, come February. I'd love to pick up a used 4gb one for cheap. I just cant justify renewing my contract with AT&T (which I'm currently out of contract), for a phone with no price discounts & lack of 3G.
    • etandrib, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2You can have my 4GB iPhone when they release the 3G version in the Spring. :)
  • dizavin, on 10/18/2007, -10/+20awesome! finally! yes!

    I mean, come on.. am I the only one here that's actually a bit hyped about this? if this means I can get 3rd party apps on my touch, know that they'll work and NOT void my warranty, then I'm all for it. I haven't hacked my touch yet because, even though Apple is being a bit of a dick about opening the thing up, I think that its about a million times worse for some joe to require that I totally demolish my warranty status to try out his app that may or may not even work properly. and if it doesn't he won't take any sort of responsibility for it. I mean, what the ***** is that all about?! you talk as if Apple is some totalitarian oppressor for just taking a while to get the 3rd party support (that we now have proof that it was the idea all along. just sayn'.) out there, meanwhile these guys doing jailbreaks are being built up as low-key ipod and iphone liberators.. and they've set it up so that you, as the end user, will bear ALL the responsibility and ALL of the cost if their home-brew hacks and jailbreaks come up short for any reason whatsoever.

    wasn't patience a virtue? or did that stop somewhere around 2001?
    • betojf, on 10/18/2007, -1/+7You can always restore the firmware on the touch. It is never irreversible,clearly you do not need to be trying to hack your touch if you don't know this.
    • etandrib, on 10/18/2007, -1/+6I think this announcement in OCTOBER means that Apple wasn't planning on creating an SDK when they announced it in January and then decided to offer "Web Apps" and see how that went. It was mediocre and people have really been yelling and screaming about it (read Digg lately?) so now they are finally announcing their "plan" to offer an SDK.
      If you have read about or hacked your iPhone then you'll know that it isn't really setup internally for 3rd party developers. There are a lot of security and organizational measures that have to be changed before you can create a stable app. Also because the iPhone is built on Leopard they have probably had to share resources getting the iPhone out and now Leopard. I expected an SDK by next June. February is pretty early if you ask me.
  • dheaddy, on 10/18/2007, -12/+5Holy duplicate story Batman!
  • fumblr, on 11/09/2007, -5/+42Where is the SDK for the AppleTV there is so much potential but no action, Apple has forgotten about my poor AppleTV.
    • sholt, on 10/18/2007, -1/+9yes.
    • kindwarrior, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1(chuckles) I think the truth is that the AppleTV is kind of a marketing beta product; Apple's still feeling it's way around. Hopefully the Q will give them some insights.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2true dat. Glad I didn't buy one.
    • etandrib, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1November is a long month with lots of room for Apple TV and movie (HD) announcements. *wink*
    • dagamer34, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Movie producers would rather not have Apple monopolizing over the very profitable DVD sales they enjoy now.
    • moocow1452, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Well you could always, "Force Open" Source.
  • CoolWind, on 10/18/2007, -16/+5I think Stevie wants to control every app that goes on the iPhone. Why? Extortion. In other words, no freebie software for iPhone customers/suckers.
    • ElBob, on 10/18/2007, -4/+8Great speculation there chief! I like how you've basing a guess on data you got from... A GUESS!

      Awesome!
      • ZPWeeks, on 10/18/2007, -2/+2That's why he said, "I think," dumbass.
  • bhattsan, on 10/18/2007, -15/+4"And since the iPhone is the most advanced phone ever"
    lol
    • fanboydcs, on 10/18/2007, -2/+10it is, why do you think its so popular? if the hardware isn't (which it is) the software is the most advanced by far.
      • BRODEL, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2I'd agree with you if the thing at least used 3G.
  • TwoLOUD, on 10/18/2007, -17/+2How many DIGGS are really needed on this? WHO GIVES A *****!
    • logicbus, on 10/18/2007, -1/+8Yet you clicked on the link to get here, and scrolled down to create a new thread.
      • chrislee149, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Well, generally one diggs a story when one "gives a *****".

        There. Both questions answered.
  • Sawta, on 10/19/2007, -3/+32I still find it bizzar that I don't own an iPhone, nor have any inclination to get one, but even I was excited about this news. Hell, my heart skipped a beat. Perhaps I'm just excited because this will spell the end for articels complaining that the iPhone doesn't have SDK..of course until febuary, people will be whinning about it not being out soon enough.
    • ElBob, on 10/18/2007, -17/+6Two things. One: Shut the ***** up. If I don't like listening to Russian music, I don't listen to Russian CDs. If you don't like reading about the iPhone, don't ***** read about the iPhone.

      Two: If you are not going to shut the ***** up, at least hit the spell check button. It's there for a reason.
  • signal15, on 10/18/2007, -1/+11Hopefully this will allow *ANY* developer to make apps for the phone, and not just developers that have paid for a signing key for their apps, or pay to have apple review and sign the app.

    Although, the Sidekick has a developer key that you can request and install on the phone. Then you can install your own apps on the phone with that development key. Maybe Apple will do something along those lines?
    • ElBob, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2Actually that last part is a pretty damn good idea. Got any more details on it? I guess what I want to know is if the key is tied in to your IMEI or something, thus limiting its use to your individual phone.
      • johnnybluejeans, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4I had a developer key back when I had a Sidekick. It was free -- just had to sign some EULAs that basically said I couldn't sell the software unless I went through them. The developer key makes any software you create traceable back to you as the developer -- this helps to keep you from 1) selling the software against the terms of the agreement and 2) creating malicious software that will again be traceable back to you.

        It did not prevent you from distributing your software to others.
  • theskyman, on 10/18/2007, -13/+1Buried again and again and oh one more time!!!!
  • cthellis, on 10/18/2007, -1/+5Well, everyone smart was saying "It's going to be based on Leopard, which is currently unreleased, so let's wait for Leopard and see what they announce before all the doomsaying, guys." We just got a more specific release date a few days early. ;-)

    Now we just need to know the distribution method.
    • dagamer34, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1iTunes? Was that ever really up for debate?
  • diggdean, on 10/19/2007, -1/+11Yet another "personal message" from Jobs? I guess he's really interested in the iPhone.
  • weslobombs, on 10/18/2007, -11/+5someone should make a retrospective blog entry about all the ***** people were talking on digg and put it back in their faces.

    all of the REAL apple fans knew this would come all along.
    • ZPWeeks, on 10/18/2007, -1/+4Please stop giving "apple fans" a bad name.
    • Refrag, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Well, the people that follow Apple news and have memory greater than a fruit fly knew it was coming because Steve Jobs had already said they were working on it. It was not a formal statement though, so I guess most people either didn't see it or ignored it. Still, you'd think someone on MacBreak Weekly or the Apple Phone Show would have shed some light on this fact.
      • sholt, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2They'd be panned as fanboys - and rightly so.

        Drawing conclusions from the rare off-handed comments is rampant rumor-mongering, and little else.
        • Refrag, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Not when it is a public comment from the CEO.
      • Refrag, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1.
  • atb112, on 10/20/2007, -8/+29I can't wait to see how pissed off everyone will be after Apple announces the apps will only be available by purchasing through iTunes.
    • 5wallace, on 10/20/2007, -3/+21Actually, I wouldn't give a shi!t. I will pay for programs that are approved by apple and guaranteed to work update to update. I don't mind paying a reasonably fair price to avoid the headache of hacking my phone.
    • cthellis, on 10/18/2007, -1/+0They won't, really. They're already quite happy with iTunes being the official distribution model with everything else, and once the SDK is out there, people can use whatever means to "unofficially" do what they want with it; you'll just get the same level of "we don't support it" for those elements as we currently do for everything else.

      If some folks are perfectly happy to risk bricking to bring things about, why would they be squeamish of an official and unofficial channel.

      Developers may be less happy, though, as I rather expect we'll see some tighter reins put on what they can offer and what they can charge for their applications, but... in the end I think they'll be happier, as even if they get less per copy, iTunes itself is the best advertising they could possibly give their apps, and draws way more eyeballs, so they'll sell in much greater volumes. (ESPECIALLY if they forced to be "reasonably priced.")
  • saveryuk, on 10/19/2007, -1/+31Let me just say that *now* I'm interested in getting either an iPhone or iPod touch.
  • EnderMB, on 10/18/2007, -10/+3In all honesty I think it's a bit late. By then I reckon some other manufacturer will have a new model announced to beat the iPhone.

    To me, the iPhone has already served its purpose. It's made mobile phone/cellphone companies get their asses in gear.
    • grayBot, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4....a bit late? please try to remember the full history of the ipod and how it was quickly/continually updated/developed.

      What do you think steve is gonna do with his favorite little phone ? .... let it sit there while others copy it and develop "killers"

      No. No. No. Steve wants this phone to dominate ALL "smart phones" , I'm also fairly certain he will use the iphone to crash the "cheaper" end of the mobile phone market as well. Despite Apple's infamous "secrecy" Steve has said multiple times he wants apple in your home/car/pocket ...read everywhere. While I'm not claiming to know exactly what Apple will do , I think their strategy(s) are not difficult to imagine in the long run.

      Finally, what will happen AT&T/the cell phone industry in general in a easily imaginable future when we can just skype/iChat/whatever via wireless Internet over apple's phone ? ... They will die quickly and loudly.

      I could not imagine Steve has not thought of this and why the "iphone" is designed to be as much of an "internet device" as it is a phone. Apple wants to kill AT&T as much as we all do :) .... not that having apple dominate an industry is necessarily good ... I'm just saying the strategy seems clear and rational enough...
      • EnderMB, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1The Mobile Phone industry isn't going to let Apple take this one though. It's all and well using the iPod as an example, but there are hundreds of manufacturers at this game, who've dominated up till now. Companies like Nokia have very strong developer fan bases, and if they were to create an iPhone rival then I'm sure they'd become the "Firefox" of the Mobile Phone arm race.
  • skinfitz, on 10/18/2007, -1/+8Aha... perhaps I might get one after all then - (assuming they release a 16Gb 3G version)
  • nihilo, on 10/18/2007, -8/+3Anyone hear MacBreak Weekly this week. This is exactly what Leo Laporte asked for. Tell us if one is coming. Wonder if Steve is listening to MBW now....
    • ragdus, on 10/18/2007, -1/+5I'd like to think that Apple as a company isn't directed by what Steve hears and likes from Leo Laporte
  • Ireland, on 10/18/2007, -0/+12FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY!!
  • Bonzaisushi, on 10/18/2007, -0/+8this is an incredible move for apple, watch the stock rise again.... as more and more people come over to the iphone side. Good move steve.
  • durangotang, on 10/18/2007, -1/+13***** YES!
  • amneosis, on 10/18/2007, -1/+17*checks URL at least 10 times to ensure it's not a fake*
  • kindwarrior, on 10/18/2007, -1/+4Well, I have just been totally vindicated with my take on the whole iPhone hacking thing -- excuse me while I buff my nails on my chest.
  • method77, on 10/18/2007, -7/+4I don't care about this because one way or another, apps will get on the iPhone. The real problem is EDGE. If Apple doesn't drop it and use 3G here in Europe, they will fall behind.
    • johnnybluejeans, on 10/18/2007, -2/+8For most applications EDGE will work just fine. I'm sure 3G is around the bend.. when battery issues and whatnot have been worked out.
    • adude, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4I just got an iPhone and I was actually pleasantly surprised: I had heard so many bad things about EDGE that I had really *low* expectations :)
    • BlueStarr, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Give it a rest....at least for a couple of weeks will you!

      Bitchy little snot!
    • citizen132, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2As someone (or many people) commented above - EDGE is going to have nothing to do with getting the apps on the iPhone. That would be a very slow and arduous task (very unApple). It will undoubtedly come through iTunes, many downloaded right from the iTunes Music Store. Apple will eventually move to 3G, after the price of doing so have come down. In the meantime, it will force developers to make very efficient software.

      Besides, if Apple feels they are falling behind they will just put 3G in sooner.
  • forcedfx, on 10/18/2007, -5/+2If Apple allows everyday users to begin building "signed" apps they'll probably charge a fee to get your own signing code. RIM does this to access certain features of it's SDK for the Blackberry that it deems a security risk. Last I checked RIM charges $100, Apple will probably charge $1000.
    • peestandingup, on 10/17/2007, -2/+3But RIM doesnt require that apps have a signature. Its just a "trusted apps" sorta thing. Im sure Apple will require it with all apps & charge a good price for it, so that means no small developers. Im sure they'll be a hack for that too though ;-)
    • colincornaby, on 10/17/2007, -3/+2I doubt it. Apple will probably warn you when you install an unsigned app, but I think they'll let you do it.
      • peestandingup, on 10/17/2007, -2/+3You haven't used Apple's products very long have you. They never "let" users do much of anything.
    • BlueStarr, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1No-no...A million dollars!!!!one!@eleven
  • TigerMarc, on 10/18/2007, -5/+10This is AWESOME! Now, I will go out and buy that iPod touch -- even though it's missing a physical volume button.
    • kelly, on 10/18/2007, -4/+9Check again... there *is* a physical volume button
      • EdwardsNH, on 10/18/2007, -2/+5He said touch. There isn't one for the touch.
        • ncaauwe, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Yeah, that and external speakers are two things I seriously miss from my iPod touch compared to an iPhone. But that double-tap home button feature is great. You can double tap it even while it's asleep and it'll immediately bring up playback and volume controls right there without having to unlock it.
        • davidpower, on 10/18/2007, -0/+0you can do that on a 1.1.1 iphone..

          but those are lame anyway!!!!

          1.0.2 FTW
  • Proctor, on 10/18/2007, -10/+1The iPhone will be old and rusty by feb. My iPhone has a few dents already.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.