What is Digg?70 Comments
- unloud, on 10/11/2007, -16/+72Hint: Give us an actual ***** SDK. You have OS X on the phone; let us program for freaking OS X!
- miyamotofreak, on 10/11/2007, -2/+24It's just because they don't want Skype and Adium on the iPhone taking away profits
- noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -8/+29I think it is great how iPhone apps are starting to stream out of development while the rest of you bitch about an SDK.
- d00d, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17Spectacular, we're only a few features away from cloning Slashdot's comment system.
The overlords will be pleased. - speaker219, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17WTF Happened to Digg's commenting system? It freaking slowed the whole site down and it sucks!!
- iceoofaapl, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14I'm pretty sure what apple wants to do is to give us anyway possible to have 3rd party apps at launch, and work on stabilizing the application environment for an SDK to be released for 3rd party apps later. Apple is just trying to make the phone the best they can within the short period they gave themselves. They don't want people complaining that they released some crap phone that is constantly crashing because of terribly written 3rd party apps.
I applaud Apple for doing what they did, but if they don't release a SDK in the near future (before or with v2.0) I won't be very happy. - robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10You mean like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton
you = fail - Sandwiches_Time, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13$1000? Where the hell do you guys even get this stuff? Try $499.
- zephc, on 10/21/2007, -4/+14you hate the letter "j"?
- pevensen, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Hear, hear!
I want to be able to install stand-alone applications that don't require one to be attached to the internet, not to mention all the drawbacks sited in this article: web browser interface, difficulty navigating to an app, having to host the app, etc. - PowerLlama, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12@godofpumpkins
then they should probably stop selling all of those Windows Mobile and Palm devices who have SDK's. - darkten, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Ummm..."OS X on the phone" is a stretch methinks. As a developer, one should always be mindful not to mix the "marketing message" with the "capabilities reality".
- jedioniram, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Do other phones stop users? I don't use smart phones, but people I know who do and some who program seem to be able to get programs for what they need or, I'm sure, would write them themselves. If it's not a concern with other phones, why should the iPhone be different?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Those are web phone apps. I have tried them on my free lg phone and they work fine there too.
- PiGuy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Threaded comments!
- totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Only diehard Mac fans will buy it as a "super iPod". "
I disagree. The vast majority of casual users don't give a *****. Its the diehard smartphone fans who are demanding an SDK and foretelling "disasterous" failure if one doesn't come out THIS YEAR OR ELSE.
Most people who buy the iPhone aren't looking for "SDK available" on their checklist before buying one. Its going to sell out regardless. - Icebird, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5yeah, but it takes forever to fetch comments. It makes the overall site load faster if there are too many comments, but they need to fix the time it takes to load fetches.
- lordtyros, on 10/11/2007, -19/+23What I don't understand is if OS X is invulnerable to viruses and malware, why is Steve Jobs afraid that someone will use an iPhone SDK to break it? Wouldn't the ***** be invincible no matter what?
- darkten, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7I really wish this VoIP nonsense would go the hell away as well. ATT sells many freakin' phones that run VoIP apps. They just sold another as you read that. This is an Apple decision, 100%...and all of the folks that are clued up devs know *exactly* what I'm talking about...but for those in the cheap seats, here is the scoop:
Apple doesn't want any 3rd party apps on the phone proper that would "expose" them. - bsolidgold, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4http://www.duggmirror.com
Nice mirror of the Apache "Service Unavailable" page :) - ibis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Then how come all the other phones that are used on the AT&T network manage to have publicly available SDKs?
- chapel, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Exactly, its all about not wanting VOIP on the iPhone. The day Apple gives an SDK is the day that a VOIP App is developed and then the phone is used in pure data mode. Cingular/ATT no longer get their voice control.
Im sure Apple would love to allow full app writing on the iPhone, but its probably one of the drawback parts of the deal with Cingular/ATT. - LoganT, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'm starting to think it was Apple who didn't want 3rd party apps; not Cingular. Is it really Cingular who doesn't want 3rd party apps because of Skype and Adium? I would think the same thing but, there's a Cingular 8525 that has WIFI built in and runs Windows Mobile, you can install Skype on that.
- darkten, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Yeah...I heard this wishful thinking with the iPod too from a lot of my dev friends when games came out. Lotta 3rd party iPod killer apps out there...
Oh wait. - godofpumpkins, on 10/11/2007, -9/+11I think the point is not so much being immune to viruses as being able to mess with the wireless carrier. People want a native SDK to do native stuff, like open sockets and send stuff over the network. It's a perfectly normal thing to do on a standard computer, but is difficult to regulate in the OS, which could lead to someone writing simple programs (they wouldn't be worms or viruses, and would be difficult to exclude) to DOS the wireless network (the phone network) around them. I'd imagine it's mostly pressure from cingular who doesn't want to deal with rogue iPhone owners overloading their network with custom software.
- PiGuy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3FYI, you can do this with a Windows Mobile phone by creating an IE shortcut and appending the URL at the end in quotes like you would in a Windows URL shortcut. You can then name it whatever you want and even launch it with voice command by just saying the name of the app.
- derekivey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Anyone have a mirror?
- moisie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I agree, at a bare minimum a phone should be able to record poor quality video to amuse my mates and for me to clog up youtube with.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Town,
Actually I have forgotten more than you know. What they are gonna find is an ARM processor with some kernel on it that was provided by the cpu maker that apple then tweaked into the iPhone interface. I suspect the process was almost exactly how they developed the iPod embedded software.
I know what you won't find on this phone is anything that resembles desktop OSX.
I still bet there are fair odds that this is built on CE core, and Apple only developed the presentation layer. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I think the no-sdk thing is part of the RDF. Jobbs has staked a lot on the idea that this thing runs full OSX. I don't doubt that some OSX code is on there, but this isn't a full version of OSX. I am wondering if it is a marketing decision to secure the OSX brand, rather than the operating system.
As of now, all we know is that this thing runs Windows CE with an apple developed appliction running on top of it. It would be a huge embarrasment and stunning defeat for Jobbs if he has to admit the iPhone is actually just a application running on windows CE, and that would be apparent in the SDK.
Given the whole apple philosophy the last few years has been to surrender to wintel (with the safari port it is certain that Dvorak was right and Apple is simply gonna rebrand Vista and call it OS11 or whatever) and admit defeat while saying what ever to takes to keep the fanboys loyal. - TerekKincaid, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Ugh, I wish they wouldn't refer to it as "iPhone Development". It's not development, it's web apps. You can use these stupid apps from any computer (now that Safari runs on Windows, too, fancy that...). This isn't development for the iPhone, it's just making Safari apps the iPhone can use, amongst other platforms. The iPhone will fail to become mainstream if they don't put out an SDK stat. Only diehard Mac fans will buy it as a "super iPod". If corporations can't put their proprietary enterprise software packages on these things like they can on the Blackberry and Windows Mobile devices, this thing is sunk. A few hipster doofuses trying to act cool aren't going to carry this thing. Having a closed platform is why Macs only have a 10% market share now. And that's only a 3-way race! In the hyper-competative mobile market, this thing is doomed from the start. If there is no full SDK by the end of the year, this will be the only iPhone we ever see, and it will be a disasterous failure.
- EntangledPhysx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Now if I could only read the article, I'd be all set.
- mrtherapist, on 11/28/2008, -0/+1This is so old.
Soooooooo out of date. - 1town, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You obviously know nothing about neither Windows CE nor OS X, but that is irrelevant, cause the minute the iPhone hits the streets, people are gonna tear it apart and find out exactly what is going on behind the hardware. No need for an SDK there.
- koko775, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Exactly! We're bitching that there are no iPhone programs; Apple's phony (ha ha) web app spin implies that you can have programs on your iPhone. A processor in the hand is worth two (or many more) in the net.
- moisie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Perhaps apple want to ensure that the quality of experience is entirely at their control to start with. Apps no doubt need to be well optimised and stripped down to run on the thing, they don't want some random third party app slowing the thing down to a crawl. This isn't like laumching a new Mac, which is a risk in itself. This is an entirely new business for them, a potentially billion dollar business, to start with they need to be in control. Once the thing takes off then they can begin to open it up, it's not as if they haven't got enough on their plates just launching the thing.
It amuses me that so many people are moaning about something they've yet to use. It's not as if everyone runs a phone on which they install a ***** of extra stuff. Most consumers change the ringtone and wallpaper at best. - TheRealDeal, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5Absolute fabulous idea. I hope that Apple is listening and incorporates the author's ideas.
This really would make for a much better user experience for 3rd party iPhone "apps".
The next step, beyond fixing the presentation of the 3rd party apps, would be the inclusion of something like Google Gears to allow offline usage.
For example, I shouldn't need to be connected to the net to use a shopping program... - superkendall, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1The author is just triyng to claim credit, for an idea that is obviously going to occur. It actually makes less sense to disallow widgets on the iPhone than not, since they have Safari and Dashcode would be a great way for people to put together the widgets.
- robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@PowerLlama
Palm, WindowsMobile, and Symbian were created from the ground up as mobile OSes- OS X wasn't. Programmers don't have a fraction of the capability as they do with the iPhone. - Gee1004, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2This is Apple's product. Let them win or lose. I'm sure alot of other developers are willing to abide by Job's fantasies.
- 1town, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3How come something this expensive can't even make toast? I bought a toaster for 20 bucks last night, are you telling me that somethings that cost 500 dollars can't make toast? Outrageous!
- Dankoozy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3if they could make it so you don't have to connect to the net to send emails it would be good. maybe it can deliver them via telepathy or something
- dazzum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Here we go again, with Apple repeating the mistake of going in favor of closed systems when the technology world is going the way of open platforms. No wonder their market share on the desktop is what it is today. I would think that in this case, as in the past, Apple wants to have the upper hand on any new apps that are developed, and the carrier wants to maximize billable data traffic on their networks, that's why it's all web server-oriented.
- easysnowboards, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0you can sure type, but reading isn't quite up your ally. if you visit http://www.apple.com/iphone/technology/ it says right there "OS X."
- blueskytt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well, you can join the underground development team like I have done. I have used the following link: http://code.google.com/p/iphone-dev/wiki/Building to successfully build a tool-chain on my Fedora Core 5 OS - Intel processor laptop. I have joined ADC, and fetched MAX OS X 10.4u SDK and other documentations to develop the native apps for my iPhone. To test my tool-chain out, I have download two sample apps from the underground iPhone development team, built them, and executed them on my iPhone. Since my iPhone is on my home network, I can access it using ssh and scp. I am working on my app now using ObjectC and Cocoa framework.
Please try the above link - Hope that you will have as much fun as I have had with this magnificent device called iPhone - smhill, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1So much ignorance.
"Omg, right now our $1000 phone doesn't have any support for downloadable apps, even though there are many phones below $100 that do."
Yes, and how much do you pay for these apps? Crappy little apps for crappy little phones that usually have monthly charges associated with them.
Web apps == free. You don't have to pay you carrier, ANYONE can develop them using tools they already have.
"and hey it has a web browser - so you can write apps for it in JAVASCRIPT!! and the user pays AT&T each time he wants to use it."
Most apps now require airtime. You are already paying for them. I think the package they are selling is always on broadband. So no, you are not paying additional air time, you pay a fixed monthly fee.
"because it is actually running off someone elses server, not the phone itself. and we all know how much bandwidth Web 2.0 sites/apps waste"
Bandwidth is cheap. Web2.0/sites/apps don't waste bandwidth. In fact the conserve bandwidth assuming the are developed properly. And just how many iPhones are there going to be in the next couple of years? How much traffic is going to be generated from a limited amount of users, using infrequently, loading small pages? Use your brain.
"Javascript.. what a joke that was. People have hacked it to ***** so it actually slightly useful at the expense of a metric ***** of processing power. but you gotta be smoking crack if you think it even offers the slightest bit of competition to standalone compiled binaries that run off the system itself."
Wow the ignorance just keeps coming. In case you have been asleep for the last few years, more and more apps are moving to the web using js and becoming very popular. Is a binary more efficient? Sure on the processor, but no on every other aspect. Deployment, delivery, updates, wider audience. Building native apps for the iPhone is just silly. A pain to develop/compile/install/test. This method all you need is a text editor and Safari. Patches can be released instantly, the user never has to upgrade their version, the benefits go on and on. Also you are talking about a small screen and most apps are going to connected in some way. Given the power, what exactly do you think you are going to be missing by not using a binary?
I can only assume you are not a developer based on your silly statements, so it pretty pointless for you whine about something that doesn't apply to you.
The simple truth is that there will tons of iPhone apps right out of the gate. There are at least a dozen or so right now. It it great model for both developers and users. - randyrandall, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2How come something this expensive can't even film video? Sod the developing tools, get the bare basics sorted first.
- jknightwi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0If you think there is loyalty to us developers from Cupertino you should ask all of us old Newton developers what they did to us almost 10 years ago. They lied to us until the very end when they canceled the product. What a nightmare for us developers....many of us will not trust Apple again (Steve especially) because of what he did to the Newton development community.
- vil33, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2How come when i got to www.digg.com on firefox, it says site down?
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is