Developers and the iPhone [Archive]

View Full Version : Developers and the iPhone

Spin This!

06-12-2007, 04:49 PM

I have to agree with Gruber (http://daringfireball.net/2007/06/wwdc_2007_keynote/) on this... you can do some amazing things with web apps but direct access to the hardware won't be possible.

Too bad we won't be seeing GPS using bluetooth... cool uses for the accelerometer (some guy wanted to write a "labyrinth" style game)... etc.

I really hope Apple reverses their decision on this and writes an API for the iPhone. Maybe it'll happen later but until then, web apps are all we got for now.

ebrunn

06-12-2007, 05:20 PM

I say its a pretty good temporary solution.

joe

06-12-2007, 05:26 PM

I say its a pretty good temporary solution.

I agree! If you get an iPhone on the 29th you'll have a lot of apps ready and waiting for you. :smile:

wjp09

06-12-2007, 05:26 PM

They could expand in the future also.

Spin This!

06-12-2007, 07:38 PM

I agree! If you get an iPhone on the 29th you'll have a lot of apps ready and waiting for you. :smile:
apps... if you mean web pages. ;)

Vagabundo23

06-12-2007, 07:41 PM

I'm desperate. 18 days is too much for me, but im waiting

robhon

06-12-2007, 07:43 PM

I say its a pretty good temporary solution.

That's the same vibe I'm getting out of it. I think Apple is keeping the lid on tight to start. Then as they can feel assured that everything is secure they'll start opening up the iPhone to outside development.

BTW, the labyrinth game with the accellerometer sounds totally sick!

joe

06-12-2007, 07:45 PM

apps... if you mean web pages. ;)

Nah, I mean web apps, "apps" for short. :smile: Applications are relative. They can be served locally or remotely. This is the idea behind a lot of what Google is doing these days. Webmail is an example.

Vagabundo23

06-12-2007, 07:50 PM

HTC's iPhone rival set for U.S. launch

Taiwan smart phone maker High Tech Computer said Tuesday that it will launch one of its own branded touch-screen phones in the United States by the end of the year, as it seeks to compete with Apple's iPhone. The company's second-half U.S. launch for its newly released HTC Touch phone (http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9725515-7.html) follows a recent release for the model in Britain, said Chief Executive Officer Peter Chou.
The model, a so-called smart phone with cell phone and personal digital assistant (PDA) capabilities, will use touch-screen technology similar to that of the iPhone, which is set for release on June 29 (http://news.com.com/The+great+iPhone+hunt+of+2007/2100-1041_3-6190529.html).
"We've finally walked out of our different twists and turns," Chou said, a reference to his company's recent shift from making phones for other firms, known as original design manufacturing (ODM), to making phones under its own HTC brand name.
Chou said non-ODM phones now account for more than 70 percent of the company's sales.

wjp09

06-12-2007, 07:50 PM

nice sig quote rob :)

Cantwait4iPhone

06-12-2007, 08:07 PM

I say its a pretty good temporary solution.

Definitely. This isn't necessarily the only thing they will do for developers on the iPhone, but rather a step in the right direction. I can't wait to see exactly what they are talking about.

JHMirage

06-12-2007, 08:41 PM

Nah, I mean web apps, "apps" for short. :smile: Applications are relative. They can be served locally or remotely. This is the idea behind a lot of what Google is doing these days. Webmail is an example.

Not to be nitpicky, (I know you were trying to lump them together) but web apps can't be served locally. They can only be launched from their host environment. The might run locally, if they're predominantly JavaScript/AJAX, but you'll always have to go back to the source web page to launch that app again.

Hence the distinction he was making between visiting a web page, and the more general term "apps" which implies a much richer set of capabilities.

Don't get me wrong- you can do amazing things with toolsets like Google's GWT, but it's still not a true local app, and IMHO is a fairly poor substitute for true iPhone developer support.

I love the idea of the iPhone, but Apple really cut my anticipation down twice in the last two days... first by effectively announcing no formal 3rd party app support, and then by revealing that there won't be support for Flash at launch.

Still a very cool phone, and with the capacity to be much cooler still, but I think calling support for JavaScript-rich web pages a "solution" for the 3rd party developer concern is quite a stretch, even in the reality distortion field. :smile:

mav

06-12-2007, 09:45 PM

I say its a pretty good temporary solution.

I personally think this solution sucks. As a web developer myself, web apps are powerful but can never replace local apps. However I understand Apple's reason for not allowing third party development against the iPhone. I only wished that Jobs would have simply said NO SDK, NO 3RD PARTY DEVELOPMENT instead of sugarcoating it by offering this BS solution.

everythingiphone123

06-12-2007, 09:47 PM

I'm desperate. 18 days is too much for me, but im waiting
im the complete opposite... i think 18 days is a little small for all the information from at&t we need to recieve before launch. but i guess i can say im a bit anxious too:tounge:

ColsTiger

06-12-2007, 11:31 PM

I saw this today. It might be the first 3rd party app available for iPhone.

One Trip (http://www.modmyiphone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153)

Looks like a grocery list for you iPhone.:smile:

joe

06-13-2007, 04:32 AM

Not to be nitpicky, (I know you were trying to lump them together) but web apps can't be served locally. They can only be launched from their host environment. The might run locally, if they're predominantly JavaScript/AJAX, but you'll always have to go back to the source web page to launch that app again.

Hence the distinction he was making between visiting a web page, and the more general term "apps" which implies a much richer set of capabilities.

I don't think you read that correctly. This is what I said:

Applications are relative. They can be served locally or remotely.

The device is small enough and limited enough to not have much of a need for a "richer set of capabilities." A lot of functionality can be found in web-based applications especially with web applications built strictly for the iPhone. Besides, this is most likely a stop-gap, where developers will have more options available to them over time.

JHMirage

06-13-2007, 08:34 AM

I don't think you read that correctly. This is what I said:

Applications are relative. They can be served locally or remotely.

No, I understand what you were trying to say... that apps can be defined many ways. What I was saying is that the line between a web app and a client app is significant enough that trying to lump them together seems like a marketing stunt to me.

The device is small enough and limited enough to not have much of a need for a "richer set of capabilities." A lot of functionality can be found in web-based applications especially with web applications built strictly for the iPhone.

I agree with your second point, but absolutely not your first. The benefits of a local client app are, in many ways, more important on a handheld than in other form factors. The ability to quickly launch a chosen app from the main screen, the ability to store data (beyond just cookies) locally between sessions for easy access later, and the ability to leverage the common UI (even when the user changes themes, etc.) are all things that can not happen with a web app.

Plus, I'm going to be skeptical about how the demonstrated integration with iPhone capabilities works without an SDK until I can learn more. My guess is that these are features that were already planned.... it will offer to call anything that looks like a phone number when clicked in Safari... and map anything that looks like an address. That's very cool, but it's not a replacement for having an SDK which would let you tie those features to, say, a button or a label that doesn't actually show the phone number, but rather just descriptive text. These are the "richer set of capabilities" that every developer would prefer to have at their disposal, small device or not.

Besides, this is most likely a stop-gap, where developers will have more options available to them over time.

This is certainly true, but that's not the spin it's being given. Apple does us a disservice by acting like this is an acceptable alternative to opening up the platform for true 3rd party applications.

Realize that I'm not trying to go off on you personally... I'm just disappointed in what I see as an artificial crippling of a great piece of hardware. And this is coming from someone who has been building web applications for over a decade. I know the capabilities of that medium, and I'm sure we'll see very cool things coming out over the next few days, let alone months or years, but I'm not willing to let Apple totally off the hook. :smile:

RchGrav

06-13-2007, 08:58 AM

I love the idea of the iPhone, but Apple really cut my anticipation down twice in the last two days... first by effectively announcing no formal 3rd party app support, and then by revealing that there won't be support for Flash at launch.

I'm sorry, when was it confirmed that there will be no flash support? I thought this was up in the air. Also from the "Watered Down" commercial it seemed as though the flash objects on the page were loading. Source?

JHMirage

06-13-2007, 09:02 AM

I'm sorry, when was it confirmed that there will be no flash support? I thought this was up in the air. Also from the "Watered Down" commercial it seemed as though the flash objects on the page were loading. Source?

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/06/12/its-official-no-flash-support-on-the-iphone-yet/

I'm sure they're working like crazy to get a plugin done for flash... I'm a bit surprised it's not already available. We'll have to look forward to a downloadable update. Hopefully soon after launch.

robhon

06-13-2007, 10:59 AM

This grocery list is pretty cool. http://www.mrgan.com/onetrip/#

What's really cool about it (I suppose) is that, since it's web based, my wife should be able to make a list for me and then I can pick everything up on my way home from work. ...I'm notorious at our house for forgetting at least one thing I was supposed to get. No more.

ColsTiger

06-13-2007, 11:22 AM

robhon

06-13-2007, 01:17 PM

I guess you didn't see my post about five or six posts back. :laugh2:

No, I did see it. That's where it came from. I just didn't quote it. Sorry.

joe

06-13-2007, 02:48 PM

Apple does us a disservice by acting like this is an acceptable alternative to opening up the platform for true 3rd party applications.

I completely disagree with this. Would you like to use 3rd party web-based apps on your iPhone now or no 3rd party apps now? I choose the former, without hesitation.

Just because this is what Apple offers now doesn't mean that's it. Just like the features of the iPhone (they will change and improve over time) the developer integration will improve.

Of course stand-alone apps have much greater potential and cannot be completely replicated in a web app (Photoshop). However, I see the differences being much closer on the iPhone, for now, and that you will have some nice hooks into the iPhone's features even through web apps.

JHMirage

06-13-2007, 03:30 PM

I completely disagree with this. Would you like to use 3rd party web-based apps on your iPhone now or no 3rd party apps now? I choose the former, without hesitation.

What? That isn't the choice... those options aren't mutually exclusive. 3rd party web apps are always going to be available. As soon as Apple announced that their phone supported full Safari for web browsing, we knew that anyone that wanted to could provide web apps for the iPhone. (or, for that matter, any other web/JavaScript-enabled phone that exists now or follows.) Apple couldn't really not support them, even if they wanted to.

So the real choice left to Apple was to allow true 3rd party application development or not. At least for now, they chose "not" and that is disappointing. Having Jobs make a big "announcement" during a keynote about how their "solution" was to allow people to write web 2.0 apps for the iPhone is a smokescreen to mask their decision to effectively close the door on 3rd party applications. (for now.)

Again, I'm not denigrating the usefulness of supporting web apps. Very few other phones have full HTML and JavaScript capabilities needed to do this, and the folks at Apple are right to be proud of that feature. But it is simply not a replacement for application support. Supporting one doesn't mean you shouldn't worry about the other.

joe

06-13-2007, 06:44 PM

Again, I'm not denigrating the usefulness of supporting web apps. Very few other phones have full HTML and JavaScript capabilities needed to do this, and the folks at Apple are right to be proud of that feature. But it is simply not a replacement for application support. Supporting one doesn't mean you shouldn't worry about the other.

I think there's more to this new support of "web apps for the iPhone" than simply pointing out to a room full of very bright developers that anyone can run any web app on the iPhone. I'm pretty sure those bullet points Steve made are implying that there is extra support there for web apps written for the iPhone.

JHMirage

06-13-2007, 08:03 PM

I think there's more to this new support of "web apps for the iPhone" than simply pointing out to a room full of very bright developers that anyone can run any web app on the iPhone. I'm pretty sure those bullet points Steve made are implying that there is extra support there for web apps written for the iPhone.

I would love for that to be true, but I've watched it and to me they imply no such thing. Particularly since Apple doesn't offer any SDK (which one bullet point declared as if it were a feature, ironically) there really can't be much in the way of extra support. They do demo how the sample web app they created can integrate some iPhone features, namely dialing and Google Map lookups, but it's always when he clicks on a very obvious piece of formatted data... such as a phone number or an address respectively. I certainly don't have any insider knowledge but I would bet cash money that those exact same things would happen if you clicked on any recognizable phone number or address on any old web page... not just an app. So even that "functionality" isn't really a factor of the web 2.0 capabilities.

I suppose it is possible that there might be some custom X/HTML tags that the iPhone version of Safari could recognize to initiate local functionality, but that would need to be documented somewhere, and I've heard nothing about that. They certainly would have made that kind of information available to the WWDC attendees. They other thing they might do (eventually) is provide a Google GWT style set of JavaScript libraries to mimic the iPhone UI as closely as possible. (Interestingly, the community has already started doing that (http://davidcann.com/iphone/) on it's own.) But, again, if they'd had plans for that this would have been the perfect time and audience to announce it.

I don't mean to condescend or insult your intelligence. If all of this is obvious to you, I apologize for belaboring it. I've been developing web apps for a long time and AJAX-enabled web apps for the last couple years. I know this topic pretty well, and to a trained eye there isn't much beyond basic Safari being offered by Apple to beef up web apps. What makes it remarkable is that it's running on a beautiful handheld device rather than a full desktop, but I still contend it's no replacement for a client application development toolset.

joe

06-13-2007, 08:44 PM

I too have been developing web applications for quite some time. We both watched the same keynote and get different vibes from it. That's good. Here's an article today that seems to go right along with this discussion:
Developers split on usefulness of iPhone access (http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/06/13/iphone_dev/index.php)

JHMirage

06-13-2007, 09:08 PM

joe

06-14-2007, 02:07 AM

Offline web apps:

Google Gears adds offline capabilities to Web apps: Hello, Apple iPhone? (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/13908/)

doron

06-14-2007, 08:17 AM

I agree! If you get an iPhone on the 29th you'll have a lot of apps ready and waiting for you. :smile:

and one app that i am in high hopes of is the offc for mac (word-excel-access...etc.):laugh2:

iPhoneIT

06-14-2007, 08:26 AM

Web 2.0 + Ajax seems pretty cool to me :smile:

Spin This!

06-14-2007, 10:55 AM

Apple does us a disservice by acting like this is an acceptable alternative to opening up the platform for true 3rd party applications.Exactly... it's Apple's spin. I love Apple as much as the next fanboy but telling me I can write a web page, put it up on my own server, and "be able" to use it on the phone is like saying I can slide my finger across the phone to unlock it.

I love John Gruber's quote here: If all you have to offer is a **** sandwich, just say it. Don’t tell us how lucky we are and that it’s going to taste delicious.

joe

06-14-2007, 12:07 PM

I still think you are getting a little more than just any web app on your phone. Apple has rushed to provide a solution now before they provide a more secure and long-term solution for putting apps directly on the phone, which I appreciate.

I'm still holding out hope that something like Quick Look is on the iPhone.

BoxKrait

06-14-2007, 03:24 PM