AT&T gifts iPhone, Apple contemplates 3rd party software access
By Conrad Quilty-Harper 
posted May 13th 2007 12:52PM
posted May 13th 2007 12:52PM
Your latest "anything iPhone related happens" post is here, this time with the news that AT&T has given away an iPhone to a member of the public, coupled with a recent statement that Apple is wrestling with the decision of whether to allow 3rd parties to develop iPhone apps. It's rather odd that the first iPhone to make it into the hands of a mere mortal didn't cost its new owner a single cent, but in a video taken at the commencement ceremony at West Texas A&M University, the CEO of Cingular Wireless Stan Sigman gave away an iPhone to one Dr. O'Brien. (At least, that's what the very crackly movie of the speech shot on a Treo appears to indicate.) The statement about the 3rd party iPhone software comes from a similarly authoritative voice -- Steve Jobs -- and through a clearer medium -- a phone-in of a recent Apple shareholders meeting. Jobs said that the company "is wrestling with" the decision to allow external developers to create their own software for the iPhone. Our wish is for Apple to open up the iPhone, or at least compromise and allow developers to create their own widgets. In the phone industry, standing still (which is effectively what Apple would be doing with a closed iPhone) is not an option: or, maybe it is. Hmm, we seem to have missed the smackdown.Read -- AT&T's Stan Sigman gifts iPhone
Read -- 3rd party iPhone apps?
google maps = 3rd party
It'd at least be worth it to have some other apps on there--widget or not. Something compatible with MS office is a definite must if they really want to own the smartphone market.
Steve jobs come on
why would you have a closed smartphone? I mean seriously
how awesome it wil be to open up to 3rd party developers who will
just make your beloved phone that much more interesting. Imagine using a mac version of office on the iPhone?
The ipods success was mainly in part of the many 3rd party vendors releasing add-ons for it.
The answer is so obvious-apple/jobs say down with drm but they conntinue to fully support their closed antics.
Opening the iphone will just lead to other great things-imagine the possibilities wow
It's kind of pointless, I can't imagine that you would ever want to use this thing as a smartphone without a keyboard. Combine that with lack of 3G, and that ensures that this phone, like most apple products will only be purchased by over-eager fanboys.. Combine that with the reluctance with which many mobile developers will approach any attempt to develop software for an unproven, most probably bug-ridden OS..
deepmisc isn't this a keyboard?
http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/5625/phonewx4.jpg
Get real, you troll. It's the hottest new smartphone to hit in a LONG time. Every developer under the sun is going to want to develop for this thing. You can hate Apple all you want, but an ultra-portable device running OS X is awesome, and you know it.
Having mulled over the spec sheet of this smartphone for a while now the only thing that I can find that's 'smart' about it is the interface.
By the time it even launches here in the UK you'll be able to get a mobile worth half as much that can do twice as much.
I can't help but feel that this first generation iPhone will largely be carried by it's branding than anything else over here. Locking down the platform will only impede it's market share even furthur.
That's my take on things anyway.
Waht means „can do twice as much”.
I really cant understand why:
more functions = better
It is not!
This toaster can access the web, it has a lcd display and you can surf while wating for your toast. It even warns you when you're going out of toast.
You should take that over that simple to use toaster, which is realible and does what it has to. because it has more features. And you will learn fast how to navigate through the mirriads of options to get to the toast function.
This view ruins design!
Marketing research should never be the primary base for design: people just want more stuff for free.
I … and you, if you're not the CEO of MS or Apple, don't need a ton of bs applications. This ony complicates simple processes like writing an idea into your notebook.
Never underestimate the power of looks. In america, at least, we'll vote for something pretty as opposed to something smart.
Or things that look like monkeys / horses.
That's not a keyboard, it's a picture of a keyboard you can poke at.
@Andy:
I'd say I'm about 95% sure that Google Maps on the iPhone is not third party. It's an apple developed google maps application using the google maps api...
At least I think that's the case. Keeps them in line with their "no third party apps" thing at least.
The iPod's succes was not because of third party add-on, for holy something's sake … The iPod was a fine example for reduction and focusing on user experience and easy access.
I wish Apple to stand firm and not open the device for third parties. It makes no sense.
It does what it has to and that in a brilliant way. Better than any other cell-phone. It is a phone and it should stay a phone. The can't keep up the quality of the UI when they can't control everything, I'm afraid.
It makes, in my opinion, also no sense because the great majority of users don't need that, although forums like this here seem to show into the other direction. But this is a gagdet-fans blog ... nuff said.
Personally I find it sad that a lot of people want to be entertained by the device, kept busy by it. Just fill out their time with playing with the device.
Thus the device becomes „content”. But it's not. It's, as every computer, supposed to be a tool.
In addition you can be entertained, because the iPod functions are there … and that should be enough.
I even find movie watching on the go too extreme. If you've got to watch TV on the go, you've got a serious problem - but that's only my opionion.
What else do you want? Let me guess: gaming.
More features will just complicate a device that is not supposed to replace a computer - btw: Office is really a stupid idea on a cell phone. Surfing already is … Get one of those mini pcs for all that ...
If they complicate the device any more, I'm out.
Cheers.
why would you have a closed smartphone? I mean seriously
--
hackers. next dumb question?
I completely agree, nfoo.
nfoo - A toaster! Really?!? That's a terrible comparison! This is a smartphone that we are talking about. Functionality coupled with wow factor is exactly what these devices are all about. It's the whole reason why the PDA was invented, and why the PDA died out - functionality. Why carry a PDA and a phone when you can combine the two - I give you TREO. This is a market where the demand for features by the consumer dictates what's hot and what's not. No cell phone/smart phone is getting simplified.
Yeah. All those hackers getting one over on linux.
I'm not so sure it was a dumb QUESTION, but the answer ... well the answer speaks for itself.
The problem with not addressing folks leads to confusion and posts sounding stupid. Now, I know Matt, for example, wasn't calling me a troll, because my post merely brought home the point only the noobs think linux isn't secure because it's open source. And I'm sure he isn't a noob.
As far as whether the original question was dumb ... if Jobs is mulling it over, it can't be that dumb, can it, my applets?
Third party software would greatly extend and enhance the apple phone functionality and appeal and help it gain marketshare, IMHO. It's what third party software usually does.
There are several reasons against making it an open phone, including the cost of providing technical support (both for Apple and for AT&T), the ability to "hack the system", and the potential loss of revenue for AT&T (Skype in wifi mode, etc.). I am sure there are other reasons.
I hope that they will see the light and make it open anyway. Otherwise, they just don't get it. It's the 21st century, dammit!
I really don't understand the allure of an iPhone... I got a Zune and an amazing slider phone that isn't locked out to anyone, and I got them both for $450. I think it's stupid to pay several hundred dollars to say "This phone was made by apple" and "I only carry around ONE device!" I already have more than 8gb of music on my Zune, and my phone does exactly what I want it to do. I don't need a brand to show people my phone.
I think people really need to think about this one before they decide to drop that much money, and have a contract. Personally, I wouldn't be caught dead with an iPhone.
You don't throw down 500 for a phone that's just a phone, 'nfoo'.
The iPod shook up a stagnant market, the iPhone is attempting to muscle in on one of the most volatile technology markets going in my opinion.
It'll be interesting to see whether this unit can survive the onslaught, and also whether Apples new model turnaround will be fast enough to keep pace, since their initial outing is already beginning to trail prior to launch.
I guess we'll see soon enough.
Well, yes, actually you do, because it is very well designed. Functional, intuitiv and beautiful.
This kind of thinking of yours leads, I'm sorry to repeat, to the death of design.
price = number of features?
NO!
We are at more features = better again.
THAT'S BAD!
And to continue:
Because it is a first generation device, prices will drop, if successfull.
And: it is an iPod. At least the music funtionality is as easy usable as the iPod and that is great when compared to the catastrophical design by others, so you don't need to buy one. Steve Jobs explains it. It makes sense.
Btw.: all smart phone OS are really shamefully designed. They are not designed. It's just your typical unispired pc OS transferred on a small device, which should work totally different than a pc because it's not a pc, has a different form factor and different fields of use.
And in addition, it is actually the first phone I would consider to use for music playback.
Me as example:
When it comes out in Germany, my iPod will be about two years old and my cell contract runs out. I can now choose to buy an iPod or more expensive phone with music features.
I wouldn't do that with the badly designed UIs from Nokia, Sony Er., Motorolla and so on. It's just horrible.
But with the iPhone and the close interaction with my Mac: why not? It's 500 both ways. But the iPhone is way better designed than anything else. Given that Apple stays the only one developing and watching over it.
"You don't throw down 500 for a phone that's just a phone..."
You don't? Well, I do.
I've been searching for a new phone for about a year now, and I've looked at all of them. ALL OF THEM. Most had neat features but just aggravated me in some way that made me want to keep looking.
I will happily pay $500 for a phone whose "killer app" is making and receiving phone calls. The iPhone's included iPod functions are just a bonus.
I understand some of you don't "get it", as you have different criteria for your mobile devices. But for me, it exactly when I've been looking for.
Lol.
This isn't the phone for everyone. It's amusing but meaningless to persuade people to purchase this thing or not. Like previously stated--this is a gadget-fanboy haven and as such attracts people who like the latest electronic gear.
Most phones have the same features--so if that's all you care about get the cheapest one. If there is an x-factor that you need to fulfill in order to be happy with a particular purchase--be my guest I won't hamper you.
I'm thinking hard about making this purchase for my OWN reasons. I hope that you all do the same when purchasing any and everything your little hearts desire.
Peace.
Come on Steve.. I'll give you the solution..
One of the factors that made the iPod very successful (in a certain time) is "Accessorize your iPod", We now have thousands of iPod Accessories. So what about the iPhone? It's the same thing. 3rd Party Applications will be iPhone's accessories.. They'll give the iPhone the same success. Imagine a world of 5000 widgets in the first month of iPhone launch. Imagine how can Apple buy a software from a 3rd party developer and enhance it. I can't see the iPhone with a closed OS.
I hate to piss on your bonfire 'nfoo', but I AM a designer.
Features only complicate the process if you've implemented them ass backwards. If Apple were so inclined, this unit could be modular, based on its OS. Shipped with the basic featureset and then user defined from thereon to cater from 'the noob to the nomad'. Which might yet happen with this 3rd party debate.
So long as the appropriate hardware is onboard, and not sucking juice unless it's 'activated' through installation of the modular software of course.
Well, I'm a, too ... and I'm not a web page maker, or some of those folks that like to call them designers and don't know what they're talking about. No, art direction.
So, what do you do?
(Btw.:
I knew that some guy would start with the „Piss on your hat: I'm a designer.” stuff.)
And: from the noob to the nomad?
It's screen is too small for anything but displaying. And messaging ... waht they did in addition is very well done. Cramming in applications just to satisfy feature whores doesn't make it better.
Those beloved features you're talking about:
what could they possibly be? Hm?
Ah, let meeee guess:
Games, Remote control everything now with the iPhone, Control your kitchen with iPhone, Games, Themes and skinning - everybody just loves that, hm?, Games, Remote control, Word, Excel - hahaha ...
Don't you get it? It's supposed to be ALWAYS online and has A FULL FEATURED BROWSER: WEB 2.0.
If you need any apps, do it online. Apple knows that and that's why they worked hard on a FULL browser and not a crappy mobile version.
Think about the form factor please. Innovate! Invent new interfaces ... don't just do the same crap on another device.
Of course, the iPhone is not the reinvention of the wheel, but it teaches everybody how rethinking and focusing of on the tasks it is for can lead to something very, very good that nearly seems new.
I am really glad the the design process still works at some companies. Jonathan Ive does a real good job explaining those industrie designer what to do and he does a really good job in letting them help him to figure out what's possible in mass fabrication.
At Apple neither industrial designer nor it guys do the design, as at most companies, so it seems, but designers tell those guys what to do and just let them figure out the boundaries. That's the right way to do it.
Just look at the shuffle: serendipity. Just great.
But just because iTunes makes it great. Stick it in, pick it up and you don't even know what iTunes put on it this time: surpise, surprise. Wonderfull, from a designers view.
Cheers, mate!
"Don't you get it? It's supposed to be ALWAYS online and has A FULL FEATURED BROWSER: WEB 2.0.
If you need any apps, do it online. Apple knows that and that's why they worked hard on a FULL browser and not a crappy mobile version."
Good luck getting that to work on an airplane at 30,000ft (one of the times I most appreciate having a smartphone with me). Web apps can't even compete on PCs with their broadband connections and big screens. Good luck getting a good Web 2.0 experience using 2G data and a small screen (made even smaller when you have to have the virtual keyboard on the screen half the time).
Dude i would have read ur comment if it wasnt sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
long.
You know what, your aggressive overtones are beginning to annoy me on what is otherwise an interesting discussion about the pros and cons of mobile versatility.
I can't be bothered dissecting the rant you've made, or the 'mines bigger than yours' rhetoric but it would appear that you've already put your money and heart on the iPhone from your succession of comments, and you're perfectly entitled to do so. I hope it doesn't disappoint.
Personally, I'll be investigating the N82 that was featured here on Engadget a couple of days ago, because I just don't buy into Apples first foray into this field.
Wait,wait, wait, wait a minute, man ... weren't you the guy that told me „hate to piss on you bonfire” and pulling the designer „mines bigger then yours” bunny out of the hat?
And know you telling me something about „agressive overtones”? So now you're preaching morale. Come ... on!
What do you think about the Web 2.0 apps I pointed out? Don't you agree with me there that in the not so far future the casual user will only need online apps?
With the increasing bandwidth it will make almost no difference anymore if it's on you hard drive or not.
You already can use basic apps, such as word processing, online. I guess you can use that through the full featured browser Apple has focused on, duuh ;)
So Apple is, in my opinion, far ahead of the time. With it's first foray into this field.
So how's Nokia doing?
A Ferrari has most the same features as a Ford Focus. You folks can keep your Nokia N series or Blackberry, I want me a Ferrari.
That's entirely the wrong analogy. The iPhone is more along the lines of a luxury train service. It'll get your from point A to point B in style but where and when you can go is limited by the train company's schedule.
A Ford Focus might not be as luxurious or as trouble free, but you can do and go wherever you want with it. Drive it when you want, where you want. Take your friends with you. Pimp it if you want. If the iPhone were a Ferrari it'd be able to do pretty much everything the Ford could do only better--that's not the case.
Online apps are all well and good, but whilst internet access through a portable device is charged per carrier premium, it just isn't viable to anyone not willing to sign their life away on an expensive per handset contract. Carriers as they are seem to be quite happy to saboutage the wi-fi and VOIP capabilities of modern handsets so I doubt a change in pricing policies is on the cards any time soon.
If mobile internet usage was tied to the same allocations that landline internet contracts are, so that you're not double charged/over charged for bandwidth, then online usage for the mobile has a future. Currently, even here in the UK, I can think of only one broadband supplier that also has a mobile network capable of negotiating this transition. (V Media)
My professional comments were in reference to the patronising nature of your incessent hammering of my perspective.
On the one hand you're trying to argue that advanced functionality is absurd for the mobile device... and yet you're also now saying that online interoperability is the future platform to provide this advanced functionality...
So I'm totally bewildered as to what you're point is now, and in the interest of getting these comments back on topic, I'm going to bite my lip and stop replying.
Sorry folks. :o)
It amuses me to no end that people are actually arguing FOR closed system and no third party apps. First, I don't remember anybody ever holding a gun to my head and demanding I install a third party app. If you don't want the "hassle" of third party software, don't install any. As for support issues and system integrity I don't see AT&T or any other provider having difficulty with current smartphones. Second, if you think less is more then just buy a regular phone--why fool with the expense and complexity of the iPhone in the first place?
Personally I like being able to stream TV and music from my home cable box, DVR, and computer. I like 3G high speed and being able to tether my phone to my laptop for access. I like being able to use Skype and a multi-protocol IM program on my phone. I like being able to have tons of books and their associated readers on my phone. I like having AvantGo, RSS readers, and usenet clients on my phone. I'm rather fond of my TomTom GPS software. My universal remote software comes in handy. So does my remote desktop software, and Microsoft Office applications. I enjoy not having to re-encode my media files because I can install whatever codecs I want on my phone. I enjoy Sudoku on my phone and the thousands of other games and apps that our out there (many of them free).
Hell, if you love closed systems so much give up your computer and get WebTV--the rest of us want third party apps.
When you launch a new product it comes under fire, especially when you are apple and especially when it's a completely new market for you.
IMHO there is *NO* doubt in the mind of most mildly competent analysts that *eventually* the iPhone will be opened up for development (perhaps some qa process will be required)... but look bottom line.. you launch a new product would you rather:
A) Be disliked by developers and technophiles because they can't push/get their software on the new phone
or
B) Be immediately disliked and discounted as a player by your paying customers/reviewers/analysts because their phone keeps crashing?
Cmon guys, put on your thinking caps. This isn't a tough question.
So many people here have been 'brainwashed' into thinking that in order for the iPhone to succeed, it HAS to perform 8 trillion different 'business-related' tasks, or MUST have 3G, or be allowed to sync with [insert your favorite Windows software crap here]... right off the shelf.
Some of you act like 'spoiled brats' and if the iPhone doesn't wake you up in the morning, cook your breakfast, do your taxes & wash your socks faster than whatever device you currently have attached to your ear / hip - then it isn't worth the money and everyone should avoid it like the plague.
Well guess what? Then don't buy it.
It's just another device... that's all.
And if you disagree, then you're probably someone I mentioned above who says 'it doesn't perform (a), (b), or (c)... or it's way too expensive." etc., etc.
Well guess what? Then don't buy it.
It's just another device... that's all.
Whether you like Apple products or not, you cannot deny the fact that - for a few moments - the iPhone has made you:
(1) stop whatever you were doing.
(2) think & discuss the future of the telecom industry.
(3) and seriously compare the iPhone to the one you're currently holding in your hand. (or were planning to buy.)
That alone, is a marvelous achievement for a company that has NEVER made a phone before.
But I'm sure some of you still won't be 'impressed' until the widescreen ZunePhone is announced in 2015.
"The iPhone won't allow 3rd-Party apps... this sucks."
So What? Then don't buy it.
--------
"The screen is too small. It will scratch/smudge too easy."
So What? Then don't buy it.
--------
"I can't use Skype. Cingular sucks."
So What? Then don't buy it.
--------
"Doesn't have 3G so I can't make calls on the plane. Apple doesn't know what they're doing."
So What? Then don't buy it.
--------
"Won't run any MS office apps. It's gonna flop."
So What? Then don't buy it.
--------
"Apple is full of hype. Short on features."
So What? Then don't buy it.
--------
Let's face it... the iPhone will be considered by many to be a 'luxury item' amongst the rest of the mobile handsets on the market.
Don't like a certain iPhone features, or lack thereof?
Then don't buy it.
Stick to your current tactile-keyboarded, 3G-connecting, 3rd-party granting, free-Skype-dialing, windows-mobilized, bluetoothed, black-jackin, Zune-swappin, Motorizon, SprintBerry monstrosities.
It's just another device... that's all.
no question they'll allow 3rd party apps. this being the only smart phone with a real OS on it, it would be downright stupid not to.
the original reasoning not to allow them because a stray program could bring down the network is just silly. just make the networking APIs on a high enough level that that can't happen. since when can a single PC bring down the internet? it can't.
hackers? where are the hackers for Win mobile or symbian? non-existent.
Apple has some control issues.. time to get over that.