As expected, Apple used WWDC as the stage to announce a third-party development solution for the iPhone, putting to rest fears that the handset would be a closed (
read: non-smartphone) platform. Calling it a "sweet solution" for allowing devs to get their wares onto iPhones across the globe without sacrificing stability or security, Apple is using its full Safari-based browser to let folks code up true, Web 2.0-compatible apps that can be accessed and updated on developers' own servers. Though any apps that third-party developers put together will run under Safari, they'll be totally customizable and maintain the platform's unique look and feel. Better yet, they won't require any special SDK -- Jobs claims that a working knowledge of modern web standards is all we'll need to code up custom iPhone goodies to our hearts' content.
posted Jun 11th 2007 11:13AM
BOARING KEYNOTE ... MAN .. I HAD EXPECTATION !
I BET APPLE STOCK IS DOWN
OMER LETS HOPE LEOPARD DOES NOT DISABLE ACCESS TO OUR GLORIOUS CAPS LOCK KEY AMIRIGHT?!?"!11
Apple Underwhelms - Forbes.com http://www.forbes.com/technology/2007/06/11/apple-developers-iphone-tech-cx_rr_0611applesoftware.html
"Investors didn't seem impressed either: Apple's stock dropped 3.5%, to $120, by the end of the day."
What's most shocking is that Forbes is a well known Mac only shop.
Over 1 keynote speech? Jesus calm down. Since when has ANY keynote speech been exciting? It's not a day in Disneyland. It's only Steve Jobs flapping his gums and wearing that ugly ass black turtleneck sweater and droopy jeans.
Freaking billionaire and Job always look like a Texas Tourist. (No offense to the state of Texas)
That´s what the world has been waiting for. A non pocketable cellphone with a screen that will crack faster than an old woman´s hip... goodie
is this good or bad, i do not have a modern knowledge of how the web works
This is a slap in the face. You won't see any third party media players, chat programs, web browsers, productivity apps, complex games, document handlers, and the list goes on.
The security story is a PR hoax. Windows Mobile is a secure platform, it's been mainstream for years.
Damn, looks like there aint gonna be any integrated GPS...Only a lame way to write apps wooooooo.
So document readers are out. I want to read PDF, Word, Excel, so I'm out of luck as I read it.
You said "putting fears that the handset would be a closed platform."
Did you mean "putting to rest fears" or "verifying fears"?
If the former, does the ability to run webapps hosted on the internet make really this a smartphone?
So it still really isn't applications on the iPhone. If the app is based on a server how exactly is this an app ON the iPhone?
Now instead of just developing the app we also need google-esque bandwidth if the app becomes popular. Do I see a website full of developer apps specifically for the iphone to support the bandwidth? Hold on I just patented that idea so I will sue anyone else thinking of implementing it...
As a programmer, I have two issues here:
1) This would be a wonderful solution if the iPhone had 3G all the time... but got slow or no network coverage and bye-bye apps. Lets hope there is a caching mechanism of some sort.
2) So now I need to purchase and deploy a web server just to develop an app? then pay for all the bandwidth my users use if my app gets popular? talk about barrier to entry.
I think what they meant was that you're given iPhone Safari as the platform for your apps. You don't host them, the app is in the iPhone and uses Safari to work. Now I don't know about the peripheral access, but I guess they'll make some tweaks to the iPhone Safari so that it can access the hardware.
Okay this means there is no way for Tomtom to port Navigator 6 software to Iphone. Basically there is no way to get a turn by turn based GPS navigation on Iphone unless Apple decide to add one themsevles which they will never do.
Byebye Iphone, I will stick with my treo 650 for may another year.
Actually, a navigator-type application is probably possible, although it wouldn't be quite as slick as a native version. It would essentially be an updated-every-10-secs Google Maps. You could also throw in a 3d-ish view. As long as the data that needs to be transmitted to the phone is kept to a steady trickle.
this is NOT a development platform for the iPhone, it is a way to write wep apps optimized for Safari on the iPhone. What bullshit.
web not "wep", that might be a confusing typo in this context.
and again, this is lame. If you are not a developer, here is an analogy:
This is like Chevrolet welding the hood shut on the new Camaro and telling you you can make it go faster by putting a lawnmower engine in the trunk and adding a 5th wheel.
This means you can make your own app run on the iPhone as long as the brains are on your own server (or, I guess, if you can code the whole thing in Javascript). The iPhone will apparently have a full Javascript implementation and will support the XMLHttpRequest call, allowing web pages to load data without doing a full page reload (which is how gmail and Google Maps work). You can make a good database-based app with this (like the LDAP address book app in the demo, or the Salesforce.com stuff they mentioned), even a marginally interactive and graphical app like Google Maps, but there's no way to e.g. program a fast-moving game with this kind of tech. Also, the data you're moving back and forth with the server better be small if your iPhone-client users are trying to work with EDGE as opposed to WiFi.
You could do a pretty killer app with Applets+AJAX+Flex+Flash+Google Gears. Pretty much anything you want to do is available right there.
(NB: Gears is Google's new offline toolkit. It comes with a standalone database server, an http server+uri-cache, and a thread pool to make things snappy. It only works under FireFox right now.)
I was actually hoping for a Google Gears announcement. Has Flash support been confirmed? I know there have been hints, but I didn't know if they had definitely confirmed. Certainly you can do just about anything with Flash, but GG support would have made Steve's One More Thing a little more convincing.
As I was discussing with a colleague, if he had just announced it as "first handlheld browser with full AJAX support!", I would have been somewhat psyched. By presenting it as "here's your (non-)SDK!" it was a lame letdown.
More to the point, no access to hardware. So no possible GPS, dial capabilties, access to microphone, etc.
This is quite simply spinning bad news (no third party apps) as good. What kind of personal device requires constant internet access? What happens when you're traveling? This thing deserves to be a dud. They are bonding it so tightly to one carrier, they might as well call it an OEM device.
I definately have to raise the BS flag on this one as well.
I'll buy the HTC touch instead. this iphone is useless.
oh, and what about Flash? Will this support Flash 9 player?
The article text needs to be changed. This does nothing but CONFIRM the iPhone is a closed platform. Ajax apps are not programs, they're scripts.
No third party movie players (you didn't want to watch xvid stuff right?), games etc.
check it out, apple stock droped 4 bucks so far. Someone else in that company had to know this was a really bad idea.
At least no one can say the stock drop was Engadget's fault now...
I could say I told you so, but i guessed that they would help with an offline api with 2G being so bad..
1) It will support ANYTHING Safari will support.
2) Tons of different apps are possible as a result.. just look at Facebook.
3)The Virus writers are not happy about this development..
Dude, I write web applications for a living and let me tell you, this is bad news. You are asking a limited processer/memory device to devote effort to running a browser AND all the application code over a very slow connection from a remote host.
Instead of
"2) Tons of different apps are possible as a result.. "
I think you meant
"2) Tons of different CRAPPY apps are possible as a result.. "
Excuse me?
How does this in any way slow down a virus writer? All they need to do is get you to do is click a link and then exploit any weakness in the browser (and yes, there have been exploits for Safari).
If anything, this makes it easier since people will be going to the web to get apps from unknown sources rather than purchasing commercial apps from known sources.
And while you can do some pretty neat things in a browser, the desktop application will always be more powerful and flexible - not to mention cheaper - remember, you're going to the web through a cellphone here.
That's not typically the cheapest way to use the internet, and without 3G or HSDPA, it's not the fastest either.
I agree with the general "WTF?" sentiment. This is not an SDK, nor would the "Web 2.0" apps be real apps. Oh great, I can "install" apps, and then not be able to use ANY of them if I don't have service.
Why is Google the only company that gets to write a real application for the iPhone?
I liked it better when it was a "closed" platform.
This doesn't make it any more "secure" either, unless Apple can somehow guarantee that there will never be ANY exploitable vulnerabilities in the Safari browser on the phone.
I'd rather have a Palm/Windows/Symbian mobile device than the iPhone. I'm sure I'm not the only long-time, hardcore Apple user/fan who is thinking that right now.
You mean the Maps app? Google didn't write that; Apple used an API Google licenses to cell phone developers. I seem to remember hearing that Google was stunned at how nicely the iPhone Maps app came out.
Woooo... look at that stock drop. No GPS, 3G, and third-party party apps what else would you expect. This is definitely blows for having third-party apps (I wouldn't even consider it that).
"this iphone is useless."
yeah, no one will probably buy it..looks like the end of Apple.
Well, I'd be lying if I said I was surprised. What you have here is Widgets on iPhone - kind of.
If Jobs actually means you have to download them to your iPhone AS a web page, this is going to be pretty weak. I'd rather Apple just open up a Java sandbox and let people play in there - that's what most cellphones do.
On the other hand, if you can download Widgets and run them locally - then this isn't quite so bad, even if not as powerful as actual apps. Widgets can do a lot, even if not actually talking to the Web.
I guess we'll know when the SDK comes out.
So far, Windows Mobile and .Net CF 2 is still looking more powerful and flexible.
They said that about the Playstation 3, too.
Oh... wait... :)
Here's the real issue no one has yet identified:
So iPhone is a 2.75G phone with EDGE. That means that when a data session is running (i.e. an application in a Safari browser and moving any number of bits back and forth to the application developer's server), then the phone cannot place or receive calls.
Now, who thinking this is good in any way? Oh, I guess now we know why this phone will need "visual voicemail" or whatever they call it.....!
That's not such an issue. Apple have already demo'd browsing the web via Wi-Fi and having a phone conversation at the same time.
That's browsing through wifi and getting a call. Browsing using your cellphone reception, EDGE, and getting a call isn't possible.
Be more informed before you speak.
> Browsing using your cellphone reception, EDGE, and getting a call isn't possible.
Actually with the iPhone it is. at+t is in a frenzy upgrading their network right now. How do I know? I'm one of the people doing it. They are expanding their EDGE capability in direct anticipation for the release of the iPhone. One of the reasons for the expansion is because the iPhone will use more voice/data channels (4 timeslots to be exact) than other phones, allowing you to have a data connection while on a phone call. At least this is what we were told.
Lame lame lame.
What happens if you can't get a connection (likely on AT&T)? Your app doesn't work.
You can't develop iPhone apps, you can only develop web apps that are optimized for the iPhone. The security issue is a red herring. What about Palm? What about Windows Mobile?
Bite me, Steve.
So this should be read 'no third party applications for iphone'. Hmm, it views web pages. My current phone thats a few years old views web pages. Probably the iphone will support javascript. still that doesnt mean it has third party software.
ability to view web pages does not equal third party apps. sorry to all you out there. its just some scripts that get run. and then you need a web server to support it. this means theres much more overhead to produce these "third party apps" for the iphone.
steve basically came out and said 'guess what, it views web pages, you can make applications there' and then everyone came out and said 'yay third party apps'
the iphone still remains a closed platform
I don't see how this means anything to anyone who's posted here so far as they are far too dense to read and understand information let alone be a developer of native applications of any consequence.
The web apps are not live, they are run locally and use the services tools on the phone to interact with the phone, to make calls, send SMS messages and so forth. They operate like widgets but without the widget UI, rather the iPhone app UI.
The point is to prevent the phone from crashing, it's software and system level security that is the concern not security from intruders. The reason this is a concern at all is because the iPhone hardware doesn't offer the same virtualization hardware you find in a real PC. It's a real-time device. You can't hog all the RAM, it can't swap applications out. One clown says look at Windows Mobile for a device you can write software for and yet is secure. Nonsense. WM is notorious for crashing daily if not hourly.
iPhone is a crowded room and you can't both allow people run amuck with the very limited resources it has and still attempt to maintain a minimum level of performance and reputation for reliability. How long before on of you dorks install a bittorrent client and then bitch on very blog in existence about how the battery only lasts an hour?
Too many idiots, so little time
I think you are right on the money. And web applications can call JavaScript, and native features can be safely surfaced through JavaScript as well. I guess no one who posted ever heard of LiveConnect in Netscape.
They should be thinking widgets calling JavaScript code that serves as an interface to the iPhone. If Apple surfaces all the iPhone API via JavaScript, then what's the complaint?
The level of understanding so far is pretty low ...
"How long before on of you dorks install a bittorrent client and then bitch on very blog in existence about how the battery only lasts an hour?"
Well, with the news of this lackluster announcement, the answer is probably "forever".
This announcement smacks of calling a liability a 'feature'.
Here's the way you deal with a reliability problem caused by real thrid party apps:
User- "My iPhone keeps crashing!"
tech- "Do you run any applications that didn't come with the phone?"
user- "Yes."
tech- "Sorry, we can't support a phone that has unlicensed applications installed. We need to set the phone to factory defaults first, then we can troubleshoot."
Don't you think Apple will leave a backdoor open for the creative among us? This phone will be hacked within months.
Well, I for one am going to hack it apart, and have it running fedora core AND lots of fun packages by bedtime. ha ha! ;-)
I still want to know does this mean for sure WILL THERE BE INSTANT MESSANGING on this phone? Or will I have to use Safari and log onto AIM Express?
What does is matter? The hype for it is so big that people will rush out to buy one anyway just so they can say they have were the first.
Maybe later, after all the warm and fuzzy vibes have worn off of being one of the first of having the latest, greatest thing ever, people will realize "What do you mean it can't do ... unless I'm connected to the internet? And how much is that again per month?"
'Cept of course us Engadget readers, we're the smart ones :D
What a crock. He didn't "find a way" to let them add programs, he merely realized that, if the iPhone wants to claim that you can use the "real" web, as they did in a recent television commercial, standard web apps have to be feasible on the device.
Blogged about it at:
http://blog.kylewild.com/2007/06/apples-confines-third-party-iphone.html
will Web 2.0 + AJAX allow developers to write an ichat-esque IM application? And does this mean that Google's online apps will run as well?
Oh, you mean like Meebo.com? I think that's as far as you get to 2.0 within that world.
I've never seen so many people complaining over a feature... Are you not entertained and excited?!?! It's a feature!!! At least that's what master told me :(.
No it's an excuse to prevent third-party applications from becoming a realization with the iPhone. Also, this isn't a feature it's just the web browser (Safari) doing its job properly. All it's doing is rendering a webpage and then the iPhone is detecting phone numbers/addresses and allowing you to either make a quick phone call or Google Maps lookup.
I was joking about it being a feature. And I really doubt safari can really render real web pages. The sites they went to probably auto-detected the mobile browser and presented a different, specially formatted, version of the page. I wouldn't put it past Steve jobs to go out and lie about what's really happening behind the scenes.
P.S.
Did they let anyone play with the iphone? I want to see a video of a real person trying it out.
also.. Does your phone let you use two fingers to resize images? Who needs games, applications, and functionality when you can pinch resize pictures? Shame that you can't send any pictures from the phone since it doesn't do MMS.
This is one of the worst solutions Apple could have devised for 3rd party Applications on the iPhone. We would have been better off if they just licensed Flash or something. We don't need new web applications Apple - if we wanted that, we would just point users to our web pages. We want to have access to the many features of the OS such as the rendering library, the effects library, the bluetooth library, the touch screen interface, etc. We want to be able to create applications that YOU don't want to create and the fact that you STILL don't get it and assume that we all want to make these little idiot apps for the iPhone is only going to burn you long term as people finally wise up and start asking intelligent questions like:
"If people have been writing custom applications for the hundreds of millions of other cell phones out there and not a single one has taken down a phone network, and in fact at best has only managed to crash the phone - what exactly is Apple trying to protect me from other than choice in which applications and service providers I will have on the phone."
Apple's position is a farce. They are doing this to maintain control of the platform for content delivery - not to protect us or the phone carriers.
If allowing third-parties to write native apps for the iPhone is such a bad idea, then I guess all these years of native Mac development have been a bust, eh Apple? Remember when the Mac first came out and the only apps were MacWrite and MacDraw (Apple applications)? Then PageMaker (a third-party app) came along and changed everything. It legitimized the Mac and literally saved it. Is Apple so confident they are so good that history can't repeat itself?
I'm no VZ fan, just a customer..if your device is not connected to a decent network, you are suffering through alot grief..the best of everything is still the Audiovox/HTC 6700 with Windows Mobile 5.0..and you can tether it to about anything using the internet available codes..Naples, Fl.
So this means that developers can have the ability to store all the data entered in the applications since they must pass through their servers... I DONT LIKE THIS AT ALL!!!
If you have to be connected to the web to run an app this should also hurt your battery life pretty substantially. I have the N95 and with wifi or edge going I definitely see a hit in performance, and the few apps I have which need internet all the time are pretty brutal on the battery. One program I have for downloading music, Symella, kills my battery at least 3 or 4 times faster than normal. Googlemaps is pretty bad as well. And considering how the iphones battery life isn't spectacular to begin with, you'll always have to worry about running an application as it won't kill your battery and make you unable to place calls. Bad move.
See, after this and the fact that the ichat is crippled, or actually doesn't even exist on the iphone, i realized there is no reason for me to want one.
seriously, i dont see how an iphone is even better than something like a sidekick 3. except a sidekick 3's keyboard doesn't suck and it allows for applications.
And how do they do it? Sidekick approved apps added to an official catalog.
Would that of been so hard, Steve?
And how do they do it? Sidekick approved apps added to an official catalog.
--
Look at how Widgets are managed. You go to the Apple Page, see all the approved widgets, and get them there.. That's why Apple should do..
They also could have used iTunes so you could just sync your iPhone and manage THERE.
Something about running actual programs on the iPhone Apple doesn't like?? Does is slow everything down or what??
Being able to run a web app inside a browser doesn't make iPhone an open system. All it means is iPhone has a web browser. I can only hope that iPhone users can download and install 3rd party plug-ins like Flash player and Adobe Reader. That remains to be confirmed.
All I can say is, this is great for PHP developers. PHP + iPhone = aPPs galore!
All other phones out today have "stripped down" web browsers BECAUSE of the limited bandwith on a phone... along with battery life issues, and data charges. You don't want to load a page optomized for a desktop on you phone.
You have been able to develop applications FOREVER for EVERY newer phone out there for a long time and you don't see companies running around just developing web apps for phones.
This could REALLY REALLY hurt the iPhone.
It looks like I'll be waiting for iPhone gen 2 when they will hopefully fix this >_
I love all the iphone haters fighting with the windows mobile people. I just have a couple questions for someone out there who knows what theyre talking about. Let me add that I will not be camping outside a cingular store.
1) Can one run slingbox mobile on the iphone?
2) Can one run stat tracker from yahoo fantasy baseball
3) Will we really have to use a crappy 3rd party program for aol im. There isnt a single 3rd party add-on which is decent at all
Thanks
If there are Java versions of Slingplayer and Stat tracker, maybe you might be able to run those through a web page.
For AIM, you will use AIM Express, and you will like it.
For AIM, use www.meebo.com, assuming it works under iPhone Safari.
So...
This is a complete reversal from Jobs' earlier statement that the iPhone would support third party applications. When he said that, we thought he meant "COMPILED" applications. Guess what: NOPE!
Sounds like they had to think fast on the best way to collect all the beans that Jobs spilled a few weeks ago. They replaced them with those magic beans we've all heard about.
We already knew the iPhone supported rich web applications via Safari. How is this *anything* new? How is it in any way "Sweet"?
I smell the Apple marketing Sleaze-Mo-Bile riding through a town near you... with an ancient 2G connection (Edge), a battery that can't be replaced, and a SIM card that is as permanent as the battery. You can bet they'll knock on your door - using the "Marketing Hype" as a sales pitch.
And they'll ask for a receptacle, because their iPhone's battery died.
All this crap that people are saying they want to run and whining about is pretty silly. Reminds me of the people who whine about the iPod not support ogg or something. That doesn't stop them from selling a ton of them.
I am not planning on buying one but I don't go around bitching about what the iPhone could have been or what apple should put on it cause I said so and I know so much about creating products and apple are just a bunch of morons who can't sell anything.
I think everyone is forgetting what Apple is about as a manufacturer, that being an organization that believes strongly in the experience, and about delivering finite functionality from the outset, and then responding keenly to customer feedback.
The iPhone does what it does really well, and will no doubt find itself a niche market and eventually cross that chasm to the mainstream. Do you think Joe public cares that it doesn't run some backalley . The advertising speaks volumes for who the iphone is for, those who want a phone that calls people, looks stuff up on the web, keeps their contacts and helps them get to where they are going.
Web apps are EVERYWHERE, so the business market will respond strongly with products like Salesforce, Copper, Basecamp, and any and all web 2.0 services (blogging, myspace, faceboook, twitter) being available from the beginning.
I do suspect the gen 2.0 phonee will carry wifi to offer VOIP based calls, and because it runs the full Safari kernel combined with a huge push toward widget development in Leopard (not to mention Google Gears) that we'll see a whole new market open up. Apple would be one of THE most reponsive developers, but it is always in line with a product strategy.
C'mon people, it's just so obvious that the product strategy is closely aligned with the iPod, and we all know how that turned out.
Argh! Why haven't they gone with J2ME (CLDC and MIDP)? It's got a proven industry track record, is supported by all the major phone manufacturers, is known to be secure and gives the manufacturer control over which parts of the hardware can be accessed (additional JSRs are available for Bluetooth, GPS, etc.) They could even add additional classes such as those developed by Nokia to support non-standard features.
Markoff: "And what are you thinking about Flash and Java?"
Jobs: "Java’s not worth building in. Nobody uses Java anymore. It’s this big heavyweight ball and chain."
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/ultimate-iphone-faqs-list-part-2/
Are any of you going to actually accept this as a CHALLENGE, and see how far it can go, or just sit there and complain?
Hah. Apple is hoping to god that all of those trnedy "switchers" out there, being oh so easily swayed by those extremely technical commercials they run will be fooled by this announcement. "Hey look! Apps...kind of...not really...but ignore that. We're Apple, and you're trendy, so buy from us!"
I was excited about the iPhone. Now they've shown me that beyond the gimmicky touch screen, there's really not much this device does that others don't. In fact, it does less than some. Apple is ruining their "breakthrough" device.
I think we need to read between the lines of the speak by Steve.
Think about wath Silverlight is and also what SVG "was", and maby with the Iphone/Savari again could be.
Future apps will be programmed on XML languages no native code all of you mentioned in you comments. How programmes today in assembler!!!??? Think about wath you say.
So I hope Apple will help the SVG Standard to win the race again the not standard Silverlight (XAML) stuff from MS. This could be done with a browser like Safari. But only it is platform independant (Linux, Mac, Windows,...)
I know, the beta of Safari does not yet look like this, but i could see a trend in this direction. it is a lot of SVG allready implemented.
I don't think Adobes flash language will win this race because it is not build on XML. But you know Adobe has also build one of the first and best in my opinion SVG Viewer 3.0.
All the vector graphics seen on the IPhone could bee createt wit SVG or Silverlight, think about that!
The futuere will tell....
Your post doesn't really address the issue... The point is that Steve presented as though the consumer had full access to making whatever kind of apps they wanted, when in fact that's not even close to true. It's pretty lame. iPhone loses, HTC wins.
Actually where this phone runs its software isn't silly at all.
For enterprise use, it makes a huge difference. Being able to design and run your own internal applications via a wireless phone makes great business sense. Not all applications can be written for a web interface. If you look at how many native Blackberry, Palm, and Pocket PC apps there are, you'll understand.
In the short run, the iPhone will cater to personal sales. But the big money is in corporate use. That's why Blackberry is the king of this territory. Without support for compiled internal apps, true push-email (with a real infrastructure to support it like Blackberry), the iPhone won't be able to compete.
I still can't believe this! All this hype for something so ridiculous! I want something new! I want them to think differently! Why oh why would they do this?! It's so wrong! It's so stupid!
Mmmm. APPL is already down $1.00...Looks like the markets aren't looking too favorably on Apple's new forays into the digital device market.
All I can say is that I'm really disappointed. So much hype and anticipation that it was hardly "groundbreaking", moreso "heartbreaking". Actually I'd like to know how they could sensationalise such a product which is hardly new, apart from the "add-on" technologies.
Quotes from the MacRumors forum discussing the just-announced "iPod" device in 2001.
I would disagree that Windows Mobile crashes hourly. There have definitely been phones from vendors that were initially unstable (like the Q). However, in my experience, WM5 platform is extremely stable. The .NET compact framework is great for quickly building apps while still using a set of stable, managed API's.
It's like any other operating system. The more 3rd party junk you load onto it, the less stable it becomes. The majority of unstable Windows Mobile devices have been related to wireless providers adding "value" to the device. As for non wireless-phone Windows Mobile devices, (like the Dell Axim, HP series, etc.) those devices are rock solid - and that's from a lot of personal experience.
And by the way - the iPhone is far from being a "first". Windows mobile, formerly CE, actually uses a large subset of the Win32 API, and now a subset of .NET/Mono. Its kernel is also very close to the NT/2k/XP kernel.
The iPhone is OS X on a small ARM/PXA device, which Microsoft has been doing for over 10 years.
CAN WE PLEASE STOP CALLING EACH OTHER DENSE, STUPID, IDIOTS, DUMB, ETC.?
It just makes you, the person posting, look bad.
Meizu miniOne, Here I come.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/18/meizus-minione-packs-more-acronyms-than-you-can-handle/
No way!!! You mean Jobs is going to allow me to WRITE WEBPAGES? No f#@#!$ way, dude!
And here I was thinking that I'd have to ask for their permission to make a website.
This is just stupid. Website != Application. Adobe Photoshop is an application. Starcraft is an application. Mathematica is an application.
Myspace is NOT an application.
The idea that web apps will keep the iPhone "look and feel" is just so amazingly wrong-headed. People will go off on all sorts of design tangents.
It's already happening.
Plus very few understand the concepts of touchscreen development, and how putting up a tiny button just isn't going to cut it.
I duno why everyone is so freaked out by this. The iPhone is a toy. Its not meant to replace the Treos or HTC devices of the world. From personal experience, its target audience is pretty narrow. Casual users. Truth is when someone who is already using a Blackberry or Treo asks me about the iPhone, I always recommend staying with a Treo or a Blackberry. Third party apps …or whatever you want to call them… for the iPhone is simply more toys.