Apple backtracks, updates will "most likely break" 3rd party iPhone software

Ouch, that was fast. Apple didn't seem to want to let it get around that they've taken a completely neutral stance on 3rd party application development for the iPhone, and apparently got back with Gearlog to clarify that future iPhone "software updates will most likely break" 3rd party app compatibility. Not ignore, not possibly break -- most likely break. In other words, don't set your hopes too high that the NES games you're enjoying on your iPhone today will be around tomorrow, since it sounds like Apple won't be playing Switzerland after all.

[nathan @ Sep 12th 2007 3:42AM]

So the Arms Race begins.

[Rususeruru @ Sep 12th 2007 10:39AM]

What do think the cycle will be? Updates in less than 48 hours for both sides?

[dj-kenpo @ Sep 12th 2007 11:14AM]

exactly Rususeruru apple can't do a damn thing. if they can't even lock people out I hihgly doubt they can stop someone once they're already in. if they have their programmers go out of their way to break things then it'll just be a waste of time,.. on their end.

[nathan @ Sep 12th 2007 1:04PM]

Now reading the article closely (I mean reading it) this here:

"So to summarize: Apple will neither forbid nor support native code on the iPhone/Touch. They will not design software updates specifically to break native apps, but if the updates happen to break native apps or your native apps turn your iPhone into a rutabaga, don't go crying to Apple, 'cause it ain't their problem. Capiche?"

This sounds much more mild. So, they change an API or so that can break apps? Sure, so an app author has to fix their app a bit, recompile and release a new version? No problem. I can't imagine it being worse than WoW UI Addons which get broken alot, but get fixed if the author is active quite fast (even though they're officially supported).

[Shawn @ Sep 12th 2007 3:46AM]

I was just looking into the apps too...lining up the ones I wanted once I get my iphone...piss

[Oskin @ Sep 12th 2007 3:50AM]

Same here, I was looking at the apps this afternoon for my future iPhone... haa well! As long as I can use an iPhone with rogers wireless i'll be happy, who needs apps for the iPhone if it can't be used as an actual phone! Can't wait to get my hands on one (soon I hope :D)

[ryantrevisol @ Sep 12th 2007 12:05PM]

This smells of AT&T. I'm guessing they pressured Apple into breaking 3rd party apps because of the unlocking frenzy. This way, no new iphones that ship will be unlockable. Booo Possessive Wireless Providers! Hooray Beer!

[uberfu @ Sep 12th 2007 9:41AM]

@ryantrevisol

That will only pertain to what is out right now to accomplish this_ That does not mean that the folks working to provide unlocks to the masses will totally stop because Apple or AT&T or who ever decides to change the locks_

[Spoon!! @ Sep 12th 2007 8:56PM]

@ ryantrevisol : "This smells of AT&T."

Oh please. The only thing AT&T is concerned about is the SIM unlock hack. They want the iPhone usable only on their network in the USA per the business contract with Apple. They are giving Apple a cut of the monthly Voice and Data service fees for this exclusivity. There is no evidence to suggest AT&T receives any cut of iTunes sales from iPhone users.

As it stands, Apple rakes in ALL revenues from any iTunes purchase (music, video, ringtones, official web applications, etc). Apple is the one with a vested interest in breaking homebrew applications and preventing users from installing their own ringtones.

Apple wants EVERYTHING installed via iTunes in order to make money off their iPhone customers. I cannot understand why some of you die-hards cannot accept the fact that Apple as a publicly traded corporate entity answerable to their shareholders would not try to get as much money as possible from their customers this way.

[maelstrom @ Sep 12th 2007 4:02AM]

HEY - I`m Swiss and I consider this an ins........


Aww, whatever - who cares?

[Alegoo92 @ Sep 12th 2007 3:57PM]

ha!! You're ranked NEUTRALLY.

[NoPhone @ Sep 12th 2007 4:04AM]

What does this mean for the iUnlock?

[Santz24 @ Sep 12th 2007 4:08AM]

Does this mean it will also "break" iPhoneSIMfree and/or iUnlock?

[lassi @ Sep 12th 2007 9:13AM]

probably.
it's the official stance that the phone shouldn't work with other operators, and it's quite doable for them. the security on the device so far has seemed really, really weak...


3rd party apps need some kind of security to the phone and not everything as root, probably the main reason is that they didn't have enough time, or they chose that the phone should just have their apps and not be complicated - and that the apps should be final and the device more like device(like ipod is, it could run so much more) than a general computing platform.

which is pretty form over function, or limited functions over unlimited functions, which is modern day apple, like it or not(prime example, not being able to use any mp3 on the phone as a ringtone - extra work gone into ensuring less functionality).

[lassi @ Sep 12th 2007 9:32AM]

probably.
it's the official stance that the phone shouldn't work with other operators, and it's quite doable for them. the security on the device so far has seemed really, really weak...


3rd party apps need some kind of security to the phone and not everything as root, probably the main reason is that they didn't have enough time, or they chose that the phone should just have their apps and not be complicated - and that the apps should be final and the device more like device(like ipod is, it could run so much more) than a general computing platform.

which is pretty form over function, or limited functions over unlimited functions, which is modern day apple, like it or not(prime example, not being able to use any mp3 on the phone as a ringtone - extra work gone into ensuring less functionality).

[lassi @ Sep 12th 2007 9:37AM]

probably.
it's the official stance that the phone shouldn't work with other operators, and it's quite doable for them. the security on the device so far has seemed really, really weak...


3rd party apps need some kind of security to the phone and not everything as root, probably the main reason is that they didn't have enough time, or they chose that the phone should just have their apps and not be complicated - and that the apps should be final and the device more like device(like ipod is, it could run so much more) than a general computing platform.

which is pretty form over function, or limited functions over unlimited functions, which is modern day apple, like it or not(prime example, not being able to use any mp3 on the phone as a ringtone - extra work gone into ensuring less functionality).

[paloooz @ Sep 12th 2007 10:39AM]

Triple post = FAIL

[Adam @ Sep 12th 2007 4:12AM]

Do they update ipods?

[asapuntz @ Sep 12th 2007 2:09PM]

yes, iTunes has updated iPod firmware

however, it's more important for the Touch (and iPhone) because of the full-fledged browser (+ email client) with WiFi (+ cellular) data providing greater opportunities to run malicious code with "root" privileges.

until apple implements proper permission protections, there's probably zero chance of seeing a supported native app devkit, and 3rd party apps will be susceptible to update-breakage. just as 3rd party bugs could, today, through malice or incompetence, completely brick your device.

wouldn't you rather have apple developers working on fixing the permission shortcomings?

[Alex @ Sep 12th 2007 4:25AM]

If a new update does indeed break the hacks, until hackers figure out a workaround for the new update, You will just "most likely not upgrade" next time...

[Jason Carroll @ Sep 12th 2007 10:32AM]

No kidding, just don't upgrade the firmware. Worst case scenario is that Apple releases some killer new App...in which case a hacker will just copy the files onto Installer.app for us :)

[nathan @ Sep 12th 2007 12:45PM]

Exactly. If the WiFi iTunes Store update breaks anything, that app alone will be extracted out of the encrypted .dmg when they figure out the key and can be copied on to your 1.0.2 device.

[booboo @ Sep 12th 2007 4:38AM]

does anyone remember the NES game in the picture? what is it called?

[jonatj @ Sep 12th 2007 7:39PM]

Uh, Mario Bros.

[Jay @ Sep 12th 2007 4:52AM]

Mario Brothers (the original, not Super).

[Chronocento @ Sep 12th 2007 6:17AM]

It's the same story as the Playsation Portable: if you want homebrew, you don't install an update. If an update brings some vital functionality, you can decide to wait for someone that breaks it or update and lose homebrew support.
Also, think about the new PSP Slim: new motherboard, new firmware, and it was hacked in 5 days sinc official release!

[Henri @ Sep 12th 2007 6:04AM]

I literally hate companies that after they sell you something still want to control what you do with it. This sucks!

PS! I dont even have an iPhone yet, cause I live in the far away, mythical northlands in EU. We still use horses for transport and guard the gates of kharašš with our most elite warriors.

[NG @ Sep 12th 2007 6:55AM]

Where is that Henri? Scotland?

[Henri @ Sep 12th 2007 7:00AM]

ahh wouldn't you want to know..
bah I doubt you possess the valuable moon sapphires needed to open the gates anyway so I might as well tell you - I am located in Estonia.

[VJH @ Sep 12th 2007 8:33AM]

Ahh...well. While you men of the North might indeed guard your fortresses using horses and longbows, you also have one of the more beautiful cities in the world, that being Talinin.

As far as iPhone mods go...well, Apple's hands off approach to people tinkering with the AppleTV suggests that they aren't the worst company. Though, I'd guess their contracts with ATT will obligate them to be more proactive in closing holes, particularly those of the unlocking kind.

[Darnell @ Sep 12th 2007 6:18AM]

Booo. What's with these companies. I can understand Apple not wanting to do the 3rd Party thing (albeit loosley). But denying the inevitable--homebrew community from taking their purchased item and installing their own programs sucks. Your not Sony and this isn't the PSP. You aren't Microsoft and this isn't.... Wait-a-minute, I guess being a tech company means being a prick in the long run.

Mark my words Sony, Apple, et al--we consumers will augment, implement, hack, blend, enhance, adjust, and or add any damn thing to OUR purchased item. Imagine a clothing company demanding you wear their suit according to their specifications and not being able to alter or tailor them to fit. It doesn't make sense.

[Jason Carroll @ Sep 12th 2007 10:33AM]

I love the clothing company comparison...props!

[strider_mt2k @ Sep 12th 2007 6:26AM]

I hear the PSP folks are just happy they have someone to hang with!

Firmware hacks for EVERYBODY!!!

[Matt @ Sep 12th 2007 6:40AM]

The only thing surprising is that it took Apple so long to make this clear. I can't believe how many people are willing to believe that Jobs purposefully left open back doors for installing apps and unlocking. They say Apple will have some extra trucks picking up the cash from the stores plus he just wouldn't possibly prevent his fanboys from playing Pac-Man when Windows Mobile users can do it. That is all beside the point though. There are so many legitimate reasons that Apple needs to put up the road blocks on this native app free-for-all.

1. Remember the security hack that come out shortly after launch? The big deal there was the lack up privilege security to prevent any code from having full access to all the personal information on the device. That foundation security has certainly not been updated and everybody with an iPhone and the slightest technical knowledge is installing every app they can get their hands on. The potential for a serious security embarrassment is greater than Apple can tolerate.

2. Apple has almost certainly made some level of commitment to the carriers to limit what can be installed or at control the scope of applications that can run. They don't want Skype on every iPhone and they don't want to get support calls for the unlimited ways people could compromise the core functionality of the device. Remember that the carriers are paying $10/month for every contract and Apple is certainly looking out for their interests to some degree. Limiting what runs and possibly controlling the distribution also creates more opportunity to cash-in on approved apps.

3. Apple owes a lot of success to the iPod and that would not have become what it is if the non-geeks weren't able to enjoy it as much as the Engadget readers do. There will be real trouble for Apple marketing if it gets to a point where some people are spending hours to install all sorts of wild stuff while most potential customers think they won't get the same benefits because jailbreak is not something they even want to know more about.

4. The day will come sooner than later when Apple opens the iPhone up to some degree for developers. There is a benefit to them in having 3rd party applications but they want to control it. The anal designers in Cupertino don't want their iPhone sporting 500 unique, random interface elements. I think the dev standards they create will also make some serious limitations due to the security and performance considerations Apple won’t compromise on. After using the iPhone for a while, it's obvious the memory management is very active so they need new apps to cooperate. Having multiple IM apps that are forcing themselves to remain active and connected will running in the background will mean no more graceful scrolling.

5. Apple obviously gave a lot of consideration to carefully creating differentiation between the iPhone and iPod touch. I doubt they are willing to see that nullified immediately by some.

[Mike @ Sep 12th 2007 9:24AM]

"3. Apple owes a lot of success to the iPod and that would not have become what it is if the non-geeks weren't able to enjoy it as much as the Engadget readers do." HAHA you give Engadget readers too much credit

[grue @ Sep 12th 2007 7:14AM]

Yes, good thing they're differentiating between the iPod Touch and the iPhone. Otherwise, the roughly SIX POINT THREE BILLION PEOPLE people who don't live in the only country where people can actually buy the iPhone might get confused and buy the wrong product. Xenu forbid!

[800hightech @ Sep 13th 2007 1:11AM]

If you want to use your hacks, don't get an update until the latest version is cracked too, this has applied to few pieces of software in the past so it shouldn't be anything new for people using hack software.
Personally I think its great that these hacks are even available, as someone said this before; do you really think Apple left the iPhone open to cracks on purpose?

[willy @ Sep 12th 2007 6:45PM]

I fell so sorry for you iPhone fanbois!

Thank the heavens I've got a Treo 680... and third party apps are not only supported but encouraged, with the number being in the thousands...

Including good games from Astraware, to boot!

[Scott @ Sep 12th 2007 10:57AM]

Are the following applications available for the Treo?

-OS update that make it not feel 10 years out of date
-OS update that allows multitasking
-A web browser that works *well*
-An update to fix all the reboots

[Chas @ Sep 12th 2007 9:30AM]

If you ask me its a nintendo Wii scare, apple benfeits from all this. I am sure they forseen that this would happen, think about you take the phone home and activate it yourself? If ya ask me apple is covering its legal basis and supporting ATT publicly, however apple will double their projections if they leave the OS intact for appz and unlocks.

If they for some reason do update iphone to lock it the dev team will just unlock it, and consumers will get sick of buying a phone were there is a update to it every week, so I am sure they will set back and play nintendo all day :-)

[Dennis @ Sep 12th 2007 9:36AM]

All this really means is that Apple will most likely be making changes dramatic enough to APIs and perhaps the installed set of software that existing binaries won't work, and they won't be keeping old versions around as they do in many cases on Mac OS X because of the storage footprint of the phone.

So, things'll break, then get fixed, then break again, and so on, but as a result of Apple not shooting for any backwards compatibility with apps they don't support, not necessarily out of an active effort to break them.

[seansh @ Sep 12th 2007 3:54PM]

How do you read this and think that they're trying to break 3rd party software? They said "will most likely break". They didn't say, "we are going to try to keep you from using 3rd party software".

You can't expect them to make updates that conform to your homebrew customizations, but they don't seem to be intentionally interfering either. This is *exactly* what I would call a neutral stance.

[Ryan Gahl @ Sep 12th 2007 9:51AM]

I just cannot believe people are willing to pay that much money for that gigantic turd of a device. Just because it has a damn apple on the back. Now they are saying they will break the ability for 3rd party app development? Why in the heck still buy one if you have been lucky enough to have held off your ill-informed purchase so far? I just can't fathom the level of insane brainwashing one must have let themselves get applied to them in order to still think "OH BOY, I can't wait to get an iPhone".

Seriously, spend less and get more with a smart device on either the PalmOS or Windows Mobile platforms, freely choose your carrier, and install 1000s of 3rd party apps without worry they might not work tomorrow.

Apple is FAR FAR worse than Microsoft _ever was_ when it comes to this closed door, proprietary BS. You can not just buy pieces from hundreds of competitively priced component providers and hobble together a Mac like you can custom build a PC, you CAN ONLY BUY ONE FROM APPLE AND PAY TWICE WHAT ITS WORTH. And you all just swallow it up ("you all" being those group of insanely brainwashed goobers in this thread still stating how great this iPhone thing is and that you'll still BUY ONE). Just insane.

[Ayle @ Sep 12th 2007 10:30AM]

Hahahahahahaha -breath- Hahahahahaahahahaha.....

[Alex Goodhart @ Sep 12th 2007 4:02PM]

Ehh I don't agree but the goober part was funny.

[JBo @ Sep 12th 2007 11:10AM]

This whole iPhone thing is really exposing the Apple double-standard. The iPhone is cool, but is wrought with security holes the size of Jobs' ego. Many of the holes enable people to build apps, so what? If Microsoft introduced a phone, they'd enable third party development out of the box, and any security hole would truly be something to be fixed right away; but they'd still be slammed for it.

Apple fans are truly gluttons for punishment. Why would you buy a product that forces you to use it in exactly the way the company tells you to. And then you all act all superior about it! Is the Apple fanboy community made up entirely of people into S&M? "Please sir, may I have another!"

[Boynamedsue @ Sep 12th 2007 11:21AM]

this is exactly why i ditched my PSP. I wanted to run homebrew, i never pirated any PSP games, but everytime a new official PSP game came out i had to make a choice, Run a forced update so i could play the game or break all my shit, and then have to figure out new ways around it. Or keep my home brew apps but miss out on content.

I traded the PSP for a DS, not as cool, but at least nintendo never fucked with my homebrew.

[Ayle @ Sep 12th 2007 12:26PM]

Seems like somebody received a call from AT&T asking: "WTF are you doing?" ... Anyway are we gonna start to see custom firmware for the iphone? Since it is already airly easy to customize? Or is this statement just made to reassure AT&T lawyers( the devs not doing anything to willfully kill the 3rd party apps but not doing anything to support them either)? We'll know soon enough.

[jps @ Sep 12th 2007 12:56PM]

Why is everyone suddenly comparing them to Sony? They haven't changed their tune, they just added the caveat that you shouldn't get your hopes up about permanent, longstanding interoperability. I wasn't doing that as it is and was figuring that each update would be a question of "what does this break, has it been fixed" before choosing to upgrade.

[t-bone @ Sep 12th 2007 4:06PM]

I don't understand all the hate. Apple said,"Hey, we're going to do our own thing and if that breaks stuff that you did to our phone without asking, too bad." Sounds reasonable to me. It's like screaming at a company for fixing the hole in their fence that you enjoy using for a shortcut.