Apple to offer limited 3rd party iPhone app support?

Look, there's simply no way Apple isn't eventually going to open up the iPhone to 3rd party support -- it's really a matter of when and how, if you ask us. Of course, the possibility we've been most anxious about is Apple eschewing the open platform philosophy and starting to vend only "certified' apps via iTunes -- which is what 9to5Mac is now rumoring to be the case, reporting that Cupertino has brought some former Sidekick platform developers into the fold in order to whip up a mobile app sales infrastructure for iTunes. What's more, the rumor has it things are already progressing along with EA porting games to the iPod touch and iPhone that very same closed-platform model which would leave Apple conveniently in control of app approval, distribution, and presumably pricing. It's anyone's guess as to whether Apple will pull the trigger in just that way, but something tells us the enterprising open source community won't be so easily deterred.

[Thanks, Fred]

[sk8rpro @ Oct 8th 2007 2:40AM]

I'm not surprised, considering this would be a way to earn more revenue. The unsupported Apps would be frowned upon and unsupported because they don't earn Apple any revenue.

[supermeerkat @ Oct 8th 2007 3:50AM]

A profit making company that wants to earn more revenue? Such a thing has never happened before!

[Nick @ Oct 8th 2007 10:40AM]

true.. but allow developers to choose to charge for their app or be freeware... give the "the certified" app developers a choice.

[Rawker @ Oct 8th 2007 2:41AM]

why wont apple just give us most of the code, make it as easy as possible to make apps, much like Microsoft did with the windows mobile platform...

[Paul @ Oct 8th 2007 12:45PM]

Because Apple wants to ensure the apps are fully tested to be sure that they're compatible, so that they don't end up with...er...bricked..iPhones...oh wait...they did that themselves didn't they...? Well, they also wouldn't want it to happen to Touch's, I mean can you imagine? A nonfully QA'd program for that, things showing up...where...they shouldn't...oh wait...that happened when iPhone references showed up on the Touch didn't it?

So...Apple wants to keep the QA in house to ensure that they get the profit and they can ensure the programs work, only they don't QA the product...makes sense...profit, profit, profit, that's the AppleSoft way.

[kvstud @ Oct 8th 2007 2:46AM]

tap-that-ass game?

[Nathan @ Oct 8th 2007 2:51AM]

Theoretically, Apple does it for the security of users to avoid the responsibility of controlling an Apple platform. Remember the days of "Illegal Operation" in Windows 95/98? I hated those! Apple doesn't want there to be those kind of errors because the more software available to the iPhone, the more security woes.

Then there are the service providers. Apple wants to make sure they keep their end of the bargain and keep it closed source to the specific carrier

Then, there are the ringtones. Keep an open platform, and it will be harder to maintain iTunes-only purchased ringtones.

While security is partly an issue, I think it's mainly for one reason - greed, or another way to put it, it's business.

[Cleverboy @ Oct 8th 2007 5:00AM]

@potato: "I don't want a platform whose performance will deteriorate rapidly unless I'm religiously observant about what apps I run (registry bloat, DLL bloat, etc). Windows is guilty of this also."

Right on. Honestly, I got spoiled using the Mac, and now, I ruin my PC experience regularly because I use it like a Mac until it runs out of memory, and can't open windows or alert boxes (whereas the Mac just always works, if more slowly).

So, some people want a crashy app-rich f-ed up iPhone experience, over a more stable measured one. Sorry, I pick stability. I'd like a handful apps like Sketches, ToDoList, Money, iBlackJack, Mines, weDict, VNotes, Lights Out and vt-100 maybe Summerboard to make it over, but so far there's also been a lot of crap out there too. Summerboard could use some more QA behind it as well, so it doesn't crash leaving me stranded on a blank homescreen. I think with offline support & homescreen shortcuts, the web apps are a solid alternative as well. BeeJive is still the BEST IM client (for supportted platforms and interface) with the one exception of notification.

[airmanchairman @ Oct 8th 2007 6:26AM]

At last, the emotional tone of the pro and con arguments about the iPhone 3rd party application issue has started to stabilise, and reality started to sink in as to the complexities and problems of code development with or without a central guiding body to chart the way forward.
Exploiting vulnerabilities is definitely not the way forward, as this is a dangerous two-edged sword no device manufacturer can safely ignore.
On the other hand, the massive excitement and hype generated by Apple with this rush release deserves to be serviced a little faster with apps that fulfil the most commonly requested wish-list items (no need to list them here, just surf the vast iPhone Web).
Apple, you hit the ground running with this baby, and there's no slowing down now, indeed we need you to hit racing 3rd dear, prontamundo...

[airmanchairman @ Oct 8th 2007 6:27AM]

Printers devil:
"indeed we need you to hit racing 3rd GEAR, prontamundo...

[AzrealJG @ Oct 8th 2007 9:05AM]

Yeah, because all those damn third party apps on OSX bloat it, slow it down, and lead to massive system instability and constant crashes! Apple doesn't seem to have any problem letting people write applications for their desktop systems.

The iPhone is running OSX ffs, it's got a new framework designed for the capabilities of the device, but otherwise it's OSX.

[Jon @ Oct 8th 2007 2:55AM]

Someone please explain to me why Apple fans are willing to buy and use a closed platform considering the existence of open platforms out there (S60, WM6, UIQ, Linux, PalmOS)?

[Paul @ Oct 8th 2007 3:04AM]

jon, that's because they are apple fanboys and they are used to being restricted by apple, like their mac platform

[rTwelve @ Oct 8th 2007 3:05AM]

Because they're Apple fans that want Apple products?

or because they don't need open-source, because they content with what's inside the box?

Regardless, 99% of consumers do not read or comment on Engadget, and are not going to hear what you're trying to say, no matter how good advice it may be.

...Sorry, just summing up my recent thoughts into one comment.

[Jon @ Oct 8th 2007 3:10AM]

I am not talking about open source, I am talking about the ability to install any native third party app you want on a product you paid with your money.

[Xidius @ Oct 8th 2007 5:15PM]

For the same reason so many many many more NON apple fans bought them?

Yeah, I'll go with that one.

- Xidius

[potato @ Oct 8th 2007 3:20AM]

rTwelve: As a Mac user, here's why I use Macs (as much as I depise Apple for locking down the iPhone):

- I don't have the time and energy to deal with locking down my machine tighter than Fort Knox just for it to remain usable. Windows is out of the picture on that alone.

- I don't want a platform whose performance will deteriorate rapidly unless I'm religiously observant about what apps I run (registry bloat, DLL bloat, etc). Windows is guilty of this also.

- I have zero interest in compiling my own drivers, my own kernel, nor anything else in my system. I do this all day at work and I'd rather not do it AFTER. Most Linux distros are out.

- I want something that has a slick UI, and will run almost all open source apps ('cos I like my free software). OSX runs most of the OSS apps I've come across, and has a slick UI. Linux doesn't, though Ubuntu tries, and is somewhat competent.

Does Apple practice hardware locking for Macs? Sure, but it also makes the OS more solid overall - fewer driver combinations to test for and whatnot. I used to build all my own boxes, and prided myself in doing so, but as life got in the way (job, girlfriend, and all the OTHER things besides computers we do...) I found that I wanted something that will run the apps I want, do the job I need it to do, and I don't care if it doesn't have a GeForce 10000000GTXXX, nor do I care if it doesn't have customizable LEDs and super-uber-duper-megapixel webcams attached, I want something that I'm content will do what I need to do, and do it exceedingly well.

And that's my story - a switcher from Windows to Mac for two years running, though a Linux professional by day :P This isn't to say I'm not disappointed at Apple for their attitudes towards the iPhone, but it changes nothing about the Mac as a platform. It is as open and as closed as it's always been.

[LordFarkward @ Oct 8th 2007 3:20AM]

I think that it is because, Jon, that some people actually don't feel like they *need* that choice. There're some who feel that they do, and some don't. The ones that feel that they don't just buy their phone and keep quiet, and while those that do want more buy/not buy (seems like most of them actually don't buy) and cry foul.

i'm not saying neither are right nor wrong, but sometimes it seems like there're some who'd take opportunity to cry foul at any opportunity (this comes from both apple-fanbois' "M$ $UX!!!" and apple-fanbois-haters' "iPwn3d!!!").

all i'm saying is, that people who just want a phone that also plays music will most likely be on the quiet camp whilst those who NEED whatever apps for whatever use will be the more vocal ones (when it comes to this 'lock down' issue, at least).

[Ryan @ Oct 8th 2007 3:25AM]

@rTwelve

"or because they don't need open-source, because they content with what's inside the box"

Then why are they trying to install 3rd party apps if they are content with whats in the box?

[Cleverboy @ Oct 8th 2007 5:10AM]

@"Then why are they trying to install 3rd party apps if they are content with whats in the box?"

If you read back the comment, you'll slowly realize he's correct, and that you're probably operating under a misconception. Believe it or not, small amounts of people can be VERY vocal.

That said, it's probably more accurate to say 90% of iPhone customers aren't paying attention to 3rd party apps. They're NOT trying to install them, because they're content and doing their thing. It's the 9% who bought the iPhone for what it did and the 1% who bought it for what they thought it could do, that are pushing Apple for more.

I installed 3rd party apps, and right now, I've widdled back them down to Summerboard, NES, and iBlackjack (amongst various non-visible installations). I'm considering the 1.1.1 update still. I don't need a crashy phone, and the iPhone already does exactly what I bought it for. I can see both sides of it.

[chuck @ Oct 8th 2007 6:01AM]

calling s60-3rd "open" is your idea of a joke? it's as screwed as crapple!

[Ruben @ Oct 8th 2007 11:14AM]

@potato @ Oct 8th 2007 3:20AM:


Save your toast for your wedding day.

[SkaNero @ Oct 8th 2007 3:37AM]

because it can be done, that's why we try to install 3rd party apps

[Constable Odo @ Oct 8th 2007 3:43AM]

Apple should use the Paddle Clause contract for iPhone tampering. Anyone caught tampering with the iPhone gets visited in the middle of the night by a couple of ex-football players who take the tamperers outside to have their buttocks paddled until their hindquarters are bruised and swollen.

Maybe if that happens a couple of times, they'll learn to leave well enough alone. If you can't talk some common sense into troublemakers, you gotta give them some old fashioned tough love.

You know the old saying. "Spare the rod, spoil the geek."

[dUN @ Oct 8th 2007 3:48AM]

iTunes is soon going to become this supersize cyber-vending machine = called iStore!

[Andreas @ Oct 8th 2007 4:07AM]

First. By now all of us should know that most companies sell products using a list of specs. Apple sells promoting the user experience. And there are two camps out there, it seems: Camp 1 thinks the list of specs is most important, and Camp 2 rather appreciates a smooth user experience. Why can't the two groups be friends here? Both groups share the love of gadgets.

Anyway.. I imagine there will be two kinds of apps for the iPhone going up side by side. Free java script based widgets by anyone, and pay for full blown native applications and games by selected 3d party developers.

[aleph @ Oct 8th 2007 7:05AM]

http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html

[NG @ Oct 8th 2007 4:12AM]

Steve can hear the "CHI CHING"

[Tim Abbott @ Oct 8th 2007 4:15AM]

Apple NEEDS to create a new home screen for the iPhone/touch espcailly with all these new 3rd party apps.

am i the only one who thinks its looking cluttered already...and Apple being "Clutter Free" and all.

Isn't it time for iPhone update v.2?

[jatoac @ Oct 8th 2007 4:58AM]

the problem is that a lot of people take hacking/3rd party apps for granted... the iphone has never been advertised as open and/or 3rd party app ready.

only because some hackers/hacks can be used to load/run 3rd party apps on the iphone don't make this a common feature.

take the iphone for what it is and not for what it could be.

it was (at the moment?) never menat as an open platform, so calm down and get real.

if you want third party apps (now) then go buy a nokia or htc machine, they can make you happy (not really!!).

get over it...

btw. rule #45: if you don't like it, don't buy it - easy as that

[Julian Bond @ Oct 8th 2007 5:13AM]

"take the iphone for what it is and not for what it could be."

Why? Why can't I speculate about what it could be? Is that whole line of conversation verboten?

[Ondra Soukup @ Oct 8th 2007 7:11AM]

Anything...more apps = more security holes ;)

[Miker @ Oct 8th 2007 8:19AM]

This is simply a ploy so that when they do open it up, Steve Jobs can strut out on stage and crow "We listen to our customers, aren't we great". It's all planned.

I also hear (though I can't say from where) that they deliberately put some lower end spec'd components into the first gen iPhone so with the launch of the second gen phone they can launch something substantially higher spec'd in a short space of time, so they can go "WOW! You though the first iPhone was good, now this is just spectacular in comparison! Aren't we brilliant!"

It's all spin...it's a pity so many people are blind to it and fall for it so easily.

[Aaron @ Oct 8th 2007 9:39AM]

You talk about a plotted scheme to improve the specs on stuff. The only way thing you can base this off of is the history of Apple revolutionizing everything. You act like that is planned... IT IS!!! but it isn't a plot to steal money from you. Even if it was, who cares. Microsoft has been doing this for years, and they make some pretty crappy software. At least the Apple stuff is pretty good. But all of us, well, most of us, need Microsoft software to get along in our daily jobs. And you talk about Apple putting low-end specs in a device so that people want to upgrade later... I guess the specs of my Power Mac G3 are so low I shouldn't be able to use it anymore, ohhh, wait, I still do, and it was made in 1997. I don't know of many PC systems that can run up to par with new software that were built 10 years ago. Stop hating on the updating of technology. It is what we all want.

[freakmarket @ Oct 8th 2007 8:49AM]

I would buy an iPhone if it had AIM. Not the web based crap either.

But Steve Jobs says i don't want AIM ... glad Steve is there to think for me.

[james @ Oct 8th 2007 9:30AM]

I will NOT pay for any 3rd party native apps for my iPhone - unless it is really kick-ass. Not all apps should be free, nor should all apps be pay - if someone wants to make a free etchasketch then they should be able to.

[Raymond @ Oct 8th 2007 10:18AM]

I foresee that these "Apple-endorsed" applications will eventually turn the way of current iPod games. When Apple needs more revenue, it will make a new generation of iPods/iPhones that will be totally incompatible with the old software and you'll have to buy the new versions of these apps to use on the newer devices.

[DENgerous @ Oct 8th 2007 10:39AM]

Finally someone will be able to write f@#$ing BOOK READER for this device. One of the most simple SW & probably the only thing missing.

[craig @ Oct 8th 2007 10:41AM]

Apple already does this with the iPhone. That's where Google maps and YouTube come from. It's not "3rd party" either. When Apple requires that it be involved in development and distribution, it's not a 3rd party app.

[AndrewNeo @ Oct 8th 2007 10:36PM]

Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony, are all required parts of the development (SDK) and distribution (packaging, licensing, etc.) process of 3rd party video game releases. It's still called 3rd party.

[craig @ Oct 9th 2007 9:41AM]

No one said they were 3rd party either, but Apple reserves the right to say what apps get developed and they control distribution. It isn't third party when you can only get it from Apple and Apple decides what it is.

[bugmat @ Oct 8th 2007 10:55AM]

The much-referred-to "security concerns" are a smokescreen. Why aren't there such concerns for OS X on Mac computers or did every single app written for the OS go through Apple testing &screening?! I think not.. it's all about revenue and no other reason. Bring down AT&T's cellular network my @r$e! Doesn't matter - just as with other apps available, once they start selling 'em somebody will pirate 'em!

[daniel @ Oct 8th 2007 12:03PM]

So, guys, you do realize that windows mobile has had a free-for-all development model for how many years now? And that basically the 3rd party apps largely suck. Let's face it, it's like the 80s world of shareware out there. I can't imagine it's a very good way to make a living.

Do you have any idea what percentage of folks with blackberries or WM devices install any 3rd party apps at all?

The fact that you need a remote desktop client for your phone means that (1) you are in a percentage of a percentage of the phone market & (2) you should buy a non-apple phone. Just do it! Jobs isn't going to come to your house and pee on your bluetooth.

[rTwelve @ Oct 8th 2007 1:15PM]

That's an incredibly funny mental image right there.

[Canadrian @ Oct 8th 2007 12:37PM]

I'm not a developer, but couldn't someone create a certified framework within which uncertified programs could run? i.e. the iPhone developer community pitches in to pay for a certification for the "Fudgit Engine" which you can install through normal means, but once you have installed the Fudgit Engine, you can run any number of open-source apps within it? Proceeds from the purchase of the Fudgit Engine on iTMS could go to sponsor open-source app development. Just an idea.

[Wiggles @ Oct 8th 2007 1:36PM]

I think they should blow the whole thing open. Although that's not likely. I imagine it will be like the other iPods (all apps sold thru iTunes). Either way, they should hurry up. I'm getting annoyed that my iTouch has no games.

[rp @ Oct 8th 2007 2:08PM]

These better not cost anything significant, even $5 is too much to pay for something that should probably have already been included. Apple didn't feel the need to include games??? Even my craptastic VX5200 has 3 games.. c'mon man.

[Twitchy @ Oct 8th 2007 5:04PM]

Are they full versions? Vodafone in NZ has started an awful trend of having only demos on their phones, with the option to buy the full version if you like it for $8 or more each. And the demos are usually locked after 10 uses. Now that is a cunning money-maker.

[mitch @ Oct 10th 2007 11:38AM]

it pretty simple. when you buy the product quickly check the box to see whats inside.....ipod touch/iphone doesn't mention games?.well there's probably no games.

[Ray @ Oct 15th 2007 7:55AM]

Look dudes. Its one thing when your laptop crashes - its a whole other thing when your phone falls apart (right guys who own a brick?). Apple doesn't and shouldn't open its users up to nefarious persons who want to toy with their revolutionary device. Call me crazy but there are a lot of people out there that would love to send a virus right into that thing. For me, their stance is called STANDING BEHIND THE PRODUCT. Moreover, there are a lot of fools out there who will download anything that looks interesting that might screw up the device. (It's the first one give them a break). The costs of responding to thousands of phone calls or store visits from morons who don't know the limits can't be calculated. It's good business to control what goes in.

BMW says use UNLEADED gas only. That doesn't mean you can't convert your vehicle to run on ethanol... yet it does mean that BMW won't honor the warranty any longer once you rip the engine apart. Tinker away - just don't expect Apple to be your mommy and fix it for you once you break it.