Jobs praises Nokia's 3rd party app scheme, but he has it wrong

In chatting up Apple's sudden change of direction today on the whole native iPhone SDK issue, Steve Jobs did a little name dropping by mentioning that he digs the way Nokia does things with S60's support for third party applications. It seems apparent from the get-go that Steve has every intention of offering apps through some sort of official, money-generating conduit -- iTunes, we'd wager -- and with that comes the promise of digital rights management, authenticity verification, and all those nasty little technologies that set the hacking community ablaze. To that end, Steve mentioned that he digs Nokia's approach of requiring that apps be digitally signed so they can be traced back to their developers, an effort to stem "viruses, malware, privacy attacks" that he thinks will flourish on a "highly visible target" like the iPhone. There's a problem, though: there's no telling when the last time is that Steve touched a phone not of his own creation, but we've used S60 devices pretty recently (like, today) and we have it on good authority that you can disable certificate verification for installed apps. Think iPhone users are going to have that option? Probably not. Apple's still visibly concerned about keeping the iPhone under its perceived draconian control (even though it's been busted wide open time and time again), and we've no doubt that trend will continue in full effect with the SDK. It's a huge, landmark upgrade from the web-based SDK developers have now, yes -- but we'd recommend Steve screw around with an N95 for a while before he heaps any more love on the way Nokia goes about its business.

[Scott @ Oct 17th 2007 3:11PM]

you just can't please some people

[Paul @ Oct 17th 2007 6:39PM]

Ok, I'm confused, do you guys like Nokia or not? I could've sworn the other day you were praising them and admonishing Apple to learn from the Nokia's out there.

Also, please tell me he did not actually use the word "dig", and if he did, did he also through in "groove" and "funkification"?

[Brian @ Oct 17th 2007 3:14PM]

Change of direction? I pretty clearly remember them talking about 3rd party apps from the beginning, and they also said they were working on an SDK to be released later. The SDK announcement just puts a timetable on it.

[Alex @ Oct 17th 2007 3:15PM]

Engadget,

Four of your front page news are iPhone-related. Is it just me or most people really don't care about the iPhone. It just isn't a good device. Not yet at least.

[Scott G. @ Oct 17th 2007 3:19PM]

It's called reporting jack.
I'm sure a couple hundred thousand people care about iPhone news. We all know that the iPhone has its drawbacks and isn't everything we'd hope it is, but saying it's not a good device is idiotic.

[oGMo @ Oct 17th 2007 3:34PM]

And the other few million *don't* care.

[Dax @ Oct 17th 2007 3:51PM]

Why? Well...
Apple products get more hits than other companies/products do. People like Apple. Engadget know what their readers like, and they happen to have excellent taste in technology as well. The iPhone isnt good? I beg to differ, Dell man.

[KVM @ Oct 17th 2007 3:57PM]

If you don't care, don't read the post. Simple as that. Do you open a newspaper and sigh because every article on the front page is about something you're not interested in, then proceed to read those articles? No... You turn straight to the comics, right?

[NG @ Oct 17th 2007 4:01PM]

Who told u to come in and comment on this?
You obviously have too much time on your hand, go do something more useful for the phone u like.
If your work is better, it will be on engadget too.

[Adrian Williams @ Oct 17th 2007 5:40PM]

4 apple iphone stories on the front page THAT"S NOT REPORTING THAT'S OVERKILL

[easymac30 @ Oct 17th 2007 5:55PM]

@Adrian Williams:

Overkill? Only in Halo 3...

[Paul @ Oct 17th 2007 6:44PM]

Um, that's ▲ ▼ ▲ ▼ ◄ ► ◄ ► A B A B

[Alex @ Oct 17th 2007 7:08PM]

Woah NG... calm down buddy. I know Jobs has you and the rest of the cult on the edge the whole time, but we are all friends here. I can comment on whatever I want can't I? I thought that was the point of these blogs. And I don't know about you, but I'm pretty proficient with computers to where it takes me no more than a couple of minutes to do so. Not really wasting much time.

Anyways, have fun in iWorld...

[RedBull Runner @ Oct 18th 2007 5:38AM]

Well, The engadget writers posted 4 news items about the iphone, so what? Isn't that the whole point of these blogs, That the writers can post whatever they want about anything they feel like posting about?

If you don't like the post, simply don't read it, and don't bother commenting on it. It saves a lot of bandwidth...

[Alex @ Oct 18th 2007 3:58PM]

You iFans are pathetic...

[Teetdogs @ Oct 17th 2007 3:17PM]

Agreed as much as I would like to have an iphone and as much as I like this site I am sick that every other story is an apple or iphone story my god i supprised that this isn't iengadget. I mean come on apple isn't the only tech company making news but it seems this is all you write about lately, with as much inews on here it is just making it seem like this is a home for apple fanboys and nothing else. Come on engadget dont make a hater out of me.

[utmonster @ Oct 17th 2007 3:18PM]

I'm not really into hacking, just good electronic tools. I'm happy that Apple ensures a good user experience. I am happy their providing a developer kit and want to help make sure that the stuff 3rd parties provide don't destroy my phone, infect my computer or generally piss me off. I think that's what the majority of basic consumers want. I think anyone overly focused on meeting the needs of a hacker community really doesn't get why the iphone is selling so well....it just works without my having to screw around with it all the time.

[twoboxen @ Oct 17th 2007 4:15PM]

it makes things a lot easier to verify things work when you strip functionality.

I'll take the alternative. thanks.

[andi @ Oct 17th 2007 3:20PM]

great to see that engadget can also criticize apple and jobs. congrats!

[Argot @ Oct 17th 2007 3:25PM]

I bet it must have been a really painfull experience! :D

[blevay @ Oct 17th 2007 3:50PM]

Oh phoey...they do it all the time.

[alex @ Oct 17th 2007 3:30PM]

"Apple's still visibly concerned about keeping the iPhone under its perceived draconian control (even though it's been busted wide open time and time again)"

Nothing illustrates this axiom more than the famous quote, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

[Yaphi @ Oct 17th 2007 3:33PM]

Umm. Did they say they were going for a for-profit model in the hot news? No. Did they say they're going to force their certification? No. This post is completely useless.

So according to Engadget everyone, 3rd party iPhone apps will require a purchase through the iTunes Store and you won't be able to have unsigned apps on your phone. You heard it here first.

[brian welch @ Oct 17th 2007 3:38PM]

Let's not be snide, here. Do you really feel like apple is all of a sudden going to go all super cool and totally reverse their current trend of decisions/business model? I'm not saying they absolutely will not, but it is entirely likely that this is exactly what they'll do. Tried to put your very own mp3 ringtones on your (unhacked) iPhone? Can't. Except without going through itunes and paying for the song (again even if you own the cd) and then paying AGAIN for the privilege of cutting it down to 30 seconds and setting it as a ringtone. What makes you think that this "3rd party" development is going to be any different?

(and this is coming from a relatively pleased owner)

[MatthewJ @ Oct 17th 2007 3:45PM]

I believe its called 'supposition' and its probably a fairly accurate prediction at that.

[Yaphi @ Oct 17th 2007 3:50PM]

Record labels ≠ Apple. MP3 ringtones are probably a bad example.

What's Apple going to do, make a software developer charge 20 bucks for an app they want to give away? I don't see that happening. I understand it will probably go through iTunes. But this doesn't mean they're going to charge for the apps. Think of it like the podcasts in the iTunes Store.

Either way...it's 4 months away. This post is pointless since no one knows the details (probably not even Apple yet).

[brian welch @ Oct 17th 2007 4:17PM]

C'mon, are you going to tell me that apple *fought* the labels when they wanted to charge for ringtones? "No no, we don't want to make incremental income!" heh.

Not to mention the countless other places that apple nickel-and-dimes their customers.

Hey, don't get me wrong. If apple decides to hire developers to go over every single Joe Schmoe's code to ensure it's kosher and then put its digital stamp for free.. I'll be quite pleased. I just don't really expect that that's going to be the case.

imho, the more likely scenario is Joe develops a free app, submits it to apple, apple goes over the code and tacks on a $2 "submission fee" or some such. Admittedly wild speculation, just saying that something like that seems more likely to this dude.

[Yaphi @ Oct 17th 2007 5:38PM]

If you're developing for the iPhone it'll require an ADC membership and that's how they'll digitally sign the apps. You honestly think Apple is going to charge for apps that a developer wants to give away? No way. Apple will make their money in increased ADC memberships. I'm sure some developers will want to charge for their hard work...that part Apple will facilitate, but reporting that all apps will "most likely" require a purchase is pure FUD.

Sorry if you feel nickle-n-dimed but yes I do think they fought the labels to get $.99 ringtones. The rest of the industry is double that. Besides, who gives a fuck about ringtones? Teenagers?

[brian welch @ Oct 17th 2007 6:50PM]

Do I honestly think apple will charge for apps that it may or may not have to verify/sign? The answer to that is "I sure hope not, but I don't think they're above it." And, for the record, I am a big free/donationware proponent. If someone spends a lot of time making a kickass product that I use, I have a habit of donating for it. So I don't have a problem if the author wants to charge for it. I'm just not capable of saying that there is *no way* that apple won't try to get their paws on some of that revenue.

As for ringtones, I'm afraid that apple doesn't have $.99 ringtones unless you happen to have already purchased the small subset of itunes songs that are "valid" for it. So it's more accurate to say $1.98. And that isn't exactly a bargain since every other phone I've had in the last 4 or 5 years has had the ability to make any mp3 I own my ringtone. And I'm hardly a teen anymore, but I loathe having the same tone everybody else does. "Marimba" goes off and 3 people around me reach for their pockets. That's stupid. It doesn't have to be a song - I should be able to just increase the volume of a standard noise if I want. Unless I'm outside, I've got it on vibrate anyway, but that isn't the point. I'd like to (in non-noise-sensitive locales) have a unique noise to alert me to my specific phone ringing. Anyway. This is a side-topic, and was just something I mentioned as an example that you didn't like. No big deal - I don't feel the need to argue this point. Lets concentrate on the apps/API. *(:=

[Yaphi @ Oct 17th 2007 7:33PM]

Well that's where we'll disagree then. I don't think they'll "profit" off of the apps themselves, their profit will come in the form of new ADC memberships (which will be required to develop for the iPhone (guessing here)).

But all of this is irrelevant. My original post was that this engadget post shouldn't exist. They don't know whether Apple will charge for it, put DRM into it, or whatever. They imply this, and that could cause confusion in the future because of the amount of readers that now believe it.

[Tim Laughlin @ Oct 17th 2007 3:37PM]

Anyone notice this job with Apple?!?

http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1&method=mExternal.showJob&RID=5709&CurrentPage=1

[dagamer34 @ Oct 17th 2007 4:46PM]

Wow, was the code for all the built-in apps written that sloppily? My guess is that even those apps didn't use an SDK and Apple will rework the frameworks for a 2.0 version. Good reason why simple things like Camera, A2DP, and MMS got shafted: they aren't important enough to divert attention from developing the iPhone SDK.

[Scott Greiff @ Oct 17th 2007 3:40PM]

I may be in the minority, but I would feel safer if I knew there was someone certifying that an application won't kill my phone, and if it does, I have someone to go back to for support.

I also don't mind paying for useful applications, and having a single point of payment for those apps would be very welcome.

To chime in with utmonster, the media loves to focus on the needs of the hacking community without much thought about the USER community.

Namaste, Steve.

[Serhei @ Oct 17th 2007 3:52PM]

Yes. A central source of certification and point of payment will be very nice, I will admit. But why does providing that imply preventing people from installing what the heck they want?

If you want superior reliability, don't install uncertified apps!! It's not like anyone is forcing you to!

If you don't cate about reliability, install uncertified apps as much as you like. If you don't check the option to install uncertified apps, no unsigned code runs, and hence there are no viruses. That's how Symbian works, which is exactly what the article explains but you still don't get it do, you?

[mlb @ Oct 17th 2007 3:45PM]

Steve Jobs probably knows just a slight bit more about what Nokia does than the person that wrote this article. He didn't get to be a multi billionaire by being a dumbass.

[MatthewJ @ Oct 17th 2007 3:48PM]

and yet....

[Serhei @ Oct 17th 2007 3:57PM]

But the macboys don't know anything about Nokia, and Steve probably knows everything about the macboys..

[andi @ Oct 18th 2007 1:51AM]

...he only needed to be milimeters above the levels of ye olde fanbois to become that rich.. just as the shepherd is only a bit smarter than his sheep but still manages to make them follof blindly, and also reaps everything there can be reaped from them...

[matt @ Oct 18th 2007 12:43PM]

Andi...you cant be serious. Your entire point revolves around the argument that a shepard is not that much smarter then a sheep. Are you seriously trying to imply that a farm animal is only slightly dumber then a human being? Thats got to be the worst figure of speech I've ever heard. Also, I think its a bit rediculous that you say Steve Jobs is only millimeters smarter then his fanboys. Im fairly sure Steve Jobs was programing computers in his twenties as well as having a hand in the invention of the graphic interface and the mouse. I don't think the average fanboy will accomplish any of those things in his lifetime let alone so early.

[blevay @ Oct 17th 2007 3:49PM]

Now, i will admit up front i know nothing about programming for phones, but i think everyone may have missed the idea that letting whoever do whatever with a piece of technology that accesses a network leads to some issues. Not to say that developers would use it as a platform to do unsavory things, but if somebody just so happened to accidentally write some code that brought down the entire GSM network, there'd be some pretty unhappy campers out there. So, i for one think some caution is a good idea. That said, whether they're being too cautious or not is up to debate. Carry on!

[Scott Greiff @ Oct 17th 2007 4:01PM]

I get it. I owned a Nokia E61 before I bought the iPhone.

You can never please people. First people complained when Apple didn't offer and SDK, now people are complaining when they provide an SDK. BTW, no one knows exactly what the security model will look like. Why the complaining? Just to complain about what might be?

I just have a problem with media proclaiming "he has it wrong" when they don't even know for sure.

Choice is good. I hope Apple gives people a choice. If the only choice is between free and for-pay apps on iTunes, I'll still be happy. Obviously you won't. And at that time Engadget is welcome to proclaim "Steve got it wrong."

[Scott Greiff @ Oct 17th 2007 4:21PM]

The additional problem with Nokia's scheme is the steep financial requirement on the part of the software developer to get certified. The software developer has to pay Nokia for certification and testing costs because Nokia has no other model to monetize the sale of the applications. This is where Apple has a possible angle.

Apple will be able to reduce / eliminate the cost the developer would have to shoulder for a cut of the sales as Apple controls the point-of-sale.

Of all the time I owned the E61, NONE of the third-party apps I used were properly certified by Nokia.

[yacoub @ Oct 17th 2007 3:54PM]

Right now the touch is about perfect as far as open access goes. It's a great device now that we can put on it the apps it should have had from the factory and add additional 3rd party apps and games.

So really this news isn't all that exciting, even though it's certainly big news. One can bet a reason for it to be announced now is due to the cracking of the 1.1.1 firmware.

About the only really good news for owners is that it should mean easier development of apps for the devices, although given Apple's metamorphosis into a more draconian corporation that locks down devices and locks out users and creativity, i imagine the SDK will output something that can only be installed via iTunes and not a normal app like people are creating now the hard way.

[snitch @ Oct 17th 2007 3:59PM]

no i think engadget has it wrong not apple because although theres a feature to disable certificate verification for installed apps, Nokia's approach of requiring that apps be digitally signed are are in place, but they just added the feature in case you want to try a program that was created by a hacker that most likely just wants to screw with your phone, remember nothing in the wold is free and no one in the world wants to sit in front of a computer all day for the hell of it, although iphone 3rd party apps are cool i would never trust anyone with my phone again, where do you think junk mail and emails come from? and telemarketers calls come from, where did they get your info from?

[Jeff @ Oct 17th 2007 3:59PM]

How about a little reality.

Apple has to vouch for all of these 3rd party apps. Do you think that apple is going to risk their reputation on some rinky-dink POS (Piece of Software) that some kid tossed together in an afternoon? Do you think that some of the apps that do some questionably legal things are going to be allowed? Do you think that apps that may eat into AT&Ts profits are going to be allowed?

This is a parlor trick pure and simple. Jobs gets the fandupes to shut their hole, he wins points from the press who are too stupid to ask follow up questions, and he cuts the hacker community off at their knees.
Iim not a Apple fan, but this is SoFa King brillant to own all of the Apple fanbase in one swoop, that i have to applaud the guy.

[peestandingup @ Oct 17th 2007 4:08PM]

What makes a phone any different than installing "unapproved" apps on a Mac or PC?? Sure, the AT&T thing might be the deciding factor, but Im willing to bet its not since AT&T has sold S60 phones before exclusively & you can install anything you please on those. Blackberrys, same thing.

[Ireland @ Oct 17th 2007 4:06PM]

Here comes the Nokia iPhone haters!!!

[huh @ Oct 17th 2007 4:26PM]

Java apps already have this infrastructure for signed applications, as well as a very robust "sandbox" design for layered security. There are good cross device Java apps (browsers like Opera Mini, gps, personal organizers, games, etc) that use this infrastructure.

http://www.getjar.com/software/Java/All
http://java.mob385.com/en/

Yet even though a JVM runs on just about every device out there, Apple won't do it because they want to keep their device separate.

Now, Apple can do what they want, but it is really a disservice to consumers who could have more choice, and all the developers who'd like to reach the widest market without having to rewrite everything.

[chuck @ Oct 17th 2007 4:29PM]

reality check! disabling certificate check in s60-3rd does next to nothing! you really should check before posting garbage like that.

[Chrisphillers @ Oct 17th 2007 5:03PM]

correct:)

really Giz andEngadget are turning into the equivilent of the National enquirer!