iPhone SDK gets real, available today

You knew it was going to happen eventually, right? According to Apple, devs are going to be able to grab the much-anticipated iPhone / iPod touch SDK today, thus ushering in this exciting new era of third-party development for those devices. Developers will have access to the same "Cocoa Touch" framework and all other APIs used by Apple for iPhone software development. Features include hardware-accelerated 3D graphics, location-enabled apps and full access to all the media capabilities of the iPhone. The 3-axis accelerometer is also up for grabs. Just like normal Mac applications, developers can use Xcode (Mac only) for their project -- a coding environment bundled with every copy of OS X. In addition to traditional Xcode tools there's a new feature called iPhone Simulator which acts as a full-on iPhone emulator for testing out apps without destroying your device. If you're feel like living on the edge, however, Apple claims it's just as easy to shoot an app on over to the iPhone for live testing. All developers can get in on this action now, but to test apps on the iPhone beta 2.0 software they'll need to be "selected" by Apple. If they need a little extra motivation, Apple is launching a $100 million "iFund" to help support development on the platform.

[fred @ Mar 6th 2008 1:26PM]

Uh, isnt this what the live blog story is for?

Dont tell me you're going to load up Engadget with 15 stories all about this one thing.

[MurphyMac @ Mar 6th 2008 1:33PM]

This exceeds my expectations.

Fred - Get real. This is a heavy-on-Apple site. What's so hard about not reading some posts?

[Drew @ Mar 6th 2008 1:32PM]

Not everyone reads the liveblog. And not everyone will want to trudge though the liveblog after it's over.

[MurphyMac @ Mar 6th 2008 1:35PM]

If you're that finicky about what you read maybe you should spend some time learning to filter with Yahoo! Pipes.

[Josh Warner @ Mar 6th 2008 3:09PM]

All of this is very interesting, but charging the Touch users for this update is just like charging for the iPhone apps; the update has no business costing money.

Sony updates the PSP firmware, MS updates the Zune firmware & pushes out stuff like IE7 and SP2 for XP, and all of those come with new features. Service Pack 2's firewall and security features have no way to grant MS further income from the OS. So why haven't these companies gotten slapped with the legal problems Apple 'claims' they would be faced with if they updated the Touch for free?

There are only two explanations:

A) Apple was incredibly stupid, and accounted for the Touch completely differently than anybody in the entire tech industry does for their products and/or did not realize its potential (If you think this is likely, I have some real estate in Florida you might be interested in...)

B) Pure money grubbing, maliciously planned from the start when they decided to account for it the way they did.


If you seriously believe this to be anything but option B, get your head out of the sand. Have previous iPod firmware updates cost any money, even if they added new features? Absolutely not. Obviously Apple knows how to do this RIGHT, but for some inexplicable reason decided not to in the case of the iPod Touch.

Apple needs to be called on the carpet for this, big time.

[Sam Winter @ Mar 7th 2008 3:50AM]

@Josh warner

not sure, but it could be due to changes in the IRS code? I know it definitely relates to Sarbanes-Oxley, but I'm not sure why, as you pointed out, that this only affects certain products and not others that came before.

Can anyone figure this out?

[Alex @ Mar 11th 2008 3:36AM]

@sam winter

It is partially because of Sarbanes Oxley. Apple records revenue for ipods differently than iphones. iphone subscription based accounting model records significant future updates in its costs. ipod touches are recorded immediately on the balance sheet and the cost of significant updates are not factored in. The costs for developing a simple update similar to older ipods is accounted for but significant costs are incurred in SDK development & new applications. net income would have to be restated on ipod touchs that were sold in older cycles if they didn't charge a fee. this is no good good.

It still doesn't make it good business though...
Apple accounting needs to consult with Apple PR before they roll out their models.

The only way I can make ipod touch owners feel better is...we iphone users pay $20 bucks a month for our service. you guys pay 20 dollars twice.

[Alex @ Mar 11th 2008 3:47AM]

and I quote:

1-16-2008 @ 3:43PM
Gazmik Fizzwidget said...

Complain to the FTC, not to Apple. Thanks to laws passed in the wake of Enron and other accounting scandals, it's illegal for Apple to "realize value" from a product, i.e. add features to it, after it's been sold. (Presumably the idea behind this is that if a company plans ahead of time to add value to a product after it's sold, they can manipulate their own stock price.)

They can add features to the iPhone for free because they're receiving revenue from the associated AT&T subscription -- by continuing to pay your monthly fee, you're paying for the added value delivered in software updates.

It's the same reason that the 802.11n enabler costs $2; they already sold you the MacBook (Pro), so they can't add value to it without charging you.

Also, imagine it's a month or two from now and there's a third-party product that adds all these apps and features to the Touch. Would you pay $20 for that? If so, why not pay $20 to Apple?

---------------------I think that guy summed it up

[Satish @ Mar 6th 2008 1:30PM]

they will load engadget for sure...
each story or two for each slide from the powerpoint today ...

[Eugene @ Mar 6th 2008 1:40PM]

You knew someone was gonna do it, might as well be me :P

*Technically* its a keynote :)

[David Vogt @ Mar 6th 2008 1:39PM]

Good god, it's just a SDK.

[Brendan Sheehan @ Mar 6th 2008 3:11PM]

And Nikon's just a camera brand :P

[Cellenin @ Mar 6th 2008 1:47PM]

Android, you are screwed!

[melloncollie @ Mar 6th 2008 2:29PM]

Not really.

[Homeboy @ Mar 6th 2008 1:48PM]

So...........is the iPhone completely opened for any 3rd party apps or what?

[Windzilla @ Mar 6th 2008 2:04PM]

When will it sling!

[Geoffrey Sperl @ Mar 6th 2008 2:19PM]

When Sling gets ahold of the SDK. ;)

[Alex @ Mar 6th 2008 8:40PM]

YES, SLING PLZ!

[Joe Mars @ Mar 6th 2008 2:09PM]

now I need VMware to emulate Mac OS to emulate iphone on my windows

[DWells55 @ Mar 6th 2008 2:11PM]

I was really expecting this to be half-done and for the most part worthless. I'm happy to have been proved wrong. It looks like they're really trying to make this a full and effective SDK, particularly by allowing access to hardware graphics and the iPhone Simulator. Very cool.

[Bryan T @ Mar 6th 2008 2:20PM]

That means no-love for me? Or is there a free way to say I'm a developer and get access to this badboy...I can't wait another 3 months (and buy 3 months, June, I Mean June 31)

[Rollins @ Mar 6th 2008 2:55PM]

If you're waiting for June 31st, you're going to be waiting a very long time.

[Kelmon @ Mar 7th 2008 9:10AM]

Assuming that you already have an Intel Mac running Leopard then you just need to need to download the SDK (http://developer.apple.com/iphone/sdk1/) in order to start. You can download this today and only need some sort of Apple user account (ADC, iTunes or Apple Store) and to register as an iPhone developer - no cost involved.

[Ryan Karolak @ Mar 6th 2008 2:26PM]

Would be nice if it were free, but considering all the rumors and expectations on how Apple could have messed it up I'm rather happy with how this turned out.

[Maztec @ Mar 6th 2008 2:31PM]

The SDK is free? Publication Rights cost $99. And if you just publish your code, people can get around it - at least those that were already hacking their phones.

[Ryan Karolak @ Mar 6th 2008 2:34PM]

You are right, it isn't free. I was saying it would be nice if it were free. People who hack and Jailbreak (myself included) will find ways of getting around it if we wish.

[Kelmon @ Mar 6th 2008 2:47PM]

The option of free would be nice but for $99 Apple will deal with hosting, distributing, advertising and selling your application. That's not bad. As far as I can tell that's a one-time fee and you only need to pay it when you are ready to launch your application - you don't have to pay it to develop it so you won't lose anything if it doesn't work out. DIY distribution would be a nice option but I presume there is nothing to stop you maintaining your own site and then linking to iTunes for actual downloads.

[James @ Mar 6th 2008 4:25PM]

The app store is great for the consumer and a good deal for the developer. What's not so great is that the app store (with accompanying charge for the developer) is the *only* way to distribute apps.

At least...the only way Apple wants there to be. Go go jailbreak.

[Ryan Karolak @ Mar 6th 2008 10:06PM]

$99 to put all the apps you'll ever make in the store isn't too bad. You should be able to use iTunes to install 3rd party apps you download off the net or make yourself for free though (and at your own risk.)

[Maztec @ Mar 6th 2008 2:30PM]

SDK available today?

1) Where do we get it? [Link?]
2) It does allow us to put programs we write ourselves on our phones for "testing purposes"?
3) Can we "share code" with other people and thus let them use our apps, without going through Apple's portal? Thus, instead of breaking it, we just load up the SDK initially, write an app to share apps, and start sharing free apps now?

[Maztec @ Mar 6th 2008 2:32PM]

Oh, I see, they are putting the $99 fee up front. Nevermind, meh.

[Jash @ Mar 6th 2008 9:30PM]

No the $99 fee is just to upload programs

the SDK itself is free

..ithink

[Toby @ Mar 6th 2008 2:42PM]

Ohhhh, access to the accelerometers. Can someone say Labyrinth? Yay!

[SimpleSurvival @ Mar 6th 2008 9:09PM]

this one's been done already...

i believe it happened a few months after hacking was successful

[Shan @ Mar 6th 2008 2:55PM]

Okay one thing I am confused about. It was said that free apps would be distributed for free, however does that still mean as a developer you HAVE to join the Dev network for the $99 fee regardless of whether you are offering your app for $0 or $20?

[Rollins @ Mar 6th 2008 2:58PM]

That's correct. In order to develop for the platform, you need to pay the $99 fee upfront, regardless of what you plan to charge for your apps. But for that price, your apps are both advertised and hosted on the iTunes AppStore. If your apps are free, you don't need to pay any fees other than the one-time $99 charge. If your apps aren't free, Apple takes 30% of your revenue.

[Shan @ Mar 6th 2008 3:11PM]

Thanks Rollins for the detailed answer! :)

[Shan @ Mar 6th 2008 2:56PM]

Okay one thing I am confused about. It was said that free apps would be distributed for free, however does that still mean as a developer you HAVE to join the Dev network for the $99 fee regardless of whether you are offering your app for $0 or $20?

[Gamer90 @ Mar 6th 2008 2:58PM]

My question is, will this new SDK allow people who create Jailbreak Apps to create EVEN BETTER apps?

[Niro @ Mar 6th 2008 4:59PM]

Yes this SDK is what the jailbreak community has been waiting for...screw waiting for the 2.0 firmware in June(or earlier because it will probably get leaked)..we just need the SDK to create way better appz and we already got the installer and great respitories so screw the appz store

[oh nooooo @ Mar 6th 2008 3:01PM]

The SDK will work only on Intel processors. How is that fair at all? What is there that my powerbook couldn't handle?

[T-Bone @ Mar 6th 2008 6:09PM]

Not only just on Intel processors, Windows users are completely out of luck.

[root.alt @ Mar 6th 2008 8:11PM]

Ya...its BS..I just spent multiple hours getting/installing the SDK on my powerbook..only to find out that I got OWNED.

[Brendan Sheehan @ Mar 6th 2008 3:11PM]

$100M iFund eh?

TELL ME MORE!! O-O

[Itchy Pajamas @ Mar 6th 2008 3:22PM]

After hearing all the details, I've got to say "I'm in!" (Or in Seinfeldian terminology, "I'm out!"

[Bubuschoeny @ Mar 6th 2008 3:30PM]

Wow the Ifone and the IPUD Touch-Myself can do a few new tricks. Something that other vendors have been doing for years. Let the ISheep start grazing. Hopefully WM7 and Andriod will put ahole (apple) back in its place.

[Adam @ Mar 6th 2008 3:39PM]

So does this mean you cannot give away your application? You'll always have to sell it as Apple wants the 30% upkeep... there must be a minimum sale price then, correct?

[Yuri @ Mar 6th 2008 4:21PM]

You can make a free application. There's nothing stopping you from that, Apple will even promote and advertise the apps, free or not.

You do have to pay the $100 up-front fee though. It's only a 1 time deal, and honestly, when thinking about any other software anywhere for any reason, $100 isn't that out-there. Look at Adobe products, and even CD burning software. It's not the same thing, but those programs cost just as much usually. The fee is small really.

[Reid B. @ Mar 6th 2008 4:02PM]

I would love to see someone develop a better music client that hooks up to SongBird instead of iTunes. Wouldn't that just rip Jobs a new one? That would be sweeeeeeeet! Then you could get rid of that dreck that is the bloated iTunes.

[Brendor @ Mar 6th 2008 4:25PM]

It's venture capital firm Kliener Perkins that created the iFund, not Apple. As i understand, this is the money they've set aside to fund startups that wish to develop for iPhone.