iPhone SDK downloads exceed 100,000, upcoming games get outed

Just four days after Apple announced that the beta version of the iPhone SDK would be available to developers, some 100,000 downloads have taken place. 'Course, it's not like we're shocked by Cupertino's latest horn tooting, but we've all ideas that number pales in comparison to the amount of requests for unlocks. Nevertheless, the real news from the Apple camp is that companies such as Namco and PopCap are apparently on board to bring titles such as Pac-man, Galaga, Bejeweled, Zuma and Peggle to the iPod touch / iPhone via App Store. Furthermore, Six Apart's CEO admitted that it's already developing a "native iPhone application for TypePad," and the VP of THQ Wireless implied that we'd be seeing some of its wares surface here as well. As for release dates? Your guess is as good as ours.

[Luigi193 @ Mar 12th 2008 9:33AM]

I can't write anything in Objective-C... but I downloaded it anyway...

That iPhone Simulator sure is freaky...

[tgeorg @ Mar 12th 2008 11:57AM]

I find objective-c to be a little too objective for my tastes. I think I'll wait for a more subjective one.

[danny @ Mar 12th 2008 4:49PM]

In other news, Google's Android SDK has reached over 700,000 downloads, without advertising or even a real device out.

-D
http://androidboards.com

[tony @ Mar 12th 2008 8:48PM]

and it's been out... how much longer?

[gareth @ Mar 12th 2008 9:52AM]

i bet only 10,00 of them 100 thousand can write in xcode

[SimonRichards @ Mar 12th 2008 9:39AM]

the point is, can they write objective-C in xcode? :D

[gareth @ Mar 12th 2008 9:51AM]

if u can write in objective c $$$$

[Numetheus @ Mar 12th 2008 1:36PM]

They gave several developers the SDK early to see what they could develop in 2 weeks. Some of the developers have no experience in xcode, objective-c, or even development on a mac prior. Electronic Arts developers said they have never developed on it, but were able to get the SDK, and within 2 weeks develop Spore. The guy that did the CRM (salesforce?) said he had never developed in those languages and was able to play around and get an app working in less than 2 weeks.

The SDK is supposed to be top notch. I don't think it will take people (the smarter ones) very long to get used to it.

[Kelmon @ Mar 12th 2008 6:38PM]

Write in XCode? The iPhone SDK requires you to write applications compiled in Objective-C against Apple's frameworks, but XCode itself will let you use quite a few languages, such as C, C++, Java, Ruby and Python, so take your pick. Objective-C itself is just C but extended to incorporate object-oriented principles (any valid C is OK in an Objective-C application and Objective-C compiles down to structs and procedures). If you already know C then you're away and running. C++ is probably helpful to know but Objective-C is a bit more Java-like in its object-oriented design rules (e.g. no inheritance from multiple parent classes) so you might have to unlearn some stuff.

[Seth Porter @ Mar 12th 2008 9:39AM]

I downloaded it. I'm going to try to learn xcode and make some simple applications. Its gonna be fun.

[a ham sandwich @ Mar 12th 2008 10:38AM]

me too! the transition from c++ or java to objective-c cant be that bad can it?

and 100,000 * 2gb. ouch. i feel sorry for apple and their servers.

[Only morons take this seriously. @ Mar 12th 2008 11:23AM]

dude, that is less than an hour of traffic at most video sites. YAWN.

[Brandon @ Mar 12th 2008 11:57AM]

But it isn't a video site...

[Kelmon @ Mar 12th 2008 6:09PM]

If you already know C then that's a good start. I'm a very novice developer with prior experience of Java only so Objective-C is definitely strange in comparison but also more readable at times. While he's taken his time about getting another edition out, I'd recommend picking up a copy of Aaron Hillegass's "Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cocoa-Programming-Mac-OS-X/dp/0321503619/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205359553&sr=1-2), which is finally being updated for OS X 10.5. It's not quite going to be the same as developing for the iPhone (it uses Cocoa Touch rather than Cocoa as its framework for the interface) but it'll teach you the basics of Objective-C, XCode, and get you writing applications. Best of luck.

[Andrew @ Mar 12th 2008 9:48AM]

I wonder how limited the games are going to be in terms of control since the iPhone lacks physical buttons. On my HTC Touch, I can't play Worms World Tour simply because there aren't enough keys to map for movement, jumping, shooting, etc. I realize the iPhone has accelerometers, but those can only be used for so much.

Still excited to see what comes out though!

[Matt @ Mar 12th 2008 9:59AM]

I imagine that it's going to be hard to shoehorn existing games onto the iPhone because of the control scheme. The interesting thing will be to see what comes along when developers start developing original and deep games from the ground up for the iPhone.

[Numetheus @ Mar 12th 2008 1:31PM]

Most games will be reworked. I hacked my iPhone a while ago and played the NES emulator. It had the nintendo controller buttons on the screen to press. It worked VERY well because the iPhone screen is a lot more sensitive and can recognize multiple touches. Something like that would not work very well or even be really possible on a Windows Mobile phone because compared to the iPhone. I imagine on-screen controls would be used. The screen is big enough, and the device is sensitive enough and recognizes multiple touches that it will work and work very well.

The sensors on iPhone are sensitive enough that playing games like Monkey Ball actually feels like you are controlling a wooden table with a ball on top of it. And first person shooter games would be natural because of how it will work. Accellerometer for aiming, a button on lower left to hold down for straffing, buttons on the right for weapon switching/grenades/etc, and touch everywhere else for shooting ... and that would work. iPhone screen is good enough to make it work ... not possible on WM phones like the HTC touch.

[Kelmon @ Mar 12th 2008 6:12PM]

It's going to be like the Wii - it'll likely take some time before developers figure out how to make games for a totally different control scheme. It's highly unlikely that the iPhone will be suitable for most games made today due to the reasons that you already stated. However, if it's done right then it could be pretty cool. Driving games where you can use the iPhone as a steering wheel are going to be a blast. Here's hoping that a version of WipeOut appears...

[dudeInAmerica @ Mar 12th 2008 2:19PM]

Objective-C + Xcode = hmmm

C++ under Eclipse wasnt good enough?

Sheez, off to the bookstore, oh and I need a mac too. :P

[Rich @ Mar 12th 2008 10:04AM]

Positive iPhone news -> Engadget main page
Negative iPhone news -> Dumped on Engadget Mobile, two days after everyone else reports it (see: http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008/03/11/iphone-sdks-seedy-underbelly-reveals-painful-limitations/ )

[ThePremierAssassin @ Mar 12th 2008 10:10AM]

BURN!

But honestly that is VERY SKETCHY of this website...

Why didn't you have that news on your MAIN website Engadget?

[clak @ Mar 12th 2008 10:31AM]

So first you guys complain because Engadget has Apple stories, but now you're saying you don't have a problem with Apple stories, just as long as they make Apple look bad. Make up your mind, haters.

[giuliop @ Mar 12th 2008 10:54AM]

@clak

Nope, you made that up. That guy is complaining about the fact that if Engadget publishes Apple news, at least they should do it coherently, and not screen bad news.

[David @ Mar 12th 2008 11:22AM]

Spot on Rich, not only was it posted on there secondary website, it was posted afterhours.

Engadget, can you make your Apple bais a little less obvious please.

[fred @ Mar 12th 2008 11:22AM]

"Positive iPhone news -> Engadget main page
Negative iPhone news -> Dumped on Engadget Mobile, two days after everyone else reports it (see: http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008/03/11/iphone-sdks-seedy-underbelly-reveals-painful-limitations/ )"

He raises a legit point. Virtually all iPhone news gets rushed to the main page of Engadget, but yet they decided that they were going to sweep this to another site days after it was seen elsewhere?

Aren't Apple fans at least a bit puzzled at this? Or is it as long as they tow the party line, they wont question it.

[clak @ Mar 12th 2008 11:55AM]

You guys have short term memory lost, I guess. This Engadget that seems to be so biased for Apple, seems to be releasing a lot of negative stories about Apple and that's just in the last few days. Like this one where Japan orders an investigation after the iPod Nano exploded:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/12/japan-orders-apple-to-investigate-exploding-ipod-nanos/

Or this article on March 11th where Engadget suggests that Apple let people "do what they want with your devices, since they're clearly going to do it anyway. That way, instead of making enemies, you're making lifelong buddies."

Oh, Engadget, will you stop with the sucking up!

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/11/iphone-dev-team-jailbreaks-firmware-2-0-before-its-out/

Another story about exploding iPod Nanos! Oh, Engadget, when will you stop fellating Steve Jobs! Honestly!

March 8th: http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/08/ipod-nano-sparks-bedroom-fire-no-humans-harmed/

[fred @ Mar 12th 2008 1:22PM]

#1 the story about the exploding batteries has to do with company that made the battery than Apple as many companies have had the same issues with the same manufacture. So how is this negative about Apple?

"Or this article on March 11th where Engadget suggests that Apple let people "do what they want with your devices, since they're clearly going to do it anyway. That way, instead of making enemies, you're making lifelong buddies.""

This isn't negative. This is Engadget writing their supposed "buddy" "Steve-O", begging him to see how much they love him and to acknowledge that love by just giving them what they want so their love for Apple can grow that much more. I've seen the rants on this site against products from companies like Microsoft. If you think that story was against Apple, then your bar is pretty darn low.

[JAmerican @ Mar 12th 2008 10:11AM]

Call me when they allow developers to multitask on the device. Its 2008 people! Even my 200MHz Windows Mobile Dash with less RAM allows me to multitask my applications I make for it.

JAmerican

[clak @ Mar 12th 2008 10:22AM]

Well, that's sorta why Windows Mobile runs like constipated shit, but whatever.

[ByronGman @ Mar 12th 2008 12:37PM]

@ Clak

Oh its that the comparatively better OS is forced to run on shitty hardware.

[Numetheus @ Mar 12th 2008 1:54PM]

Windows Mobile seems so outdated when you look at the 3rd party app examples that will be coming out for iPhone and compare it to the same WM apps. And to realize they were only done in 2 weeks? AIM looks 10x better and has a few more features developed in less than 2 weeks than its WM counterparts. WM is also not very efficient. SEGA has said they underestimated the iPhone when developing Super Monkey Ball. They had to treat the phone like a console rather than a mobile phone and had to fly in more people to UPSCALE everything to look good on it. I had a Tilt for a while and I would not consider that thing a very good 3D gaming platform. iPhone on the other hand has an OS very well capable of handling 3D graphics will OpenGL and 3D Sound. So you tell me which OS is comparatively better. Give it time, the gaming scene for iPhone will engulf WM just because it is a whole lot more capable. And i'm willing to bet that the 3rd party app scene will be better as well with much higher quality software. We have already seen that in simple 2 week sample development apps. Those apps are 10x more impressive than the WM counterparts, even after being developed for a very short amount of time.

[Kelmon @ Mar 12th 2008 6:45PM]

It's not that it can't do it - the existing applications show that it is quite capable of multi-tasking but I think the issue is how to allow this without causing the core applications to suffer from other applications running in the background from consuming the resources. Ultimately, it has to be able to do the core functions, particularly taking or making phone calls, without impact from other applications. I'm waiting to see how this pans out before making a judgement. With the exception of applications like instant messengers when you want to know that you've received a new message in the background, applications that save state when quitted and restore that state instantly are probably much better than ones running in the background.

[clak @ Mar 12th 2008 10:19AM]

LOL. I heard a Microsoft fanboy blogger saying that no one was downloading the SDK because you had to have a Mac to run it. Do these idiots not know that thousands of people develop for the Mac platform?

[Sam @ Mar 12th 2008 10:45AM]

I wonder if developers who usually don't develop for Mac will use it to work on the iPhone and then say "hey, this Mac ain't so bad" and make games for them too. I highly doubt it, but it would be a hell of an interesting side effect.

[Paris @ Mar 12th 2008 10:53AM]

I downloaded it and only have windows. Out of my excitement I didn't notice it was Mac only.

[Numetheus @ Mar 12th 2008 1:47PM]

Not to be rude, but anyone with experience would have noticed the file extention of the file being downloaded and instantly would have known it was not an app for Windows. You can just give me a link with absolutely nothing else and I will instantly cancel the download knowing it was not for my Windows PC just by looking at the filename and extention.

[ThePremierAssassin @ Mar 12th 2008 10:21AM]

Call me when iPhone Version 2.0 is announced and is capable of this "multitasking" that seems to be very commonplace among smartphones.

Sorry Jobs but still no sell wiht me. I've got an iPod and I'd love to get a freaking iPhone but so far all the complaints about the iPhones features (or lack thereof) have severly turned me off.

That and the fact that you're so controlling you won't even give people a discount who work for certain companies like other phone companies allow.

[clak @ Mar 12th 2008 11:20AM]

You see, that's exactly why some people will never understand why Apple is successful. Your definition of innovation is to copy what all the other smartphone makers are doing. If Apple had followed that line of thinking, they would have had a zillion buttons on the iPhone. Apple succeeds because they tailor the user experience to the platform.

You're like all those people that complained about the original iMac not having a floppy drive, who went on to complain about the iPods not having a removable battery or radio, who went on to complain that the iPhone didn't have a removable battery, who hated the MacBook Air because it didn't have a removable battery.

Now you same people are complaining because Apple doesn't multi-task like all the other crappy smart phones. That tells me that Apple is doing something right.

[fred @ Mar 12th 2008 11:45AM]

multitasking is considered copying?

And please spare us the "the iPhone is 100% original" speech, because only a Kool-aid drinker still believes that.

[Jagster @ Mar 12th 2008 11:54AM]

@ clak
So your saying that users do not like or benefit from multitasking OS? Enjoy your DOS.

[clak @ Mar 12th 2008 11:54AM]

Let's see, iPhones run OS X, which is very good at multi-tasking. I know because I have a Mac. I have seven apps open right now, and I'm shuttling back and forth using Spaces. So if Apple is limiting that function on the iPhone, it must have something to do with user experience, right?

So yes, including multi-task would have been copying what bad platforms do. Apple probably looked at the user experience on Windows Mobile and wondered why it was so slow as a software platform. Hmmmm, I wonder what conclusions they came up with? Maybe, just maybe, call me crazy, it had something to do with Microsoft trying to port their desktop operating experience to cell phones with a fraction of the hardware power of desktops. Nah, it couldn't be that. Forget everything I just said. That's just too crazy.

[clak @ Mar 12th 2008 12:07PM]

@fred

Let's see, iPhones run OS X, which is very good at multi-tasking. I know because I have a Mac. I have seven apps open right now, and I'm shuttling back and forth using Spaces. So if Apple is limiting that function on the iPhone, it must have something to do with user experience, right?

So yes, including multi-tasks on the iPhone would be copying, because that's exactly what all the crappy smart phones do. Apple probably looked at the user experience on Windows Mobile and wondered why it was so slow as a software platform. Hmmmm, I wonder what conclusions they came up with? Maybe, just maybe, call me crazy, it had something to do with Microsoft trying to port their desktop operating experience to cell phones with a fraction of the hardware power of desktops. Nah, it couldn't be that. Forget everything I just said. That's just too crazy.

[Bob S. @ Mar 12th 2008 12:28PM]

Just one of many reasons I so love my Sidekick LX and would never trade it in for an iPhone, despite using Macs since '84. The Sidekick has AIM, Yahoo Messenger, Windows Live Messenger, Mail, Browser, unlimited SMS, a real PIM, SSH, and a real keyboard, which the iPhone will never have. (The iPhone does have a better screen -- I do have an iPod touch, so I'm pretty aware of the platform's few advantages and many limitations. I'm amused that the "best iPod ever made" can't even be controlled without looking at it, and lacks many features of the real iPods, such as album shuffle.)

[fred @ Mar 12th 2008 1:26PM]

"So if Apple is limiting that function on the iPhone, it must have something to do with user experience, right?"

Riiiiight.

Tow the line if you must. Just when Apple does put multitasking on this thing, Im sure you will be the first to say "No, it's not copying", and then to tell us how glad you are to have it.

[roole @ Mar 12th 2008 2:30PM]

No. Clak is saying that if/when Apple decides to have m-t on the iPhone, it is because the hardware is actually capable of supporting it in a manner that will not put off users.

[dj-kenpo @ Mar 12th 2008 3:16PM]

uggghhh so much fanboy BS. can't read anymore.

[Aron Trimble @ Mar 12th 2008 10:34AM]

I swear if Popcap gets Bejeweled working on the iPhone BEFORE it works on Leopard my wife is going to have a conniption fit!

[Zak @ Mar 12th 2008 1:45PM]

Go to www.popcap.com on your iPhone right now. There you go, Bejeweled.

[Eric M @ Mar 12th 2008 10:56AM]

I'm still waiting to hear back from them about my application to 'join' the iPhone dev program for $99. I registered my corp on Thursday, but haven't gotten a single email about it. Other places I have read indicate no one has heard anything yet from them.

[James @ Mar 12th 2008 11:12AM]

Yup, in the same boat here. Given there is 100k developers with the SDK I wonder how many will pony up the $99? 20%? Perhaps Apple is screening the developers and is just overwhelmed. Annoying either way.