the iPhone is not a Smartphone - my first reaction to the keynote
- 06-11-2007, 02:08 PM #2
I originally wanted one bad, but now we know....
1. No IM (how is this even possible)
2. No MMS
3. No SDK, web apps only
This thing is not a smartphone, it is a cell phone with a pretty neat touchscreen ipod built in. My money is going elsewhere.
- 06-11-2007, 02:46 PM #3
Interesting article. I wasn't to clear on they meant by "web apps" for the iPhone yet no SDK, so thanks for breaking that down.
Regarding that Ballmer picture, between that and this from the Apple commercial intro I find their whole teasing and mocking of MS a little childish? Apple makes great products (and appliances,lol) but this is getting a little lame:
"I didn't have a choice, Vista is performing so well -- it sold tens of dozens of copies. Leopard was going to get lost in all that Wow. And I've got my iPod killer -- a brown Zune. It's time for Apple to wave the white flag. Don't shed tears..."
- 06-11-2007, 03:13 PM #4
- 06-11-2007, 03:26 PM #5
- 06-11-2007, 03:36 PM #6
Instead of further developing the Palm OS, Palm sees alliance with microsoft and WM and/or folio/linux as the future, and Apple sees the iphone. Time will tell how each approach fares. As a plain consumer joe, I have no dog in this fight, but I do see that sides are being drawn here between Palm/Microsoft versus Apple, and referring people to a WM website for an objective analysis of what Apple is doing, it shows me the side that TC has chosen.
- 06-11-2007, 04:29 PM #7
As far as Apple vs. MS/Palm, that is partially true but I think Palm is really about being independent yet supporting other OSs. They did say they would like to support the iPhone withe the Foleo, so that's sounds more like an olive branch than drawing a line.
But understand, the biggest hindrance to working with Apple is Apple. They are quite reluctant to cooperate with other companies since they feel they can always do it better and keep it better controlled (they are right to a certain extent). So I'm sure Palm wouldn't mind working with them if they could (they have way more in common with Apple than MS as far as end-user vision), but they are dealt with the cards they are given.
Garnet is dead but they'll continue to support. They will have their new Linux/Palm OS which will continue their tradition.
- 06-11-2007, 04:29 PM #8
- 06-11-2007, 04:50 PM #9
- 06-11-2007, 05:30 PM #10
- 06-11-2007, 05:37 PM #11
From the WMExperts article:
No support for a real developer community means that Apple is releasing an appliance, not a platform. Without a platform, the iPhone is not a smartphone, Q.E.D. Just so we're perfectly clear here: It's looking like Blackberry has better third party support than the iPhone will.
Those of you basing what is and is not a smartphone on the ability to develop therefore need to modify your definition (2.0 if you will) to include web apps. The iPhone might not change the flow completly, but because it will trumpet mobile web apps, the consumers that use the iPhone just might end up wanting basic web app-like services for their device. From there, the browser is the OS to develop on, and native apps become background concerns.
Lastly, this is an excellent move for carriers. Mobile apps that rely on teh browser mean a data connection, meaning more unlimited plans that need to be had. Good for them, good for Apple since the platform is essentially closed but open in one area.
- 06-11-2007, 05:42 PM #12
:evil: For Archie
I can understand Apple not implementing GPS. It's stupid but I get it. What I don't understand is why they would say NO instant messanging. I was sure they would announce iChat Mobile. I can't believe they are going to say they are reinventing the cell phone then release it with half the features of any standard smart phone/pda available today for less money. Can anyone explain why there is no IM'ing or tell me if this half assed 3rd party announcement could bring about the ability to do that. Or will we all be stuck logging onto AIM Express through Safari (if that even works on this crippled device)
Antoine, whats good for the carriers is bad for the consumers. Why should one be happy to depend on network access to read their Bible on the IPhone? You better not think of driving through the desert using Google maps, do you. And no third party apps for you if you dont buy a data plan..
This sucks (for Archie of course :evil: )
- 06-11-2007, 05:50 PM #13Antoine, whats good for the carriers is bad for the consumers. Why should one be happy to depend on network access to read their Bible on the IPhone? You better not think of driving through the desert using Google maps, do you. And no third party apps for you if you dont buy a data plan..
What I would like (hope) to see is that people would read their Bible (or whatever) on the iPhone. However, instead of streaming the text all the time, have the text cached, and then use the online accessiblity to engage the content with maps, discussion, shared bookmarking, etc. There is room for happieness on both sides of the web app coin. I just hope that developers dont take the easy way out and keep everything as a http-equiv call, making carriers a lot more happy than users in that case.
EDIT: I wrote this not long after reading the Engadget Mobile article: http://www.antoinerjwright.com/2007/...obile-apps.htm
- 06-11-2007, 05:59 PM #14
Sorry, dont buy it. Not that this will bother most people (and it may actually be easier for some) but there is no denying this is a major disadvantage.
For me, it means there will be no SlingBox, no logmein, no alternate calender like Pocket Informant, no TCMP. And when you clear your cache all your apps are gone...
- 06-11-2007, 06:00 PM #15
- 06-11-2007, 07:15 PM #16
To answer then Surur's post I quoted, a correctly written web app would be one part cookie and cache usage, and another part a web control (think like ActiveX) that a user has on their device. The user control tells the server that some snippet of the application has been installed - usually a runtime and server credentials. Depending then on the app, a person either has something that has to sit in an open browser window all the time, or a program that can go offline for some functionality and then make a call back to the server for updaing or new information.
In the case of the apps that were mentioned, LogMeIn would not need an app - it shouldn't anyways. TCMP/iTunes could run locally stored content, and then connect to a sever (something like MyStrands) for additoinal music or other content tie-ins.
If it was written right, Singbox could use FlashVideo to show the content and therefore only need a browser as well.
This is not to say that these apps would be as efficient as native apps, but that there is much that can be done if developers start to think about using a device, not just pushing out an app.
To go back to the Bible reading aanlogy, I had some conversations with the folks at eBible.com some time ago. I asked them if they would consider making their eBible website a hybrid appliciton. One where a person would be able to download and read the Bible normally (browser or native app), but then that connects to their other services and content as premium content. While they expressed interest, the effects of such an endavor means that a company has to give up some control of rudamentary content in order to make a compelling offering to keep people around. Web apps do that. There will be a ton of them at the iPhone launch and after, but only a few will show definitve benefit, and don't be surprised if MS Live is one of them.
- 06-11-2007, 07:33 PM #17
- 06-11-2007, 07:44 PM #18With reference to the discussion in the other thread, would I be right in thinking a meebo-like multi-platform IM client should be possible? Perhaps meebo even?
- 06-11-2007, 07:53 PM #19
- 06-11-2007, 08:00 PM #20
- 06-11-2007, 08:05 PM #21
- 06-11-2007, 08:44 PM #22
I think you will see alot of apps like the one shown today in the keynote. The app was kind of like a telephone directory front-end connecting to a back-end ldap directory. There will probably be little or no local storage of anytype of databases or data. Dont expect to see financial apps, password keeping programs, 3rd party calenders, or anything else where data needs to be stored locally.
- 06-11-2007, 09:21 PM #23
- 06-11-2007, 09:23 PM #24
Hey Antoine, there are tons of apps; that as far as I know you will not be able to run through a web app without giving it control to local APIs(which would defeat the whole purpose of sandoxing)
Things like radio control apps, volume hacks, etc. Anything that would require access to hardware API's you just won't get.
Also; I'm not aware of this being spoke of or resolved; what happens when you go offline? will you lose connectivity to all your apps? Does this built in browser use something along the lines of Google's Gears? Sorry if I didn't catch the answer to this one.
I may be asking too much, but I subscribe to Make mags motto.. "If you can't open it, you don't own it." Or something like that.
What I'm really wishing for is an larger version of the IPhone that is open and not connected to a wireless carrier.
Maybe the next IPod will be what I'm looking for.
- 06-11-2007, 09:59 PM #25