the iPhone is not a Smartphone - my first reaction to the keynote

mobileman

Well-known member
Apr 28, 2004
368
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

Malatesta

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2006
450
0
0
Visit site
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..."

I mean, I actually think they have the upper hand in usability and features, but that seems beneath them even though they are just teasing.
 

cellmatrix

Member
Jun 6, 2004
10
0
0
www.nature.com
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.
 

Malatesta

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2006
450
0
0
Visit site
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.
Well, in fairness to septimus, WM Experts is recent offshoot of this site and I'm not really convinced they are MS evangelicals, but your point is taken. In reality there is no such thing as objectivity. That's just a word people throw around.

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.
 

samkim

Well-known member
Sep 27, 2004
80
0
0
Visit site
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.
Septimus wrote the article. He just happened to have published it at the WM site instead of at TC.
 

Gaurav

New member
Nov 6, 2002
4
0
0
Visit site
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.



Ummmmm....phonedifferent.com is also an offshoot of TC so how can you say TC is choosing sides? They're covering all their bases if you ask me! :D
 
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.

I take total offense at this. There are a whole lot more people doing some element of web development than there are doing mobile device development. The fact that the the iPhone just took the focus away from the native app side of things and thrust it on the web app sides of things means that if new developers want to jump in, the barrier to entry is lowered.

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.
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
: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)
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3741436&postcount=38

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: )

Surur
 
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..

I think that there is a way to make it good for both in terms of web apps and that is simply leveraging the ability of web apps to cache their content for use later (think Google Gears meets an ofline webbrowser). That works just fine for a number of reasons, the least of which being that a person keeps rich functinality, but is only online when they want to be.

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/2007/06/iphones-biggest-innovationmobile-apps.htm
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
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...

Surur
 

marcol

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2005
762
0
0
Visit site
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.
I don't know a whole lot about this, but isn't one of the points about Ajax that you don't have to do that?
 
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...

Looks like I will have a slew of new articles to write now. I understand your perspective, but what you are describing is not what would happen with a well written web application.

I don't know a whole lot about this, but isn't one of the points about Ajax that you don't have to do that?

AJAX is a style of programming that leverages XHTML, CSS, JavaScript, usually some database integration, and server calls using the http-equiv command. It is the summation of all of these elements that makes what is referred to as AJAX.

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.
 

marcol

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2005
762
0
0
Visit site
Thanks, Antoine! That really is very helpful.

Looks like I will have a slew of new articles to write now.

Please do!

With 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?
 
With 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?
Not just possible, but easier to get wholesale approval from all the IM biggies since technically one could sign into all of them, and then have a wrapper screen that shows the state of the respective IMs.
 

TomUps

Member
Feb 13, 2006
6
0
0
Visit site
As somebody that has done some web development, my opinion is that ajax stinks, nobody uses it. Do not expect 3rd party apps that are like what you see on the palm os. I have no idea what apple is thinking.
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
Except for complex javascript constructs, I do not believe any native code will run on the IPhone, meaning hybrid apps are impossible. SlingBox needs a native client to be fast enough to render their custom adaptive codec. TCMP needs to install alternate codecs on the device, Logmein also needs to maintain a secure connection to your desktop via a custom protocol, meaning a fast local client, and a calender replacement obviously needs local access to your database.

Hybrid apps are not possible, only pseudo-hybrid apps, with very weak javascript-based local clients.

On an underpowered device you just can not rely on Javascript to get the job done.

Surur
 

Trending Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
260,316
Messages
1,766,378
Members
441,238
Latest member
Shortringtones