You can't install applications on iPhone?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

mikec#IM

Well-known member
Dec 4, 2002
890
0
0
Visit site
well

Jobs is just stalling until Apple can figure out how to control all the apps, and/or charge a lot of $$ for some lame widget.

I think the 3rd party apps issue has Job very nervous...I think he expected people to love the fact Apple would control your phone...guess what Steve, we don't.
 

archie

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
532
0
0
Visit site
marcol said:
Update on 3rd party app situation:
Is the iPhone’s platform closed? And if it is, will it be open to developers in the future? Jobs says it’s a security issue, but Apple is working to find a way to allow developers to build applications for it. Jobs says he doesn’t want the iPhone to be “one of those phones that crashes a few times a day.” He adds: “We would like to solve this problem and if you could just be a little more patient with us, we’ll do it.”
http://d5.allthingsd.com/20070530/st...-ceo-of-apple/

Sounds like they might end up with something like the Symbian Signed program.

https://www.symbiansigned.com/app/page
Isn't that all rather pathetic and contradictory? He claims the device has FULL OSX under the hood, but is scared as hell that it will crash daily. Do OSX laptops crash daily, or is there really no 3rd party apps for macophiles?

His paranoia makes me really wonder how buggy and fragile REAL OSX is. Or maybe he's just lying and has other motivations. Its really one or the other, isn't it.

Surur
Your tone is unquestionably negative and slanted. There is no paranoia or lying or sneaky motivation involved.

What IS involved is the development of an SDK? Even if a person does not develop applications, they would realize this to be necessary. This SDK development takes time and was not completed when Steve Jobs last commented on this (probably still isn't - I don't know). At the very least, it depended on further development of the LLVM (low level virtual machine) that Apple is now incorporating into OS X.

Why did it take so long? Incorporating LLVM like Apple is doing for the iPhone has never been done before. 90% of LLVM contributions have been from Apple and it has occured only over the last year. But it is far enough along now that he can say with certainty that there will be development opportunities.

Why is this so? Well, only recently has the LLVM matured enough to reinvent the way code (applications) will be run on this new computer called the iPhone. With this new incorporation of LLVM in OS X for the iPhone and soon, Leopard, I can assure you this device will be extremely stable and safe — and fast.

So your statement saying, "Its really one or the other, isn't it." should have been a question because you do not realize that it isn't "one or the other". Rather, it's something else altoghter that you are not aware of.



On a side note, this LLVM in Leopard will have a lot to do with, in what many will consider, the one big feature of Leopard. No, it doesn't have anything to do with the interface.
 

marcol

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2005
762
0
0
Visit site
Hi Archie! Welcome back. That all seems plausible to me with my not so great knowledge of LLVM (all of which was gained from Wikipedia and llvm.org in the last 10 minutes :))

This SDK development takes time and was not completed when Steve Jobs last commented on this (probably still isn't - I don't know).
Obviously I don't know either but I did notice this rumour:

A person briefed on Apple?s plans said that at its software developer conference this month, Apple intends to announce that it will make it possible for developers of small programs written for the Macintosh to easily convert them to run on the iPhone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/technology/04iphone.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
Archie, no need to rewrite history. He was talking about the IPhone crashing long before he agreed to let third parties in. No need to invent waiting for some LLVM to justify his reticence.

Surur
 

archie

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
532
0
0
Visit site
I wasn't "invent(ing) a waiting for some LLVM to justify his reticence".

In fact, this IS the reason he waited. You see, the LLVM sits directly atop the hardware, right below the OS level. It is for this reason, and its necessary completion, that Steve was unsure of developer contributions. Without it being completed, how could Steve state the strategy. This LLVM seperates apps (at runtime anyway - not to familiar with it) from the OS keeping any... shall we say misbehaving, or maybe... deviant application out of harms way.

There are other factors involved I am sure, but this is at the heart of it.

Apple has one chance to make an impression here and they are doing they're darnest to make it the best phone anywhere at its introduction. If the iPhone crashes throughout your daily routine because of a poorly implemented scheme for outside development, that will not be good.
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
I wasn't "invent(ing) a waiting for some LLVM to justify his reticence".

In fact, this IS the reason he waited. You see, the LLVM sits directly atop the hardware, right below the OS level. It is for this reason, and its necessary completion, that Steve was unsure of developer contributions. Without it being completed, how could Steve state the strategy. This LLVM seperates apps (at runtime anyway - not to familiar with it) from the OS keeping any... shall we say misbehaving, or maybe... deviant application out of harms way.

Oh, so you are fake steve.

Surur
 

archie

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
532
0
0
Visit site
Keep reading. I say there are other factors I am not aware of. I am not trying to pull the wool over anybodies eyes here.
... shall we say misbehaving, or maybe... deviant application out of harms way.

There are other factors involved I am sure, but this is at the heart of it.
There was a lot that still needed to be completed even before submission to the FCC. Heck, if you check the records, they didn't even get the iPhone submitted until a month and a half ago because they were still working on this stuff.
 

archie

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
532
0
0
Visit site
I don't fully understand how the LLVM works and to what degree it will serve Apple.

What I understand though is that Apple's reliance on LLVM for Mac OS X will be more inline with the technology's namesake.

That's it. You have to guess from there.
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
LLVM I understand is a translation layer, which would allow software written in one language to be decompiled into an intermediate platform-independent bytecode. Its a bit like .Net in that you could write in Java and still use the .Net VM to execute your code. What this means in theory is that it would be easy for MacOs apps to be recompiled to run on ARM processors. I do not see much at all in the specification regarding sandboxing code, so I see it more as a compatibility layer than a security layer. I though MacOs already had user and kernel separation, and that User-mode could not change system settings and system files in any case.

Surur
 

MacUser

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2004
271
0
0
Visit site
I'm not techno-master, but it seems like a simple concept. You don't want buggy apps on a new product to ruin the initial experiences. I HAVE installed buggy crap on my Mac, in OS X, and had to uninstall it because it was buggy. What's the point?

I'm sure they just want to make sure that poorly designed 3rd party apps won't crash, lag or ruin the iPhone experience.
 

lschiedel

New member
May 30, 2007
2
0
0
Visit site
Or bring down all the communications systems of the free world!!! :rolleyes: What silliness!

Actually, If someone wrote a VOIP app for the iPhone, that could take down Cingular's network because people would use data minutes instead of paying long distance fees!

Especially if it worked while you were at a WIFI hotspot (ie no Cingular minutes at all!).

Of course they may just be referring to viruses or Denial Of Service attacks.
Say someone wrote a virus that spread and was designed to all call at the same time.

But then why hasn't this happened to Palm phones?
(oh yeah, no WIFI).
 

volwrath

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2006
47
0
6
Visit site
Actually, If someone wrote a VOIP app for the iPhone, that could take down Cingular's network because people would use data minutes instead of paying long distance fees!

Well except for the fact the iphone isnt 3g, so the data connection would be too slow to use voip
 

Kupe#WP

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2000
343
1
0
Visit site
Actually, If someone wrote a VOIP app for the iPhone, that could take down Cingular's network because people would use data minutes instead of paying long distance fees!

Especially if it worked while you were at a WIFI hotspot (ie no Cingular minutes at all!).
Given the lack of any emoticon I can only assume you meant that in seriousness. VOIP cellphones have been around for at least 3 years (Windows Mobile - heard of it?) with Verizon and it hasn't caused so much as a dent in their business.

Of course they may just be referring to viruses or Denial Of Service attacks.
Say someone wrote a virus that spread and was designed to all call at the same time.
LOL - so your only point is you feel the most unique/new thing the iPhone brings to the world of wireless communication is significantly increased vulnerability to malicious software? Are you as clueless as Steve Jobs on this topic? :D
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
I think he is being sarcastic. He's implying AT&T wants to prevent VOIP in what they believe will be their most popular smartphone ever with WIFI.

Surur
 

dstrauss#IM

Well-known member
Sep 20, 1999
192
0
0
Visit site
...I'm sure they just want to make sure that poorly designed 3rd party apps won't crash, lag or ruin the iPhone experience.

Amen. How many posts were there around here right after the Treo 600 release warning everyone about serious instability problems after loading up with Palm software...there is NO WAY to know how a poorly written app (or even one well written but using undocumented hooks) can trash the cell phone side. Also, how often do we hear around here that it "is a cell phone first" So, although I'm far from an Apple fanboy, I'd cut them a lot of slack on this one.

Just think about it...as a cell phone, how much more stable is your Razr than your Treo?
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
Amen. How many posts were there around here right after the Treo 600 release warning everyone about serious instability problems after loading up with Palm software...there is NO WAY to know how a poorly written app (or even one well written but using undocumented hooks) can trash the cell phone side. Also, how often do we hear around here that it "is a cell phone first" So, although I'm far from an Apple fanboy, I'd cut them a lot of slack on this one.

Just think about it...as a cell phone, how much more stable is your Razr than your Treo?

Every time some-one installs a 3rd party app its to meet a need not catered for by the OEM, be it for better wallpaper or to record expenses. By stopping owners from doing this you deliberately leave them limited and unsatisfied.

This whole thing just confirms what many people have always said - when it comes to security and stability, Apple is no better than anyone else, they are just not being targeted.

Surur
 

lschiedel

New member
May 30, 2007
2
0
0
Visit site
Given the lack of any emoticon I can only assume you meant that in seriousness. VOIP cellphones have been around for at least 3 years (Windows Mobile - heard of it?) with Verizon and it hasn't caused so much as a dent in their business.

LOL - so your only point is you feel the most unique/new thing the iPhone brings to the world of wireless communication is significantly increased vulnerability to malicious software? Are you as clueless as Steve Jobs on this topic? :D

And how did i imply that is the only unique/new thing the iPhone brings to the world of wireless communication? I was talking only about the 3rd party software situation.

All i said was that AT&T might be worried about VOIP (again not that they deserve to) and about VIRUSES (again not that thats the big point of the IPHONE).

You think maybe some clueless execs at AT&T may have put pressure on Apple because they have heard about VOIP and don't want Apple to put it on the phone?

Or that Jobs is worried his reputation may get tarnished by the first virus passed by bad 3rd party software that makes people think its a vunerability in OS X (which he still insists is the OS of the IPHONE).
 

Pearl_Diva

Well-known member
Mar 24, 2005
650
0
0
Visit site
Amen. How many posts were there around here right after the Treo 600 release warning everyone about serious instability problems after loading up with Palm software...there is NO WAY to know how a poorly written app (or even one well written but using undocumented hooks) can trash the cell phone side. Also, how often do we hear around here that it "is a cell phone first" So, although I'm far from an Apple fanboy, I'd cut them a lot of slack on this one.

Just think about it...as a cell phone, how much more stable is your Razr than your Treo?

But how much less usable was my RAZR than the Treo? ;)
However, I only loaded well-reviewed apps on my Treo. People here like to do beta testing and that's why apps messed up the Treo.

Allowing 3rd party apps is a chance you have to take if you want to infiltrate the smartphone market(assuming this is one thing Apple wants to do. I still think it's more a multimedia phone). OR create powerful enough apps so no one wants to look anywhere else. But even then, some developer will come up with something you didn't think of.
 

Trending Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
261,143
Messages
1,769,825
Members
441,294
Latest member
brunnic