A Very Sweet Solution

Good catch. I believe this is what they call a knockout punch. :)

That's a good point :)

But (until we know whether or not the iPhone knows its current location and provides it to the Maps application) I'd ask what exactly in the demo they show in the ad looks so special that it couldn't be done in standard JavaScript as well.

Agreed. It's just hard to believe how they seemingly _wanted_ to shaft developers this year.

If they hadn't said more than "we don't have an SDK ready yet, but in the meanwhile, the full Safari browser is there for you to utilize to its fullest extent" that would have been enough for me.

Of course it's silly releasing an SDK on a Rev.1 product.

Perfectly done! Further proof that this year's Keynote was full of marketing prate instead of the reality-changing unveilings we've come to expect. To add insult to injury, they even had Captain Obvious write up a press release!!!

until we know whether or not the iPhone knows its current location and provides it to the Maps application

I use Google Maps on a Treo, as an application, not in a browser. No GPS, and no fancy cell-tower interpolation, so it doesn't know my location, but it does know where I last looked something up, which is nearly always my own city.

When you search for a business in the Treo app, it uses the center of the displayed map as the reference point, rather than asking you to plug in a location the way the website does. I've been assuming that the demo showed in the Calamari ad works exactly the same way.

The Treo version of Google Maps doesn't have the slickly animated pins dropping onto the map surface, and it annoyingly can't save locations except as a most-recently-used popup list, but it's a hell of an application all the same. It'd take a bona fide iPhone SDK for me to consider jumping ship, especially while those NSA-lickspittle hoopleheads at AT&T are the sole carrier.

I can't imagine Apple locking down the iPhone forever from a real SDK. This is rev1 and Apple has already had to redistribute developers from their other teams to the iPhone just to make the deadline. Jobs hasn't given any indication that there will never be a SDK, just that for now, limiting apps to the WebKit engine is a good way to CYA. This leaves a lot of upside for future iPhone apps announcements/upgrades, lets Apple iron out kinks in the OS implementation, and gives them time to secure and test the environment for 3rd-party apps.

The iPhone can know where it is. Note I said _can_

All mobile voice communication devices (i.e. phones) sold in the U.S. since march of 2002 are required to have locational technology built into them. This can be either by full GPS or tower triangulation. This location information is transmitted for 911 calls only. (Check the e911 provisions for full details.)

This leaves the door open to manufacturers to give users the option to 'get' location if they desired to. Furthermore, it doesn't seem too much a leap that Apple, with the motivation of having maps on board as a shipping app, could conceivably enable users to do this at-whim.

The question of the hour then is _will_ they?

I'm sorry, but this is getting pathetic. Here you are dancing with joy about catching Steve Jobs in a supposed contradiction. I certainly didn't it see it that way because it's clear to me there wil be certain things you can't do in a browser. Yet, at the same time, it will still be possible to write great and functional web apps that more-or-less behaves the same as many of the apps on the iPhone. So don't be confusing - it's a paradox, not a contradiction.

I've been trying to say this where I can, but as a user, I'm getting very tired of developers being insulted. People are too easily insulted these days. I was reading about how some lawyer is suing the owners of a drying cleaning business for $53 million because they misplaced his favorite pants and the insult did grievous injury to him. You try convincing that lawyer his being insulted is imagined, and I have no doubt he will try to sue you, too.

I don't care if a perceived insult is real in your minds. Cause at the end of the day, you either develop or you don't. You don't develop web apps cause you already convinced yourself they will be inferior to the "real" apps. Or you develop something while angrily cursing under your breath the whole way.

Well, I know what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna go with the developer who has a positive attitude. One who is maybe disappointed about the lack of an SDK, but is willing to roll with it and take a glass-is-half-full attitude.

Just look at widgets and see that how "real" developers have been left behind by non-professional coders. The reason is, I think, attitude and that's something that's entirely up to you.

Too bad everyone is so busy being insulted and going all Anakin instead of Obi-Wan...

Yet, at the same time, it will still be possible to write great and functional web apps that more-or-less behaves the same as many of the apps on the iPhone. So don't be confusing - it's a paradox, not a contradiction.

I'm going to guess that you've never compiled anything before.

Developers that whine just want their jobs done for them.

@Nat,

As a matter of fact, I have compiled stuff before (C and FORTRAN programs in my engineering classes in college). But is there a reason you are trying to point out I'm not a developer?

And that is exactly my point. I don't care if you are so insulted that you won't develop a web app for the iPhone. Because plenty of developers WILL do it because they are to busy writing non-compiled code that does something useful. Some of them won't be so useful, but I'm willing to bet that there will be a few "killer" web apps.

And the vast majority of the people who will be buying the iPhones won't care one bit that you guys are still fuming over how Steve Jobs has insulted you.

The fallacy of your argument is that one must have compiled code and an SDK to make great apps. Those things might be necessary to make the BEST apps, but for now, USERS will be more than happy to settle for merely great.

The choice is up to you - wait until the SDK comes out (could be a long wait) just so you can make an iPhone app you can live with. Or suck it up, make the best of it, and embrace what's available and give us users stuff we're willing to use (and buy).

@Paul

I'm a web developer, and since the iPhone was first announced and demonstrated I've known full well that our web apps would be useable on the iPhone. And I look forward to tweaking the interfaces to make them more convenient for the iPhone.

But that's not the point. Yes, you can make great web apps that work on the iPhone. But you can't do stuff like the iPod CoverFlow view in javascript. Sorry, you just can't. The iPhone natively supports Open GL, and Quartz Compositing, among other things... WebApps can't use any of that stuff.

Anyway, to change back to the topic... I agree with a few others here. The SDK will come eventually. It was too much for us to ask for it so soon. But Steve was in the wrong to try to pawn Web2.0 apps off for Real iPhone apps.

I'm willing to bet that there will be a few "killer" web apps.

Which will be targeted exclusively at one device? I'd take that action. The definition of a killer app is that it drives hardware sales. Who'd want to limit their brilliant web app to a device with a few million owners, when it also by definition runs in Safari?

Meanwhile, your Phone-targeted web app will be neither ubiquitous nor platform-independent like a web app, nor will it have a rich native UI, local storage or offline operation like a native app.

If you think the privilege of targeting the iPhone overcomes that constellation of drawbacks, you've probably got a hell of a good idea for a web app.

The fallacy of your argument is that one must have compiled code and an SDK to make great apps.

I don't see anyone making that mistake. However, the WWDC audience Jobs unsuccessfully pitched has invested years in learning how to write software for desktop machines. Writing web apps is not an easily transferable skillset, even if the desktop and web application problem domains really did overlap to the extent that you seem to believe.

@Paul

Some developers get insulted at virtually anything. But LOTS of developers get insulted when they pay serious money and spend serious time at a technical conference and get marketing bullshit. And, frankly, developers have a right to be insulted--they dedicate their freakin' lives to a platform at times. With little thanks.

For 6 months we've been hearing and dreaming about "OS X" inside. And here is a conference all about all the deep capabilities of OS X... so every demo of what's new is a demo of something you can't do on an iPhone.

If all we needed was Javascript, there wouldn't be a WWDC.

To a developer, the iPhone is a device, not a platform. That's a huge difference. I don't expect most people to know the difference (and if web browsers ARE your platform, you don't care)-- but a company charging developers so it can sell them on being developers for their platform--they ought to.

It's forgiveable. But it's the lamest thing SJ has done since he returned to Apple.

And I'll make one distinction others seem to be missing about Web apps. They REQUIRE net connectivity to function even if they don't need any backend services.

There's nothing wrong with Web Apps so long as you accept their limitations. As others have pointed out, it's not the message it's how it was delivered. Fine that there's no SDK for now. But then say that and don't try to sell Web 2.0 as the solution. "Say what you mean, mean what you say."

@ Pat 2.0

One other alternative to location. Accelerometer. It'd have to be very precise. =)

@ Jay

Google Gears

To me it's pretty obvious why Apple is keeping 3rd-party developers relegated to the internet only and not have their apps/widgets directly on the phone: containing and controlling the "wow" factor of the iPhone.

If they control: Then there's 11 to 12 widget/app buttons on front and everytime a new feature comes out from Apple... wow. "Cool. Look what else my iPhone does".

If they don't control: People write thousands of widgets/apps and no longer does it matter what Apple releases, it's lost among thousands of other smaller bits of software that do the same or similar things.

It's important that Apple keep giving people reasons to buy the iPhone. Each new Apple feature needs to be considered a big deal. By leaving 3rd parties on the 'net, they're cutting out the competition.

That's fundamentally retarded logic James Gowan.

OS X has a handful are perfectly usable Virtual Desktop applications.

Spaces is still a big deal.

Also, why is everyone ignoring the fact that Apple has never opened up the iPod to 3rd party development, aside from a limited number of game developers?

The iPhone includes an iPod. Apple is probably worried that, were developers able to write compiled applications on the iPhone they'd get access to music files stored on the iPod side.

Next thing you know, folks are sharing MP3s via the Wifi, and the RIAA gets pissed off and their next negotiations for the iTunes store get a good deal harder.

Why do folks assume the iPhone would have an open and simple SDK when the iPod never has?

When they were demoing that little Apple DA phonebook that ran on the web, I kept thinking "And now they'll drag that address into the address book, right?" But it never happened, and it pointed out how limited web apps can be. They can do alot, but on a personal productivity device like a phone, small tightly tailored apps really shine.
JR

I don’t understand the Jobs’ quote “real” developers are bandying about lately, as if it makes Jobs a hypocrite or something. The quote only shows that Jobs knows the difference between web and local apps. It strengthens a case to be made by more rational people that there WILL be an iPhone SDK at some point.

And what’s with acting as if Apple somehow did something bad by letting third-party web apps on the iPhone, and announcing it even before launch?

I don’t believe Apple was trying to pull anything on anybody or insulting anybody. They had no reason to hang their heads or act apologetic because there was no iPhone SDK at the conference. No reasonable person should have expected one. Instead, they offered a means of getting third-party apps on the iPhone for now. That is good news, and should be perceived as such.

I believe using web apps is useful, and that we’ll see some pretty cool things. Writing them off, as many appear to be doing, is short-sighted and premature.

Frankly, it all sounds a lot like whining. Waaah, we want to write “real” apps, not web apps. Whatever. Scratch your ass until the SDK is available. Meanwhile, developers not too proud for the web may steal some thunder from “real” app writers while the latter are busy crying in their beer.

"And what’s with acting as if Apple somehow did something bad by letting third-party web apps on the iPhone, and announcing it even before launch?"

I'm sorry, I agree with much of what you said (few rational developers expected an SDK) but I react quite strongly to your idea that Apple is "letting" third-party web apps/sites work on the iPhone. Did you honestly think Safari would have a white-list of "approved" sites you could visit?

Apple will keep iPhone SDK to its heart as long as it can, not until competitors are catching up with a magic combo of hardware and software. Steve has learnt the mistake from Macintosh in 1984. He did let Microsoft to develop Mac software before Mac was even released and Microsoft used the Macintosh SDK as their blue-print of the Windows 1.0. At that time, Windows 1.0 was a joke and Steve thought Apple was way ahead of their competitors. Mac at 1984 was excellent when compared to PC but most buyers couldn't afford the high price and they just didn't think 9" monitor was good enough to work with and also the mouse was required to use instead of just using keyboard commands. If you look at today situation, it is almost the same as before. People think using finger on touch screen is not that good since their experience of touch screen before iPhone were mostly bad. Also, mobile users already adjusted themselves to love the small keyboard on Blackberry-like phones. The only exception of 2007 is different than 1984 is that Apple doesn't allow any company to touch/see its iPhone SDK. That would make their competitors harder to catch up. Apple needs the time to build up their market share. Once they got the market share big enough (like Microsoft Office or Apple iPod), no matter how good the other competitors were, consumers would follow the market share to buy their gadget. Well, unless Apple at that time wasn't sure what they were doing like Palm did in the last few years. I quite sure all iPod games were ported by Apple employees instead of EA or Popcap. So, even though we may see third-party software, they will be made by Apple. Apple will probably not allow Adobe or Microsoft in their iPhone arena. To be honest, their products are quite good and critical to Mac/PC users. However, it was too critical to a level that those companies could threaten Apple in the 90's. Apple had the power and opportunity to make Photoshop or Office for Mac if they really want to but Steve thought if Apple did software too much, developers would not have interest to the platform. Well, history told us that he was wrong. Steve has learnt that developers can help you grow or become your worst nightmare. He is going to make his iPhone move very cautious this time and make sure developers can only do the grow part instead of the nightmare.

Anyone else wonder about this:

"And these apps can integrate perfectly with iPhone services."

?

And also, for those saying "Aw man, if it works on the web where's the hardware sales? You can't write a "killer app" if it will work on any phone" etc - have you USED any browsers on smartphones? How many of you use BaseCamp on your treo? Or HighRise? Or Blinksale? Hmm? Hands? Anyone? No? Hmm?

It's "just a full featured browser". Yeah, IN YOUR FUCKING POCKET. Where is the innovation not there? This is a huge deal - the confirmation that all this stuff just works.

Wa wa boo hoo I can't use a version 0.1 SDK on a version 1.0 platform! Boo hoo. I hate Apple!

Grow up.

In dashboard, through javascript, is available a unique api to access Applescript, perform animation, store data. Also available are custom "widgets" for button, text areas...

Therefor I fully expect the same to happen on the iPhone. You'll be able to write an iPhone only web client.

Using SVG and Canvas you can also access advanced 2d and 3d functions.

That we won't have a dedicated icon on the iPhone main screen, along side safari or emails, that's for sure, but safari might offer custom bookmarks for iPhone web apps? If all you want is use Cocoa on the iPhone then you're out of luck, come back next year. If you want to provide iPhone users an app or service, you have your opportunity.

@yet another steve

You have to be a different kind of stupid to pay 1500 to listen to 1 speech that is available for free online in a couple of hours...

Honestly, WWDC offers a lot more than just a keynote, not the least of which is the ability to meet other developers and apple engineers, and learn more about the platform you are developing on.

Like a number of reasonable commentators said before WWDC (including converted SJ hater Gruber), a complete API was practically impossible by WWDC, and webkit based applications were the way to go temporarily.

Translation of what Steve is saying: Built-in apps can create a great experience. Apple can write the built-in apps.

"But that's not the point. Yes, you can make great web apps that work on the iPhone. But you can't do stuff like the iPod CoverFlow view in javascript. Sorry, you just can't. The iPhone natively supports Open GL, and Quartz Compositing, among other things... WebApps can't use any of that stuff."

Safari does actually render Quartz Compositions so technically you could do a coverflow like webapp. I know it's not the same, I think Apple knows it as well, locking down the iPhone is such a counterintuitive strategy that I can only think it's a temporary measure until they're happy that the (Brand new OS) is mature enough to not break a load of 3rd party stuff with an update.

I think that the "web apps" strategy is actually really good, and I don't really understand all the hate. It's possible that I've missed something, or have misunderstood, but nevertheless, here's my reasoning.

Let's quote Steve: "And so you can write amazing Web 2.0 and AJAX apps that look and behave exactly like apps on the iPhone, and these apps can integrate perfectly with iPhone services. They can make a call, check email, look up a location on Gmaps..."

Based on that quote, the SDK is the Javascript API, which will allow you to do nearly anything in your web app that you could do with a compiled app and the SDK. Anything. The phrase "look and behave exactly like apps on the iPhone" must also mean "icon on app launcher". So, all we're talking about here is a different implementation language, and a different distribution mechanism. Right? I don't think there's any other way to interpret that quote.

Again, the only difference between a compiled iphone app and an iphone web app are language and distribution. I don't buy the argument that you *need( the full computational power offered by the phone in order to make any useful apps. Definitely, real-time audio-processing apps would be killer on a phone, but I'm skeptical that it has enough horsepower to do so even compiled right down to the metal. This is definitely an 80% solution, but that's what we love, right? Microformats, RSS/Atom, the Web itself, aren't these all 80% solutions themselves?

From the developer's point of view, web apps are absolutely the easiest and most well-understood way to distribute and update an app. From a user point of view, I think that if you're ever out of EDGE range, your contract allows you to kick Randall Stephenson in the balls. :-)

I'm totally shocked at the negative reaction. This is more than just using the browser, it is a full API and integration with the rest of the phone. And there's still a "real" SDK being planned for the last 20%.

I'll be looking forward to those groundbreaking first-generation apps using client-side sound, multi-touch interfaces, the camera as input device, and all the other neat stuff you can access in JavaScript!

Sei: I don't think Apple has said whether the iPhone supports the Quartz Composer plug-in. The Mac version of Safari does, but it also supports Flash and Java, which the iPhone doesn't.

breath: I think you're assuming more than was actually shown. There has been no indication that Web apps will be accessible from the main launcher. In the demo, Forstall accesses the Web app from the browser bookmarks. Nor has there been any mention of a JavaScript API. This agrees with Jobs' statement about Web developers already having everyting they need to build apps. Most people seem to think that by integration with iPhone services Jobs was talking about URL handlers to initiate calls and map lookups. Aside from the connection issues, some of the reasons that Web apps aren't equivalent to built-in ones are that they don't run full-screen, that they can't access data that's stored on the iPhone, and that any data they want to save must be stored on a third-party server.

May be Apple should take Google Web Toolkit and
strip out Java and put it Obj-C and
call that the iPhone SDK. Would that make
you guy feel happy.

@Dave

The Hostile Monkey's looking forward to 'em too. I don't remember the bit where SJ said: "oh, and by the way, this is our only solution to third party apps on the iPhone ever. Nya nya."

Of course, it's getting pretty hard to hear with all the yelling going on, and my ears are getting clogged with all the bile people are spewing, so I could have missed that bit.

The issue isn't at all *what* was announced, but *how*.

It's not that anyone feels entitled to a spot on the iPhone, it's that they tried to re-sell the last two Keynotes as groundbreaking innovation. I didn't have any grand ideas for the iPhone (I don't use a cellphone now — slim chance $500 will be my first downpayment!), but I was still pretty annoyed.

Instead of saying "Nothing yet, but you can always skin a Web app to match", developers got a load of hyperbole. It was a lousy way to top off an hour-long revelation that Leopard's glowing-over-the-horizon "Top Secret" features == new mascara. And as the original post above draws out, the line they tried to feed developers just rubbed in the limitations that Jobs pointed out a week and a half earlier.

Limits are fine. Doublespeak is unbecoming.

The expression "And these apps can integrate perfectly with iPhone services" brings up a certain image in my mind, and that is the level of integration provided by Apple's competitors.

As a BlackBerry developer, I can access local calendar items, address book items, issue alerts, etc. You can do the same things on the Sony Ericsson smart phones and, presumably, Window Mobile devices as well.

The 'perfect integration' provided for the iPhone is pathetic, consisting of a few basic url types allowing you to make a call or pull up a map on the google maps site.

I don't object to what we've been handed from Apple, but calling it "sweet" and "integrating perfectly" is a sad joke.

-Daniel

For those that don't get what the contradiction is:

Steve Job talks about the Map application on the iPhone, and quotes: "And you can’t do that stuff in a browser."

Steve Job then announces at WWDC: "You can write amazing Web 2.0 and AJAX apps that look exactly and behave exactly like apps on the iPhone."

If you still don't get it, then you don't need to.

Why does developing web apps for iPhone suck compared to writing compiled apps? Gruber's analogy is best: "Telling developers that web apps are iPhone apps just doesn’t fly. Think about it this way: If web apps – which are only accessible over a network; which don’t get app icons in the iPhone home screen; which don’t have any local data storage – are such a great way to write software for iPhone, then why isn’t Apple using this technique for any of their own iPhone apps?

Or, take Apple’s argument regarding iPhone development and apply it to the Mac. If web apps running in Safari are a great way to write iPhone apps, why aren’t web apps running in Safari a great way to write Mac apps?"

I'm pretty sure that the main point for being insulted is not the fact that developers have can only write web apps, but how SJ announced it. I can't say it better than Gruber: "If all you have to offer is a shit sandwich, just say it. Don’t tell us how lucky we are and that it’s going to taste delicious."

I think most developers see the contracdiction ... of sorts, though its not complete (though it may as well be if one is used to developing SDKs?).

I think what Steve was trying to say (maybe he didnt say it very well) is that you can still make good or (even great?) apps via the web apps option (though yeah, I could see it sucking, I'm not fan of webapps... but they are getting better) ... but that 'REAL APPS' created by Apple are awesome-neat-o-kean!

Also, what many have missed (because it was not at WWDC) is that Jobs admitted that they do not have, 'The Solution' for Developers for the iPhone, but they are working on it. He seemed to imply this was a short term measure, until they are certain they can keep things secure and productive....

WWDC is more than the keynote... but it does set the tone. There are plenty of classes and seminars to sign up for ... so I'm sure there's a lot people can get out of this, but as always people expect more. We are slow - I mean, Microsoft is the unfortunate standard and medecority is King - so its probably better than par for course.

Personally, I can not wait to ditch my version KRZR and get an iPhone ... if not this month, prob in six months.

what if you don't have wifi available and you pay out the a** for internet time on your phone...ya, that shiz isn't gonna fly in a lot of places, gl with your 5000 customer base apple.

I think a whole lot of people need to reserve judgment until we see exactly what level of iPhone integration we have through Javascript. Are we talking special markup that lets the iPhone recognize links and other portions of a page as data it can take action on (like say a phone number or email address). Or are there web service calls you access via html over http to the phone itself? Special Javascript calls to the iPhone?

I personally don't really feel like bitching since the amount of stuff we could do AFTER the keynote was greater than what we thought we could do BEFORE. Baby steps people, baby steps. Perhaps he could have worded it differently in terms of what we get, but then again like I said no-one really knows yet exactly what it is we have got, just the form it comes in and some general descriptions of a few capabilities.

A lot of you think SJ implied that there's a more robust solution, and probably an SDK, coming down the road. Where specifically are you getting this idea? Keeping 3rd party apps off the iPhone IS a reasonable business decision. (I don't like it, but it's not unreasonable.) So it is not obvious to me that an SDK has to be coming. And I haven't read any hints of one, even between the lines.

There are a lot of downsides to providing an SDK: security, deciding what to expose and having to maintain compatibility with it, support developers, etc. Balanced against that, it would make it a platform... and platforms lead to unexpected innovations.

Is there anything to the SDK-in-the-future idea other than wishful thinking?

@ addicted

Yes, I know there's a lot more to WWDC than the keynote. I was just commenting on the appropriateness of the message to the audience. But, frankly, Gruber put it much better.

The level of "integration" is virtually zero.

There is no, I repeat, ZERO access to any data on the phone.

There is no local persistent store outside of cookies.

There is no Flash, so you can't even use that to do an "end run" around lack of persistent store.

There is no *outbound file transmission*...you want a picture off the phone, you need to use email. No AJAX uploading.

And as yet another steve said...there is no indication *whatsoever*...not a single hint, that this will change.

The i"Phone" is essentially a widescreen NAND Flash-based iPod...the greatest of its kind, no doubt, that happens to have phone and web browsing.

That was the MWSF takeaway, and the confirmation was delivered at WWDC. As Steve Jobs said in January:

"An iPod...a Phone...an Internet device...An iPod...a Phone...an Internet device...An iPod...a Phone...an Internet device...are you guys getting this yet?"

Well...

Are ya'? ;)

@ n[ate]vw

I understand that it's the "marketing schlep" that some developers have taken to heart. Gruber makes some valid comments.

But my! Aren't Apple developers a touchy bunch! I think the real complaint I have is that there was no realistic, competent expectation of an SDK being released. However, those nutjobs who DID feel that they were somehow divinely entitled to one (and would want whatever crapfest documentation came along with it), are now jumping on this, foaming at the mouth, and generally drowning out just about any other discussions.

We all know the reasons why there *isn't* an SDK, and Jobs's ill-judged attempt to put "lipstick on the pig" (cf Macalope) by reaffirming the browser's "first class" status has rubbed some people up the wrong way. However, I'm getting mighty sick of all the shit-flinging going on among the chimps here, and I look forward to when everyone's calmed down and got on with their lives.

If it's in Apple's interest to release an SDK, they will. If not, they won't.

And if anyone's been stupid enough to bet life savings on the hope that they will, then that's your problem. Quit whining.

I should point out that entirety of my previous post/rant was NOT directed at n[ate]vw!

I was just picking up on your very valid "it ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it" point.

Please note that there is a way we can have advanced, JavaScript-enabled graphics on web pages in a safe manner via Quartz Composer which could (I hope) be supported via usual QuickTime plugin syntax :)

No Macromedia Flash support, and all Javascripts must run for less than 5 seconds.... It's not even a good environment for Web 2.0 apps.

Hey guys, have any of you actually seen what is included in Apple's "browser". Look at what they include: CoreVideo, Quicktime, etc, etc. (It's part of the Window's install.) So an Apple Web 2.0 app can do a lot more than just any other browser. I's standard compliant but has access to all the services the iPhone offer, including the interface elements, etc.

hey guys...

i made a little badge just for those iphone apps...

http://blog.zydev.info/2007/06/16/ready-for-iphone-the-badge/

remember the 'Made for iPod' badge? mocking apple w/apple.

"If it's in Apple's interest to release an SDK, they will. If not, they won't."

I know I probably live in la-la land, but I think it's in Apple's interest to listen carefully to it's developer base. But then I also happen to think Free Software is the way forward.

"Quit whining."

I also think that lively discussion is important. Apple gets feedback this way. These comments are legitimate in my opinion. I for one would rather not have someone implying that they're irrelevant.

All conjecture aside, the decision to lock out developers was probably moslty a leagal decision. I'm sure SJ's lawyers would hate to imagine what would be possible with a next-gen phone on a major carrier's network relatively unsecured. I'm sure AT&T locked Apple down with some serious legal language to ensure the appropriate heads would roll should the unthinkable (a virus? a hack? worse?) should happen.

Remember, AT&T made some MAJOR changes to their network to accomodate this new phone. They have as much to lose in this investment as Apple does if it fails. So to limit the number of things that could go wrong at launch (eg lock out developers) would seem likt a natural result.

Well sure, but how many developers aim to release apps of the quality or scale of the Google Maps app. Seriously... for most fart apps, simple games and educational titles webapps would be more than sufficient.