Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Targeting Business World for the iPhone

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the we-will-add-your-technological-distinctiveness-to-our-own dept.

Cellphones 338

The New York Times is running a couple of stories about the future of the iPhone in the business world and Apple's plan to maintain control of application development. Now that the iPhone SDK has been released and the "App store" has been demonstrated, Steve Jobs is pushing for the adoption of the iPhone as a standard business tool. In addition, a venture capitalist named John Doerr has launched a $100 million "iFund" to spur development of applications for the iPhone. From the NYTimes: "Mr. Jobs was upfront that there are limitations on what applications can do. He talked about bans on pornography and malicious programs. He also said Apple will not allow any application to be installed on the machine other than through the iTunes store. Nor will applications be permitted that enable an end run around Apple's deals with wireless carriers. Many questions remain unanswered. How much streaming video will Apple allow, because the iPhone is such an interesting video device? Mr. Jobs did say that the application development environment will have a lot of capabilities for video playback. Will Apple allow a service like Last.FM to offer streaming music on the iPhone?"

cancel ×

338 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What Apple is doing (3, Interesting)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674204)

Right now Apple is proving the market for such a device, and then products like OpenMoko will come in and claim it, using the iPhone as R&D to prove concept but without encumbering themselves as Apple is doing.

iPhone isnt secure enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674340)

The iPhone isn't currently even near secure enough to be used for enterprise messaging. A hacker who takes control of an iPhone would get access to all your apps, all your data, your camera, and... your microphone. It's a mobile wiretap.

But if your company's information isn't all that important, this is good news for you. Hopefully hackers sending email in your name won't cause too much confusion.

Re:What Apple is doing (2)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674390)

I don't think a phone without a camera, 3G, only tri-band and no wifi is going to make as big of a splash as you think.

No, grumpy old farts on slashdot that "just want a phone" don't count.

Re:What Apple is doing (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674430)

I used it as an example only. Google's Android is another one, but no phones for it have been built yet I believe.

Re:What Apple is doing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674478)

You say that as if the iPhone has 3G.

Re:What Apple is doing (2, Interesting)

jbrw (520) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674664)

It'll be like the market for portable mp3 players all over again!

Erm...

Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum (1, Interesting)

jay-za (893059) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674212)

Apple may be about to drop the ball on this one. With Android looking like a (potentially future) winner, Apple are losing the chance to build up momentum as an open mobile platform for developers to experiment on.

I understand that they probably have contractual agreements they need to fulfill, and that the deal with ATT may have been a deal with the devil to get the phone out there and break into the market, but it could end up costing them more than they bargained for.

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum (4, Insightful)

rho (6063) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674290)

I'm sure Apple is worried a lot about something that "looks like" a "potential", "future" winner.

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum (2, Interesting)

jay-za (893059) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674510)

I'm sure Apple is worried a lot about something that "looks like" a "potential", "future" winner.
It's good that we agree on this.

Something else that is probably worrying them is that Android is backed by Google. It looks like google wants this, and they can make Android a success all by themselves. It's no secret Google wants in on the mobile market (I know you know this, but there are others out there who are less informed), and with the kind of innovative aggression they've shown with their other products I'm sure they will get this one.

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum (1)

onion2k (203094) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674548)

If you're storming ahead in a particular market the only threats you face are potential future threats. If you dismiss them because they're not a problem for you right now you'll get a nasty surprise in a few years time when they come snapping at your heels devouring that carefully won market share.

See: IBM vs everyone; IE vs Firefox; Windows vs OSX; Windows vs Linux; Microsoft vs Google...

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674570)

What, flip-flopping on having a real SDK doesn't look worried to you?

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum (3, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674310)

I'm curious as to what you think they're dropping the ball on. Which of the limitations is a problem?

The one thing I can see as a problem, is that enterprises are not going to like not being able to distribute internal software to them.

Bob

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum (4, Informative)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674426)

In the press conference, Phil Schiller actually mentioned the opposite and there will be a system in place for enterprise software to be distributed outside the App store.

features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674464)

Well, why don't they have a java interpreter on the phone? (Assuming they don't already, given all the talk about its closed nature.) It really seems to be the de facto method for app delivery, and my last two cingular/AT&T phones had it, so the carrier isn't complaining. The java sandbox prevents malicious apps from possibly harming/misusing the phone, and it's powerful enough for Google Maps/Mail, Opera Mobile, etc. I can even download programs from my local computer; AT&T doesn't need to approve of anything.

So what's the point of the proprietry iPhone SDK, which requires apple approval of each application? Widely used, cross platform, open standards already exist.

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum (2, Insightful)

Wingsy (761354) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674472)

If I'm not mistaken the App Store is going to have a private page accessible only to employees of a business for exactly that purpose.

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum (1)

jay-za (893059) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674742)

I'm curious as to what you think they're dropping the ball on. Which of the limitations is a problem?

The only mistakes I can see is them trying to control how the app gets onto the phone, and limiting what will be allowed on. I personally have no (immediately obvious) problem with the limits as stated, but others will. What they are doing to the iPhone is what MS is trying to do to Windows - create a closed environment where anyone can create apps, but to get them on you need to go through a commercial portal site. Sure, there is a good case for doing so (protecting the end user from malicious apps), but at the end of the day you are trading freedom for security.

I'd rather have freedom than security and safety. Android will offer this. And all that it will take for Android to kill the iPhone (in my very humble opinion) is for a Mac / PC situation to result. Who cares if the iPhone is a better product when Android based phones can run many many more apps? Simply put, if Android can provide a PTT (Push To Talk) application (for free) that uses 3G, Apple will not be able to compete. that on it's own will get millions (quote literally) of teens interested in a phone running Android.

The flip side... (2, Insightful)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674822)

The flip side tp all of this is the "App Store". By providing developers with an audience willing and able --and required-- to actually pay for their software, Apple is going to encourage the development of an avalanche of applications for the iPhone platform.

No more hoping that more than one user out of a hundred will pay the shareware fee or make a "donation". No more playing whack-a-mole with crack sites and serial numbers. And by promoting that development, and by providing the marketplace, Apple stands a very good chance of becoming a dominant player in the marketplace based on the strength of all of those applications.

See: Apple's Magical Mystical Application Store [isights.org]

Clearly. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674634)

With Android looking like a (potentially future) winner, Apple are losing the chance to build up momentum as an open mobile platform for developers to experiment on.

You state that with such unapologetic conviction I almost have to laugh. What market share does Android have right now? And why exactly are Apple losing momentum? They are offering an outstanding platform that is rapidly approaching maturation and has gotten fantastic adoption rates. Furthermore, the iPhone will soon lose the last barriers to enterprise adoption. Come back with some evidence, please.

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum (1)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674726)

Uh, yeah, because open source has been such a huge commercial success. I am not saying that there hasn't been modest success but nothing on the scale of proprietary software. When there is a phone that actually uses Android in the hands of consumers we'll have something to talk about until then it's just vapor.

Re:Lost chance to build up Juggernaut momentum (1)

eWarz (610883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674792)

Apple DID drop the ball on this one. I have a windows mobile device that stomps the iPhone both in freedom and functionality. the VX6800 by Verizon Wireless and the PPC6800 by sprint (both made by HTC) rock! I can open up visual studio and develop apps for my phone without the limitations that apple is pushing.

Don't Get Your Hopes Up (1)

ablair (318858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674810)

Knowing the history of how Apple & corporate IT departments have treated each other (prejudices on both sides), and the steadfast change-averse nature of corporate IT to this day, don't get your hopes up that the iPhone will be adopted much more than the Mac has across the enterprise. That's certainly been the conclusion of clear-deaded analysis [financialpost.com] outside of the RDF, at least. If there wasn't another solution that wasn't just "good enough" we might have a different outlook, but the truth is that RIM (like MS solutions) might be more expensive and cumbersome, but it's now been accepted by corporate IT as "standard". And heaven forbid anyone suggesting a "nonstandard" solution in corporate IT, especially one as flashy as an iPhone (videos? music? arcade games!?! the horror!!!) If anything, the relatively closed ecosystem of the platform would probably be seen as an advantage by most IT managers; but remember that you don't necessarily win in corporate IT by having the best technical or financial solution.

Mind you, even a small uptake of the iPhone in corporate environments does not necessarily mean Apple makes off poorly - it's more than they have now, their low-overhead iPhone model means they'll make money from corporate deployments no matter how few, it adds a sense of security to potential adopters of the iPhone (ie. a show of committment by Apple) and it adds momentum to the platform.

Limitations (4, Insightful)

imamac (1083405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674216)

Those limitations aren't really limitations. They're just no-brainers. There is almost nothing you can't do with the SDK.

Re:Limitations (0, Flamebait)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674288)

Those limitations aren't really limitations. They're just no-brainers. There is almost nothing you can't do with the SDK.
You have to either be kidding or you're on Steve Jobs fairy dust. IT organizations absolutely cannot adopt a device for their company that requires applications to be installed exclusively through third-party servers (iTMS) that they have absolutely no control over. There is NO WAY to retain a quality of infrastructure integration within a company without the ability for IT organizations to test and control the release of these applications prior to rollout. This means that there is also only a SINGLE VENDOR from which software can be obtained. Forget about competitive bidding, negotiating the best package price, etc.

Forget it. Medium-to-Large companies will NEVER go for this.

Re:Limitations (5, Informative)

imamac (1083405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674302)

As I mentioned in another post, Apple said they would announce a way for companies to release applications internally.

apple products are banned (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674420)

where I work. thank goodness.

Re:Limitations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674826)

I doubt that. What about a 5-person company? What about a 1-person company?

As a programmer, a computing device that I purchase, that I cannot write my own programs for - that's insulting and offensive to me. What brazen arrogance! What sheer, blatant monopolism!

Re:Limitations (5, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674700)

This means that there is also only a SINGLE VENDOR from which software can be obtained. Forget about competitive bidding, negotiating the best package price, etc. Forget it. Medium-to-Large companies will NEVER go for this.

You're right, these companies will probably stick with Microsoft.

Re:Limitations (1)

imamac (1083405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674776)

Or write their own programs. Companies still do that, right?

Re:Limitations (1)

thanasakis (225405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674818)

This means that there is also only a SINGLE VENDOR from which software can be obtained. Forget about competitive bidding, negotiating the best package price, etc.

Forget it. Medium-to-Large companies will NEVER go for this.
OMG! Obtaining software from a single vendor! Never happened before.

Re:Limitations (2, Insightful)

bizard (691544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674860)

So all of those corporate blackberries out there are a myth? There it's even worse since all of their e-mail (read sensitive data) is passing through a single third party's servers. And as for competitive bidding, that will still come down to the software vendor and the vendor can make a specific deal with the corporation and give it to them to load through their corporate App Store.

Re:Limitations (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674868)

There's also only a single vendor for the iPhone, as long as you're ranting about inconsequentials. 'Course, there's only a single vendor for Crackberries too.

When? (1, Interesting)

Russell2566 (1205416) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674222)

When will companies learn to provide us [Consumers | Developer] tools to use that do not have purposeful limitations that are simply the concoction of someone who wants to confine what I can do with their product.

"Apple will not allow any application to be installed on the machine other than through the iTunes store"

So how can you be targeting businesses with this product then? What if I want to develop a special in house only product for my sales people to use that I don't want the competition to get ahold of? Why can't the iPhone work like every other piece of hardware I own and run any kind of program/hardware I can stuff in there? I'm on the fence of getting fed-up with Apple...

Re:When? (5, Informative)

imamac (1083405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674260)

So how can you be targeting businesses with this product then?
In the announcement Apple said they were working on a way for buisiness to release applications internally. They seemed to imply without the need for iTunes.

Re:When? (1)

johneee (626549) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674614)

Well, the whole thing behind this is that they see how much money they're making from iTMS and want to do the same with applications for the iPhone. I wouldn't be surprised if they set up the same kind of thing for application downloading for the Mac as well - although without the limitation of having to get it from there only.

Re:When? (3, Informative)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674738)

If you download the SDK, you are offered the option of joining the standard programme for $99 or the enterprise programme for $299. As the page says "The Enterprise Program is for developers who are creating proprietary, in-house applications for iPhone and iPod touch." ...and as for you being able to run apps on "every other piece of hardware I own", you sure do have a lot fewer games consoles, phones, routers and vehicle engine management systems than most slashdotters.

Cold, Steel Grasp... (2, Interesting)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674228)

I love how apple has declared that their 'controls' are actually 'freeing' the phone. Yes, now that you can put apps on the phone, it is a 'more' open platform. But you STILL have to go through apple, and since it is *MY* phone, why can't I do whatever *I* want to it?

... oh wait ... I can ... apple just doesn't like it ;)

This is the same problem sony has with the psp (although, it has some differences as well) - If I want custom firmware on my psp, who is sony to tell me no?

I don't like where this attitude of control is taking us. Already, you don't buy software, you just buy a license to use it. I DON'T want to have to license my HARDWARE too!

Re:Cold, Steel Grasp... (1)

minasoko (710100) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674380)

You can do whatever you like with it, but in doing so, you may break features and/or services provided by the vendor. Apple are selling you a product, which includes certain services and functions designed (and you are free to argue this) to make a cohesive, enjoyable experience with the actual mechanics discreetly hidden from the end user. If that grates you, then you're probably not part of the market demographic for the iPhone.

Re:Cold, Steel Grasp... (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674544)

haha, did you read my nickname? I'm certainly NOT a fan of apple business practice, even if their products are interesting.

Re:Cold, Steel Grasp... (2, Informative)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674466)

Actually you can put it on your phone, just through the the SDK as they showed last night in the QT stream. So you can develop apps for yourself if you want, just not for others.

Re:Cold, Steel Grasp... (4, Insightful)

pev (2186) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674550)

since it is *MY* phone, why can't I do whatever *I* want to it?

You can do whatever you want with it - it's just that Apple won't make it easy for you as that's their perogative. If you don't like it, don't whinge, buy an open platform instead. If you don't like the platforms that are available, get involved and create what you're looking for yourself. Once you've done that you can decide yourself what rights others have to do what they want with your device. If you've invested lots of time and money creating it maybe you might find that you want to look at things differently in order to recoup your costs...

Porn! (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674240)

He talked about bans on pornography...

Most businessmen will want it. It will save the travelling businessmen from the embarrassment of "pay per view" tv stations appearing on the bill.

Re:Porn! (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674678)

As opposed to the porn apps showing up on their data bill?

Re:Porn! (1)

Serenissima (1210562) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674820)

I don't know. What do the commercials say? Something like "This isn't the separate internet for mobile phones, this is the REAL internet."
Well, having the "real" internet in a browser and wanting to ban porn seem to be rather conflicting ideas. Porn is so ubiquitous that if one app can already access it, there'll be lots of apps that'll be able to whether that's what they're specifically designed for or not. Porn's insidious like that.

Re:Porn! (4, Funny)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674828)

It's only porn apps that are banned, the built in iPod video player will happily show fullscreen 480x320 porn just fine, same goes for the photo app, which supports both pinching and expanding with multiple touches!

Hopefully any developers will note Apple's past (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674244)

Such as "Apple ][ forever" or the Newton.

Fun fact - the only developer who profited from the cancellation of the Newton was the gent who had a contract with Apple to do a foreign language port.

Jumping in bed with Apple for development is the same share cropping metaphore as with Microsoft. If you are OK with not having full access to the toolchain - go ahead.

Exchange (0)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674250)

They want to get the business users, they better give a pretty good look to Exchange / Lotus notes compatibility. Being able to read your mail is not going to cut it. Searching in the public contacts, booking a meeting room, those are things a Windows Mobile user takes for granted.

Re:Exchange (5, Informative)

imamac (1083405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674286)

Watch the video of the announcement yesterday. The Exchange compatability is the best I've ever seen.

Fanbois... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674444)

The Exchange compatability is the best I've ever seen.
So, just by looking at a _video_, you immediately decided its the _best ever_??? Thats lame even for a fanboi.

Re:Exchange (1)

Tyr_7BE (461429) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674606)

Two word: push email.

Re:Exchange (3, Informative)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674906)

Watch the video of the announcement yesterday. The Exchange compatability is the best I've ever seen.


You mean outside of Windows Mobile DirectPush, which does everything that the iPhone does and more?

I'm glad to see Exchange support on the iPhone, but let's not pretend here. The things they licensed from Microsoft were already supported by Windows Mobile anyway, and have been supported for some time now.

Re:Exchange (1)

cca93014 (466820) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674436)

They demonstrated or discussed both of these things yesterday...

RTFA and WTFV (1)

Mark_in_Brazil (537925) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674672)

FTFA:

Apple, which also announced new software to make the iPhone compatible with corporate e-mail systems, plans to open "the App Store" with the next release of iPhone software. The feature will allow people to purchase and download new applications for their phones.
Also, if you watch the video of Jobs's announcement, you'll see Exchange compatibility demonstrated.

Re:Exchange (1)

mattgoldey (753976) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674924)

Yeah, we won't even consider iPhones here without Lotus Notes sync. They'll also need to drop the price significantly. Maybe in 2010 or 2011 when the 2nd or 3rd generation iPhone comes out and AT&T starts giving away iPhone Classics with contracts, we'll get them here. ;)

Apple already answered... (4, Interesting)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674254)

...one of the major questions. Jobs was explicitly asked if VoIP apps would be allowed. Jobs explicitly answered that they would be via WiFi, but not via the carrier connection.

So I think the question of how much data usage will be "allowed" for heavy use applications is essentially unlimited via WiFi.

As carriers continue to build out their data networks, as competition continues, and as higher bandwidth (e.g., 3G) iPhones become available (which has already been confirmed by Apple and AT&T several times), then we may see the landscape change for apps that use the carrier's network. It seems right now a common sense approach will be applied.

But it also seems clear that anything (as long as it's not specifically for porn, illegal, etc.) will be allowed via WiFi.

Re:Apple already answered... (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674706)

Um, wouldn't VOIP over carrier be stupidly (a) redundant and (b) expensive? I guess if your long distance charges are higher than your data charges it may make sense. But frankly, most data plans already included free nationwide long distance.

Last.FM + EDGE = LOL (1)

traveller604 (961720) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674268)

aint gonna work

Who is John Doerr? (2, Insightful)

chiph (523845) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674278)

In addition, a venture capitalist named John Doerr

If you don't know who John Doerr [wikipedia.org] is by now, you need to turn in your Silicon Valley geek credentials.

Chip H.

Re:Who is John Doerr? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674452)

hell, i'm still wondering who john galt is...

Re:Who is John Doerr? (1)

UnanimousCoward (9841) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674594)

'...a venture capitalist named John Doerr has launched a $100 million "iFund"'

If you don't know who John Doerr is by now, you need to turn in your Silicon Valley geek credentials.

Dude, YOU need to turn in your geek credentials: here at /., you should just have left it with your subject title, "Who is John Doerr," and let the crowd relish in the sarcasm/irony/humor/whatever...

Mr. Jobs ... does the free market! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674312)

So this is free enterprise? It seems that Apple's philosophy is to exploit the consumer and limit the people. IMHO, this is just yet another example of Apple's unethical leadership.

Re:Mr. Jobs ... does the free market! (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674454)

Exploit the customer how? By paying for new software?

The revolution will not be youtubed! (1)

minasoko (710100) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674596)

Woah there, Che.
Crikey, deep breaths now. That's it.....

iKnow (0, Flamebait)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674330)

iDon't know what Apple are thinking. Business people on the move need gadgets to do something useful, not stuff that's bereft of useful features.

Re:iKnow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674622)

iKnow too, but iBois would not like such comments, uKnow. Wait for mac-mods army attack.

They're certainly going to need help. Consider (0)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674332)

1) the base phone is a barely 3G, non-multi-tasking, bling-bling phone, at least for now
2) other organizations (open moku will be cited along with others) have failed to get developer energy
3) the iPhone's business model is being constantly corrupted (look at SIM unlock #s to understand 'renegade thinking')
4) unless you find your own business model, or market through Apple, you won't get much but love with your code
5) your code will need lots of adaptation to be used on other phone substrates
6) Apple will likely digest the best and discard the rest-- have we not learned anything?

Re:They're certainly going to need help. Consider (1)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674518)

Ever written code for these "other phone substrates"? It's such a monumental pain in the arse that, assuming developers can be bothered at all, they'll certainly reimplement vast swathes of the application from the ground up due to fundamental (and often archaic) platform differences anyway. This SDK will more than likely clean up if only because it's a derivative of OS X and thus programming for it'll be a dream.

Re:They're certainly going to need help. Consider (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674620)

Ever written code for these "other phone substrates"? It's such a monumental pain in the arse that, assuming developers can be bothered at all, they'll certainly reimplement vast swathes of the application from the ground up due to fundamental (and often archaic) platform differences anyway. This SDK will more than likely clean up if only because it's a derivative of OS X and thus programming for it'll be a dream.
Is very any other phone where the software development VP would go live on stage and demonstrate writing a (tiny) application, compiling it, downloading it to the phone and running it, in front of a live audience?

Re:They're certainly going to need help. Consider (1)

saider (177166) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674682)

1) Rev 1 products will always evolve. I don't think the current iPhone is the final product.
2) If there is one thing Apple can do is get "energy" and buzz about their product.
3) Apple still makes a profit on the unlocked phones. Not as much as with the activated phones, but it does not lose money.
4) Anyone can download code to their phone using the SDK. I wonder how long before someone makes a wrapper for the SDK that allows Joe Nondeveloper to download to the phone.
5) Why would I use the Apple SDK for a Nokia phone? A well written application will have an abstraction layer, and eventually you will see those show up on sourceforge (like wxWindows).
6) Why would Apple digest the worst? Expecting them to run any old application on their system, when they are accepting a percentage of the money for it, is silly. Some mechanism for non-commercial software ("free software") would be nice, but that would mean that Apple is trusting the experience to all the hacks out there. Let's face it, the vast majority of free software titles out there are incomplete and horrendously buggy. If Apple appeared to bless those packages by allowing them into the store, paying customers would be pissed.

Re:They're certainly going to need help. Consider (5, Insightful)

aarond (38076) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674898)

Wow, even though I should know better after reading comments on slashdot for years the ignorance does still surprise me.

1. the phone is not 3G, a 3G model should be out this year. Non multitasking? Meaning what, you want your phone to compress video for you while u talk? I can take notes, and use apps while on the phone so not sure what you mean. But you did throw the words bling-bling in to look like you are hip and know what you are talking about so i must be wrong here.

2. So since other organizations can't get developers, you do not think that Apple can? People want to develop for this platform so much that they are doing whatever they can to get on it, see http://www.modmyiphone.com/ [modmyiphone.com] . Not to even mention the 100 million dollar venture capitol fund for iphone apps that was shown off too.

3. So its so popular that people will do anything to be able to use one. Apple might not make the extra $ each month from these users but they are making money on each sale, and all those sales are just adding to marketshare.

4. Huh? Do you mean that a developer won't be able to make money writing iphone apps? You are seriously saying that the average developer would do better just putting up a web page and marketing their apps themselves rather than have it shown on a store dedicated to the iphone? Joe Schmoe can get the same exposure on the store as Adobe if they write a good app, thats very powerful for developers.

5. So what? Seriously, But also lets look at it the other way, did you watch the video from the event? Check the 5 developers that had 2 weeks to build apps. That was damned impressive. In some cases they started from scratch, and in some cases they just modified their existing code.

6. Not quite sure what you mean here, do you mean apple buying the companies/people that do the best apps? Or what?

It seems like people just want something to bitch about rather than using your heads.
Ducky

Sync apps (0)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674376)

They need to get the companies that makes synchronisation software for Exchange to make a iPhone version.

Re:Sync apps (1)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674768)

No they don't, because they licensed ActiveSync from Microsoft.

Re:Sync apps (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674866)

And you need to learn to RTFAs, idiot.

Android (2, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674392)

Apple has failed to notice that there is nothing the iPhone's OS does that Android cannot do. Slap Android on a pure touchscreen phone and what do you have?

Oh, right. Instant replacement for the iPhone in the making, and it's open. Google is not being authoritarian like Apple.

Even Nintendo was not this bad back with the NES. Dear God, you'd think that Jobs wanted to have his coveted little space, even if it's small, just because he can be king of the compost pile over there.

Re:Android (3, Funny)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674480)

Does this touch screen phone have a shiny Apple on its back though? Until then it isn't an instant replacement is it? :-P

Re:Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674890)

You've failed to notice there is no Android phone available.
You have no idea what it's true capabilities are or what the companies offering an Android device will allow.

Wii comes to a PDA? (1)

MrHatken (213187) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674398)

Is this the first PDA or personal gaming device that use motion sensors for input (control)? I think this is going to be big - all those business-types (me included) playing games, networked games, in the office. I do think they may need need one or two buttons on the device, although perhaps "thumbspots" on the left and right would be enough.

Cheers,
Ashley.

Re:Wii comes to a PDA? (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674752)

Probably the first general-purpose one, but I know there were several GBA games that had a tilt sensor built into the cartridge

Bluetooth (1)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674416)

So can I send images to other phones with Bluetooth? yet!!

Finally (1)

skinfitz (564041) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674438)

It appears the iPhone is almost ready for serious use - add 3G and they have a serious tool rather than just an unfinished toy which is all it's been up to now.

Get TomTom on that and I'm there.

Re:Finally (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674728)

You mean like the unfinished toys RIM puts out with EDGE only*?

*Yes, I know the CDMA Blackberrys are EV-DO

No Porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674496)

I thought that was the point of all portable video players?

Newsflash! (0, Troll)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674502)

Newsflash! Company markets product! More at 10.....

Two things: Exchange and AT&T (0, Redundant)

edremy (36408) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674508)

The iPhone will get nowhere in business until they gain compatibility with Exchange and lose AT&T.

My boss has an iPhone, and after seeing it I went and got a Samsung i760 instead. Why? I live on email, and forwarding everything to gmail just doesn't cut it. The calendaring functions in Exchange/Outlook are critical to a lot of businesses, and there's no mac or open source package that's anywhere close. Jobs needs to do some groveling at the feet of MS, since Entourage is a bad joke as well when it comes to calendaring and it really slows the uptake of Macs in the business world.

AT&T is the other reason. I can't even get service in my office on AT&T- Verizon has 3 bars. I've got a full 3G connection and the 760 is really pretty snappy on web pages. How's that EDGE thing working out?

Would I rather have an iPhone? Probably- it's smaller, lighter, has a better interface and looks a lot nicer. (Although the external keypad and keyboard on the 860 make up for a lot of that.) But there are a bunch of i760s in my department and only 1 iPhone.

Re:Two things: Exchange and AT&T (1)

Dysfnctnl85 (690109) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674564)

Did you RTFM? The iPhone update will bring full Exchange compliance wrt the calendar and email. Cmon. Geez. RIM should be scared. Their dev tools are 15 levels deep on their website and don't offer anything as glitzy as Apple's SDK.

Developer fee = unlock for OSS? (2, Insightful)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674524)

As I understand it, the SDK is free, but apps made with the free version can only be run on the iPhone simulator. If you pay $99, you can compile apps and beta test them on an iPhone connected to the dev machine with the standard cable, as well as sell your apps through Apple.

The big unanswered question for me is 'can I unplug my iPhone and still use my beta App?'. If the answer is yes, then open source software can be spread without going through Apple simply by sharing the source code. If this is the case then paying the developer fee amounts to unlocking the phone's app restrictions.

Has anyone tried this yet?

Re:Developer fee = unlock for OSS? (2, Informative)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674930)

Not quite. As I understand it, the SDK is free, and you can compile apps and beta test them on an iPhone connected to the dev machine with the standard cable. If you pay $99, you can sell your apps through Apple.

But your big unanswered question still stands, and is one I'm going to be putting to the test once I get to grips with the SDK.

You need pornography on portable devices! (4, Funny)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674538)

A few years ago, a couple we know was going through infertility treatments. Part of these treatments, of course, required the husband to go in and produce a... well, a sample. He found the porn provided unsatisfactory, so he downloaded a bunch of pictures onto his PDA.

And now Steve Jobs wants to stand in the way of all those infertile couples who want to have children!

Re:You need pornography on portable devices! (1)

MrMickS (568778) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674632)

roflmao ... I wish I had some mod points left

Re:You need pornography on portable devices! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674756)

LOL "Help I need to wank into a jar but my wiener is soft!"

Was one of those pics on his PDA of the time he gave you a Dirty Sanchez?

iPhone is the winner! The competition is over! (1)

lurch_mojoff (867210) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674542)

Seeing how at the time I'm posting this all 3+ points comments are complaints how the SDK sucks and Apple's foray into the enterprise mobile device market will definitely go bust, I would like to be the first to pronounce iPhone a complete winner. It is rare thing to see so much nitpicking on Slashdot - I've seen it 2-3 times since the iPod bitchfest. Bravo, fellow slashdoters.

Unlocking already done (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674566)

With unlocking already done, 3g and vpn support around the corner, etc. and the 100 million with caveats that unlocking-style edits aren't getting the money, what exactly are they thinking of in terms of development here? I'd just as soon use the 100 million to pay off a distributor, get 100 million in unlocked iphones, sell them on ebay and use the profits to pay off the AT&T/Apple servitude so everyone can just buy the thing straight from Apple already unlocked.

Anyone watched the keynote? (2, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674572)

Steve Jobs presentation from yesterday is available on the Apple site. Could anyone who complains about the lack of Microsoft Exchange compatibility please watch the keynote first. Most of the posts so far can be answered by saying "You may not have watched the keynote yesterday, but..."

Re:Anyone watched the keynote? (1)

MrMickS (568778) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674674)

You must be new here. This is slashdot where the majority of comments are made based entirely on a persons feelings without needing the troublesome task of having to read the articles. They know what is best so just state their ideas.

iPhone GPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22674588)

The iPhone API provides this from the FAQ:

How do I figure out the location of the device?
Use the CLLocation class to get the altitude, the altitude's vertical accuracy, and the geographical coordinate for the device.

implying a future iPhone will support GPS!

John Doerr (5, Insightful)

Mark_in_Brazil (537925) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674636)

In my opinion, John Doerr is much more than "a" venture capitalist. Let me explain that statement in detail. Bear with me- I'm verbose, so it'll take a few paragraphs.
Doerr is a really sharp guy who saw potential in companies like Compaq, Sun, Symantec, Netscape, Amazon, and Google. The thing is that Doerr knows how to look at a business plan, understand the market opportunity a company wants to try to exploit, and have an idea of how likely the company is to be successful at doing it. So yes, Netscape, Amazon, and Google were "internet companies," but they were also companies with business plans that had not-entirely-ridiculous paths to profitability. Keep in mind that VCs typically have an awful "batting average" and invest in a lot more duds than eventual superstars, but the really big successes are generally good enough to make the overall average ROI, including the flops, quite positive.
A big part of the problem in the late 1990s is that a lot of VCs looked at Doerr's investments and basically came to this conclusion: "Doerr made a load of money for Kleiner Perkins by investing in the internet, so we have to invest in the internet." So in the late 1990s, many businesses that were basically "just like [whatever], but on the internet) were given ridiculous amounts of funding even when there was no clear path to profitability in the business plan. Yes, it's true that a VC firm can still make money in an environment like that of the mid-to-late 1990s by funding a company and taking it public as soon as it starts to show revenue growth, getting a big ROI on something that is never going to be profitable. But eventually the house of cards falls and then there's an overreaction as people say "oh, we lost all this money investing in the internet, so now we should avoid such investments," even when a good business plan appears.

I worked at a software startup in 1999. We had tests done with major retailers that proved we could increase the profitability of a given category anywhere from 25% to over 100%, depending on what the retailer's strategy was for that category (read up on "category management" for more info on category strategies). In the meetings with arrogant moron VCs, the founders would tell them about this and show them the actual data that supported the claim, plus testimonials from executives in the (multi-billion dollar) retailers where the tests were done, and the VCs' eyes would kind of glaze over. As soon as the founders stopped talking, the VCs would say something like "uh huh... so, what's your internet story." I suggested to the guy who had the original idea for the company that we should change the name to "e-[original name of company].com" and we'd be swimming in money.
The saddest thing was that apparently one such moron was from Kleiner Perkins Caulfield and Byers, which was widely seen as the VC firm at the time, in no small part due to the remarkable business vision of John Doerr. It would have been more accurate, from what I heard from very reliable sources, to say that Kleiner Perkins was a good VC firm with VCs of varying quality (yes, a high average, though), and John Doerr was the venture capitalist.

I'm not a fan of VCs in general, but I have a lot of respect for John Doerr. And if he's setting up a fund this big for iPhone app development, that makes me think very good things are coming for Apple through the iPhone. Very good things.
As always, YMMV.

Malicious Programs (1)

gsmalleus (886346) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674718)

Mr. Jobs was upfront that there are limitations on what applications can do. He talked about bans on pornography and malicious programs.
I think Microsoft should look into banning malicious programs on their platforms. That will teach those evil hackers!

A ban on porn? So no internet, no image viewer, no (-1, Troll)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674782)

A ban on porn? So no webbrowser, no image viewer, no movie player, no music player, no phone. Because the internet is made for porn, 99% of images is of the jpg sisters, movies were invented to view naked people getting it on, it is bit rare but some people like a sexy voice tell them a tale, and offcourse there are the common sex chat boxes and the like.

How many of you used an old fashioned calculater in school to write 80085 on its screen? Exactly what is he proposing to ban here? Erotic games? Well that is a small market, so small that one of the first Nintendo DS games (fully official) had you tickling a girl. A NINTENDO GAME!

It makes sense in a Walmart kind of way, if you got a big store you might not want to have an adult section for fear of scaring people off. It makes sense, so how many supermarkets are there that don't stock playboy?

A few weeks ago we had the story that ISP's should get into the content business again from Sun's McNeal. Portals. Do you know why they failed? Because ISP's too were deadly afraid to be linked to porn and so banned it from their portals. But the internet IS porn and so people quickly had to learn to do without their ISP's portals, found the real web and never looked back.

I wonder, are the movies on iTunes censored? Will those who hope iTunes will take over content delivery one day find that tons of movies with content that doesn't meet Steve Jobs approval will no longer be available?

Offcourse when it comes to Apple most slashdotters have blinders on, but still, how is this different from an ISP who puts a filter on its network to shield its customers from unwanted content wether they want to be "protected" or not?

I am sure some rabid apple fan will explain it all away if I am not modded down for questioning the mighty Jobs but still, I can do with a laugh.

Luckily google is here! Gee, what a choice and fully open platform vs a closed one. That is going to be a though one. Android to the rescue, it may be less secure, it may soon be targetted by tons of malicious software and my spreadsheet will talk dirty to me, but I take that any day over the small minded closed and controlled enviroment of Apples offering.

Offcourse as I said in the opening, the iPhone will still be filled to the rim with smut, because it is impossible not to. But remember, when Larry Flint was under attack everyone who valued free speech came to his defence because if you value free speech you will defend smut. Now is the time to check where you really stand, if you think it is okay for Apple to have such thight control over what goes on to hardware it no longer owns, then you think it is okay for ISP's to filter you, for MS to decide what software you can install, for game developers to decide what you can and cannot mod.

Are you really prepared for a future where some coorperate overlord tells you what you can do on your own hardware?

The tools only run on Mac ? (1)

ldapboy (946366) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674816)

Nice, so now thousands of developers will have to buy an Apple machine. That sales spike should give the stock a nice boost...

Encryption and other features? (1)

The Second Horseman (121958) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674876)

Sure, encrypted connection, but no mention of on-device encryption, which RIM supports and your administrator can require through policy. So that's not going to be a big plus for corporate and government. Then there's the fact that on contract pricing, an organization can get a Blackberry Curve with BES support (some of the discounted consumer units don't support the Blackberry Enterprise Server) for under $100. Are they going to support central logging of IM client messages to/from the device? Again, something RIM supports with a BES - along with corporate IM client integration. Useful if you have a regulatory requirement to log messages.

30% return for a small investment? (1, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22674884)

The Fortune Magazine article, The iPhone gets a $100 million iFund [cnn.com] , says:

In typical Silicon Valley hyperbole Doerr summed up the move as the beginning of a new world order. The iPhone, he said, is "bigger than the personal computer..."

The iPhone is locked to one provider. The iPhone will soon have unlocked competitors. It certainly will never be "bigger than the personal computer". The iPhone is basically only another cellular phone, and most people use their phones only to make phone calls.

Apparently the figure of $100 million being mentioned is just a maximum. The real amount invested could be minimal. The amount invested, which may be small, will get the investing company 30% of the entire income, the article says.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>