Apple announces third-party software details for iPhone

As expected, Apple used WWDC as the stage to announce a third-party development solution for the iPhone, putting to rest fears that the handset would be a closed (read: non-smartphone) platform. Calling it a "sweet solution" for allowing devs to get their wares onto iPhones across the globe without sacrificing stability or security, Apple is using its full Safari-based browser to let folks code up true, Web 2.0-compatible apps that can be accessed and updated on developers' own servers. Though any apps that third-party developers put together will run under Safari, they'll be totally customizable and maintain the platform's unique look and feel. Better yet, they won't require any special SDK -- Jobs claims that a working knowledge of modern web standards is all we'll need to code up custom iPhone goodies to our hearts' content.

[Omer @ Jun 11th 2007 2:33PM]

BOARING KEYNOTE ... MAN .. I HAD EXPECTATION !

I BET APPLE STOCK IS DOWN

[FermitTheKrog @ Jun 11th 2007 2:44PM]

OMER LETS HOPE LEOPARD DOES NOT DISABLE ACCESS TO OUR GLORIOUS CAPS LOCK KEY AMIRIGHT?!?"!11

[Art @ Jun 12th 2007 1:04AM]

Apple Underwhelms - Forbes.com http://www.forbes.com/technology/2007/06/11/apple-developers-iphone-tech-cx_rr_0611applesoftware.html

"Investors didn't seem impressed either: Apple's stock dropped 3.5%, to $120, by the end of the day."

What's most shocking is that Forbes is a well known Mac only shop.

[iRobot @ Jun 12th 2007 9:09PM]

Over 1 keynote speech? Jesus calm down. Since when has ANY keynote speech been exciting? It's not a day in Disneyland. It's only Steve Jobs flapping his gums and wearing that ugly ass black turtleneck sweater and droopy jeans.

Freaking billionaire and Job always look like a Texas Tourist. (No offense to the state of Texas)

[Kris Janssen @ Jun 11th 2007 2:36PM]

That´s what the world has been waiting for. A non pocketable cellphone with a screen that will crack faster than an old woman´s hip... goodie

[Jared Neiswender @ Jun 11th 2007 2:36PM]

is this good or bad, i do not have a modern knowledge of how the web works

[Brian @ Jun 11th 2007 2:46PM]

This is a slap in the face. You won't see any third party media players, chat programs, web browsers, productivity apps, complex games, document handlers, and the list goes on.

The security story is a PR hoax. Windows Mobile is a secure platform, it's been mainstream for years.

[Todd Long @ Jun 11th 2007 2:38PM]

Damn, looks like there aint gonna be any integrated GPS...Only a lame way to write apps wooooooo.

[quandmeme @ Jun 11th 2007 4:36PM]

So document readers are out. I want to read PDF, Word, Excel, so I'm out of luck as I read it.

[engaget @ Jun 11th 2007 2:39PM]

You said "putting fears that the handset would be a closed platform."

Did you mean "putting to rest fears" or "verifying fears"?

If the former, does the ability to run webapps hosted on the internet make really this a smartphone?

[Stephan @ Jun 11th 2007 2:40PM]

So it still really isn't applications on the iPhone. If the app is based on a server how exactly is this an app ON the iPhone?

Now instead of just developing the app we also need google-esque bandwidth if the app becomes popular. Do I see a website full of developer apps specifically for the iphone to support the bandwidth? Hold on I just patented that idea so I will sue anyone else thinking of implementing it...

[Brent @ Jun 11th 2007 2:42PM]

As a programmer, I have two issues here:

1) This would be a wonderful solution if the iPhone had 3G all the time... but got slow or no network coverage and bye-bye apps. Lets hope there is a caching mechanism of some sort.

2) So now I need to purchase and deploy a web server just to develop an app? then pay for all the bandwidth my users use if my app gets popular? talk about barrier to entry.

[Karl @ Nov 3rd 2007 4:34PM]

I think what they meant was that you're given iPhone Safari as the platform for your apps. You don't host them, the app is in the iPhone and uses Safari to work. Now I don't know about the peripheral access, but I guess they'll make some tweaks to the iPhone Safari so that it can access the hardware.

[babyfool @ Jun 11th 2007 2:45PM]

Okay this means there is no way for Tomtom to port Navigator 6 software to Iphone. Basically there is no way to get a turn by turn based GPS navigation on Iphone unless Apple decide to add one themsevles which they will never do.

Byebye Iphone, I will stick with my treo 650 for may another year.

[Phil Gross @ Jun 11th 2007 2:50PM]

Actually, a navigator-type application is probably possible, although it wouldn't be quite as slick as a native version. It would essentially be an updated-every-10-secs Google Maps. You could also throw in a 3d-ish view. As long as the data that needs to be transmitted to the phone is kept to a steady trickle.

[tim @ Jun 11th 2007 2:46PM]

this is NOT a development platform for the iPhone, it is a way to write wep apps optimized for Safari on the iPhone. What bullshit.

[tim @ Jun 11th 2007 2:48PM]

web not "wep", that might be a confusing typo in this context.
and again, this is lame. If you are not a developer, here is an analogy:
This is like Chevrolet welding the hood shut on the new Camaro and telling you you can make it go faster by putting a lawnmower engine in the trunk and adding a 5th wheel.

[Phil Gross @ Jun 11th 2007 2:47PM]

This means you can make your own app run on the iPhone as long as the brains are on your own server (or, I guess, if you can code the whole thing in Javascript). The iPhone will apparently have a full Javascript implementation and will support the XMLHttpRequest call, allowing web pages to load data without doing a full page reload (which is how gmail and Google Maps work). You can make a good database-based app with this (like the LDAP address book app in the demo, or the Salesforce.com stuff they mentioned), even a marginally interactive and graphical app like Google Maps, but there's no way to e.g. program a fast-moving game with this kind of tech. Also, the data you're moving back and forth with the server better be small if your iPhone-client users are trying to work with EDGE as opposed to WiFi.

[Norton @ Jun 11th 2007 6:11PM]

You could do a pretty killer app with Applets+AJAX+Flex+Flash+Google Gears. Pretty much anything you want to do is available right there.

(NB: Gears is Google's new offline toolkit. It comes with a standalone database server, an http server+uri-cache, and a thread pool to make things snappy. It only works under FireFox right now.)

[Phil Gross @ Jun 11th 2007 7:20PM]

I was actually hoping for a Google Gears announcement. Has Flash support been confirmed? I know there have been hints, but I didn't know if they had definitely confirmed. Certainly you can do just about anything with Flash, but GG support would have made Steve's One More Thing a little more convincing.

As I was discussing with a colleague, if he had just announced it as "first handlheld browser with full AJAX support!", I would have been somewhat psyched. By presenting it as "here's your (non-)SDK!" it was a lame letdown.

[nxtwothou @ Jun 11th 2007 7:20PM]

More to the point, no access to hardware. So no possible GPS, dial capabilties, access to microphone, etc.

[k0a10 @ Jun 11th 2007 2:47PM]

This is quite simply spinning bad news (no third party apps) as good. What kind of personal device requires constant internet access? What happens when you're traveling? This thing deserves to be a dud. They are bonding it so tightly to one carrier, they might as well call it an OEM device.

[MarkD @ Jun 11th 2007 2:51PM]

I definately have to raise the BS flag on this one as well.

[PS3guy @ Jun 11th 2007 2:56PM]

I'll buy the HTC touch instead. this iphone is useless.

[tim @ Jun 11th 2007 2:53PM]

oh, and what about Flash? Will this support Flash 9 player?

[abigsmurf @ Jun 11th 2007 2:58PM]

The article text needs to be changed. This does nothing but CONFIRM the iPhone is a closed platform. Ajax apps are not programs, they're scripts.

No third party movie players (you didn't want to watch xvid stuff right?), games etc.

[steve @ Jun 11th 2007 2:59PM]

check it out, apple stock droped 4 bucks so far. Someone else in that company had to know this was a really bad idea.

[Jamar @ Jun 12th 2007 12:44AM]

At least no one can say the stock drop was Engadget's fault now...

[Steven Roussey @ Jun 11th 2007 3:00PM]

I could say I told you so, but i guessed that they would help with an offline api with 2G being so bad..

[mike @ Jun 11th 2007 3:10PM]

1) It will support ANYTHING Safari will support.

2) Tons of different apps are possible as a result.. just look at Facebook.

3)The Virus writers are not happy about this development..

[tim @ Jun 11th 2007 3:16PM]

Dude, I write web applications for a living and let me tell you, this is bad news. You are asking a limited processer/memory device to devote effort to running a browser AND all the application code over a very slow connection from a remote host.
Instead of
"2) Tons of different apps are possible as a result.. "
I think you meant
"2) Tons of different CRAPPY apps are possible as a result.. "

[Jeff Lewis @ Jun 11th 2007 3:22PM]

Excuse me?

How does this in any way slow down a virus writer? All they need to do is get you to do is click a link and then exploit any weakness in the browser (and yes, there have been exploits for Safari).

If anything, this makes it easier since people will be going to the web to get apps from unknown sources rather than purchasing commercial apps from known sources.

And while you can do some pretty neat things in a browser, the desktop application will always be more powerful and flexible - not to mention cheaper - remember, you're going to the web through a cellphone here.

That's not typically the cheapest way to use the internet, and without 3G or HSDPA, it's not the fastest either.

[Gabriel @ Jun 11th 2007 3:24PM]

I agree with the general "WTF?" sentiment. This is not an SDK, nor would the "Web 2.0" apps be real apps. Oh great, I can "install" apps, and then not be able to use ANY of them if I don't have service.

Why is Google the only company that gets to write a real application for the iPhone?

I liked it better when it was a "closed" platform.

This doesn't make it any more "secure" either, unless Apple can somehow guarantee that there will never be ANY exploitable vulnerabilities in the Safari browser on the phone.

I'd rather have a Palm/Windows/Symbian mobile device than the iPhone. I'm sure I'm not the only long-time, hardcore Apple user/fan who is thinking that right now.

[Brent Royal-Gordon @ Jun 13th 2007 4:47AM]

You mean the Maps app? Google didn't write that; Apple used an API Google licenses to cell phone developers. I seem to remember hearing that Google was stunned at how nicely the iPhone Maps app came out.

[Todd Long @ Jun 11th 2007 3:04PM]

Woooo... look at that stock drop. No GPS, 3G, and third-party party apps what else would you expect. This is definitely blows for having third-party apps (I wouldn't even consider it that).

[judson @ Jun 12th 2007 1:45PM]

"this iphone is useless."

yeah, no one will probably buy it..looks like the end of Apple.

[Jeff Lewis @ Jun 11th 2007 3:16PM]

Well, I'd be lying if I said I was surprised. What you have here is Widgets on iPhone - kind of.

If Jobs actually means you have to download them to your iPhone AS a web page, this is going to be pretty weak. I'd rather Apple just open up a Java sandbox and let people play in there - that's what most cellphones do.

On the other hand, if you can download Widgets and run them locally - then this isn't quite so bad, even if not as powerful as actual apps. Widgets can do a lot, even if not actually talking to the Web.

I guess we'll know when the SDK comes out.

So far, Windows Mobile and .Net CF 2 is still looking more powerful and flexible.

[Jeff Lewis @ Jun 11th 2007 3:23PM]

They said that about the Playstation 3, too.
Oh... wait... :)

[Scoopster @ Jun 11th 2007 3:31PM]

Here's the real issue no one has yet identified:
So iPhone is a 2.75G phone with EDGE. That means that when a data session is running (i.e. an application in a Safari browser and moving any number of bits back and forth to the application developer's server), then the phone cannot place or receive calls.

Now, who thinking this is good in any way? Oh, I guess now we know why this phone will need "visual voicemail" or whatever they call it.....!

[Macka @ Jun 11th 2007 4:15PM]

That's not such an issue. Apple have already demo'd browsing the web via Wi-Fi and having a phone conversation at the same time.

[Jonathan @ Jun 11th 2007 5:29PM]

That's browsing through wifi and getting a call. Browsing using your cellphone reception, EDGE, and getting a call isn't possible.

Be more informed before you speak.

[Mike @ Jun 11th 2007 9:58PM]

> Browsing using your cellphone reception, EDGE, and getting a call isn't possible.

Actually with the iPhone it is. at+t is in a frenzy upgrading their network right now. How do I know? I'm one of the people doing it. They are expanding their EDGE capability in direct anticipation for the release of the iPhone. One of the reasons for the expansion is because the iPhone will use more voice/data channels (4 timeslots to be exact) than other phones, allowing you to have a data connection while on a phone call. At least this is what we were told.

[Brian @ Jun 11th 2007 3:31PM]

Lame lame lame.

What happens if you can't get a connection (likely on AT&T)? Your app doesn't work.

You can't develop iPhone apps, you can only develop web apps that are optimized for the iPhone. The security issue is a red herring. What about Palm? What about Windows Mobile?

Bite me, Steve.

[Bill Durr @ Jun 11th 2007 3:33PM]

So this should be read 'no third party applications for iphone'. Hmm, it views web pages. My current phone thats a few years old views web pages. Probably the iphone will support javascript. still that doesnt mean it has third party software.

ability to view web pages does not equal third party apps. sorry to all you out there. its just some scripts that get run. and then you need a web server to support it. this means theres much more overhead to produce these "third party apps" for the iphone.

steve basically came out and said 'guess what, it views web pages, you can make applications there' and then everyone came out and said 'yay third party apps'

the iphone still remains a closed platform

[Erock @ Jun 12th 2007 12:27PM]

I don't see how this means anything to anyone who's posted here so far as they are far too dense to read and understand information let alone be a developer of native applications of any consequence.

The web apps are not live, they are run locally and use the services tools on the phone to interact with the phone, to make calls, send SMS messages and so forth. They operate like widgets but without the widget UI, rather the iPhone app UI.

The point is to prevent the phone from crashing, it's software and system level security that is the concern not security from intruders. The reason this is a concern at all is because the iPhone hardware doesn't offer the same virtualization hardware you find in a real PC. It's a real-time device. You can't hog all the RAM, it can't swap applications out. One clown says look at Windows Mobile for a device you can write software for and yet is secure. Nonsense. WM is notorious for crashing daily if not hourly.

iPhone is a crowded room and you can't both allow people run amuck with the very limited resources it has and still attempt to maintain a minimum level of performance and reputation for reliability. How long before on of you dorks install a bittorrent client and then bitch on very blog in existence about how the battery only lasts an hour?

Too many idiots, so little time

[incognegro @ Jun 12th 2007 3:02PM]

I think you are right on the money. And web applications can call JavaScript, and native features can be safely surfaced through JavaScript as well. I guess no one who posted ever heard of LiveConnect in Netscape.

They should be thinking widgets calling JavaScript code that serves as an interface to the iPhone. If Apple surfaces all the iPhone API via JavaScript, then what's the complaint?

The level of understanding so far is pretty low ...

[Don @ Jun 13th 2007 11:05AM]

"How long before on of you dorks install a bittorrent client and then bitch on very blog in existence about how the battery only lasts an hour?"

Well, with the news of this lackluster announcement, the answer is probably "forever".

This announcement smacks of calling a liability a 'feature'.

Here's the way you deal with a reliability problem caused by real thrid party apps:

User- "My iPhone keeps crashing!"
tech- "Do you run any applications that didn't come with the phone?"
user- "Yes."
tech- "Sorry, we can't support a phone that has unlicensed applications installed. We need to set the phone to factory defaults first, then we can troubleshoot."

[Ace @ Jun 11th 2007 3:49PM]

Don't you think Apple will leave a backdoor open for the creative among us? This phone will be hacked within months.

[Richard @ Jun 11th 2007 3:47PM]

Well, I for one am going to hack it apart, and have it running fedora core AND lots of fun packages by bedtime. ha ha! ;-)

[Jayare @ Jun 11th 2007 3:49PM]

I still want to know does this mean for sure WILL THERE BE INSTANT MESSANGING on this phone? Or will I have to use Safari and log onto AIM Express?