Comments on: The iPhone SDK http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/ Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:16:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Lefty http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6363 Lefty Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:54:13 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6363 Android's not really much better than the iPhone: you can only program in Java (and a version that's outside the Java Community Process), the security is completely left up to the user (another recipe for disaster), and Google's continuing description of Android as "open source" is a fabrication. Google won't allow access to the Android sources before phones ship--most likely, not before 2009--and once they do, I expect to see a thousand forks bloom in short order... Android’s not really much better than the iPhone: you can only program in Java (and a version that’s outside the Java Community Process), the security is completely left up to the user (another recipe for disaster), and Google’s continuing description of Android as “open source” is a fabrication.

Google won’t allow access to the Android sources before phones ship–most likely, not before 2009–and once they do, I expect to see a thousand forks bloom in short order…

]]> By: Eugenia http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6322 Eugenia Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:26:10 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6322 David, I don't have a specific clause, just the overall idea of how Apple does business. And it won't take 500 same apps to get a stop on your face, just 2 or 3 will be enough. I expect nothing less of Apple at this point. They control the whole thing and they said so clearly. David, I don’t have a specific clause, just the overall idea of how Apple does business. And it won’t take 500 same apps to get a stop on your face, just 2 or 3 will be enough. I expect nothing less of Apple at this point. They control the whole thing and they said so clearly.

]]> By: David Shellabarger http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6321 David Shellabarger Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:54:19 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6321 @Adam S Eugenia is right. Android solves all of these problems. http://code.google.com/android/intro/lifecycle.html I'm developing an app for Android, and thinking about developing the same app for iPhone. However, the iPhone will limit what I want to do (run a background service). And come on. No cut and paste for the iPhone! I mean seriously... @Adam S
Eugenia is right. Android solves all of these problems.
http://code.google.com/android/intro/lifecycle.html

I’m developing an app for Android, and thinking about developing the same app for iPhone. However, the iPhone will limit what I want to do (run a background service).

And come on. No cut and paste for the iPhone! I mean seriously…

]]> By: David H Dennis http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6320 David H Dennis Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:02:54 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6320 Can you tell me where the terms disallow "too many of the same app"? I'm sure a lot of people will be affected by that one, and I don't remember hearing about it elsewhere, or reading it in the SDK terms (which I just read pretty much word for word). Certainly it's common sense that Apple would not want to release 500 apps that do the same thing, but I'd like to see the specific clause you're referring to. D Can you tell me where the terms disallow “too many of the same app”?

I’m sure a lot of people will be affected by that one, and I don’t remember hearing about it elsewhere, or reading it in the SDK terms (which I just read pretty much word for word).

Certainly it’s common sense that Apple would not want to release 500 apps that do the same thing, but I’d like to see the specific clause you’re referring to.

D

]]> By: Eugenia http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6263 Eugenia Mon, 10 Mar 2008 05:26:36 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6263 I don't think affects ObJC developers, it mostly affects users and Flash content developers. I don’t think affects ObJC developers, it mostly affects users and Flash content developers.

]]> By: Allan http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6262 Allan Mon, 10 Mar 2008 05:01:47 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6262 How do you think the absence of Flash affects adoption by the developer community? How do you think the absence of Flash affects adoption by the developer community?

]]> By: Eugenia http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6257 Eugenia Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:02:27 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6257 >the terms of service do Are you blind? This is what I say too ("the terms disallow.."). But no matter if the SDK let you build such apps, doesn't mean that your app is going to get approved because of these terms. >Can your iPhone do this? Yes, apps can do this right now. The only real security the iPhone has is user support, but nothing like it. >How do you propose to do this? By being very careful in the design of the OS, maybe even put apps on their own runtime. You separate the apps. And you don't tell apps use the "kill" command, for example. There are tricks to do this. Maybe I should let you visit another mobile OS to see such features implemented, but I better not mention it here. >the terms of service do

Are you blind? This is what I say too (”the terms disallow..”). But no matter if the SDK let you build such apps, doesn’t mean that your app is going to get approved because of these terms.

>Can your iPhone do this?

Yes, apps can do this right now. The only real security the iPhone has is user support, but nothing like it.

>How do you propose to do this?

By being very careful in the design of the OS, maybe even put apps on their own runtime. You separate the apps. And you don’t tell apps use the “kill” command, for example. There are tricks to do this.

Maybe I should let you visit another mobile OS to see such features implemented, but I better not mention it here.

]]> By: Adam S http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6253 Adam S Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:02:32 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6253 The SDK does not have these limitations, the terms of service do. If you had done your research, you'd see that the call that terminates applications can be overridden. Your problem is not with the SDK tech specs, it's with the terms and conditions that come with distributing apps. Also, I'm not sure you are really thinking about what you're asking for. <i>Making sure no app can crash another app</i> Can your iPhone do this? Apps don't crash each other, there is a system by which they shut down running apps. cleanly. Such as when you receive a phone call while you're going other things. <i>making sure that no app can [...] steal data</i> How do you propose to do this? If I give you access to the contacts db and the internet, that's a recipe for disaster on ANY phone. How does one build a complete protection against this? It's either lockdown or introduce risk. At some point, users have to have some responsibility. I'm not defending Apple here, but if you're going to attack them, at least understand the problem entirely. The iPhone has redefined mobile phone usability, and with that comes rules and guidelines. But certain things can't be eliminated without the platform suffering, and they ought to be addressed more quickly. The SDK does not have these limitations, the terms of service do. If you had done your research, you’d see that the call that terminates applications can be overridden. Your problem is not with the SDK tech specs, it’s with the terms and conditions that come with distributing apps.

Also, I’m not sure you are really thinking about what you’re asking for.

Making sure no app can crash another app
Can your iPhone do this? Apps don’t crash each other, there is a system by which they shut down running apps. cleanly. Such as when you receive a phone call while you’re going other things.

making sure that no app can […] steal data
How do you propose to do this? If I give you access to the contacts db and the internet, that’s a recipe for disaster on ANY phone. How does one build a complete protection against this? It’s either lockdown or introduce risk. At some point, users have to have some responsibility.

I’m not defending Apple here, but if you’re going to attack them, at least understand the problem entirely. The iPhone has redefined mobile phone usability, and with that comes rules and guidelines. But certain things can’t be eliminated without the platform suffering, and they ought to be addressed more quickly.

]]> By: Nikita http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6249 Nikita Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:28:02 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6249 Well, that's pretty much what would happen anyway - if too many people keep jailbreaking their phones because that would get them better functionality (in terms of running services for example) sooner or later Apple will integrate that into the SDK. I don't think anyone should be overy concerned over that. --Nikita Well, that’s pretty much what would happen anyway - if too many people keep jailbreaking their phones because that would get them better functionality (in terms of running services for example) sooner or later Apple will integrate that into the SDK. I don’t think anyone should be overy concerned over that.

–Nikita

]]> By: Nita http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6248 Nita Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:11:45 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk/#comment-6248 I think those conditions actually suck very very much. I have a Nokia 6630 (yes, it is old, but then again it works just fine) and I have used several kinds of IM apps on it, all of them running in the background. This allows me to do other stuff while still being available for contact. So I just find the clause Apple has about background apps totally and utterly stupid. iPhone may be a good phone, but Apple is limiting it's use in so many ways that I wouldn't use it even if I got it for free. I think those conditions actually suck very very much. I have a Nokia 6630 (yes, it is old, but then again it works just fine) and I have used several kinds of IM apps on it, all of them running in the background. This allows me to do other stuff while still being available for contact. So I just find the clause Apple has about background apps totally and utterly stupid. iPhone may be a good phone, but Apple is limiting it’s use in so many ways that I wouldn’t use it even if I got it for free.

]]>