Tuesday, June 12, 2007

If you want Apple to be open ... how about being open about your idea?

As reported on Gizmodo

The potential failure of the iPhone as a truly revolutionary platform.




Summary:

The reason: no SDK to harness the true power of Mac OS X and the frameworks contained in Apple's smart cell. From the article: 'According to Apple, "no software developer kit is required for the iPhone." However, the truth is that the lack of an SDK means that there won't be a killer application for the iPhone. It also means the iPhone's potential as an amazing computing and communication platform will never be realized. And because of this and no matter how Apple tries to sell it, the iPhone won't make a revolution happen.


So let's hear your ideas for a killer app for the iPhone ... c'mon, if you want Apple to be open about it, let's hear it. I think the iPhone in and of itself IS THE KILLER APPLICATION of preexisting applications.

I do see the potential for bluetooth GPS - but honestly you should expect that Apple WILL introduce this. I think the potential for web apps is actually pretty amazing - tons of different database applications - just as Apple showed. These programs could easily be charged for through a secure web login as well.

It seems to me that complaining "developers" want to make money from the apps for the iPhone and don't want to cut Apple in on the action. They want FREE and OPEN access. Give it time. You have to understand that opening the iPhone would also open the iPod - this could mean hacks galore for iPods ... something that Apple has been very good at thusfar - securing.

I hate when people complain about not having options then can't think of WHICH options they would want. It's like Democrats claiming the war in Iraq should be fought differently - HOW THEN???!!!

[UPDATE] A cool iPhone App was just released today: OneTrip

...

5 comments:

Jensonb said...

Um, quick question for Gizmodo...

How would the apps be distributed if not via the browser? iTunes Store? Get real, iPod games is pushing it.

Anonymous said...

xraI don't think the point is that the writers of Gizmodo have a killer app in mind, but rather that with out an SDK we pretty much know it won't happen. I think people view it much like the Mac. The basic OS and apps that come with it are great, but 3rd party apps add a lot of value. Personally I think most people are getting a little worked up prematurely. The phone is not out, and Apple has not closed the door on 3rd party development. They simply have not jumped in the deep end just yet. Being that this is the first product of its kind from Apple and a new area of business I think the caution they are using is prudent. Make sure it works well and then open up to other ideas.

As for the the tangental stab at Democrats, many have offered alternate plans, and like the Republicans they seem to be deny reality. What no one wants to accept it that the war is over. We went for two reasons 1.) Disarm Iraq of WMDs, 2.) Change regimes. Iraq has not WMDs, and Sadam is not getting any deader. We achieved our goals, war is won. The problem is that our war created a giant mess and the problems it created seem worse than those that we set out to solve. But rather than face that people pretend the war is still going on and we can somehow salvage it. If we want to solve the current problem we need to talk about nation building not a war that is well passed over.

fixyourthinking said...

I have a few ideas in mind for things that could be web based - you don't NEED and iPhone SDK.

1) Since the iPhone has google maps integration - what about having overlays of internal diagrams of buldings - so you can show people exactly where to go inside a building. This is just thinking out loud here.

2) What about a website that was specifically formatted for the iPhone that collected AM/FM radio stations to listen to on the net. (This may not be supported- but again - out loud thinking)

3) I know of TONS of games that are web 2.0 based.

I sincerely appreciate your comment and you seem mostly unbias politically - but there WERE WMDs in Iraq and possibly more were moved in the 8 months Iraq was given while the UN decided whether or not to inspect.

You made a stab back at Republicans and mentioned alternative plans WITHOUT citing specific plans. Just a comment - if we weren't needed there still - why are Iraqi AND US soldiers still being killed? Because of our presence or because they WANT TO KILL ALL OF US? I say the latter and we are more or less containing them to Iraq. I've seen no further attacks on the US or UK for that matter (of consequence) - the UK saw one attack - but I'm not convinced that it wasn't an attention deficit/copycat.

Anonymous said...

It sounds like I botched both my points.

I can say i pretty much agree with you on iPhone. I think the web is a a great way to deliver apps and in many cases it is better than an installed app as it no disk space (when working with 4 gigs that is huge plus). Personally I only have interest in checking email on my phone or a rich web browser if I can use it to connect to work. I travel a lot and it would be really useful to use a phone to connect to work than lug out the powerbook. The limiting factor here is the lack of a VPN client, and that would not be something done via a web app. Some sort of spreadsheet app would also be nice, but isn't huge.

Like I said, I think Apple is taking a good approach to 3rd party development. My guess is they want to see what the interest is, and see how feasible it is to allow 3rd parties to do development. I think that if there is a long term interest in 3rd party apps then the problem with web apps is that they require internet access to be worked with. This could get expensive if you have to depend on cingular's data plans. Anyway, just my 2c. I think we agree on the larger point that people bemoaning the lack of SDK right now are complaining a bit prematurely especially since Apple is offering a compromise.

I don't want to get into the war conversation to much as that was not the point of your post, and i don't think people who disagree on these things of this scale are going to figure it out in a blog comments section. I just wanted to clarify three things:

1. John Murtha had the Phased Redeployment, and while a bad idea, it was a Democratic plan.

2. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was just bagging on Republicans, I think both parties have been equally incapable of finding solutions for Iraq.

3. I didn't mean to imply that US involvement was not needed. My point was that we need to look at the situation as it has changed. The situation still requires the military, but the military mission is no longer the primary focus, it is the nation building we need to focus on. Instead the focus is on the military an the where they are located (withdraw vs. buildup).

Anyway I am more than happy to say I agree to disagree.

Anonymous said...

Some people are being unreasonable here; they say that the iPhone is a dud because it doesn't have this or that feature-- a SDK or a keyboard, etc. But, the Apple iPhone is a version 1.0 product, not yet released. We do not know what will happen. Or how the consumers will respond to it.

The killer app is likely to be OSX. Most of the Phone users I know say that using a mobile phone is a pain. If there is no pain in using the iPhone, then people will embrace it even if it doesn't have features that are on some other smart phones.

The assumption that the critics make is that the American public wants those features. If so, why do Smart Phones make up less than ten percent of the mobile phones?

Lou Wheeler