The iPhone SDK: The day after
Twenty-four hours after Apple revealed its procedure for getting third-party applications on the iPhone, developers have a few questions about the software development kit, but seem mostly satisfied.
In the immediate aftermath of Thursday's presentation at Apple's headquarters in Cupertino, Calif., reaction was almost universally positive to Apple's SDK plans. Some developers had feared worse outcomes, such as having to submit their source code to Apple, and seemed willing to let Apple take a piece of their revenue and be the exclusive distributor for iPhone applications in exchange for getting a crack at the technology.
Apple's Scott Forstall explains how application development works on the iPhone.
(Credit: Corinne Schulze/CNET Networks)Now that everyone has moved a good mile or so away from the famed "reality-distortion field," a few tidbits regarding the SDK are coming to light. Thursday, I noted that the devil would be in the details of the SDK, namely in what types of applications Apple chose to allow on the iPhone. A day later, we're getting a better picture of that.
For example, you're not going to be able to use anything other than Apple's official APIs (application programming interfaces), notes Ken Aspeslagh (via Daring Fireball). This isn't much of a shock, but it means that a lot of techniques learned developing unofficial iPhone apps will probably not work with the official SDK.
Also, Aspelagh notes that a third-party application can't write data to another application, which is known as "sand-boxing." This is a security-influenced rule, presumably. The downer is that "the possibility of cool mashups is basically eliminated," notes Wired's Scott Gilbertson.
The SDK item drawing the most attention Friday, however, is that third-party applications will not be allowed to run in the background. TechCrunch's Mike Arrington wrote, "Instant-messaging applications (we saw a demo of an AIM version at the event today), can't run in the background and collect messages while you are doing something else. Leave the application to take a phone call, and it shows you offline."
Apple's SDK documentation (embedded in the TechCrunch post) points out that the iPhone can only display a single application screen at a time, and urges prospective developers to spend a lot of time designing an application that can handle quick stops and starts. "In other words, users should not feel that leaving your iPhone application and returning to it later is any more difficult than switching among applications on a computer."
There could be a number of reasons behind this stance, perhaps chief among them that the iPhone might not be able to support the processing demands required by multitasking, but plenty of other phones seem to be able to juggle more than one application at a time. I wonder whether future Apple-developed iPhone applications--like, say an iPhone version of iChat--will be subject to the same restrictions.
One interesting passage in the iPhone SDK documentation should give Intel something to think about. "If you have an existing computer application, don't port it to iPhone OS. People use iPhone OS-based devices very differently than they use desktop and laptop computers, and they have very different expectations for the user experience."
Intel has been pitching its upcoming lineup of x86-based Silverthorne and Moorestown processors as ideal for the next generation of mobile devices, because they can run any type of software that you can currently run on a PC. The chipmaker has a point in that if you're already familiar with x86 development process, you might find a Silverthorne chip an easier target than an ARM-based chip. But all those Mac and PC software developers will have to bring a totally different mindset to mobile development anyway. Those developers who have been doing this type of development already could have a substantial edge.
Any hint?
multitask/display more than one application at a time, and goes
into detail about the device not being able to do so.
There is a huge difference between displaying multiple
applications and multitasking. For starters the iPhone runs OSX,
which, to say trivially is a multitasking operating system. The
fact that you only SEE one application at a time is not the same
as running a single application at a time. It is sad that a tech
writer doesn't understand the difference, and goes into detail
implying that the iPhone cannot do it.
Perhaps more research before posting?
cellular side will quit after inactivity.
This is not something exclusive to 3rd party applications.
implement an interpreter, plug-in model, or any other executable-
hosting code other than what Apple directly supplies. Despite the
fact that the chipset they use can execute Java code extremely fast
and efficiently, it looks like Apple will prevent developers from
making it work. A pity. Java 6 is way easier to write for, faster, and
more secure than the ancient Objective-C language.
lack there of with desktop x86 chips has nothing to do with
Apple's suggesting not to directly port apps from desktop
systems. What Apple is saying here is that apps written for the
iphone should be written to take advantage of the iPhone's
unique feature set, and that apps brought over directly from the
desktop mouse/keyboard paradigm will not work well.
FWIW, the underlying processor architecture has almost nothing
to do with the ability to run applications on various computing
platforms. The big roadblock that most developers have in
porting is the APIs used. Its a common urban myth that having
OSX (or any other OS for that matter) on x86 makes porting
windows apps easier. It really doesn't. Its the Win32 API that
those apps are written to. They know nothing of the underlying
processor. It is entirely an issue of porting Win32 calls to Cocoa
calls, etc.. otherwise it would just be a recompile.
Apple?
Every single one of those applications, developed by third parties 5
days to 2 weeks, would either never have been completed, or run
very inefficiently in Java. FIVE DAYS TO TWO WEEKS!
Keep Java away from the iPhone. If people are to lazy to do it right,
they should not be doing it at all.
the developer of the operating system. On desktops, you able
to create libraries, that other applications build upon, but those
aren't operating system APIs.
Developed applications will be able to talk to each other, if they
are so designed that way. You can create URL schemes, that
must be defined, and become public.
On the point of displaying a single application screen, at a time.
This of course makes perfect since for a handheld this size.
Readability, usability (in part due to a touch-screen and fat
fingers), and power consumption. However, this does not
prevent you from creating complex screens with multiple views
in them.
Multiple running applications on a device, this size, with a
known limitation of power (i.e. the battery), could turn your
iPhone into a device that has to charge every 15 minutes very
quickly. Hence, the reason why inactive, non-cellular, and timer
functions are turned off when in-active. I'm sure, one day,
someone will produce a small, long lasting, affordable battery.
Until that time, these limitations are tied together. (another
reason why there is no iChat on the iPhone)
In the end, it's not the TYPE of software that Apple is asking
people to think about, It is how people, can, and may want to
INTERACT with that same software. Simply porting an existing
application onto a small, handheld, multi-touch computer, is
simply refusing to move forward, provide consumers with the
very things we can be so whimsical about sometimes.
I love Star Trek, don't you? That quote has a lot more meaning
in it than just about whether you like a TV show or not.
As far as the "The day after". Someone has been feeding you
stuff off the top of their head. There are videos, and
documentation to go through. I've only gone through half the
videos, to provide you the correct information.
and that people are gonna be able to develop apps for the
iPhone.
It?s way bigger than this, ?bigger than the personnal computer?
as John Doerr, Partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, said
when he introduced the $100,000,000 iFund initiative.
We?re actually witnessing the birth of a whole new platform.
I?ve developed this opinion over at the hardmac.com blog, come and read it.
I am just waiting for someone to make a bittorrent client that works on iPhone and watch everyone go crazy!
Now that would be funny! Someone needs to get an SDK from BitLord and have it autosearch thepiratebay. LMAO!
It'll happen, only a matter of time. Searching BT and with DL'ing via WiFi on the iPhone....lol
Carlos, I looked up your work and it is pretty good. Nifty appz but many that I personally as a consumer would not use on my phone (at least for now). Don't know what your gross revenue is, but when you start questioning my income and think I am not telling the truth, then go look up MrLend and then come talk to me. My proof is right on my site.
Enough said. Ding, Ding....School is out bro.
This isn't a pissing contest. This is about what the "consumer" wants, and with that, I being a former iPhone owner, I didn't find the phone all that great. But with people as inventive as yourself (although Apple is lame for not allowing Java to be written to their products), you should be writing code for them instead of arguing with me about this and that. Jobs HAS ALWAYS done things his way. Wasn't he sued just days prior regarding he name by Cisco???? Guess who won.?Most people with a vision usually do win.
Please go code some cool Java appz for the Xperia 1 phone I want to get in the 3rd Q of this year so I can use it for business!!! If it works well and offers me features I can't get on that Sony phone, I'll be the first to buy it!!!
- rapier1
-
by midibite
March 11, 2008 3:08 PM PDT
- I don't see why not since we mainly provide funds for asset based Commercial Real Estate with institutional and non-institutional funds that you can't get from banks.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 54 Comments >>Why shouldn't we mention mortgages? Because there were many unscrupulous Brokers working out there that did those bad home loans - which is not even our main scope of work.
It's like comparing Apples to Dirt.
Besides, the main problem with this crisis weren't just the loans by themselves (some didn?t exist until the last few years), it was the liquidly markets that provided the cash. So you can blame the Fed and Hedge Funds with their CDO's and the Brokers making 3-4 points on every deal pushing Neg Am loans for this Mortgage mess. Oh ya, China and Europe bought a ton of those CDO's so you can blame them too.