I often wake up with a tune playing in my head. I don't know why it's that particular tune, and sometimes I waterboard myself for hours trying to find the reason for this apparently random madness.
This morning, for example, it was that Spanish Lullaby song that Madonna numbed us with some time around the last century. (I never said it was only good songs that blared in my internal jukebox.)
So why might one's mind have been invaded by "La Isla Bonita?" Was it because this time last year I was in Spain, sipping sangria with some dubious Europeans? Was it because last night I saw a trailer of a new film directed by Madonna's last husband? Was it because I hadn't had enough sleep?
All this thinking is painful and useless, but it has brought me to an idea for Apple: it's time the company took the apparent randomness of the iPod Shuffle and made it mean something.
Might I propose that Apple creates an iPod that, whenever worn on your person, can immediately discern your mood? Please imagine that this new iPod, let's call it the iPod Shrink, is a tiny little thing that has within it even tinier sensors that monitor your heart rate, your blood pressure, your digestive calm, even your sweat level.
On the basis of this entirely factual information, the iPod Shrink would then select the precise piece of music that would match your mood. It's important to consider just what is meant by "match your mood."
Perhaps you, the moody consumer, might have the ability to ask the iPod Shrink to enhance your mood or to counteract it.
If you ask for counteraction and the machine sees that you're miserable, the iPod Shrink would bypass "My Immortal" by Evanescence, "Creep" by Radiohead or anything by James Blunt and go straight to "I Feel Good" by James Brown or the utterly classic Manilow rendition of "Copacabana." For enhancement, it would do the reverse.
If it detected anger, it could soothe you with some Bebel Gilberto or stoke your fires with some Sex Pistols. If it detected concern, it might offer the Goo Goo Dolls' "Iris." Or, alternatively, something from Disturbed's fine little album "The Sickness."
Perhaps the greatest surprise for you, the iPod Shrink owner, would be to discover what mood you are actually in. After all, your little device would be more familiar with the true scientific nature of your innards than would you. So your own self-knowledge would surely be enhanced by such a wickedly wily machine.
This could be a very big seller. It would certainly make me look more kindly on the self-absorbed, frustrated, preening, angst-ridden waddlers in the gym.
Two prominent Web-based programming advocates have left Mozilla for Palm, arguing that the time has come to use browsers to bypass Apple's controlling role in mobile applications.
Dion Almaer and Ben Galbraith, who help run the Ajaxian site for elaborate Web interfaces and who worked on Mozilla's Web-based Bespin tool for collaborative programming, announced their move to Palm on Friday.
Palm is a logical place for them to go. The Palm Pre has won accolades as a competitive mobile phone, and its foundation for applications is a WebKit-based browser, meaning that Palm programs are essentially Web programs.
"I will be joining Ben, my best friend, partner in crime, and fellow Ajaxian, as we take a new role as directors of the Palm Developer Relations team. We will have the responsibility of the developer experience with Palm. We will be trying to create a rich connective tissue between the company and the Web developer community that we love," Almaer wrote on his blog.
Web-based programs are typically slower and less capable than alternatives that run natively on a computing device. But they have one big potential advantage: written once, they can run on any device with a browser and hardware up to the task.
Although Galbraith and Dalmaer are excited by the possibilities of Web applications and the new era of mobile computing ushered in most notably by Apple's iPhone, Galbraith appears to be concerned about the control Apple exercises over the applications people can use on their phones.
"Clearly, a revolution in hardware is taking place, and it doesn't take a prophet to work out that the future of computing lies along this new trajectory," Galbraith said. "However, my enthusiasm for this amazing new world is tempered by some unfortunate decisions made by some of the players in this space. It seems that some view this revolution as a chance to seize power in downright Orwellian ways by constraining what we, as developers, can say, dictating what kinds of apps we can create, controlling how we distribute our apps, and placing all kinds of limits on what (we) can do to our computing devices."
He didn't mention Apple by name, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but who else besides Apple could Galbraith be referring to? The programmers and Apple didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
Apple exerts its control to try to give iPhone users a simple, stable, and useful experience. But that control can be at odds with what programmers and users want, as was most clearly illustrated in Apple's rejection of the Google Voice application--though Apple said it hasn't actually rejected the application.
Meanwhile, as it did with its Latitude location application for the iPhone after Apple rejected a native version of that software, Google is working on a Web-based interface for Google Voice. It also offers a Web-based Gmail application for the iPhone.
What's curious is that the Palm Pre, the Google Android operating system, and the iPhone OS all use a browser based on the WebKit project, and Apple is among those working hard to advance the state of the art for Web application programming through its WebKit work. So there is some philosophical agreement along with the differences.
Apple sent an e-mail to iPhone app developers on Friday afternoon announcing the App Store Resource Center, a destination for details on application review and distribution, ranging from advice on preparing an app for submission to managing an app once it is available on the App Store.
According to Apple:
(Credit:
Apple)
"The App Store Resource Center provides details on how to get started with iTunes Connect, including setting up your account, contract and banking information, what you'll need to have prepared before you submit your binary, and quick reference guides on assigning a rating to your app and using keywords.
"You'll learn what you can do to ensure your app is ready for the approval process and what to expect during review. You'll also find guidance on managing your app, once it's on the App Store, including app-editing information, submitting updates for your app, and where you can find and leverage sales and marketing resources."
Apple also advised developers to "check out the News and Announcements section of the iPhone Dev Center for tips on submitting your apps to the App Store, turnaround time for app review, new program features, and guidance on everything from development and testing to distribution and marketing."
Developers need a registered iPhone Developer Apple ID and password, which can be obtained by signing up for a paid membership to Apple's iPhone Developer program, to access the App Store Resource Center and the iPhone Dev Center.
For all the discussion of the importance of transparency and openness on the Web today, it's very telling that the world's fastest-growing mobile platform may also be the most proprietary.
Apple wins rave reviews (including from me) on its technology but certainly not for its commitment to sharing its innovations with the world...unless, of course, you fork over $299 and sign a two-year mobile service commitment.
Indeed, Apple has earned the dubious honor of being more closed than Microsoft.
And yet, as Marc Hedlund reveals over on the O'Reilly Radar, application growth for the iPhone dwarfs that of the former leader in the smartphone category, PalmOS:
If openness matters so much, why is Apple doing so well with its uber-proprietary iPhone, just as Microsoft dominates the desktop with proprietary Windows?
There are at least two answers. One is that while Apple's iPhone (like Microsoft's Windows) isn't open in the open-source sense, it is open in the sense that it's easy to create applications that run on it. The second reason is that there's a huge financial incentive to do so, given the momentum behind the platform.
For some, these reasons aren't good enough, such as Mozilla Chair Mitchell Baker:
Many of us participate in closed systems where the rules are set for us and we don't see them, certainly can't change them, and aren't permitted to "participate" in building the rules. This is true of very popular web services. For example, I "participate" in Flickr and Facebook, but within the system and rules that those organizations set up to meet their own goals. That's fine; there's no reason for those sites to change.
Mozilla is trying to build a layer of the Internet that's different, where "participation" extends to the very core of what we build.
With 40 percent of Mozilla's Firefox written by outside contributors, it's clear that an open platform works for Mozilla to build a better browser, which is why Mozilla continues to improve the ways in which developers can contribute to it. But it's equally clear that there are other ways to be "open to participation," ways that pay the rent for Apple, Microsoft, and huge ecosystems of commercial partners.
Is one platform approach better than another?
While it's clear that the world has room for both proprietary-but-open-enough and pureplay-open approaches to platform building, I favor the more open approach. The reason is that eventually, it appears proprietary approaches can collapse under their own weight.
Take Windows, for example. To maintain its growth, Microsoft has had to include more and more functionality in the operating system, stepping on the toes (or outright devouring the toes) of its erstwhile partners. (Interestingly, while discussing whether openness matters for Apple over Google Android, Slate describes Microsoft's Windows approach as open.)
Eventually, Windows grew to such heft that the market, including Microsoft partners, started looking for open alternatives, causing then Microsoft chairman Bill Gates to dub Linux Microsoft's "most potent operating system competitor." The "good enough" operating system that performed certain tasks much more efficiently and powerfully than Windows has now grown to seriously threaten Microsoft in a range of applications and markets.
Eventually, even Microsoft's desktop dominance may be threatened by Linux as new classes of easy-to-use, cost-effective devices like Netbooks arise.
Back to Apple. Today, Apple's iPhone seems set to rule the world because it enables a huge community of application developers to reach a paying audience. Tomorrow, however, Google (Android/Linux), Nokia (Symbian, Linux), Palm (WebOS/Linux), and even Microsoft (Windows Mobile) threaten its cozy corralling of the mobile market.
Microsoft has made it clear that it's possible to build a massive business with an "open enough" approach to platform development. The question is, can Microsoft (and Apple) maintain that without truly opening up?
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Apple developers have been having a tough time renewing their iPhone development licenses, according to reports. For them, the company had some good news Friday: the licensing for all developers has been extended to July 11--one year after the opening of the iTunes App Store.
Additionally, Apple announced that licensing renewals will begin in May, a full 60 days prior to the developer program expiration date. Developers got the news in an e-mail.
The message sent to developers is shown below:
Recently, according to CNET News' Tom Krazit, there has been astounding growth in the iTunes App Store, and the growth continues at a fast pace with more than 25,000 applications listed. The growth has been so great that Apple has had trouble keeping up with it, leaving a few kinks in the App Store to figure out.
Now, developers can rest easy because Apple has finally managed to work out the kinks and keep its developers happy--none of their licenses will expire abruptly after all.
Developers who want to add applications to the iPhone need a contract, and the first ones signed last year are about to expire.
(Credit: CNET)Apple developers are having a tough time renewing their iPhone development licenses, according to reports.
AppleInsider reported last week that as the one-year contracts signed by iPhone developers begin to expire, developers are starting to wonder if they'll be able to continue their development after the end of March without an option to renew the contracts. The contracts are needed as part of the iPhone Developer Program in order to have iPhone applications listed in the App Store.
Ars Technica's Erica Sadun, a prolific iPhone developer, is having similar problems. She attempted to renew her contract on Friday only to be told that Apple had yet to implement a process for doing so.
One year after Apple first kicked off iPhone development, the astounding growth of the App Store continues: Apple now has more than 25,000 applications listed, adding nearly 10,000 since January. The company has had trouble keeping up with that growth over the year, but usually manages to iron out the kinks and keep its developers happy.
Over-the-air podcast downloads look set to arrive with the release of iPhone OS X 2.2.
(Credit: Flo's Weblog)Apple appears set to turn on over-the-air podcast downloads with the next version of the iPhone software, making it much clearer why it rejected a third-party application that did the same thing.
A German blog called Flo's Weblog has published screenshots purportedly from the next release of Apple's iPhone OS, version 2.2. One of the new features in that software, along with additions like Google Street View, will allow iPhone or iPod Touch users to download podcasts directly to their devices without having to connect the device to their computers and go through iTunes.
Sound familiar? That was the same feature offered by an iPhone application called Podcaster that was rejected from the App Store to much handwringing from the iPhone development community. Apple told the developer that the application duplicated a function found in iTunes, but at that time, iTunes wasn't able to send podcasts directly to a device over the air.
Looks like that is about to change relatively soon. The rejection of Podcaster was one of the primary examples of the grumbling over Apple's policies for iPhone application development. Apple holds veto power over any application destined for the iPhone, and while there are quality control and security issues that help justify that stance, it also allows the company to kill any application that duplicates something it has on a future road map.
And since Apple is unlikely to start sharing its iPhone software road map with the development community--when it hasn't even clarified exactly what the rules are for the App Store--developers who spend weeks or months adding a feature to the iPhone don't always know if they've been wasting their time. Not to mention the possibility that they could face the added insult of watching Apple roll out the same feature a few months later.
In June, Apple's Scott Forstall promises background notification services would arrive in September.
(Credit: James Martin/CNET News)Apple has missed a self-imposed deadline for bringing background-processing capabilities--of sorts--to the iPhone.
When Apple revealed that iPhone applications would not be allowed to run in the background during its March iPhone SDK event, developers, as they are wont to do, grumbled about the slight. So in June 2008 at the Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple promised to give developers a workaround that involved using Apple's own servers to notify iPhone users running one application when fresh data was available for another application not in use.
However, as Macworld notes, Apple had promised to deliver that capability by September. It's now October. With one major iPhone update out of the way in the form of 2.1, and with 2.2 expected to focus more on cosmetic changes, it doesn't seem that Apple is planning to introduce this service any time soon.
Dan Moren at Macworld makes the point that Apple perhaps decided that given all the problems associated with the 2.0 software update, fixing those bugs with the 2.1 release took precedence over rolling out the notification service. That certainly makes sense, and given Apple's overtures to iPhone developers this week, perhaps the rollout is around the corner.
But this is an important capability that Apple needs to get up and running as soon as possible. Granted, iPhone development doesn't seem to be hamstrung by the lack of background processing to date, but given the choice, I'm sure developers could employ that technology to great effect.
The end result of Apple's decision to drop an NDA for released iPhone software? Better software.
(Credit: Apple)Software development is complicated enough, even when you can ask for help.
Apple's decision to let its nondisclosure agreement on released iPhone software expire had an effect just hours after it was formally announced: developers such as Craig Hockenberry started sharing ideas for iPhone code.
A heavily moderated mailing list for Cocoa developers (Apple's user interface technology) rejoiced at the prospect that they could discuss tips for iPhone development the way they discuss Mac development.
Before Wednesday morning, they simply couldn't do such a thing in public, for fear of getting booted out of the iPhone Developer Program. Of course, in this era of ubiquitous communications, it's pretty hard to keep people under wraps, if they have something they want to say, but Apple's decision to apply the iPhone SDK's NDA to released software forced developers to go underground simply to share tips and tricks they discovered when working on a freely available application.
That was a ridiculous state of affairs, and it did nothing to further the mutual goal of Apple and iPhone developers: the continual improvement of software on the iPhone in order to boost sales. It would sort of be like if CNET forbade me from explaining to readers and colleagues how I developed my thoughts during the writing process for an article that had already been published.
Apple's justification for applying the NDA to released software (it still applies to unreleased software under development) was that competitors might be able to glean insights into the iPhone from the technical details shared among developers.
The iPhone is without a doubt a hot topic among other mobile-software development companies, such as Microsoft, Symbian, Research In Motion, and Google. However, if those companies really wanted to figure out how the iPhone works, it's not much of a stretch to assume that they have ways of making that happen.
Instead of throwing off the competition, the NDA merely angered developers who wanted nothing more than to help make Apple's latest baby even better: they just needed a little help from their friends.
This move is a win-win-win, a rare time in which that cliche actually rings true. Apple will benefit from a vibrant developer community's excitement over developing for the iPhone. The developers will be able to make their applications better and more reliable, which will make them more popular and profitable. And iPhone users are the direct beneficiaries of developer innovation.
It's also a sign that Apple--whose relationship with developers has been somewhat more strained than that other major operating-system company--is listening to the outside world.
Apple's hallmark is control: this is a company that requires an escort for reporters who want to walk 100 yards down a cavernous hallway in the Moscone Center from the media room to the bathroom in plain sight of dozens of people. That control sometimes serves Apple well, in that it can dictate a specific user experience free from outside distractions that might cause problems.
But when you make the decision to take the training wheels off the iPhone, you have to let go a little. I'm in the camp that believes that Apple always intended to open up the iPhone to outside development--despite telling developers in June 2007 that Web apps are the coolest thing since widgets--but Apple clearly has had control issues, when it comes to how its technology is tinkered with by outside forces.
Apple is never going to be Google, or even Microsoft, when it comes to placating developers. But developers are drawn to the iPhone because of the product itself, rather than the promise of freedom to tinker or a tight integration with IT. All Apple has to do to keep them happy is to give up the tiniest bit of control.
That's what Apple did Wednesday. Now all the company needs to do is set clear guidelines for what constitutes a kosher iPhone application and what is too similar to Apple's own plans to be released.
Communication has not been Apple's strong suit this past summer. But with just four paragraphs, developers are now looking at the company in a new light. Imagine what a full-time iPhone developer evangelist could accomplish.
Developers are now free to discuss software that has been released for the iPhone, after Apple dropped a controversial NDA requirement.
(Credit: Josh Lowensohn/CNET)Apple has decided to end the nondisclosure agreement attached to software that has already been released for the iPhone, in the latest sign that it is starting to take developer concerns to heart.
The company put up a notice on the main Apple developer Web page that, effective immediately, says developers are released from the NDA regarding iPhone software that has already been released. The NDA was one of the most frustrating aspects of iPhone development in its first three official months, forbidding developers from discussing their software and throwing into legal limbo the status of programs such as iPhone development classes. (As evidence of developers' frustration over the NDA, there's even a dedicated Web site whose boldly proclaimed F-bomb of a name leaves no room for doubt on their state of mind.)
Apple's explanation for dropping the NDA follows:
We put the NDA in place because the iPhone OS includes many Apple inventions and innovations that we would like to protect, so that others don't steal our work. It has happened before. While we have filed for hundreds of patents on iPhone technology, the NDA added yet another level of protection. We put it in place as one more way to help protect the iPhone from being ripped off by others.However, the NDA has created too much of a burden on developers, authors and others interested in helping further the iPhone's success, so we are dropping it for released software. Developers will receive a new agreement without an NDA covering released software within a week or so. Please note that unreleased software and features will remain under NDA until they are released.
Apple has made subtle tweaks to the App Store this week in response to developer concerns, but this is by far the most sweeping change it has made to placate developers, who continue to flood the App Store with iPhone applications. The greatest source of frustration--the nebulous guidelines for what is permitted in the App Store, and what isn't--remains unaddressed as of this moment, but perhaps Apple's decision to drop the NDA means it has realized the extent of developer angst.
The launch of an open-source developer-friendly mobile operating system just last week probably didn't hurt.
