Comments

Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts

• This is a really great post, very insightful and in depth look at what Apple has been refining and tweaking for years, while all around them everyone kept making it all more complex. The iPhone SDK puts them at least 10 years in front of Microsoft in mobile development. Let the countdown begin, in less years then they realize, I'll be able to walk around to most of the people I know and say, "I told you so."

  Posted by: Shawn | March 9, 2008 10:00 PM




• Great post Alex, I totally share your opinion about the future of Apple.

  I think they've just done with the iPhone what they did with the iPod; I'm so glad it happened. Both the music and mobile industry needed a revolution, but people inside where too happy to have status quo to keep the demand under control.

  I'm also impressed to see how perfectly executed was the Apple strategy. They've build it step by step, service by service without getting too much attention. Now that all the pieces fits together, you can see what they have accomplished.

  The App Store is a great revolution in mobile content distribution. The SDK will be a huge success and the platform will attract a tons of developers.

  Posted by: Fred Brunel | March 9, 2008 10:42 PM




• This is a great in depth analysis of the SDK launch. I had been thinking along the same lines. I think the Xcode development environment is the secret sauce in creating a new halo effect for the Mac.

  I wrote about this here:

  http://ekive.blogspot.com/2008/03/apple-and-iphone-sdk-multiplying-halo.html
  

  Posted by: Mark Scrimshire | March 9, 2008 10:57 PM




• "Redmond's convoluted APIs, COM, OLE, and ActiveX still make developers shake their hands."

  I think you mean "heads" - big difference.

  Posted by: Ian Kennedy | March 9, 2008 11:08 PM




• Openness is the future, which Apple don't have and don't want. So you are wrong.

  Posted by: SNTS | March 9, 2008 11:13 PM




• If the platform is that mature, why are there so few native Mac apps compared to Windows? When is the last time you saw a web site running on Objective-C?

  It's entirely possible that all the success described will come. The iPhone is a great device. But I see an absence of understanding what other platforms actually offer. A real competitive analysis would be welcome.

  Posted by: Matt S | March 9, 2008 11:18 PM




• Your tone in this article suggest Apple has already won, meanwhile iPhone firmware version 2.0 still hasn't launched, the 10 million iPhone mark still hasn't been crossed and back to what SNTS said, closed never wins, ever. The Apple ecosystem, while profitable, will always stay small.

  Posted by: Stefan Constantinescu | March 9, 2008 11:28 PM




• Ian, fixed :-) Although no reason why they can't shake their hands too... ;-)

  Posted by: Richard MacManus | March 9, 2008 11:47 PM




• I have to agree that the future of next-gen computing does not involve developers asking one company or another permission before being able to develop or sell their applications to consumers. No matter how compelling the platform may be.

  Posted by: Jeffrey McManus | March 9, 2008 11:55 PM




• My phone will know where I am, what food I like, how long it's been since pay day, how hungry I am, and tell me where is good to eat!

  Posted by: Gareth | March 10, 2008 12:07 AM




• You have propably forget how Apple II fail and PC domainate!

  Jobs show that the same pattern: without willingless to open up the platform!

  Some how I feel the history will repeat here for Apple.

  Yes, they still have time to correct it, but I doubt that Jobs can.

  Posted by: kent sin | March 10, 2008 12:11 AM




• It seems to me that you've never heard of Symbian or Windows Mobile?

  I agree that the iPhone is a great device & brought a revolution to the mobile world, but no one likes the close Apple-only system.

  & speaking of the OS being the next-gen era of computing... can anyone tell me which modern OS doesn't have multi-tasking?

  Posted by: carrotmadman6 | March 10, 2008 12:24 AM




• Location aware apps are where it's at. Great post.

  Posted by: Joe Lazarus | March 10, 2008 12:34 AM




• Xcode isn't free? I have it on my Mac and don't remember paying.

  I guess you meant you have to register as a developer.

  Great post!

  Posted by: Sumit Chachra | March 10, 2008 12:59 AM




• I hope Apple does not become the next Microsoft and keep producing "different" products.

  I think the most positive thing here is that other companies are imitating Apple's culture, making products easy to use.

  Easy => Sell more

  Great article!

  Alex

  Posted by: Alexis Brion | March 10, 2008 2:13 AM




• Even if I consider myself a bit of an Apple fanboi, I think that the author here drank some serious Kool-Aid. Claiming that Apple will win without taking a serious look at competitors offering is ignorant.

  A couple of examples:

  "First compare this offering with what Microsoft offered for Windows a while back."

  Why should we do that?

  "As the complexity of our software increases, so do demands on libraries. Microsoft learned it the hard way with years of set backs when it rolled out .Net. Had it simply embraced and optimized Java, it could have been years ahead instead."

  You could easily argue that frameworks and libraries were actually first class citizens in .NET, whereas languages were second class

  "When Java came along, Apple was unmoved, because it was just too slow. "

  But Microsoft should have adopted Java instead of having their own platform?

  "Developers are rushing to the stores and are creating Objective-C books. This language is having the last laugh now. "

  And all other languages are forgotten now, or? I will take a while before Objective-C reaches critical mass.

  "Apple has made this play flawlessly. The enterprise and SDK solutions will go hand-in-hand to propel the iPhone to be THE handheld device of the future. Ironically, the PC just got its final blow not from a MacBook (which has been on the rise too!), but from a small new computer. Apple got its revenge elegantly, relentlessly and creatively. The next era of computing will be dominated by Apple."

  Pure speculation. There is no argumentation in the post warranting this conclusion.

  Posted by: Lars Hansen | March 10, 2008 2:15 AM




• Don't take the language for granted. While the Cocoa framework is the gem of Apple's dev tools, Objective-C IS the language that enables it. If Cocoa were written in Java or C++, it would not be Cocoa.

  
  "If the platform is that mature, why are there so few native Mac apps compared to Windows? When is the last time you saw a web site running on Objective-C?" - Matt S

  There are fewer Mac apps because there are fewer Mac users and thus Mac developers, not because the platform isn't mature. Additionally, I believe on average Mac applications tend to be higher quality than Windows apps.

  Objective-C was created in 1986; an eternity before Java, .NET, etc. Cocoa has it's roots in OPENSTEP and NeXTSTEP, also created in the late 1980s. It's a very mature and excellent framework.

  As for web sites running on Objective-C, Apple's WebObjects framework originally used Objective-C, but unfortunately they killed that off back when Java was being hyped.

  Current website that use Objective-C? Well, I know of at least one...

  Posted by: Tom Robinson | March 10, 2008 3:34 AM




• For heavens sake go llok at Windows mobile SDK!! and the Open C Symbian SDK. Cut the crap Microsoft & Symbian have offered this for the last ten years

  Posted by: Ahmad | March 10, 2008 4:04 AM




• There are few inaccuracies and contradictions in this post.

  > "Since the early days, Apple embraced a language called Objective-C"

  That's not true. Objective-C came with Next and Mac OS X. The X stands for ten, and there were 9 iterations of the "Classic" Mac OS, staring in 1984. Before that, in the very early days, there was the Apple II and the Lisa, each with their own platform.

  > "When Java came along, Apple was unmoved, because it was just too slow."

  Since its launch, Mac OS X made Java part of the core API, running Java apps at the same level as Cocoa apps. Apple even contributed to the development of the JVM and Swing, IIRC. From http://developer.apple.com/java/ : "Mac OS X is the only major consumer operating system that comes complete with a fully configured and ready-to-use Java runtime and development environment."

  
  > "Apple is a well-oiled machine that has perfected the art of execution. But beyond that, Apple's secret sauce has been its software."

  I believe they're also selling quite a bit of hardware. I hear people are all over their industrial design :->

  
  > "In a lot of ways, web applications have been playing catch up with Desktop apps. Now, a handheld device has lept forward"

  Uhm, you are comparing ASP-like scripting languages with a actual hardware platform with its own OS. That's beyond apples-and-oranges.

  
  Anyway, there are too many enthusiastic false assumptions to take this seriously. The damn thing need a usable keyboard in the first place.

  -- GR, happy iPhone user.

  Posted by: Gabriel Radic | March 10, 2008 4:08 AM




• I'll agree there's a little too much kool aid drunk in preparation of this article, but it does nail a number of things correctly.

  1. The SDK & Enterprise features will be the game changer that puts Nokia & RIM onto the back foot. Why do i ignore the rest, well they've already been knocked or knocked themselves out of the game.

  2. The elegance of the environment is paramount for developer adoption. Java had it, then blew it by miring its performance on the desktop and its development at the hands of self serving commitees. .NET was and still is a disaster which no one took seriously. Silverlight seems to indicate that MS have learnt a few lessons but its still to prove itself. Objective-C whilst not a buzzworthy as the rest, when combined with Cocoa is a formidable development environment.

  3. The feature set of this SDK is pretty much complete, i'm hard pushed to think of something they've left out or not thought about.

  A lot of people whinge about the openess of this platform. Well openness is not a guarantee of success. Linux has yet to show some chops on the desktop or handheld platforms. Apple is pragmatic, they get involved with opensource projects were its advantagous, ie. Safari with KHTML project, Darwin (their own BSD variant) and on the server side with numerous projects, ie. sendmail, cyrus, apache, Jabber & MySQL. What they don't opensource is the front end, and the applications they build on the front end. Why? because for the most part opensource applications with a GUI have been failures at taking market share. Due to numerous points of view of what a good GUI looks like.

  If by openness you mean licensing the operating system to other manufacturers, well they tried that before and it was a failure, why? Because Apple builds the complete widget, hardware works in tandem with software, as soon as they hand HW design to someone else, it dilutes the brand. Unless there's a partner who's massively in another market, ie. Enterprise, there's no point in doing it. In this case Apple's having a go at the enterprise itself. If it doesn't succeed then, i'd say partner with someone like IBM. But from what i saw last Thursday, i think they have a reasonable stab at it.

  Sorry for the verbosity.

  M.

  Posted by: Mike | March 10, 2008 4:10 AM




• In the end software users don't care about OS and API. They want useful ( saves time and money ) and fun, simple to use and beautifully designed tools. Any platform that can deliver will win with software uers. Think Wii versus Playstation 3.

  Posted by: Khürt Williams | March 10, 2008 4:13 AM




• The release of the iPhone SDK is an important change of Apple's software politics. It's another step out of a closed-box and offers us unforeseen mobile possibilites. However they shouldn't forget about the consequences of that opening: There will be a lot of third-party applications that may bring a look of unprofessionalism in their system.

  What i want to see on the iPhone would be:

  - a full featured time tracking software: It's a business instrument, no challenge, so let's use it like one.
  - a rapid web site layouter: That would be a great toy to show a customer different layouts and color combinations, let him modify it with his fingers. It's a device for calls, so why can't i use it for a diverse way of communication?
  - several translation tools: You can use the camera to photograph a menu or some kind of text, the application reads and translates it. This has been already around, but i haven't seen it for the iPhone admissible accomplishment. Another one would be a translation tool by voice input and voice output.

  Anyway, i agree with Lars Hansen, who criticized some aspects of this article: At first, Objective-C and the iPhone SDK are not the cream of the crop, right out of the nursery. Let's talk about that in a few weeks again, when everyone tried to work with it. Give it a load test. ;-)

  Also, no one killed the PC. The iPhone is indeed a big shot, but doesn't replace any desktop. It extends it in a way we primary know for a few years, maybe outstanding in his niche. So, ask yourself: Can you substitute your whole production system (e.g. the tower under your worktable and the 2 19" above) with a 3.5"+8GB device? Neither this nor any other mobile device will supplant it in the next years. So, come down to earth and enjoy your new ways of mobility in a way that supports and extends your current workflow.

  Best Regards,

  Stefan

  Posted by: Stefan | March 10, 2008 4:21 AM




• Wow, Mobile NeXtStep! This is very interesting. I remember the really great thing about NeXt was that it brought both users and developers together. Users loved the UI and developers loved the speed of development and ease of maintenance.

  Posted by: bernard lunn | March 10, 2008 4:48 AM




• Is this a ploy to get Apple to sponsor RWW? I can't imagine why you would otherwise print such ill-informed, unsubstantiated opinion by someone with so little clue about either development or business of selling software.

  For starters, what is an incentive to develop native software that will be neutered and price-fixed to $6 and require distribution through Apple? This makes the device worthless for enterprise LOB use as no company will allow its proprietary code to be sent to iTunes and distributed to others. So as far as enterprise means "checking email and calendars" the iPhone stands no chance against millions of Windows Mobile devices that have custom software deployed on them.

  So both from the enterprise development/use standpoint, iPhone is a dud.

  Also, please fact check your articles a little, EAS was licensed by Apple at iPhone launch and has been a very expected and demanded feature by its users.

  Long time reader, this article made me lose all respect for RWW. Please consider reviewing one sided love letters in the future.

  -Vlad

  Posted by: Vlad Mazek | March 10, 2008 4:51 AM




• The iPhone, in Europe anyway, is simply too expensive as a device, and the tarrifs too punitive for people to shift over to it in very large numbers. In the UK, the sales figures weren't even announced over the Xmas period and it is believed that they were will below 100,000, probably close to 50,000. Minuscule. The short term strategy of going with single operators in each territory is poor, antagonises the also ran networks, and gives the other handset manufacturers the scope to compete even more aggressively on price.

  The 'punters will pay because it's a premium tool' argument will be proved false. And the iPod experience of having new, better versions come out onto the market so quickly makes the empoverished punter even more wary.

  Geek chic the iPhone may be, but for the foreseeable future, ordinary European mortals won't care, in large numbers until it is really, really cheap.

  Posted by: Julian Ellison | March 10, 2008 5:08 AM




• The iPhone SDK and XCode are free. I know, I'm using both of them and I haven't coughed up any money. XCode comes with every copy of OSX, look on your distribution disk, it's an optional install. There is a $99 fee for having your iPhone/iPod Touch app distributed through Apple.

  Posted by: Peter Eddy | March 10, 2008 5:31 AM




• > When Java came along, Apple was unmoved, because it was
  > just too slow.

  This and a lot of the other stuff written about Java here are misguided. Apple has heavily embraced Java at various points. WebObjects was moved entirely off Objective C to Java and remains there and makes most of the OpenStep platform available to Java developers to this day. At times the API has been opened up to make access from Java straightforward.

  Also, comments that Java is 'slow' are very blunt. Once a modern JVM is running, it's very fast - comparable to objective C. There's no particular reason that someone couldn't have written a java silo which ran up with classloader sessions in the breach and then accepted applications via IPC commands if they wanted fast launch times and security between applications. The points about libraries earlier in the article are a better way to look at the situation: Java doesn't have an effective footprint in the desktop world. The issue isn't Java being 'slow'.

  Apple has offered respectable scripting interfaces to its platform in the latest API release. Raw execution speed isn't a strength of those languages. But I expect us to see a serious application development community start up in this niche.
  

  Posted by: C Turner | March 10, 2008 6:27 AM




• I agree that the iPhone SDK is a big step forward for Apple. The announcement was perfectly timed and it will definitely create an ecosystem of applications and developer.

  Unfortunately, this article was too enthusiastic, full of unfounded predictions, irrelevant comparisons and unchecked facts. Thanks for the detailed info, but you need to be more unbiased in the future and be able to see through the hype.

  Posted by: Jacob | March 10, 2008 7:02 AM




• My god, I can't remember the last time I read a post with this much hype in it.

  Starting with the title. Next-gen computing? Give me a break; the iPhone is in no way "next gen;" it offers largely the same feature set as competitors with a better interface. Polished, yes; next-gen, no.

  The rest of the post, as some have pointed out, relies on a number of assumptions which aren't backed up by reality.

  This is something I'd expect to read on MacRumors, not ReadWriteWeb (what does this have to do with the web, anyway?).

  Posted by: Michael Griffiths | March 10, 2008 7:06 AM




• I think you mean "Objective C is now a language of choice" rather than "not".

  Posted by: rts | March 10, 2008 7:34 AM




• Some here have written: "but no one likes the closed Apple-only system"

  Consumers like it because it guarantees quality and consistency. The Apps Store will let programmers focus on the quality of their software and leave the marketing and distribution to Apple. Again, Apple is correctly putting the concerns and interests of the consumers front and center.
  

  Posted by: HG | March 10, 2008 7:43 AM




• Some here have written: "Unfortunately, this article was too enthusiastic"

  Obviously the buzz isn't being generated by Microsoft or Linux so it can't be real.

  It's hard to change focus when you've been fixated in your own world.

  Posted by: HG | March 10, 2008 7:52 AM




• There were some interesting points made in this post. Too bad it wasn't edited though. A few things that should have been caught:

  "years of set backs"
  "lightening quick"
  "Every new Apple announcement, we keep thinking that they won't top it." (is that supposed to be a sentence?)
  "Apple's has embraced"

  Posted by: Trader Mike | March 10, 2008 8:02 AM




• Wrong! XCode comes free with the Mac. The iPhone SDK comes free. Thus you can design apps for the iPhone for free. This is hugely different from Microsoft - where you have to pay for their development software.
  Only if you want to distribute the software to others do you pay $99 a year to have Apple host and sell it for you on the iTunes music store.

  Posted by: James Katt | March 10, 2008 8:11 AM




• "closed never wins, ever."

  Wow, so the Sony PS1 and PS2 never won anything?
  The entire videogame console industry never won anything?
  4 Billion songs sold over iTunes, 2nd largest music retailer, yet thats not winning, ever?

  Typical closed-minded open-source thinking :p

  And, well done article, Alex. Looking forward to seeing what fun stuff comes out this June and beyond.

  Posted by: Totoro | March 10, 2008 8:27 AM




• What is missing from this article is the fact that Apple has centered all of their devices around OSX; Mac, iPhone, Touch, AppleTV, and eventually the iPod.

  This allows Apple to leverage OSX across all of their hardware and software development, while using the least amount of resources and making programing much simpler for developers by using the same tools and libraries.

  This is a very efficient and effective on so many levels. Microsoft could only dream of a model like this.

  Posted by: James Saldaña | March 10, 2008 8:37 AM




• I examine 10 factors that put Apple in an unassailable position in the mobile platform wars and review the weaknesses of iPhone competitors in:

  Who can beat iPhone 2.0?
  http://counternotions.com/2008/03/10/iphone2-competitors/
  

  Posted by: Kontra | March 10, 2008 9:13 AM




• @-Vlad said: For starters, what is an incentive to develop native software that will be neutered and price-fixed to $6 and require distribution through Apple? This makes the device worthless for enterprise LOB use as no company will allow its proprietary code to be sent to iTunes and distributed to others. So as far as enterprise means "checking email and calendars" the iPhone stands no chance against millions of Windows Mobile devices that have custom software deployed on them.

  So both from the enterprise development/use standpoint, iPhone is a dud.

  
  Here are the facts:

  -- The developer sets the price to any amount he wants!

  -- The enterprise will have an in-house tool (maybe a private version of an app like iTunes Store) to distribute their apps to their users only-- nothing needs to go through the public iTunes Store.

  These facts were presented by Apple, during the Mar 6 announcement, and at the press session afterwards.

  Lastly, If the writer of an article can be slammed for "fact checking"... doesn't that also apply to those who post comments :)

  Posted by: Dick Applebaum | March 10, 2008 9:36 AM




• "Openness is the future, which Apple don't have and don't want. So you are wrong."

  You are right but wrong. Openness is the future, but not in the old way you are thinking about it. The old arguments about monopoly/control and vertical vs horizontal platforms don't apply anymore. The market is much faster now. Instead of a 20-year PC evolution wave to ride, companies have only a few years to either get it or not! The iPod, FaceBook, YouTube, Wii, Ajax and Web 2.0, blogging, are all examples of this faster-paced world.

  Openness rules when it comes to the medium itself or the tech behind the medium. The end-user (market) doesn't care one bit if a single or small group of companies monopolize a market -- especially and significantly if the product is free or very affordable.

  What still matters is that "eco-systems" will continue to have an impact around early successes (eg: iPod, Facebook, MySpace) and so what we are learning is that there are now significant advantages to "first movers" in new emerging markets.

  Apple will continue to win big for several reasons. 1) its a fast-moving company 2) it utilizes open-standards (H.264, MPEG4, OpenGL, HTML 5) rather than inventing its own stuff like it did in the past, 3) they can fully integrate software and hardware, 4) they are great designers and great marketers, and lastly 5) people love Apple. Only Baby Boomer MS Fanboys rant on about Apple anymore.

  Posted by: toshman | March 10, 2008 9:51 AM




• "Bigger than the PC" is accurate, but only if the PC is an 8088 powered by Windows 1.0.

  The iPhone doesn't let you run applications in the background, meaning that although services like VoIP are theoretically possible, they won't be available to handle incoming events (like calls).

  But who really cares about VoIP ... more concerning is that this limitation prevents anyone from "pushing" data to the handset. It's a limitation enforced by the carriers for years. Until they open up binary SMS to third-parties or allow applications to sleep on the phone in the background, we're limited to browser-style applications that "pull" data.

  That's not how we use mobile devices today. We receive more calls and text messages than we send, statistically. Mobile devices are notification-centric. They're not devices where we browse and search things.

  It's not the PLATFORM, stupid. It's the use-cases.

  Apple's just as clueless as the rest of the mobile industry.

  Posted by: Ian Andrew Bell | March 10, 2008 10:11 AM




• Welcome to the APPVERTISING age. Your typical iPhone user is a tech savvy, design conscious, zealot, with a wife, a lover, a frequent flyer card and wheat intolerance.

  
  Value added applications, brought to you by Nike etc.

  A great article, as ever Alex.

  Posted by: Adam Martin {Fat Man} | March 10, 2008 10:23 AM




• Reading this article reminded me of a piece I read about a year ago. While somewhat prescient at the time, it seems even more relevant today:

  http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html

  Enjoy!

  Posted by: PB | March 10, 2008 10:36 AM




• The other thing to remember that in recent interview with Tom's Hardware Tim Sweeney(of Epic games) hinted that apple was on the right track for making pc games. He congratulated them for standardized hardware and a better platform that wasn't confusing to developers.

  Posted by: Ben | March 10, 2008 10:47 AM




• "Openness is the future, which Apple don't have and don't want. So you are wrong."

  You are right but wrong. Openness is the future, but not in the old way you are thinking about it. The old arguments about monopoly/control and vertical vs horizontal platforms don't apply anymore. The market is much faster now. Instead of a 20-year PC evolution wave to ride, companies have only a few years to either get it or not! The iPod, FaceBook, YouTube, Wii, Ajax and Web 2.0, blogging, are all examples of this faster-paced world.

  Openness rules when it comes to the medium itself or the tech behind the medium. The end-user (market) doesn't care one bit if a single or small group of companies monopolize a market -- especially and significantly if the product is free or very affordable.

  What still matters is that "eco-systems" will continue to have an impact around early successes (eg: iPod, Facebook, MySpace) and so what we are learning is that there are now significant advantages to "first movers" in new emerging markets.

  Apple will continue to win big for several reasons. 1) its a fast-moving company 2) it utilizes open-standards (H.264, MPEG4, OpenGL, HTML 5) rather than inventing its own stuff like it did in the past, 3) they can fully integrate software and hardware, 4) they are great designers and great marketers, and lastly 5) people love Apple. Only Baby Boomer MS Fanboys rant on about Apple anymore.

  Posted by: toshman | March 10, 2008 11:15 AM




• I'm most interested in the level of "Exchange Support" that Apple is really going to be able to build into the new IPhone. As a heavy user of both an IPhone, and a Windows Mobile phone (personal/work), the only way I can see the IPhone even coming close to being comparable to the WM phone (at least in terms of exchange feature sets) is if Apple can completely copy the WM exchange integration. It's not just about mail anymore. I'll need complete integration with my exchange calendar (online free/busy, shared calendars, resource scheduling), access to the Global Address List, as well as my contacts, as well as complete access to my e-mail. AND, all those things will have to work as well as they work on my WM phone. That's a pretty tall order, even with the SDK and the avid (but relatively small) group of apple developers. Additionally, Apple and their carriers (CINGULAR, I'M TALKING TO YOU) will have to put forth a cheaper phone. $299 IPhone that I can't insure and has a more expensive unlimited data plan, or a $49 (or god forbid free) WM6 phone that I can insure for $5 a month, has a cheaper data plan, etc. Which of those costs would you like to try and justify to your CFO? Overall, I just don't think the IPhone, even with all the changes, will ever be thought of as a good WM6 / BlackBerry alternative.

  Posted by: IT | March 10, 2008 11:18 AM




• I've always associated Apple with closed, cult and quirky, and I have never owned a Mac.
  
  Words like "Apple's culture and code is rooted in elegance and extreme simplicity", if it is true, really resonates with me, so maybe I have to reconsider my position.
  
  But a crucial question: Do I really have to own a Mac to develop for the iPhone? That would mean a closed door for many a poor developer.
  /Jonas
  (Testing OpenID login via phpMyID)

  Posted by: impl.emented.com | March 10, 2008 11:30 AM




• A small developer who has been doing shareware for Windows or Mac often doesn't get paid for his work. Shareware developers are a bit like beggars.

  They should love the iPhone SDK. Gives them a chance to really get paid for their work.

  I also expect Apple to come out with a larger format device (the rumored Safari Pad) which would run these same apps with minor modification.

  In two years there could easily be a market of 20 to 40 million iPhone/IPod Touch/Safari Pad users out there.

  Posted by: davesmall | March 10, 2008 11:34 AM




• This really all goes back to the NeXT machine, which was built on NeXTStep, an Objective-C core that now powers everything else in Apple. As usual, Steve Jobs was a visionary, far ahead of everyone else.

  BTW, it's worth noting that the worldwide web was developed on a NeXT machine, and the first web server was a black magnesium NeXT cube running on Objective-C. So Objective-C is arguably even more important than the above article aleges.

  Posted by: mclaren | March 10, 2008 11:38 AM




• This article is terrible. The authors grasp of .Net is clearly lacking.

  >Let's be clear. It is not the language, but the libraries that matter.

  Thats right, .Net supports 25 languages. It has incredebly mature libraries that span almost every area of modern computing.

  >As the complexity of our software increases, so do demands on libraries. Microsoft learned it the hard way with years of set backs when it rolled out .Net.

  That statement is completley false and strange. What setbacks? Many developers have embraced .Net since its beta days.

  >Had it simply embraced and optimized Java, it could have been years ahead instead.

  MS tried to embrace Java and was met with tons of flack from Sun. .Net is what Java wishes it was.

  >When Java came along, Apple was unmoved, because it was just too slow.

  So the author states MS should embrace Java, but Apple shouldn't.

  >Beyond rock-solid APIs, developers get an end-to-end set of development tools. XCode is the studio for developing applications (not free)

  Strange. .Nets visual studio has free versions that are hardly gimped and provides one of the best development IDEs availble today.

  >And the most impressive piece of the tool set is a fully-fledged iPhone simulator.

  That is not impressive, its standard these days to have a deveice emulator in IDEs like that.

  >Redmond's convoluted APIs, COM, OLE, and ActiveX still make developers shake their heads.

  That is why .Net was made, to get rid of most of that stuff. You can't compare a new SDK to technologies from 7 years ago.

  >Facebook's PHP, Flash and JavaScript with a restricted, primitive UI doesn't even come close to the beauty and elegance of the iPhone SDK.

  The fuck is this guy talking about. Facebook is a web app. It cannot be compared to an iPhone app in this scope.

  >In a lot of ways, web applications have been playing catch up with Desktop apps.

  No shit. The author clearly doesn't understand why.

  Posted by: GT | March 10, 2008 11:42 AM




• developing software on a mac is like trying to win in a nascar race with a 12 old ford taurus, you can, but why?

  Posted by: mac stinks | March 10, 2008 11:53 AM




• Yeah, right, you rich-boy apple fan... Enough with this iPhone bullsh**s! I don't like this piece of crap! Can you do this???

  - send FILES and lots of MP3s thru Bluetooth
  - use SIM card with any operator
  - record video
  - send MMS messages
  - use VoIP and IM
  - use it DIRECTLY without the ugly iTunes
  - create your own themes and icons without hacking
  and etc.

  Besides all apple products are too expensive!!! With that much money i can build better PC!

  Posted by: firewolf | March 10, 2008 11:54 AM




• I completely agree with Lars' Comment #16 above - your post, while correct about Apple's SDK being mostly a good thing with good tools and interfaces, is incomplete. You completely ignore the rest of the market and their advantages (especially the more open mobile OS's, like Google's Android) and speculate simply based on your beliefs about Apple's superiority.

  Yes, Jobs and Apple know what they're doing and yes, they have some good tools and good strategy, but they're still not everything even in today's world, nor will they be everything in the future. You can't just ignore everything non-Apple and claim they're the best, even if they do seem to be rising rapidly for many good reasons. So, good article, but next time let's have a balanced view from multiple perspectives.

  Posted by: Tristanq | March 10, 2008 11:56 AM




• I recommend that everybody set aside for a moment the developers' point of view and go and read (or reread) the recently revealed Microsoft emails over the Vista intro fiasco. What one sees in these emails is a management system that failed to head off a disaster that it saw coming, i.e. the confusion users would face in figuring out which computers could run which version of Vista. Imagine, key managers were left out of the loop on critical decisions! The concerns of major OEMs were ignored. And no one seemed to be in overall charge. This should not have happened at an established firm like Microsoft. In contrast, you just don't see this kind of managerial loss of focus at Apple. I have watched Apple and Microsoft go at it since 1985 when I bought my first Mac and Microsoft was its biggest supporter. Neither has been the perfect company over the years. Both have made plenty of mistakes over the years. But right now Apple is on a roll and Microsoft is floundering as I've never seen before.

  Posted by: Waybacmac | March 10, 2008 12:06 PM




• Not to be rude, but this article lacks any form of analysis or real insight. This is more of a fanboi rant and less of a serious article.

  Two problems with your unbounded optimism:
  1) iPhones are expensive, meaning until the price point comes down considerably, mass adoption is a long ways out...
  2) open is the way of the future... vendor lock-in to proprietary, closed standards never has and never will win big.

  Posted by: jack | March 10, 2008 12:34 PM




• In the end it is the design WOW factor.

  Having an iPhone or developing for an iPhone will get even you dorky geeks laid.
  Hot Chicks dig iPhones. They don't care about "API's" open or closed systems, etc. They like cool iPhones and iPod Touch.

  They like cool stuff and if you code for something as cool as iPhone you will get laid. You spout about all your other Nerd knowledge no one but other techno weenies will care.

  iPhone=Cool=Laid
  Forum Poster Opinions=Whine=No Getting Laid.

  Now who is getting laid?

  Posted by: Steve Jobs | March 10, 2008 1:24 PM




• Stefan Constantinescu wrote, "... closed never wins, ever." This is a remarkable statement, IMHO, given that traditional commercial computing in general and, particularly, the most wildy successful products, have been characterised as 'closed' (with hooks, on occasion). remember Microsoft? open or closed? DEC10? VMS? PrimOS? CICS? whatever. How far back do you want to look? I think proprietary advantage, viz., trade secrets and the like, are a major driver here. Closed has won more often than not. html excepted, of course.

  While I admire and support the course of unix and the open 'ix world, I submit that commercial advantage and product leverage is the force that yields the tremendous rate of growth and incredible variety we enjoy. and continue to do so in the face of open practice. We're not there with ubiquity yet. maybe one day. I'm a boy scout too but for now, 'open' is more an abstraction than common practice. it's way too pricey a way of doing business.

  Great article. maybe too many superlatives, though. It could have been tempered with a story about what developers are faced with on other platforms. suggesting competitiors' increased complexity is fine but I want to hear more.

  Posted by: jacob reichbart | March 10, 2008 1:29 PM




• I think you ignored one thing entirely... It will no longer be about Apple vs Microsoft vs Nokia... Once Android comes into picture and matures into a platform it will outperform any other OS out there... Development will be easy and platform will be familiar to most of the programmers because of leanings toward Java... and the best part is that being an open source stack, anyone can port it to any piece of compatible hardware and I can also imagine that people in near future will easily be able to port Android to their existing phones, be it Nokia, HTC or Apple!

  Android FTW!

  Posted by: PS | March 10, 2008 1:31 PM




• Here's hoping a zillion malware apps don't make the iPhone ecosystem a living hell.

  Posted by: Ray | March 10, 2008 1:55 PM




• "When Java came along, Apple was unmoved, because it was just too slow."

  Simply not true. From day 1, Apple had 3 APIs they natively supported on Mac OS X: Yellow Box (now Cocoa), Blue Box (now Carbon), and Java. In fact, many things Apple has done in the past 7 years took longer than they should have, because of Apple's desire for Java support.
  

  Posted by: tim | March 10, 2008 2:10 PM




• "I agree that the iPhone is a great device & brought a revolution to the mobile world, but no one likes the close Apple-only system."

  But people hate crashing phones even more. And full openness brings the likelihood that the platform would be more unstable. This is what Apple is trying to avoid, and a key fact that many pundits seem to forget about. "Closed" does not mean completely "bad". There are benefits. These benefits are exactly why Apple customers are the most satisfied customers in the industry.

  Posted by: Lance | March 10, 2008 2:11 PM




• One thing: The iPhone is still wedded to AT&T Wireless.

  Posted by: Eric | March 10, 2008 2:33 PM




• "It seems to me that you've never heard of Symbian or Windows Mobile?"

  Apple's iPhone ruled over both of those in Q4 of last year. It was only second to RIM with a marketshare of 28%.

  iPod has ruled with 80% of the entire market place and it appears the iPhone is going to do the same within 3-5 years. So much for people not liking 'closed systems'. The fact is, the iPod/iTunes dynamic has been more open that the PC counterpart with less drastic DRM, and with Jobs on record to do away with DRM, which would really open things up.

  Posted by: veggiedude | March 10, 2008 3:24 PM




• That's a brilliant post, Alex. I wish I had read this last night so I wouldn't have felt the need to post my own thoughts at http://bsmithurst.blogspot.com. I think you are bang on and that time will prove you to be correct.

  Posted by: Brent | March 10, 2008 4:56 PM




• Here’s a proposition related to the future of Apple and the iPhone:

  The bigger and better the corporation, the shorter the mission statement focusing on the service it provides. For the biggest firms, the mission statement can boil down to a verb ultimately. For instance, Amazon’s mission: Sell stuff. Ebay’s: Resell stuff. Google’s: Advertise stuff. What’s Apple’s mission? I think Apple needs to focus on a "verb" mission as well: Purchase stuff.

  How? Based on its iTunes/iPod/Phone successes, it can pair the iPhone with an "iChoices" app to do all the tasks related to handling our money: order, purchase, track, reconcile, budget, plan.

  As client/web software the iTunes Store is more than halfway there. It requires an Apple desktop client, to replace Quicken, along with all the services that Apple can build in related to finances: banking, investing, ebillings, etc.

  Apple, take on the banks. They are even more outmoded and unhelpful than the music guys. It's the next big thing for Apple, which needs gigantic solution-level things to do, now that it’s one of the big dogs.

  Apple does best when it can run a content stream through its hardware: Music, now video. Money may be the ultimate content stream. It's certainly the ultimate revenue stream.

  http://gallery.mac.com/stevenagel01#100085/ApplePie-001&bgcolor=black

  Posted by: stefn | March 10, 2008 4:58 PM




• "The next era of computing will be dominated by Apple. Is this a good thing? Likely yes, and it is surely better than one dominated by Microsoft."

  Better? Why? Every evidence points to the fact that Apple, given the opportunity, will be every bit as money-grabbing, dominating and exploiting as Microsoft has been for the last 2 decades. At the end of the day you just cant ignore the fact that its all about keeping the stockholders happy. Just look at the iPhone launch and the AT&T deal. Power corrupts. What can I say.

  Posted by: NR | March 10, 2008 5:49 PM




• Last year one of my good friends - an IT manager - told me that the iPhone would never make it big and that it was doomed to be a "niche" player. I responded by saying, "that's what you said about the iPod." He looked down and then walked away without further comment.

  More recently, my friend, the IT manager, said that the iPhone would never make it in the enterprise. I'm going to go easy with him this time and keep my mouth shut. After all, he is my friend. Yet I can see the day coming soon when his pride will be tested to the limits. The iPhone is about to give him an electronic wedgie.

  Posted by: Gary Morgan | March 10, 2008 5:53 PM




• I'm with everyone who says that Objective-C is the magic that makes the iPhone. Objective-C is a simple, solid, and visionary extension to C that imo has been the key element of Apple's success over the last 10 years.

  But I also agree with people who say that Objective-C is low-level and tedious to write, and I think the answer to that is to use a high-level language on top of it. I spent a long time trying to help Ruby be that language (http://www.rubycocoa.com, http://www.rubyobjc.com) but eventually decided that nothing could be better than a language designed specifically for the job. So I wrote one: http://programming.nu, and before me, Philippe Mougin had already written http://www.fscript.org. I expect there will be more little languages built on Objective-C. Laurent Sansonetti at Apple is busy on a deep reworking of Ruby: http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/ruby/wiki/MacRuby

  Posted by: Tim Burks | March 10, 2008 8:38 PM




• How can someone dominate enterprise computing without having enterprise servers ?
  Apple will have dramatic impact on mobile applications and clients but going with your own OS doesn't help you integrate with pervasive server platforms such as .Net and J2EE which accounts for the vast majority of enterprise systems.
  The author got carried away ...
  Let's all recall Windows which started as a brilliant Apple interface UI concept !

  Posted by: Sam | March 10, 2008 11:07 PM




• I don't think that the iPhone could do what you say it will unless they allow some developers to run applications in the background, if I can't check something on the web with Mobile Safari while I'm chatting with someone on AIM I don't know if I will find most of the applications very useful.

  Posted by: Michael | March 11, 2008 1:00 AM




• Hey Alex... What I like about the SDK announcement of iPhone is, unlike Google and Facebook, Apple offers no privileges to some parties. For example, RockYou and Slide had tremendous advantages over others in FB and OpenSocial platforms, but here, everyone is equal, because there are no "partners" and the platform is gonna be publicly available in 3 months.

  Posted by: Emre Sokullu | March 11, 2008 1:05 AM




• @James Katt:

  "Wrong! XCode comes free with the Mac. The iPhone SDK comes free. Thus you can design apps for the iPhone for free. This is hugely different from Microsoft - where you have to pay for their development software. Only if you want to distribute the software to others do you pay $99 a year to have Apple host and sell it for you on the iTunes music store."

  It is simply incorrect that you have to pay for Microsoft's development software. Anyone can develop and distribute any software they like for Windows for free, including basic developer tools:

  · You can download the .NET Framework from the Microsoft Download Center for free.

  · You can download the Express editions of Visual Basic 2008, Visual C# 2008, Visual C++ 2008, Visual Web Developer 2008, and SQL Server 2005, all for free.

  · There is no charge for distributing applications built with .NET, whether they are web applications, desktop applications, or mobile applications.
  

  Posted by: Peter Laudati | March 11, 2008 8:02 AM




• Yes, it is a great shame that you sound like a fanboi with some of your soaring language. There is nothing wrong with poetic statements, but they have to be done in the right way, for the effect - sadly the effect here is to make you seem like a fanboi. You may be a good writer but you clearly got feedback that you weren't expecting - that should say something to you, as it would to me if/when something I do gets the same kind of unexpected reaction. Good luck for the future, I'm sure you'll have plenty more articles to come, good luck!

  Posted by: Johnny Appleseed | March 11, 2008 4:16 PM




• What a load of bol***ks!!

  COM, OLE and ActiveX are complex technologies but to say 'Microsoft pushed for complexity' would be stretching it too far. No company, Microsoft included, embraces complexity on purpose.

  There is a real problem that these teams set out to solve and indeed did so. Way before there was talk of Data Portability, SOA etc, there was Bill's vision of data and functionality being transported between applications on a desktop. The end result was OLE and COM.

  To innovate is terrific of course, but to do so in isolation, with your own proprietary interfaces cuts down a lot of challenges.

  Posted by: Mahesh CR | March 12, 2008 1:32 AM




• I have no comment other then to say commenter #49 is hilarious.

  >The fuck is this guy talking about. Facebook is a web app. It cannot be compared to an iPhone app in this scope.

  lol

  Posted by: Ilya | March 12, 2008 1:41 AM




• PROPAGANDA!

  We at Microsoft are not sitting around doing nothing you know!
  This entire article is lies! Before we let it get that bad we will buy them the plow the place under!

  Posted by: steveballmer | March 12, 2008 8:48 PM




• I completely agree. Apple is the most innovative company out there, even better then Nintendo with the Wii. They just need to have more third party support.

  Posted by: Justin | March 13, 2008 3:52 PM




• I think Apple is doing great things but I find this article to be way too ingratiating to the Apple elite. Phrases like "beyond rock-solid API's" and "Apple made it's OS so good..." make me think this was a promotional piece written or paid for by Apple. The article does not convince me that Apple will dominate the next generation. It only makes me believe that the author absolutely loves everything they do.

  I'd like a much more measured appraisal of Apple's ability to innovate in the face of not only competition, but also the growing need for a truly open mobile platform (and no, I'm not interested in Android). Frankly, I'm amazed at how many walls Apple has constructed around their SDK.

  Posted by: chris | March 13, 2008 6:27 PM




• iPhone SDK = widget tool. Sweet!

  The fact is the day Apple truly becomes a useful platform beyond its current niche is the day it loses the ability to "execute perfectly." The albatross of supporting a million pieces of hacked crapware will drag them down. That's the problem with M$. Enough legacy support to prevent true innovation but enough new to break something for everyone.

  
  

  Posted by: Newt | March 14, 2008 10:42 AM




• The abacus was a computer. PCs made better computers. PCs took an old idea with a current implementation and improved on it in such a way so as top make it easier to use, ultimately more powerful, and engaging.

  Computing on a PC was around for a time, but when the mouse was introduced, the metaphor by which people could come to understand computing changed. The idea had been around, yet the implementation made computing more powerful, easier to use, and more engaging.

  iPhone does the same thing. yes, the same things could bee accomplished today on other devices, yet statistics already show that iPhone crushes the competition in terms of how many users access the web on their handheld, for instance. Not all of those people are tech geeks who forget the rest of the world doesn't get off on struggling through obscure geeky phone functions to get something to work the way they want it to.

  For those who keep saying that the iPhone and Apple's handling of the software issue is not revolutionary, go right ahead and keep repeating history. You guys who are insiders into the tech field keep missing the point-- most people are not like you, thank goodness. If they were, we'd be mired in crappy engineer-only gadgets that would keep tech isolated from the masses.

  What makes iPhone so powerful is that ANYONE can use it and use it well. That is revolutionary because it helps push tech into peoples' hands-- people who may not have used that sort of thing before.

  Design is function. This means that if things are designed well, they work well for the user. Features ≠ function. More capabilities means nothing if no one uses it. Until geeks get this, Apple will keep running circles around the competition.

  Keep arguing. It's good. It gives solace when Apple makes you look bad, I suppose.

  Posted by: R | March 15, 2008 10:10 AM




• Agree entirely and more.

  The incredible on-the-go gaming potential for the iPhone and iPod will continue to migrate new generations to Apple and Mac OSX.

  Once developers use the great tools to bring games and applications to the iPhone, they will be enticed to stretch a little further to get to the desktop and other yet to be seen devices from Apple.

  Can you imagine Apple TV becoming a gaming device attached to your HD TV with a motion sensor touch pad controller to boot. How hard can it be to augment an iPhone game to that sort or device.

  Apple TV will someday be more than a hobby to Apple.

  
  

  Posted by: Joseph Awad | March 15, 2008 11:34 AM




• I completely agree with "79". I have never used a phone so easy to use as the iPhone. I just picked it up and it was instantly easy to use and navigate. I was surfing the web, getting directions, and listening to music in no time. Now my phone can do all of those things... but its not very easy. I hope we switch to Cingular so I can get an iPhone. Furthermore, about Apple dominating the next generation of computers... I think that's completely true. I've been a PC user all of my life... but after using the Macs at my school I was simply in awe of how much better they were than my Vista machine at home(curse you with your damn error messages). So in time for college, I sold that PC and got myself a black Macbook. This thing totally WHIPS my PC(with a fast Core 2 Duo and 2 gigs of ram). And this thing only has a gig of ram and 2.2 ghz mobile Core 2 Duo. I will never buy a Windows machine unless they somehow beat Apple's fantastic, easy to use, powerful, and very, very stable current OS(blackbook has Leopard on it). And I have an iPod Nano and I love that thing too. Microsoft had its time to shine, now its Apple's time to take over. The one thing Apple needs to do is support games more on the Mac AND this is key.... really push for retail sections in Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal Mart, etc. And there needs to be more third party software. However, with Apple's success, I think all this will come in time. Viva Apple!

  Posted by: joey | March 15, 2008 11:42 AM




• This was a very insightful and enjoyable post to read. The train is coming. For the dissenting commenters, I offer only one bit of advice. Yell all you want, but don't stand on the tracks.

  The iPhone is about to eat the planet, folks, semi-literate screeds notwithstanding. Symbian and WinMobile and Linux Mobile? Yes, we've all heard of them. We speak of them in the same sentence as 24-pin dot-matrix printers, cathode ray tubes, and other obsolete technologies.

  They're toast.

  Posted by: Rip Ragged | March 15, 2008 11:45 AM




• Hmmmmm, yes it's the libraries but I don't see why Apple makes them better than anyone (Microsoft) else?

  The comment about Microsoft should embrace Java instead of .Net is hilarious. I have not a very high opinion of "slow slow" Java and I know a lot of .Net-developers who really think MS did FINALLY something well.

  Sorry, I can't agree with your opinion, maybe I didn't get the argument (I'm not a hardcore programmer or something)...

  Posted by: Jim | March 15, 2008 12:28 PM




• I looking forward to the new MacSpeech Dictate and a headset to provide text input to the iPhone/iTouch faster than any keyboard, and needing few corrections.

  I'm looking forward to later generation iPhones & iTouches having both a camera for still and video input, plus a similarly sized tiny MicroVision laser projector presenting wall sized visual output at resolutions at least as good as today's monitors.

  In the near future we should be carrying pocket sized Apple computers more useful and powerful than today's desktops or laptops.

  Posted by: dtrapp | March 15, 2008 1:59 PM




• I like Apple products. But find this article a little over the top. It is true that Apple is ahead (for now) regarding Andriod. Apple is more streamlined.

  It seems that many who mention the iPhone being stuck with AT&T forget that they can also get an iPod Touch instead and work through WiFi.

  Btw, i DONʻT LIKE the AT&T deal myself. It would have been better INMO that Apple offered iPhone to all GSM enable carriers and got a smaller piece of the monthly subscription. In other words... volume... The price of the iPhone will come down sooner than most people think.

  I am not a developer. But an investor. So, if the thing works... i could care less about all this other stuff going on behind the scenes... I think the gaming aspect may win a number of users for the iPod Touch

  Posted by: gmac | March 15, 2008 10:30 PM




• Let's see Apple SDK versus Google Android. No matter how good Apple SDK maybe Android will dominate the next generation of computing and here is why. First of all most mobile phone provider will line up behind Android to add iPhone like functionality to their handsets and developers will follow. Android ecosystems will be much larger than Apple's ecosystem for the iPhone and that equals dominations.

  It is not in Apple's DNA to dominate, because they not a mass marketer. Apple likes high margins on their products which leads to a niche markets, unlike Android which has a potential for mass adoption across handset providers because it is free and developers because it will be used by many handset providers.

  Posted by: TJGodel | March 16, 2008 7:28 AM




• Don't forget that one has to get Apples permission to write apps for the iphone. Explain to me how this is a good thing.

  Posted by: Don't Forget | March 16, 2008 8:23 AM




• Apple Getting Close to Protocol 666a!
  Everywhere I look there is only good news for Apple:

  Leopold Record Pre-orders!
  iMac Sales off the charts!
  IPod Sales Still on Rise!
  Newton Slate in Development!
  Stock Price climbing weekly!
  New Stunning MacPro Coming!
  Laptop Sales Growing!
  Apple market-share over 8%
  Yada yada yada ......

  All I can say is "watch yourself Mr. Jobs!"
  Why?
  Well here at MS we have had Protocol 666a in place for the last 12 years, it reads thusly:

  "Any competing company which threatens the MS business model by exceeding 10% OS market-share and/or having quarterly revenues exceeding 25% of MS quarterly revenues shall be targeted for elimination for market contention by any means necessary. Said company being....”

  Protocol 666a is built into all of our systems and business models and is implemented automatically whenever the offending companies trip it! Apple is getting close! I'm a nice guy though and am formally issuing this warning, "tone down your growth Mr. Jobs, by that I mean your OS! If you value your pretty little candy coated company that is, you haven't seen us get ugly yet!"

  Posted by: steveballmer | March 16, 2008 5:15 PM




• lol, until the iphone gets a keyboard that isn't on the touch screen, no chance. Now if they took that from the verizon voyager, then I might think twice about the iphone. I will admit, I like my ipod.

  Posted by: nick | March 16, 2008 8:43 PM




• BINGO, right on.

  While I found the article to be right on the money, I am just so surprised to see that many other writers still have NO CLUE as to why this Apple SDK and enterprise solution is so huge, a real game changer.

  And with Apple having control of all the hardware AND software, they are in a unique position to be sure that the parts in a system (iPod, AppleTV, Mac, iTunes, iPhone, etc) just keep playing nice with each other and to build that into a great synergy.

  I think the next 6 months are going to be very interesting.

  en

  Posted by: Elder Norm | March 17, 2008 8:02 AM




• I don't think so! I live in Europe, and here, the IPhone just did not match the users needs. It is just behind what technology can do (no 3G), overpriced, and only available with bad, really bad contracts.

  Its just not what was needed here. And the SDK cant really fix that, maybe the IPhone 2 can, but competition is coming in the form of Google Android, and it remains to be seen, who will be the winner of this. I do not believe that Apple will dominate in this market, but we will see a big fight between Google and Apple, with a certain looser... Microsoft.

  Posted by: Makambo | March 18, 2008 12:34 PM




• I personally think Google's Android will dominate. I've downloaded their SDK a few months ago and tried out the tutorial. I thought it was great! It uses Java in the Eclipse environment, which is extremely common (what I use at work). Also, Google's programming competition (to the tune of $10 million bucks!) for Android is going to ensure there is a lot of apps out when they release it. For the curious, the web browser is based on WebKit (same one Apple uses in the iPhone).

  Think about it:
  1. Common and free development environment most Java developers use now.
  2. Not locked in to a single cellular carrier.
  3. Two separate programming competitions which award prize money to the top 50 entries!

  I don't know about you, but I'm so waiting for this.

  Posted by: Bob | March 31, 2008 8:39 AM