PDA

View Full Version : iPhone coverage from Engadget



kaidomac
03-06-2008, 02:17 PM
Live coverage from Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/06/live-from-apples-iphone-press-conference/)

Features:
Applies to ALL iPhones, no special model needed
Coming in the next update
ActiveSync licensing
Exchange support
Push Email
Push Calendar
Global Address List
Cisco IPsec VPN
Certificates and Identities
WPA2/802.1x
Enforce security policies
Device configuration
Remote Wipe

MrChris
03-06-2008, 02:22 PM
Would the Microsoft Exchange Support mean that I can finally access my Hotmail e-mails through the mail app?

kaidomac
03-06-2008, 02:32 PM
Live from Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/06/live-from-apples-iphone-press-conference/)

Features:
Cocoa Touch framework
Use Xcode to build apps
Same native APIs and tools that Apple uses
Remote debugger
Interface-Builder tool
iPhone Simulator

Kash
03-06-2008, 02:39 PM
iPhone sales are going to EXPLODE with Exchange support!!

kaidomac
03-06-2008, 02:45 PM
iPhone sales are going to EXPLODE with Exchange support!!

Yeah, I think it's all over for Blackberry/RIM. The thing with the iPhone is that it's easy to use...that means more corporate types are going to use it, especially the older generation who aren't as familiar with technology. If all they have to do is press the Email button on their phone and their email pops up, then it's not an obstacle anymore. I really think this will be a watershed event for mobile technology in the workplace.

Plus the iPhone is a status symbol...it's cool, it's new, it's high-tech, sleek, and shiny. It's thin enough to fit in your pants, shirt, or coat pocket. It has a vibrate switch to flick when you go into meetings. It's easy to use. I don't think most companies get that - convenience is king. That's why McDonalds is a billion-dollar enterprise when all it does is make people fat, give them heartburn, and heart attacks down the road - who cares? It's convenient! Apple understands the easy factor and I can definitely see them taking over the Enterprise market overnight.

Kash
03-06-2008, 02:52 PM
Its size is going to be a big draw for those who really despise their bulky blackberries and palms.

And I can't believe Spore was ported to the iPhone. This SDK is going to result in some really sweet apps!! :D

Village Idiot
03-06-2008, 02:57 PM
AIM.

Boo. I want adium type app.

Kash
03-06-2008, 02:57 PM
iChat, sweet!!

fleurya
03-06-2008, 03:03 PM
AIM.

Boo. I want adium type app.

The SDK is just coming out right now. You have to give them at least a week or two!

kaidomac
03-06-2008, 03:03 PM
Its size is going to be a big draw for those who really despise their bulky blackberries and palms.

And I can't believe Spore was ported to the iPhone. This SDK is going to result in some really sweet apps!! :D

I'm very interested to see what their distribution model is going to be. I have a jailbroken iPhone and have a lot of GREAT apps; I won't be willing to switch unless they are ported to the official SDK (iFlix, Contacts, KB Auto-Correct Disable, etc.). I really hope that not everything has to be pay-for...the Apple SDK has a lot more potential for more tightly-integrated apps, especially the games!

kaidomac
03-06-2008, 03:04 PM
Super Monkey Ball!!! :D

Kash
03-06-2008, 03:04 PM
Yea, distribution is my biggest concern as well.

Speak of the devil, Jobs is talking about it right now. I'm on the edge of my seat

Edit: An App Store directly ON the phone itself! That is SO much better than using iTunes!! Looks like Apple took a cue from Installer.app :D

And it looks like some will be available for free!! Yippee!!

kaidomac
03-06-2008, 03:07 PM
Yea, distribution is my biggest concern as well.

Speak of the devil, Jobs is talking about it right now. I'm on the edge of my seat

Edit: An App Store directly ON the phone itself! That is SO much better than using iTunes!! Looks like Apple took a cue from Installer.app :D

Woot! The one thing that would make it better is if we could buy iTunes songs over EDGE. Not that that's completely related, but hey...

fleurya
03-06-2008, 03:07 PM
Hmm, so developers can only sell iPhone apps through Apple's App Store? I don't like the sound of that. Sounds like more monopolization and control tactics to me.

Devs get 70%, translation, the cost of apps to you will be up to 30% more than they may have been without Apple's "exclusive" App Store.

Kash
03-06-2008, 03:08 PM
Why not? It worked rather well for Installer.app. And plus, it looks like developers get to set their own rates.

Now when is the next iPhone update coming out? I want!!

Edit: "No charge for free apps" Really? ;P

Darn, no porn... ;)

Village Idiot
03-06-2008, 03:11 PM
The SDK is just coming out right now. You have to give them at least a week or two!

I know, but you figure that Apple would stick to a proprietary software rather than go with something like AOL's messenger.

Kash
03-06-2008, 03:12 PM
What the heck? The update is coming in JUNE!?!?!?!?!

fleurya
03-06-2008, 03:13 PM
Ouch, we have to wait for June before getting any of this?

"nominal charge for the Touch". Sorry, Touch owners, looks like you're getting the bad deal again. Something tells me Touch sales are going to start to tank in the near future.

Kash
03-06-2008, 03:14 PM
Yea, everything we saw today we have to wait till June to get. What a load of crock.

At least the SDK is available for developers today. Maybe the guys who make apps for jailbroken phones can use this to their advantage

j21m2293
03-06-2008, 03:21 PM
Jobs asked the press to stay a few minutes...... what could this be?

On the edge of my seat

fleurya
03-06-2008, 03:23 PM
Who was there besides the press and presenters??

j21m2293
03-06-2008, 03:23 PM
Oh just Q&A

saxnbass
03-06-2008, 03:26 PM
JUNE!!! NOOO!!!!!!

And I kind of understand the charge with the Touch. They make a bit of money from the iPhone contracts, but nothing with the iPod Touch. That's probably why.

Kash
03-06-2008, 03:28 PM
Looks like it's essentially done.

As exciting as all this was, it was very disappointing that we have to wait until June to get our hands on it. Granted, there will be a lot more apps available by then, not to mention far more polished versions of what we saw (some of the apps above only had two week development times).

j21m2293
03-06-2008, 03:28 PM
Wow I was really hopping maybe we would be able to get a few apps or new features today :(


Now we play the waiting game .......

fleurya
03-06-2008, 03:29 PM
Well, not a very remarkable event, but wasn't really expecting anything more.

I'm very saddened, but not too surprised, at Apple's move to completely monopolize the distribution of the iPhone apps. I'm sorry, but it's just a ridiculous and sinister move, and seems like something people would crucify Microsoft for if they did something similar. I wonder what the EU would have to say on the matter.

I don't have a lot of experience with distribution costs, but 30% seems extremely high. I suppose when you make it your way or the highway, you can charge whatever you want.

saxnbass
03-06-2008, 03:29 PM
Yeah, this wait till June is gonna SUCK!!!! I was expecting a wait, but I was hoping for a few apps starting today or tomorrow. grrrr

kaidomac
03-06-2008, 03:33 PM
Hmm, so developers can only sell iPhone apps through Apple's App Store? I don't like the sound of that. Sounds like more monopolization and control tactics to me.

Devs get 70%, translation, the cost of apps to you will be up to 30% more than they may have been without Apple's "exclusive" App Store.

I believe that that is a good idea - Apple SHOULD have full control over how apps are distributed. Look at their list of banned apps:

Malicious
Porn
Illegal
Unforeseen
Privacy
Bandwidth hog

As much as I love my third-party apps right now, there's no security. How do you know an app won't fry your iPhone? Having an Apple-sanctioned distribution environment sure sounds good to me.

I also think that Apple is being extremely generous in their pricing scheme. 70% to developers is awesome...all you have to do is sit there and write an app, submit it, and watch the money flow in. No bandwidth costs, no dealing with ordering issues, nothing. And free distribution for free apps is phenomenal. This is better than I was hoping for from Apple!

Village Idiot
03-06-2008, 03:34 PM
Q: "Isn't the fact that Apple is the sole distributor of apps likely to cause monopoly issues?"

A: "We think this is going to be a boon for developers, there's no other way to get an app in front of every single iPhone user." Just to make it a little clearer -- we don't intend to make money off the app store; the split with the music companies is about the same. We give all the money to the content owners and the developers here, and the 30% that pays for the store, that will be great.

kaidomac
03-06-2008, 03:36 PM
Holy cow, a venture capitalist program! $100 million!

j21m2293
03-06-2008, 03:36 PM
Wow waiting till June is going to be impossible for me! I wonder if we will see any updates between now and then..... maybe a little something to hold us over.


Now we play the waiting game........

kaidomac
03-06-2008, 03:42 PM
Wow waiting till June is going to be impossible for me! I wonder if we will see any updates between now and then..... maybe a little something to hold us over.


Now we play the waiting game........

I'm sure they're holding out 6 months from January for the release of the 3G iPhone, and hopefully a 32gb upgrade as well. Plus to give time to developers to start rockin' and rollin'.

Sonos, if you're reading this...please please PLEASE release a Sonos GUI!

Mattlike
03-06-2008, 03:53 PM
Despite the 3 month wait, I think this is really really great news. I am really pleased/impressed with these announcements.

fleurya
03-06-2008, 03:53 PM
I believe that that is a good idea - Apple SHOULD have full control over how apps are distributed. Look at their list of banned apps:

Malicious
Porn
Illegal
Unforeseen
Privacy
Bandwidth hog

As much as I love my third-party apps right now, there's no security. How do you know an app won't fry your iPhone? Having an Apple-sanctioned distribution environment sure sounds good to me.

I also think that Apple is being extremely generous in their pricing scheme. 70% to developers is awesome...all you have to do is sit there and write an app, submit it, and watch the money flow in. No bandwidth costs, no dealing with ordering issues, nothing. And free distribution for free apps is phenomenal. This is better than I was hoping for from Apple!

I suppose you also think it's a good idea for internet service providers to control what you can access on the internet? Or for cellular phone service providers to control who can call you? I'm sorry, but that kind of control, while it does have some good points, can never outweigh the bad points. And I'm just talking about simple censorship issues, I'm not even getting into economic issues. It goes against the free-market principle and it's just wrong.

If Apple wants to run an App Store, that's fine. But don't make it the only way for developers to get their product on the phone. Steve says it''ll help devs get their apps in front of users, but as we can clearly see from all the jailbroken apps out there people are using, getting apps in front of people is not a real problem. It's a solution to a problem that never existed; an excuse for them to make this shady move. I think the entire retail industry would have a big "excuse me?" for Steve on this one. Software sales of every other kind do not seem to be having any trouble getting their product to their customers. What is so different about iPhone software???

I guess I got on the Apple wagon a little late in the game. I was seduced by all the talk of how great a company Apple is and how fair they are. I still think it's a good company, but there have just been way too many questionable moves on their part over the past year or two.

Kash
03-06-2008, 03:58 PM
Why are you so worried about the distribution model? It's not like Apple is forcing developers to sell their apps, it isn't keeping things like VOIP from being developed. Apple wants to provide a stable environment for the iPhone while at the same time allowing for third party apps to be developed for it. So it needs to have quality control, which makes perfect sense.

Oh, and the existing third party apps all go through an App Store like program, Installer.app. It works really great, and I see the App Store doing equally as well.

kaidomac
03-06-2008, 04:00 PM
I suppose you also think it's a good idea for internet service providers to control what you can access on the internet? Or for cellular phone service providers to control who can call you? I'm sorry, but that kind of control, while it does have some good points, can never outweigh the bad points. And I'm just talking about simple censorship issues, I'm not even getting into economic issues. It goes against the free-market principle and it's just wrong.

You are going overboard and comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended). Apple controlling the release of software is NOT the same as an ISP controlling your access to the Internet. If a large majority of their users are going to be downloading 3rd-party apps, then Apple has a responsibility to them to ensure that the apps they download won't destory their phone or steal personal information (call recording, passwords, contact lists, etc.). They also have a responsibility not to ruin AT&T's network with malicious apps.

Apple is offering developers a legitimate way for developers to make money distributing apps, as well as offering free apps, and offering users a simple way to get those apps. Most Apple users are simply not going to go to some random 3rd-party site to get something for their iPhone, I'd imagine. iTunes and the App Store is a standardized way of approaching things. It makes sense to me, at least.


I guess I got on the Apple wagon a little late in the game. I was seduced by all the talk of how great a company Apple is and how fair they are. I still think it's a good company, but there have just been way too many questionable moves on their part over the past year or two.

That's another deception that most Apple users fall into (myself included). The bottom line is, don't love Apple - love their products. They are just a big corporation like any other corporation, except they make really neat products that a lot of people like. I agree - Apple has done a lot of stupid moves recently. The $200 pricedrop on the iPhone just weeks after I picked up a pair for my wife and I made me pretty angry, especially since it had only been out for 2 months to begin with. But again...don't love Apple, just love their products and what their products can do for you.

Steve Jobs does not care about you, me, or anyone else on this forum. He is in business to make money and to make great products, and he does a great job at it. One of the pitfalls of getting into Macs is confusing those two - the company vs. products. I definitely learned that lesson with the iPhone :Shouting:

j21m2293
03-06-2008, 04:03 PM
Well the feeling for me after the conference is mixed:/
I am glad that we will have 3rd party apps available on the iPhone.
But my spirits are a little diminished because of the wait. I was really hoping we would be able to get a few new features today or in the coming weeks....

bryphotoguy
03-06-2008, 04:04 PM
You all have to realize today was the official release of the developers kit. It's going to be awhile before everything is fine tuned.
Realize a lot of apps will be free.AOL won't start charging for an iPhone version when the other versions are free.
When apps are free, Apple will be in charge of all costs. They have to fork all the distribution fees. I am glad they are taking control of the app store.
All and all, I am very stoked about the release. The demos only begin to harness the capability of the iPhone. June will be an amazing month for iPhone users. Can't wait!

kaidomac
03-06-2008, 04:06 PM
I also hope they release a copy-paste tool and widescreen Email.

j21m2293
03-06-2008, 04:14 PM
I also hope they release a copy-paste tool and widescreen Email.

Yeah I wonder if anyone asked Jobs about that in the Q&A

j21m2293
03-06-2008, 04:27 PM
hmm when I click on sdk link on apple takes me to error page is anyone having same problem?

kaidomac
03-06-2008, 04:28 PM
I'm excited to think about the possibilities that a real iPhone SDK has to offer...

-Sonos controller (whole-house audio)
-Multi-media remote (802.11g-tied RF/IR/Bluetooth controller system for your Home Theater)
-Smart Home remote (lights, blinds, temperature, security cameras, etc.)
-Server & Workstation (or home computer) monitoring
-Remote download manager (HTTP/FTP/Torrent/Usenet)
-Portable Project Management apps

Someone did a neat video series on Youtube about interfacing the iPhone with a College or University system:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tp8fHgp0xhU

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TLCTpX3tJEQ

kaidomac
03-06-2008, 04:28 PM
hmm when I click on sdk link on apple takes me to error page is anyone having same problem?

They said it'd be about an hour before it's up.

j21m2293
03-06-2008, 04:30 PM
Yeah and the server maybe be busy at least that is what it said when i clicked on it.

bryphotoguy
03-06-2008, 04:32 PM
I guess I got on the Apple wagon a little late in the game.

You're free to jump off the bandwagon at any point.

Village Idiot
03-06-2008, 06:00 PM
Why are you so worried about the distribution model? It's not like Apple is forcing developers to sell their apps, it isn't keeping things like VOIP from being developed. Apple wants to provide a stable environment for the iPhone while at the same time allowing for third party apps to be developed for it. So it needs to have quality control, which makes perfect sense.

Oh, and the existing third party apps all go through an App Store like program, Installer.app. It works really great, and I see the App Store doing equally as well.

It seems like a deterrent to big business apps. I mean, would Cisco really want to put a version of skype out there for you to purchase if Apple gets 30% of the profit when they would really not spend 30% of the profit on selling it themselves?

That's purely theoretical, but it allows amateurs to put a product out with ease and set a price. Not bad, but deterring software powerhouses in this can be a negative thing. I'm sure having fifty different address books and little games will be nice, but how many "important" apps would we miss out on by Apple doing the distribution this way? It may even turn developers towards other brands of phones and developing programs for those.

Kash
03-06-2008, 06:19 PM
Think of it this way. They either get 70%, or they get nothing at all, which was the case before the SDK came out. With the enterprise market now interested in the iPhone, I'm pretty sure large corporations would like to get access to that market.

bryphotoguy
03-06-2008, 07:36 PM
...but how many "important" apps would we miss out on by Apple doing the distribution this way? It may even turn developers towards other brands of phones and developing programs for those.

How many companies came out with web apps before there was any money involved? FaceBook has its own iPhone version, and the mobile Bank of America site is designed around the iPhone. When I visited both sites for the first time on my phone, I was amazed at how fun and iPhone friendly they were.
I bet there are a lot of companies looking to build iPhone apps just for the exposure. A lot of people expect the iPhone to be big once everything is said and done in June. What company is going to miss it because of Apple's control of the app store? This model seems to work well for iTunes. I certainly don't hear the record companies complaining.

johnnyluu
03-06-2008, 09:50 PM
Devs get 70%, translation, the cost of apps to you will be up to 30% more than they may have been without Apple's "exclusive" App Store.

Not really. Hosting, distribution and marketing would cost the developers money either distributing using the AppStore or otherwise, so this cost would be factored into the final price of the app to the consumer anyway.

The apps would be virtually the same price regardless of how they were distributed. The App Store makes the process of browsing, buying and installing apps for consumers super simple, which is good for the consumers. This makes it more likely for people to actually purchase apps, which is good for the developers.

As a consumer I see the 70/30 split as me paying the developers 70% for great App and Apple 30% for getting the app to me in such a simple and painless way and providing me with the assurance that it's not going to break my iPhone.

That seems pretty fair to me.

fleurya
03-06-2008, 10:18 PM
You assumption that the costs would be comparable to 30% is not different than my assumption that they could be much less. While it may be the case for some, established software developers/sellers already have distribution channels set that they use that I'm sure are not as much as 30%, but now they'll be forced to use Apple's for their fixed price.

I honestly can't believe people are so easy to get behind this. Like I said, I still think Apple is a good company, and their product quality is no different today than it was yesterday. I also said that having an App Store is fine. My problem is the way Apple is monopolizing the situation.

Think of it this way. What would you think if, when MS came out with Vista, they announced the only way to buy/load 3rd party software was to purchase it through Microsoft's "exclusive" online software store? Also, it would only be software that they approve of because they're looking out for your best interests, regardless of what your individual interests are. Would you jump behind that, or would you be reaching for your torches and pitchforks? And that is not comparing apples to oranges.

PS: feel free to neg rep me all day just for having an opinion that differs from your own and having the assertiveness to speak my mind. After all, I thought that's part of what this forum was about. (to whomever felt the need to do so)

Kash
03-06-2008, 10:33 PM
I personally like it because it's following the Installer.app formula, which I think is a great application delivery feature for mobile devices. No need to go on the Internet and hunt for applications, no need for my to plug the device into a computer to be able to install applications a la ActiveSync.

You don't like the system, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, what would you propose as an alternative? The mess that is third party software for Windows Mobile and Palm?

Dimitri
03-06-2008, 11:02 PM
Think of it this way. What would you think if, when MS came out with Vista, they announced the only way to buy/load 3rd party software was to purchase it through Microsoft's "exclusive" online software store? Also, it would only be software that they approve of because they're looking out for your best interests, regardless of what your individual interests are. Would you jump behind that, or would you be reaching for your torches and pitchforks? And that is not comparing apples to oranges.I would applaud them for finally taking some measure of QC. As a past Smartphone owner, I can attest to the amount of CRAP out there for Windows Mobile that either didn't do what I wanted or mucked up my phone. And I paid for it. And trying to support that system? Forget it.

johnnyluu
03-06-2008, 11:13 PM
But now they'll be forced to use Apple's for their fixed price.

It's a fixed percentage. What that equates to in money is dependent on how much they want to charge for their apps.


I honestly can't believe people are so easy to get behind this. Like I said, I still think Apple is a good company, and their product quality is no different today than it was yesterday. I also said that having an App Store is fine. My problem is the way Apple is monopolizing the situation.

It's easy to get behind because it's a good system. If they don't like it developers can simple develop apps for other phones and consumers can choose not to buy any apps or use other phones. There are plenty of alternative phones and mobile services in the market, which is very broad, so there isn't really a situation for monopolisation. If apple was the sole provider of OS's for the entire mobile platform then you'd have a point.


Think of it this way. What would you think if, when MS came out with Vista, they announced the only way to buy/load 3rd party software was to purchase it through Microsoft's "exclusive" online software store? Also, it would only be software that they approve of because they're looking out for your best interests, regardless of what your individual interests are. Would you jump behind that, or would you be reaching for your torches and pitchforks? And that is not comparing apples to oranges.

A better analogy would be Windows Mobile. And yes I would be behind that if it ensured stability and quality control.

However, if Microsoft or Apple started using this system to stop apps to from reaching the market that were an alternative or competing with their own, then I would have a problem with that. This could potentially happen and it's with this point that your argument holds and I do see cause for concern.


PS: feel free to neg rep me all day just for having an opinion that differs from your own and having the assertiveness to speak my mind.

I wasn't aware that I was neg repping you. I was just responding to your opinion, which is shared by many on this thread. I only quoted you to put my opinion into context.

Village Idiot
03-07-2008, 06:01 PM
I personally like it because it's following the Installer.app formula, which I think is a great application delivery feature for mobile devices. No need to go on the Internet and hunt for applications, no need for my to plug the device into a computer to be able to install applications a la ActiveSync.

You don't like the system, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, what would you propose as an alternative? The mess that is third party software for Windows Mobile and Palm?

Having an option to get apps from outside of the app store like with music for my iPod is something that would be better. If I had to fill my iPod with music from iTunes, I would say no way, especially with the 300 CDs I have laying around my house.

The Skype example though also has something else underlying in it. Cisco had that lawsuit against Apple. What would happen if they did want to release Skype, a widely used chat/voip software, for the iPhone?

bryphotoguy
03-07-2008, 06:28 PM
Sorry, you can't compare the two like that VA. You're still trying to compare apples and oranges.
Secondly, because Apple is tied to AT&T with the iPhone, I bet something like Skype isn't available for use on the iPhone. AT&T has rules against certain uses of the iPhone Apple must uphold. The store is the only way Apple can manage these limitations.

ibookmobile007
03-07-2008, 08:11 PM
Since all of these awesome updates are just around the corner...I wonder what else Apple might be planning on.....I will definitely be glad to hopefully get H2DP on the iPhone.Purchased 2 brand new pairs of Moto Rockr Heaphones the same time i purchased me and *coughs it out--wifes--coughs**...iPhones and have yet used them.

ibookmobile007
03-08-2008, 08:14 AM
Sorry, you can't compare the two like that VA. You're still trying to compare apples and oranges.
Secondly, because Apple is tied to AT&T with the iPhone, I bet something like Skype isn't available for use on the iPhone. AT&T has rules against certain uses of the iPhone Apple must uphold. The store is the only way Apple can manage these limitations.

It would still be hard to do any kind of video chatting, because of the camera being on the back end.Maybe (Whenever this maybe)Apple will put a VGA video conferencing cam on the front(Like Nokia does with almost all of its mobiles)and then have a 5MPX camera on the rear for taking outstanding pictures.As of now i really would have to rule out Skype being used.I would have to think that apple would put this sort of functionality on the mobile to then put iChat on the mobile ,thus using the same preferences that our desktops have (Same user interface of being able to share photos-Or Powerpoint Presentations-Files , etc.).But who knows.