There’s been lots of buzz about the iPhone in the last week. Here are some tidbits…
a. The majority of developers are excited about the SDK and the opportunity to sell their applications via an Apple managed store.
b. A small vocal minority of developers is crying foul - alleging conspiracy theories or just plain upset that they can’t have Apple bow to their every whim.
c. Most corporate IT departments are satisfied that they can, if asked, include the iPhone in their mobile enterprise package.
d. Some of the Microsoft-friendly IT/PC magazines have sought out and found the one or two Apple haters needed to attack Apple’s enterprise initiative on the iPhone.
e. The jailbreakers say that they don’t care about the SDK - and that they will continue to work to build unofficial third-party applications for the iPhone.
f. Some new features coming up in June’s 2.0 release include parental controls, cut and paste, mass delete and a few other goodies not shown at the SDK announcement.
g. Some companies are already trying to pitch Kliner-Perkins for a share of the $100 million iPhone development fund.
It’s going to get interesting.
UPDATE: Apple confirms more than 100,000 downloads of the SDK. It appears we’ll have lots of companies scrambling for space in the Apple App Store.
Ahh, the voice of reason in a storm of myopia. Thank you Scott, for this refreshing report of factual data.
That Ray Guy
I’m a developer and I’m very happy with the SDK so far, I’m still getting my feet wet, so I may not have run into any of the artificial walls that some are complaining about. My only complaint is that I have not been able to get a certificate for myself.
I do think that Apple should have made it possible for “unsigned” apps to be placed on the iphone. It would need to come with a bunch of opt-in warnings when you try to put the app on the phone, telling the user that the app is unsigned and not supported in anyway by Apple, and that they are not responsible for anything the app does. This would help to bring the jailbreakers back into the fold. It wouldn’t get them all back, but it would help.
I’m amazed to hear some of the stats that were shared this morning. Over 100K downloads of the SDK. iFund inundated with proposals already.
Clearly there was pent up demand, the big question is how does Apple stay out of the way. Yes I want Apple to insure the integrity of the applications that are written for the phone, but I also don’t want the shear volume of requests to Apple to overwhelm the company. It would be a shame if a developer put time/money/effort into developing a great application only to have Apple be the roadblock in getting it distributed.
Nicely said Scott. Exciting times are ahead!
I’m a physician, and the fact that a medical program was demo’d at the press conference is exciting for me. This could be a great handheld device for accessing patient, drug and testing data.
Where does the info on cut and paste and mass delete come from?
That’s awesome
WOW. If even 10% of the 100k SDK downloaders submit apps, Apple is going to have a huge problem just sifting through them. I bet Apple’s iPhone programing staff is jubilant over the response to their good work, and terrified over it too!
I’m wondering how Apple will interact with the shareware model. Will they permit developers to submit free applications that include a URL for users to make a Paypal contribution to the developer? It would seemingly be difficult to prohibit developers from doing this.
On a related note, I can’t tell how this model will support the concept of trial software. How should users be able to kick the tires on an app? Does the license model include a way for people to buy the software on a trial basis and then revoke the license for a refund? Or will developers wanting to create a free trial have to release both a free trial version of the software and a paid version?
As the other commenter noted, thanks for this brief no-nonsense summary of response to the SDK announcement.
@FloatingBones
There is an example of that in iPod games, where some games are available as a free demo with only one or two levels, and the paid version has all of the content. How each developer would limit the free version is up to them, and would certainly be trivial in some cases and problematic in others.