iPhone SDK Concerns Over Restrictions Largely Unfounded

I'm reading articles about the recently released iPhone SDK on the web, and in several cases the news is that Apple is greatly restricting the applications that can be deployed. Most of this seems to be nothing more than alarmist bad journalism. Apple says that it will restrict things like VOIP over AT&T's network and porn, but not a whole lot more. Other restrictions, including application signing, seem to show that they've spent some time thinking about security more than they seem to be tying the hands of developers.

The truth as I see it is that the SDK that was released is almost too good to be true. It's free, comes with a full blown IDE, robust API's, profiler, debugger, GUI-builder, support for many advanced technologies and even a desktop simulator. Additionally, Apple's model allows almost anyone to develop an application and have it distributed.

The best example of the sensationalistic and fear mongering that I've read comes from Alexander Wolfe over at InformationWeek. What a tard. His article titled, "iPhone SDK Developers Angry At Apple's Tight Control" seems to have misrepresented every fact possible. He obviously didn't spend very much time researching his claims and he cites sources such as, "One commenter on Slashdot."

How many of Wolfe's complaints about the SDK are actually his own ignorance regarding the release? Read his piece and then look at the comments on the piece. He should be spanked by his editor.

How many factual errors can you fine in just this first half of his article?

here:

Steve Jobs giveth, but only a little bit, and only when his hand is forced. This is the case with the iPhone SDK, which is both a parry against Google's Android tool kit and a recognition (in the wake of Apple's iBricking scandal) that iPhone owners want third-party apps, no matter what. But Apple's stated intention to tightly control all apps built with the SDK -- and you can bet they'll do so-- is causing lots of complaining among developers.

Apple's mindset is apparent from the get-go. They've gone non-disclosure crazy with the iPhone SDK, though admittedly no more nuts than usual. Here, what they're doing is keeping the all the stuff people want to know under much tighter wraps than they need to. For example, you can download the iPhone SDK for free, but you have to pony up $99 to get at the really good documentation, sample code, and developers' videos.

OK, that's relatively minor. Pay the $99 and be done with it. I think the bigger problem for developers is going to be death by a thousand cuts. By this, I mean that Apple never seems to put all its cards on the table at once. For example, on Sunday Phonemag reported that the SDK contains a tidbit noting that the iPhone won't run more than one app at a time, so when users switch applications, whatever is running in the background will get killed.

From Apple's standpoint, this is done to maintain decent performance. However, developers are likely to see it as just another screwing. Me, I want to know what's supposed to happen if you're in the middle of something important and your iPhone rings. Does your app blow up?

Comments

[Vamien McKalin]

While I read and understand what you are trying to say here, I think you went over board when you said "He should be spanked by his editor." That spoiled it man

[Non-Prophet]

I meant "spanked" in the figurative sense, although either is probably justified. :0)

[in8sworld]

Well, your objectivity on this particular topic is in dispute since you just stated it's your new job title, and you're raving like a fan-boy. Sun's decision to release Java for the iPhone is pretty exciting I'll admit, but forcing all apps to be distributed through the Apple store seems pretty controlling to me. Most SDKs I've seen don't put terms on where you can distribute the apps you create! As a manufacturer I don't want to tell my customers to go download the app that controls my hardware through iTunes! I want to ship it on a disc with my hardware. Perhaps you can clarify that for me.

[Non-Prophet]

This is a phone though. Everyone using this phone installs everything with iTunes. One of the factual errors in the above article gets the facts wrong in that for a measly $250 your company can have a private store on iTunes, and your updates for your software will be delivered automatically. With a cost structure like that, why not distribute through one central portal? A lot of what I've read says that what Apple is doing contains a whole lot of forethought in the area of security.

As a random poster from the comments section of the above story stated:

I have ten years of phone security experience. I reached the following conclusion after years and years of looking at the practical options for the phone business. My conclusion: under no circumstances what's so ever should the "free for all" application deployment model of the PC be adopted for the phone business. People should stop copying the PC model lock stock and barrel to every computer platform that comes along. The PC application deployment model is too chaotic, too uncontrollable, too insecure to enforce any rules, too untraceable to know if apps are any good or will cause problems and when there are problems which identity is responsible. Once you let the "free for all" app deployment method of the PC invade a platform, you can never recall it! The users will not allow it. It's best to make it clear that you don't support the PC model. You have something better. And all can benefit from the reduced chaos. Remember, the real truth is that the user device is effectively a platform that must "enforce the rules" of the "phone business/service" owner. At the same time, another part - the user apps - is trying to be an agent of the "users/some normal/some criminal" or to be an agent of "other types of businesses". These rules can be in conflict or can be in synchrony. The PC model of app deployment has been a total failure with respect to reasonable control. I mean look at all the junk that comes to the PC as so called applications. You add apps at you own severe risk. My recommendation is that the phone business msy keep following the line of the IPhone. The platform is for the phone service, and for legally/safety-proved business and users. The last requirement means signing apps and proper registration of apps providers and a strict refusal of the device to run any unsigned application whatsover. Then and only then is there even a chance of avoiding the mess on the PC that can never be recalled! Apple has it right! Forget the PC model - never go there! Strengthen identity validation before application certification, so any problems can be legally and practiccally traced to the app provider. Enforce a no conflict policy between the rules of the phone service and other apps. YES the phone service can take priority in trhe rare cases in which app rules conflict. That is what the phone device is for - the phone sevices. Go apple go - you are doing it right! Other platforms to come should never copy the PC model of app deployment - it is not controlled and there may in fact be no possible way to ever get control with that free for all PC model - forget that model. Adopt something better!

But yeah, I'm biased. I agree. :0)