Tag Archives: iphone

What the world will notice about iPhone apps after Adobe ships CS5

Posted on by
1,113

Offering Adobe CS5 as an alternative development tool for the iPhone is a stroke of bittersweet genius. It lowers barriers to entry for aspiring iPhone developers and creates a go-to-market strategy for creatives who don’t have the programming chops to do it today. To be overt, Objective C is the main reason more developers DON’T create iPhone apps, and the main reason iPhone app development is neither rapid nor user-friendly. So there are some real plusses to the heat Adobe is giving Apple here.

More access to friendly development tools = more iPhone apps = a more mature and varied iPhone marketplace.  Everybody wins, right?  TechCrunch even headlined their post about this, “the year Flash’s 2 million developers come to the iPhone.”

Maybe not.  Sorry TechCrunch.

When Adobe announced that it will include an iPhone “packager”, that is a program that will package Adobe Flash programs as iPhone apps, my initial reaction was, “Great, now I can do that time entry app I’ve been envisioning for my company’s web-based trouble ticketing system.”

But I quickly realized that this packager is only going to produce iPhone-runnable Flash apps, and the full set of iPhone APIs will likely be out of reach to Flash developers.  The telephony APIs and other niceties XCode jocks get to use will probably still be off limits, to say nothing of distribution of the apps.  It will be very easy for Apple to spot a Flash app on its way through the App Store submission process, and disapprove it.  In fact, the rejection of the packaged Flash apps could be automated such that there’s not even any oversight–and on similar grounds Apple used to reject the Commodore 64 emulator last year.

Not to mention that fact that other apps that could benefit from Flash’s presence (like Safari, to say the least) still won’t be able to run custom-made Flash client programs.

So maybe Apple will come around–but in the mean time, I don’t think this announcement is nearly as significant as it sounds.

eWeek picks up on Apple’s DIY plans for Voice features

Posted on by
1,074

In an article posted today at eWeek, AT&T is excused from its traditional role as scapegoat in the Google Voice rejection fiasco.  And my previously posted sentiments about Apple building something that competes with Google Voice have finally been echoed on a mainstream outlet.

Well doy, Apple realizes that consumer-empowering voice technology is a competitive advantage.  We VoIP folks have been preaching that gospel for the last ten years.  Comrade Ken Camp wrote with visionary accuracy about the merits of VoIP in his book IP Telephony Demystified, one of the really early books on the subject.  I agreed with him when I wrote Switching to VoIP that VoIP is a leveler of the playing field, a true equalizer and a legitimately revolutionary technology item.

I’ve also viewed carriers like AT&T, at least for the last four or five years, as access providers, not “phone line providers” offering dialtone.  Apple, it seems, has arrived at the same conclusion.

Three points on the Apple/Google/FCC Fiasco

Posted on by
1,933

First, it’s not the FCC’s domain but the Federal Trade Commission’s domain whether or not a business practice, like Apple’s (admittedly inconsistent) enforcement of it’s own developer agreements, is an unfair trade practice. And it may well be unfair; that doesn’t make it within the jurisdiction of the FCC, whose stock and trade isn’t social progress or anti-collusion.  Clearly, those are business matters whose definition of justice has little or nothing to do with voice as an application.  We have to be careful not to push the social progress agenda too hard–especially to the extend that we’re routinely punishing those who are earning a great profit, vis-a-vis Apple and the iPhone.

Second, let’s ask the real question: Since we know the decision to allow Google Voice is ultimately up to Apple, and not AT&T, what could Apple’s motivation for this rejection possibly be?  Are we ignoring the simple answer?  Enhancements to the iChat ecosystems, perhaps? The most obvious answer may not satisfy the conspiracy theorists.  But something as easy as Apple is getting ready to release their own Voice-killer makes the most since to me, to heck with AT&T’s bandwidth.

Finally, I’ve almost concluded that AT&T’s days as the exclusive distributor of iPhones in North America are numbered. Apple would have to score a pretty low IQ to permanently marry their network support to a single carrier, with the rise of new wide-area wireless networking standards and mass WiFi addiction marching on with no favoritism towards Bell.  This would seem to indicate, at least out here in the “sensible” midwest, that Apple is not beholden to AT&T, a company short on both sexy intellectual property and an applications-oriented revenue model, for a short-term political favor that screws its relationship with Google, a company who is enriched of both.

The answer to this mystery, I believe, is in Cupertino.

Apple: Decide if the iPhone is a platform, and do it quick please

Posted on by
125

If Apple insists on barring developers who overlap the “built-in functionality” of the iPhone, how is a developer to know what types of applications are a safe bet–in the long run? Since Apple recently banished Google Voice from the app store (which is an epic fail on Apple’s part, btw), one has to wonder, since all apps borrow some of Apple’s API functionality, just what they consider built-in and not.

The article, Apple Makes the Case for Web Apps concludes that developers will be more inclined to  create web-based apps geared at the iPhone.  While Apple’s recent actions may give developers pause to consider the web approach, I disagree that many will abandon their native app inclinations because of all that they lose in doing so.  For one, you can’t create home screen shortcuts to web apps (that I know of).  But the best reason not to develop web apps for the iPhone is their lack of support for front-end controls on the phone itself.  That is, in a web app, you don’t have nearly the power to access the GPS location, the GUI controls, the iPod library,  and so on. The new 3.0 iPhone browser is better at hooking into the phone’s local hardware, but is still quite hobbled compare to native apps, so geolocation and photos won’t have the pinache they would on a native app. Those are the content items that have made iPhone apps so much better than previous-generation mobile apps, and with the web approach, they’re more or less off limits.

How is it that YellowPages.com can offer a directory lookup app on the app store when it obviously overlaps Apple’s built-in Contacts and Maps functionality?  Yet instead of picking on YellowPages.com, Apple is seen picking on Google, arguably their biggest and most powerful ally.  Add to that the insult of Apple’s marketing of the iPhone and iPod Touch to developers as a platform for great apps, and it should make us all feel a bit used.

In the heady days of the computer revolution, Microsoft was forced to recognize that Windows (even MS-DOS) was a platform. Rather than stifling upstart competition by barring certain developers from the Windows ecosystem, Microsoft at least realized that it was developer embrace of the platform that would cause it to live or die in the long run.  The result was that, through the early 2000′s, Windows was the go-to platform for the whole world, and everybody from Sun to IBM lost lengthy, futile, billion dollar battles trying to undo Microsoft’s early decision.

Apple is nearly past that point in their new platform’s life cycle.  If it’s an app platform–let it be.  Palm and Blackberry are still waiting in the wings, and Windows Mobile will be the centerpiece of Microsoft’s revenue strategy in the next ten years.  And, like it or not, whatever else Microsoft did that was crummy and evil, they never told a developer he couldn’t distribute an app.

Nokia is not an American brand, pure and simple

Posted on by
1,199

(or: why Nokia gets trounced in the U.S.)

I have a healthy amount of respect for Nokia.  Before the iPhone they were the only devicemaker offering half of what Apple now offers with the 3GS.  Indeed, I toted a Nokia N95 for a while, and an N81 8GB for a while.  Both were excellent phones, but I’m convinced now that Apple’s iPhone, even as it arrives as a better all-around phone than Nokia’s current flagship (the obviously Blackberry-inspired N97), is more appealing to American consumers because it is made by an American company.

That’s right.  Nokia’s brand is obscurely perceived in North America, particularly the U.S., as an upscale European oddity not unlike Fiat or Porsche, to use an automotive analogy.  So while it may be the number one brand globally, Nokia has failed to make an impression on American consumers precisely for the reason that they’re a non-American company.

Apple owes a helping of its iPhone success to that fact.  The product is American; the company is American; the marketing is overwhelmingly American, with sitcom-style television commercials, extremely stable revision control (how many models of phone does Apple have on the market compared to Nokia?), and a least-common-denominator hardware engineering approach that appeals to the maximum number of simultaneous consumers instead of offering a specific style or feature set to five or six different niches.  Fewer buttons, more software.

The other American-friendly thing about the iPhone is the nature of its name.  Nokia is some Scandinavian meme as Sony is some Japanese one.  The difference is that Nokia’s name hasn’t been overcome with a mass-market product the way Sony’s cross-cultural name has been with the Playstation, and earlier, the Walkman. Same with Nintendo.  Who didn’t have a Nintendo Entertainment System in 1990?  And for that matter, who doesn’t have a Wii today? Far fewer carry a Nokia product than own a Wii in the United States.

But there’s more to it that the brand name. Say what you like about Nokia’s lack of good carrier support in the United States (Apple still has only one official carrier), or their botched execution of an application store model (Apple a lot to harm themselves on the appstore anyway), the real problem with Nokia’s phones isn’t the name on them.  It’s the way they look and feel.  While the majority of American consumers still haven’t obtained a smartphone, the daunting physique of a Nokia N81, for example, could give a buyer pause.  The lack of fluidity of form in Nokia’s products means that the user is exposed to as many features as possible, whether or not they want to use them, and perception is that there’s a long learning curve.

To the degree that the iPhone is simple-to-use, Apple has more or less beaten Nokia by exploiting that one shortcoming. Forget about the crummy app store, the weirdly-perceived brand name, and the GSM-only carrier support for a moment.  Nokia needs to embrace the “downrightly simple” mantra that had early adopters falling all over themselves trying to lay hands on an iPhone. Indeed, if it weren’t for AT&T’s customer retention strategy, Apple may’ve sold twice as many iPhones as they have.

But then, I believe most iPhone sales occured at Blackberry’s expense, not Nokia’s–and that, of itself, does not bode well for the European giant.

Traditional Media (and WTAM): It’s Time to Catch On

Posted on by
80

OK, yet another evidence that the traditional media, even radio, doesn’t take mobile media or social media seriously. Here it comes.

I spent ten bucks for MLB Gameday Live on my iPhone.  Every game, every radio broadcast, plus the gameday diagrams, video highlights, and consolidated video replays.  Awesome.  In fact, the best value on the App Store if you ask me.

Only one problem: the local broadcaster of the Cleveland Indians, WTAM 1100 AM, which refers to itself with the catchphrase “the Big One”, hasn’t had a working stream of its broadcasts for over a week.  So when there’s a day game, like today, I am forced to listen to the opposing team’s broadcast team.

I could understand if I missed a portion of a broadcast due to technical problems at WTAM, but come on, the thing’s been down for over a WEEK.  What’s worse, the excellent iHeartRadio app for iPhone, which also carries the ClearChannel affiliate WTAM, has been absent the live stream for a over a week, too.  I couldn’t even listen to their web-browser stream yesterday when I tried.

So I’m listening to the Minnesota Twins crummy announcer instead of Tom Hamilton, the Indians’ announcer.

Come on WTAM, fix this. And keep it fixed.

iPhone 3.0: What we know, what we don’t, and WHEN

Posted on by
844

Those of us who rely heavily on the iPhone have been consistently frustrated by the laggard manner in which Apple has delivered important updates for the device–notwithstanding security updates of course.  There are some consipicuously missing features with the iPhone, and every time an update is looming, I start to gather information in anticipation that some of these features will show up in the new update and save me some hassle.

The Good, The Bad, The Unknown, and The When

The Good: Apple has already confirmed the addition of MMS messaging (photo and audio messaging). Unfortunately, it’s only for 3G iPhone users and only, apparently, for subscribers to AT&T. I’d like to see this combined with visual voicemail so that I can forward messages to contacts without having to make a context-halting stop in iPhone Mail (which doesn’t let me forward voicemail anyway, so I digress).

It also appears that the new iPhone will sport a search function.  How in the world you can carry 16 GB of data in your pocket without a search function is perhaps only attributable to Apple’s useability ethic, I suppose.  But a cross-app search function is definitely a welcome addition.  So is cut and paste.

Another notable newcomer to the iPhone’s feature list will be landscape orientation compatibility for typing-related apps such as SMS and Mail.  It’s hard to type in portrait orientation–though not unusably so.  The spot on my iPhone where the backspace key appears is beginning to wear out.  Landscape typing will allow for larger keys and, hopefully, fewer typing errors, at the expense of some message body real estate.

Finally, a largely unhyped feature that Apple has confirmed is RSS updates to iCal feeds over 3G.  Huge for me and I can’t wait.

The Bad:

Apple has not confirmed that apps acquired from sources other than the iTunes store will run on iPhone 3.0. This is hugely disappointing, though not unique among smartphone makers.  A proliferation of open (particularly open-source) applications would bode well for Apple’s efforts in the business arena.

It also appears that the iPhone camera improvements, demonstrated in software, may in fact be disabled on 3G iPhones, so that they only work on the new 32 GB models when they arrive.  If this is the case, features like blur prevention and light control will be artificial bait to foster new device sales.  Ho-hum.

The Unknown:

Last we checked, the camcorder app for the iPhone was more or less proven by the existence of evidence within some developer seeds of iPhone 3.0 that appeared a few months ago.  However, we remain skeptical as the iPhone still doesn’t have enough storage to be the leaps-and-bounds improvement in cell phone video recording Apple probably desires.  I would not be surprised if this feature ends up 32 GB-only as well.

The When:

My guess is WWDC.

Skype on the iPhone? Yawn

Posted on by
891

The retisance to provide an open, enthusiastic SIP solution on Apple’s part simply defies logic.  Everybody’s so excited about Skype on the iPhone–and so am I–but let’s face it, Skype is one in a series of many, MANY attempts to foist a proprietary telecom endpoint on the masses in the name of profit.  Sure, Skype on the iPhone will be fun, and even helpful-especially when the 3.0 firmware appears with push notification.  But you know what I really want?

To hook an iPhone up to a PBX.  Come on Apple.  The jig is up with AT&T; let’s see some SIP!