Paul (Rogue Amoeba Staff)
Mon Jun 11 17:35:13 2007

Jonathan: Web frameworks are nice and all, but they're not useful in creating real apps. Plenty of developers can do great web design, but it's not the same as creating real apps.

Casey: Insulted is not a bad word to describe it. If they'd said nothing, sure. But this is saying "Hey, look! Webpages!" as if somewhere, someone thought Safari would have a whitelist.

Nick: Web apps are fine, but they're not real applications, with real access to things like the hard drive or the OS. Even Widgets on OS X can do much more than a web app can.

Mike: Whiney crybabies? I hardly think so. We just don't like being BSed, and that's what this is.

These are NOT widgets, they're web pages. You can do plenty of neat things with web apps, but it's not a true app, with real access to the hard drive and the rest of the OS.

Developers want in, Apple doesn't want to let them in currently. That's fine - just say that. Feeding us lines about "bringing down the west coast network" is insulting enough, but saying "Hey, look, here's your access - via the web" and touting it as a major breakthrough is just ridiculous.

I don't need to be given an SDK immediately and let it. I would like Apple to be open and say "Not for 1.0, maybe later", instead of feeding me this load.

Mark: That's just it - this isn't "a first step". This is exactly where we were yesterday (unless you somehow believed Safari wasn't going to load all web pages), but now Apple is trying to claim they've done something for us.

We didn't expect an SDK yet, but to claim that this is some big thing for developers is just plain wrong, and that's what Apple's done.

Paul (Rogue Amoeba Staff)
Mon Jun 11 19:49:24 2007

"Well, DUH. So what? Should we make all our desktop Mac apps web apps too? Now that Safari runs on Windows, we don't need any of that Cocoa nonsense! AJAX all the way, baby!"


TjL: Indeed - only having access to these "apps" when online will really set them apart from the true apps on the iPhone itself.

pauldwaite: As far as I can tell, it's the latter. Safari has the ability to recognize phone numbers and turn them in to "links", but that's it. As for email, that's just a mailto link

As far as Apple "having to say something", I'm inclined to agree. However, saying "Here it is" when they're just showing us Safari is worse than saying nothing.

Stéphane: "Apple says that the API will allow access to iPhone features (voice, etc)."

This appears to be nothing more than mailto links and a recognizer for phone numbers. That one little bit will help a few apps, but it's not "access to iPhone features".

"You want to access the whole Cocoa API, as well as all the Unix part? Really, this is just a phone, not a computer!"

Really? "Just a phone"? Because Apple's sure pitching it as, well, a computer. From the iPhone site:

"All the power and sophistication of the world’s most advanced operating system — OS X — is now available on a small, handheld device that gives you access to true desktop-class applications and software."

The point is, there is no SDK to play with. If Apple doesn't want to let devs in, fine. But to say "Hey, we're letting you in. Via the web!" is just weak.

Gen: Does Gmail work offline? No. Can it access local data? No. Web apps are great, but they're not the same as true applications.

I certainly wasn't attempting to trivialize by saying "web design". "Web development" would likely be a better choice of words. But whatever you call it, making a web page, no matter how complex, is not the same as creating a desktop (or handtop) app.

David: As noted above, I wasn't attempting to trivialize. But as you not, web apps aren't a substitute for true access. As a solution, it will work for all sorts of problems. But it's not news, and again, they're pitching it as some sort of concession to developers. In reality, they haven't done anything yet.

xrissley: That's just it. We're not talking about widgets. We're talking about web apps. Apple is not providing the level of access that widgets have on Mac OS X - they're just letting web pages load. Widgets have much more power than that, and widgets would certainly be a step in the right direction.

Pedro Melo: We can only go off what we've seen, and what we've seen is nothing more than web pages. If there's more, Apple certainly should have said so.

John Muir:

As noted in another comment above,

"Well, DUH. So what? Should we make all our desktop Mac apps web apps too? Now that Safari runs on Windows, we don't need any of that Cocoa nonsense! AJAX all the way, baby!"

David Demaree: You've said it as well as I've heard so far 8).

Rich: Also well put, particular this:

"He's contradicting EVERYTHING that the Mac stands for.  The reason the Mac rocks is the incredibly cool apps and the platform that supports said apps.  Casey is right - it's insulting.  It would have been better if they had said nothing."

Viswakarma: I'm not sure what this link is supposed to show. Web 2.0 and web apps are both great. They're also not the same as a full-fledged application.

Quentin (Rogue Amoeba Staff)
Mon Jun 11 20:52:05 2007

Sorry Joe, we aren't intersted in "solving problems", we interested in providing our customers with solutions to -their- problems. The better the development tools we have, the better we can meet their needs, and that is all that counts in the end.

When we say WebApps aren't "real" applications, we mean, do they match the level of excellence and quality of what Apple provides on the iPhone? Can we click on them on the main menu? Can we access the same pieces of hardware that built-in iPhone applications do? The answer is simply: no, and thus, they are not real applications on the iPhone. Apple can make real applications, 3rd parties can not.

The reason we are so frustrated, is that Apple is trying to pull one over here. Instead of talking honestly with developers, they keep troting out distrotions. "You'll crash the network", "You'll crash the phone", "Safari is just as good".

If you don't want 3rd party developers, or aren't ready for them yet, be honest and say so. We'll respect you far more for it. Markets are Conversations after all.

Paul (Rogue Amoeba Staff)
Mon Jun 11 21:14:36 2007

Joe: I'm not sure there's any need to be so vitriolic nor engage in such name-calling. Anyhow...

"Nevermind that, you were so busy feeling insulted you never noticed that Apple is giving javascript access to APIs to receive calls and integrate with the UI as was shown in apple directory example."

The JavaScript access appears limited to mailto:// and maybe phone:// links (or similar). We've not seen anything else.

As for widgets, they're more than web apps/web pages. They're not just "little javascript applications" -you can write code in Cocoa, Carbon, or whatever you like, then call myWidgetPluginWhatever.doSomethingNeat(). With WebApps, you can not.

Look at the 19 bundled widgets that come with OS X - 12 have Cocoa plugins, for accessing system APIs and functions. World Clock uses a Cocoa plugin to function. Widgets have the ability to work with system. WebApps do not.

As Quentin notes, however, the real test is "Do these match what else is on the iPhone?". They don't. If this is the way to go, why the custom Google Maps app? Heck, for that matter, why don't we all just make web apps all the time? Why write for OS X, when we could write for the web?

John Muir: Indeed, the context and manner of this presentation are definitely key, and what make this so irksome.

Tonio Loewald: Apple closed with this, and I think it's fair to say they promoted this pretty loudly. It wasn't an off-hand comment, it was the closer. A second "One More Thing", really.

For as trivial as this ultimately is (opening a web page in a browser), it certainly didn't need to be mentioned. As noted elsewhere, this is already a given - of course we can load web sites in the browser, and yeah, you can make web apps that way.

Again, web apps are great. It seems like some people (perhaps webdevs?) think we're insulting webapps, and that's not the case at all. I use Google Maps and many others all the time. But they're not the same as an app, on the phone, instantly accessible. They don't have the same power, nor accessibility, and for Apple to pitch this as a great way to develop for the iPhone is simply wrong.

Paul (Rogue Amoeba Staff)
Mon Jun 11 21:22:28 2007

Phil: The "keeping Skype out" theory is certainly a compelling one, and one we've seen elsewhere. It seems ridiculous though, something that will ultimately be impossible to prevent. But hey, old industries trying to use dubious methods to protect dying revenue streams? That's nothing new.

Also, these aren't even widgets, they're webapps 8).

oomu: If you don't want third party apps on your iPhone, don't install them. But to not want them, period? That's just silly. That's like saying you don't want free speech, because it will result in things you find offensive. Sure, it will - ignore those, stick with what you like.

"there are some widgets with cocoa code, Okay, bu it's not at all so important."

As noted, 12 of 19 bundled widgets use cocoa code. That's far from "not at all important".

If the iPhone is running OS X (it is), then an app crashing won't bring down the iPhone itself, just the crummy app. Apple is pitching this as a computer in your hand, as a mobile platform. To say it isn't one goes against exactly what Apple is promoting.

Not clairvoyant: We know what we've seen, from what Apple has shown us in the keynote. They said, in short, "You can ship an app for the iPhone release. Just make a webapp!". That promotion rings quite hollow. That's pretty much all we've said here.

Paul (Rogue Amoeba Staff)
Mon Jun 11 21:29:29 2007

Hostile Monkey:
What's not major news is that Safari on the iPhone is a real web browser. Apple already told us that - see the "Watered Down" ad:
http://www.apple.com/iphone/ads/ad4/

It's the Internet (by which they actually mean "Web", but that's a different argument), not watered down. So sure, it can run webapps.

"Frankly there's a lot of people crying 'cos Santa didn't deliver a Mercedes, and only gave them this crummy pony."

Nah - Santa came down the chimney, pointed at the pony we already had, and said "Here, I brought you a pony!".

We weren't expecting an SDK (though we may have hoped). We just weren't expecting a bogus "You're in!" statement like this, when they've given us nothing new.

blogjunkie: Absolutely, and things will change. But once again, Apple could have, and should have, said "No third party apps for 1.0. We'll consider it for the future". Instead, we've been treated to FUD about wireless networks, and now

Paul Kafasis (Rogue Amoeba Staff)
Tue Jun 12 10:17:29 2007

Troy Dawson: It will be interesting to see just how much power people can get from web apps with the iPhone. I've no doubt some will be very impressive, but the question remains: If this is so excellent, why have built-in apps at all? There are lots of reasons, not the least of which is that at least some users will be offline not infrequently. "Always-connected" is a nice dream, but it's not reality yet.

bflo: As noted, unless you believed Safari (nee "Web") was restricted (with something like a whitelist), Apple didn't show us anything new. Sure, this shows the web will work like the web. Their commercials showed much the same.

The notion of "Hey, I can get into the iPhone with a web app" is fine, and will work for many new ideas. But it's not new, and it's not the same as providing true access to the iPhone. That's how Apple's pitching it, however, and that's what rubs developers the wrong way.

As far as next WWDC, that'd be great. And sure, we don't need an SDK immediately. But this is a misdirection at best, and to pitch it as a true solution to developers at WWDC is a bad move on Apple's part.

Kevin: Is it? I assume you mean the idea of selling desktop software? I don't agree at all - I think you'll see desktop software and web software continue to merge more and more as time goes by. However, currently, web apps don't have all the same power of desktop apps. If they did, the only app you'd need on your Mac would be Safari.


ErneX: I'd say that's about right - it was an insult, because we already knew this and it was presented as a magical thing Apple did for us. " We've come up with an innovative new way to create applications" is a bit off the mark.

And again, the 1.0 argument certainly holds up. If we later get real access, great. The issue isn't not having access, it's being told "Hey, you do have access! Just use the web!"

mark: That's an interesting thought. However, I don't really see Apple pushing web apps as a company. They make a desktop OS, it seems against their interests to speed that process along. I really view this more as a misdirection than a concerted push to the web.

jones: Sure, web apps are easy to access. If you're connected, anyway. That's a big "if" though, and it turns web apps into second-class citizens.

An iPod certainly is not a Mac - it's a dedicated music device, that's gained a couple new things (games, video). The reason people view the iPhone as a Mac is because that's how Apple pitches it. They tell us it has all the power of OS X. They show it running a full email client, they show it running Safari. Certainly, it's not identical to a Mac, but it's much closer to a Mac than it is to an iPod.

Mark:
When did Apple say that they didn't want third party developers? We were treated to FUD about "bringing down Cingular's West Coast network", and other "security concerns". They never said "We're not ready to release an SDK, but we'll see about the future" or "We're excited to see how you can extend this, but we need to get a 1.0 out". Your insults are uncalled for.


Joe: I'm not sure when we called you personally an idiot, nor when we kicked your dog, but if we did, we're certainly sorry. Perhaps you could refrain from name-calling and try to engage civilly? I know it's the Internet, but maybe we could try it out, just once?

It's too early for an SDK is a fine argument, but that's not what Apple said. Nor did they compromise one iota. As stated several times, Apple promises the web in all its glory, pretty much from day one. Unless you didn't believe them, they've presented nothing new here. There's no special access to the iPhone, it's just web pages loading web data, as well as processing mailto: and other links.

I'm really not sure what words we're putting in Apple's mouth. But the iPhone isn't a general purpose computing platform? What is it then? Why is Apple telling us it has OS X, has Mail, has Safari? This is a computer, or at least far closer to it than anything we've seen before.

What we claim, repeatedly, is that Apple is attempting a misdirection here. "Sure, you can get on the iPhone! Just write a web app!" As noted, that's a fine solution for some problems. But if it really is a quality solution, why isn't Apple doing it? Why do they have custom apps on there, and why do they still make desktop software.

There's no HTTP/JS for making phone calls. There is an RFC for passing along a phone numbers, as noted below: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2806.txt.

So what exactly would you like us to admit Joe?

You've contended that Widgets are the same as web apps - they aren't, and as noted, 12 of 19 bundled widgets use Cocoa plugins.

We've never said we expected an SDK today, or before 1.0, just that we'd appreciate forthrightness instead of misdirection.

The iPhone isn't a Mac, no, but go have another look at how Apple has pitched it. When Steve Jobs talks about OS X powering it, and how it's a breakthrough device, does it seem more like an iPod (specialized to do one thing very well, and eventually gain a couple new features), or a Mac (built to let you do almost anything)? They don't promote this as a fantastic phone with a couple extra bits - it's device that lets you do almost anything. Provided, right now, the anything is something one of the bundled apps does.

RA fan: 1 and 2 seem correct, from all we've seen. As for your #3, this is an interesting thought. But this shouldn't prevent real access to the device, just those features.

Sandman: Well, there was certainly no indication that there'd be access to real UI bits. If so, that's certainly nice, but it doesn't provide power, it just lets the app fit in better.

lee: It's been one day, and we're certainly still working on our Mac apps. I think we can engage in a discussion on the iPhone for a bit without causing our desktop apps to die 8).

Passerby:
"Exactly: You haven't seen anything else."

Is it not reasonable to assume that what Apple shows at the Worldwide Developers Conference is what there is to be seen, when their pitch is "Here's how to create iPhone apps"? That quote was in response to someone saying "There could be much more!". Maybe, but right now, there isn't. We're irked because Apple is portraying this as some big breakthrough, when it's something we had all along. Nothing more.

I welcome further discussion on this, but it seems we're addressing the same thing repeatedly.

Paul (Rogue Amoeba Staff)
Tue Jun 12 12:23:55 2007

Kerri Hicks: There a few important points.

1) Flash isn't actually on the iPhone (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/12/no-flash-support-on-the-iphone/). That's a problem.

2) The big issue is one of cost. Can you do much of what you can with desktop apps in a web app? Yes. Would it take much, much more work? In many cases, yes. We're not averse to learning new things, but if this device runs OS X, why shouldn't we be able to re-use code, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel?

For that matter, things like access to hardware bits is unlikely to be easily possible from the browser.

But to answer your question, there may not be an outcome you can't get here that you could with another framework, with enough years of work. That's not really economical though 8). 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=332

According to Jobs, the apps will “look and behave exactly like apps on the iPhone.” Except that you don’t have to launch the browser to start any of your other iPhone apps, and they have full access to Core animation, utilize local storage, can be multi-tasked, and run at full native speed. Other than that they’re exactly the same.

Sascha: On the one hand - ick, Java. On the other, at least we'd get HD access.

LKM: That certainly wasn't intended to be insulting - my apologies if it read that way. The choice of the word "real" may be a poor one. Substitute the word "desktop", and I think it reads a lot better. You can't use (just) web frameworks to create a desktop app, which sits in the main menu and is instantly accessible. No argument there, right?

As for the quality of the solution, I think web apps will work great for lots of things. But the way it's presented, this is the solution, for everything, and it doesn't work that way.

"They need to start by allowing web apps to
- be clickable icons
- work offline
- have offline storage
- work without showing the URL bar"

That'd be great. But at that point, they're not "web apps", you're a lot closer to a standard app. A web app shouldn't be defined by what it's written with, but by how it's accessed (over the web). If you can do all those things (clickable icons, offline access, etc.), why limit it to just web technologies?

Chittagong: This isn't really clear, no. If devs can somehow access UI elements, that's certainly nice as far as fitting in. But you still have lots of other issues.

Todd Sieling: As noted, the choice of the word "real" may be poor, and is better substituted by "desktop".

This really has nothing to do with pride, and everything to do with practicality. I use and love plenty of web apps, and I don't intend to be "dismissive" of them. I also use and love plenty of desktop apps. There's a place for both still, and pitching web apps as the one-stop solution just doesn't match reality.

What separates the two? Working offline. HD access. Hardware access. Languages they can be written in. Where they appear on the iPhone. And more.

Again, web apps are great, but they're not a 100% solution - if they were, there'd be no need for desktop apps, or for that matter, Leopard.

As for "Apple saying so" with regards to what apps belong on the iPhone, even that might be fine, but that's not what they're saying. What they said was, effectively "We found a way to gave you third party access, you're gonna love this! It's through the web browser - enjoy!".

" I think the Apple spin on this is poor, and they just should have said they couldn't get everything in the place they needed to feel like they could launch a successful product."

Indeed, I agree 100%. The issue here is one of spin and marketing, nothing more. Apple's been doing very poorly in regards to the iPhone and developers, and to pitch web apps as a perfect solution at WWDC to a room filled largely with Cocoa developers, is off the mark.

Paul (Rogue Amoeba Staff)
Wed Jun 13 20:24:29 2007

George M.: I think having a true SDK likely was difficult/impossible for the 1.0, and that's just fine. As we've noted, we didn't expect it, but we want better than this.

As for "our interpretation" of the iPhone, I'd really have to say you're incorrect in how Apple is pitching this. They absolutely do not pitch it as "a cool phone with a few extras in it". Watch the ads: http://www.apple.com/iphone/ads/ particularly How To. It shows, in order, your music, your email, the web, and oh yeah, a phone. The phone functionality is the very last thing mentioned, and only briefly, in all four of these ads. Apple doesn't pitch it as a mini-computer directly, no, but it's certainly much closer to that than it is to "a phone with extras". If they were just selling a phone, they would focus on how well it handles calling. But it seems they believe customers are much more interested in the other aspects of the device, from being iPod (music and videos) to internet communications (email and the web).

Todd Sieling: If this is the best Apple can come up for 1.0, that's fine. But they pitched it as a fabulous solution. As far as the spin, their audience consisted largely of Cocoa developers. Telling them "Hey, you're all set, just make web apps" is weak. They don't need to disparage web apps (though Steve did, just last week), they could easily have said "We hope to let you write apps directly for the iPhone eventually. For now though, you can definitely get on with web apps. Let's see how cool they can be". That's much more palatable.