News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

January 27, 2007

speculation

When it comes to the iPhone’s closed system, it’s the motivation that matters

Posted Jan. 27, ’07, 10:16 AM PT by Dan Moren
Category | Apple » Speculation

closediphone.jpgPost Macworld Expo, the initial reaction to the news that Apple’s iPhone would be locked down tighter than the Mona Lisa after The Da Vinci Code came out was that Apple ought to open their playground up to everybody. Steve Jobs made his (in some cases, less-than-believable) excuses about one bad application taking down Cingular’s network, but the furor continued, even spawning its own propaganda video. Even I had my thoughts recorded for posterity.

Now that things have calmed down somewhat, some are looking closer at the idea of a locked down phone. Both Wired’s Leander Kahney and ZDNet’s Jason O’Grady have mused on whether a closed environment would really be so bad after all. The watchword: reliability. If Apple controls their device from head-to-toe, then, in theory, you don’t ever have to worry if one bad app will cause your phone to crash (a far more likely scenario than Cingular’s network being brought to its knees).

There’s some truth to this: despite the company line, we’ve all probably had our Macs crash for one reason or another. Now, that’s hardly something you can lay at the feet of third-party apps any more than Apple itself, but there is something to be said for complete control. Apple’s used pretty much the same methodology for their computer hardware for ages, a move roundly criticized by PC power users for restricting their choice, and defended by Mac fans for bringing superior hardware compatibility and reliability.

Now, I’m all for reliability. I don’t even have a smart phone—my phone is dumber than dirt (Inter-what?). But it works 99% of the time with no problems. There’s something to be said for simplicity.

On the flip side, I know that there are 3rd party developers who’d love to play around on the iPhone (and the iPod, for that matter), and I’m sure they have ideas that haven’t occurred to Apple.

Now, I don’t think Apple will keep the iPhone totally locked down. I’m guessing that around the release of the iPhone, if not before, Apple will also announce that they’ll let third parties develop widgets for use on the phone. It makes sense: widgets are sufficiently flexible to carry out most functions that will appeal to end users, while also being restricted enough to their own sandbox to prevent serious crashes. I’d be surprised if Leopard’s Dashcode didn’t support developing widgets for the iPhone.

But as for making full-fledged apps for the phone, I find myself skeptical that Apple will relent. In this way, the iPhone is patterned more after the iPod than the Mac, despite the inclusion of “OS X.” There exists the distinct possibility that some enterprising hacker will come out with a way to get other apps on the iPhone, but I thought the same thing about the iPod when iPod games were first announced, and we’ve yet to see it happen (on the one hand, I’m surprised; on the other, well, there’s only so much you can do with the iPod—the wireless capabilities of the iPhone and the fact that it offers easier data input make it a much more attractive target).

What makes me most wary about the iPhone’s closed platform is that it smacks of deal-making with Cingular. For example, what are two of the biggest holes in what we’ve seen of the iPhone’s functionality? VoIP and IM. Two apps that directly compete with Cingular’s lucrative paid services: voice calls and SMS text messaging. That is a disturbing trend. If the iPhone’s closed system is not about providing what’s best for the consumer (reliability), and is instead about bending over backwards for Cingular, well, I think I’ll stick with my good old stupid phone for now.


8 Comments

Rob said:

One thing that I don't hear anyone talking about is the Wifi capabilites of the iPhone. Am I going to be able to connect directly to the internet with just the WiFi or am I going to be locked into using at&t's Edge (Or 3G when that happens)? I think we already know that answer. No. You are talking about locking up IM and any possibility of having VoIP. How about simple web access? I have a 3G phone (why? because it was free with my contract)and I don't use the Internet connection because I refuse to pay 0.01/kb of data upload. If you think at&t is going to let that gravy train go, I have bridge to sell you.

January 27, 2007 11:15 AM
Dave said:

Watch the keynote, Rob. Steve said he was doing everything over WiFi. What do you think it's for? You can't (yet) use it to sync or buy iTunes.

January 27, 2007 11:53 AM
Joel said:

Just like people have gotten around the ipod song transfer "lock"... they will get around this "lock". We should see app development within a month of the iphone's release.

January 27, 2007 12:35 PM
Jeremy McCullough said:

Ahhh, but I'm sure Apple will only just release a patch that'll disable it, anyway.

I recall something called Front Row enabler, which was promptly shot down by Apple.

January 27, 2007 2:09 PM
Rob said:

Dave:
I did listen to the keynote. Steve was doing what over Wifi? The "special" version of iPhone had a wired connection for the projector. Was his internet connection by Wifi? Maybe. But then he was using an obvious prototype as well.

My point is, that I foresee the Wifi being cobbled or limited because at&t will not have the guaranteed revenue stream. Here in Portland we have a free wifi cloud all over downtown, I have wireless/broadband at home, and work has open Wifi for employees. Why do I need to pay at&t?

January 27, 2007 2:37 PM
Pay Attention! said:

You don't have to watch the Keynote to know the iPhone has WiFi. It has been shouted from the rooftops on a million different pages, from Apple's to the ends of the earth. I don't understand people who post questions in article comments asking for answers they could easily find themselves in 3 seconds with a Google search. It's called "The Internet."

January 27, 2007 4:23 PM
Jeremy McCullough said:

I seriously doubt it could be labeled as a "breakthrough internet device" if it didn't have WiFi.

WiFi isn't available everywhere. AT&T will still be making money off of a data plan, even if WiFi is an option.

I doubt Apple would produce a product so limiting. It's supposed to be revolutionary. Why not have WiFi? AT&T would be screwing itself over by not picking up the phone. The money that they would lose in not being the exclusive provider would be far more than the money they would lose by sole dependency on a data plan.

I think this is one of the reasons that this phone will be revolutionary. If anyone could do it, it'd be Apple. They've got enough power to make a phone, and force cellular providers to play by their rules. And anyone who turned them down would be stupid.

January 28, 2007 6:37 AM
Peter Nordstrand said:

It says Wi-Fi on Apple's website. Right here

February 4, 2007 2:24 AM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: