Enterprise Mac | Tom Yager | TAG: iPhone

MORE ENTRIES

TAG: iPhone

April 16, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Several months ago, I determined that my years-long fondness required reexamination. I quietly took a break from the Mac to get some perspective, to check out Vista, AMD, and Longhorn (Windows Server 2008) untainted by Apple's PR and uninfluenced by other journalists and bloggers. I elected to take a break from reviews of new Mac hardware, the occasion of which always piques my interest in Apple's platform. There were times when I felt I'd chosen the worst possible time for this hiatus. I ended up passing on MacBook Air, Time Capsule, Harpertown Mac Pro, and most painful of all, the new MacBook Pro. It was difficult seeing InfoWorld pick up reviews of these from sister publications, but I take my responsibility to readers very seriously. I can't very well counsel you on technology choices if I consider the field limited to one worthwhile player, especially when that player projects the image that it competes only with the generation of systems that preceded what's presently sold.

I found enormous value in my time away from Mac. I made the kind of discoveries I used to make routinely before I took on the Mac as a specialty, and as I take up the Mac again -- which I am doing immediately -- it's clear that my appreciation for the platform is justified, and that the customary split of my effort and attention between Apple and AMD is justified.

The genuine, practical superiority of AMD's Barcelona server platform, and its Phenom desktop platforms that derived from Barcelona, came to light during the break I took from Mac. A one socket, quad core Spider (Phenom plus ATI CrossFire graphics) runs Vista so obscenely fast that even a diehard Mac user's head will turn. Privately, of course.

I found it extremely intriguing that systems built on Phenom platforms can tune themselves autonomously for the maximum possible CPU and GPU speed over a surprisingly broad range, based on a whole system approach that takes cooling, power supply capacity, and your preferences for noise and maximum power consumption into account. I found that I could speed bump an AMD Phenom desktop for free by moving it closer to the floor, where the cooler air prevails. What a grand idea that in itself shows genuine customer-focused insight.

I gained a fresh appreciation for the GNU compiler collection, which has taken remarkable strides since I last took a deep dive in it. I was unaware of the level of engagement from commercial partners, including Apple, AMD, and Novell. Each is undoubtedly pursuing its own agenda, but it does so within the framework and culture of one of the most tightly controlled and liberally licensed open source projects in existence. AMD has finally embarked on the long road to compiler parity with Intel with its contribution of Family 10 (Barcelona/Phenom) architecture-specific optimizations to GNU.

Apple has been busy on the gcc front as well. Objective-C 2.0, with its desperately needed garbage collection, has been a reality in the GNU toolchain since Xcode 3 was in non-disclosure beta. In release 4.2 of gcc, auto-parallelization joins auto-vectorization to adapt projects to multiprocessing and vector acceleration without developer intervention. Unless I'm mistaken, the public beta versions of the iPhone SDK, now at Beta 3, mark Apple's first swing at Microsoft-style free public distribution of pre-release dev tools. The privilege of early access has been reserved for paid members of Apple's Developer Connection programs. That iPhone SDK carries all of the latest GUI tools, documentation, and GNU command line compilers, including FORTRAN, into Apple's default distribution. Hit http://developer.apple.com/iphone and scroll to the bottom of the page for the download link. You do not need to pay the $99 fee to register as an iPhone developer to use the new tools, which compile applications for Leopard as well as iPhone.

Apple is getting ever more daring in its engagement with open source in other ways. WebKit, the fast HTML/CSS/SVG rendering and JavaScript engine used in Safari, has caught on like wildfire outside Apple, and why not? To get a commercial browser, loaded with current and emerging standards, free and open for incorporation in your software, is the stuff of fantasy, and Apple holds virtually nothing back. The WebKit project is not strictly Apple's. It enjoys broad community engagement, but it is worked as a priority by Apple's staff, even to the benefit of direct competitors. For example, the browser on Nokia's E-series phones is WebKit-based, and this is not the only example where Apple effectively put its staff and technology to work for the benefit of a competitor. The GNU toolchain's adaptability to multiple embedded platforms will see WebKit in everything from phones to toys, starting with iPhone and iPod touch. Now that WebKit has been accepted into Google's Summer of Code, I can't wait to see what innovation comes from that gathering. I plan to ply the most influential attendees with the libations of their choice and get their take on where development is headed.

Apple pushed the source code for the publicly exposed innards of OS X Leopard, known as Darwin 9, out for public download on MacOS Forge. Every time it does that, I imagine the move preceded by arguments inside the office about the effort and risks that such a program visits on Apple's platform business. The work of preparing a project of Darwin's size for public distribution is inestimable, and Apple deserves credit for putting it on the agenda of its top OS engineers and project leaders.

I love the conservative approach that Apple is taking with iPhone, especially with regard to multiprocessing. iPhone Applications need to launch and quit instantly, yet relaunch after the first execution having cached and persisted their closing state in detail. It's a freeze/thaw model of state persistence that I'd like to see extended to applications in general. Apple's Xcode has Instruments (prior: XRay), a tool that jams electrodes into your program's and the system's running environment. It records and charts statistical data at runtime along several axes for later examination. It's the most effective means of hand-tuning code for efficiency that I've ever used, and it shows the benefits of persistence quite plainly.

Taking a break from Mac hardware gave me a chance to drink more deeply of the software that Apple maintains off its beaten path. MacPorts and Apple's validated versions of open source projects are open source treasure troves stuffed with some 5,000 free applications tuned and packaged for Intel and PowerPC Macs. Digging through these repositories is so addicting that I had to issue myself an edict to get back to work, which I shall do, newly confident in my mission and purpose. I'm a Macophile for good reason.

Posted by Tom Yager on April 16, 2008 11:36 AM

March 31, 2008 | Comments: (0)

iPhone SDK: Interface Builder added; WebKit kicks into overdrive

Apple isn't shipping the official iPhone SDK until June, but if you're planning to create apps for iPhone or iPod touch, the pre-release SDK just became more than a curiosity for those writing native code. Interface Builder, the Xcode tool for creating graphical user interfaces for Mac applications, has been added to the iPhone SDK. This not only gives developers the ability to add non-HTML GUIs to their native applications, but Interface Builder also makes it easier to carry hardcore Mac coding skills to iPhone.

Webkit Icon

The SVG Animation in WebKit (Safari) is still under development, but in its latest incarnation it is fast, smooth and very close to passing the standard's acid test. I have little doubt that it will be in Safari's public release in time for WWDC in June. Developers who want to check SVG Animation out now can grab the latest nightly build of WebKit from www.webkit.org. Installing a nightly build binary will add an executable, webkit.app, to your Applications folder. It is indiscernible from Safari--even the title bar says "Safari" and all of your bookmarks are present. The tip-off is a gold-tinged rim around the compass icon. The About box reflects the latest full release build of Safari rather than the WebKit framework version.

There is always the risk that installing a nightly build over the top of production software will introduce some instability. I can't recommend it for Joe Machead, but if you're developing for iPhone, or developing for Safari for desktop, you should be tracking the WebKit builds and reading the blogs attached to the WebKit site.

You might not intend to build WebKit for yourself, but if you can read C and Objective-C, you'll find the WebKit source code to be a study in well-crafted code, written against multiple very complicated and moving specifications. Look at the HTML5 and CSS3 specifications on www.w3c.org to get a feel for what the WebKit crew is up against. Fortunately, it's a serious team that includes Apple engineers, and Apple is a key player in the specifications and standards processes.

Posted by Tom Yager on March 31, 2008 11:30 AM

March 19, 2008 | Comments: (0)

iPhone 2.0: Safari hosts local apps; SQL on a smartphone!; go get Safari 3.1 now

I have a secret: I love JavaScript. It has an extremely simple C-like grammar--it has far more in common with C than Java--and is readable and compact. I can teach it to a child in an hour. With just a few days of messing around, a beginner can write powerful client and server applications in JavaScript, and the minimum required toolset is a browser and a text editor. To test changes to your code, you refresh its browser page.

I developed my appreciation for JavaScript by using it to create applications of surprising scale. In 1999, I wrote a book about creating Web applications, laying out in detail how one can do anything with JavaScript, CSS, DHTML, XML and SQL. The pinnacle of client-side JavaScript at the time was Microsoft's JScript, implemented in Internet Explorer. I took great care in my book to balance IE against Netscape, and to document the ways in which each browser adhered to and diverged from W3C standards. IE did better than most people would assume. It went on to become the basis of the ECMAScript standard. Then Microsoft all but pulled the plug on the language's internal development. The JScript editor and debugger vanished from Visual Studio. My book flopped, but worse than that, a simple language that had justifiable momentum, and even a job market built around it, dropped from sight except as a means to render dynamic HTML content and discern one browser from another.

JavaScript has reemerged as the J in AJAX, where it's assigned such common duties of manipulating in-memory data structures, loading plug-ins and performing explicit animation on user interface elements. It's good to see JavaScript back in action, but for years I've imagined what JavaScript might have become if it had been actively developed after Microsoft let it go. My crushing disappointment was that AJAX, not so advanced in light of history, didn't aim at the one target I felt JavaScript was destined for: Standalone browser-based applications.

Now we're back on track. Incremental developments in WebKit, the open source project on which Apple's Safari is based, have coalesced into the Safari browser for iPhone 2.0, due out in June, and Safari 3.1, which was just delivered for OS X. Apple and WebKit developers have invested an impressive amount of effort to implement vital portions of HTML 5, CSS 3 and SVG (scalable vector graphics) standards. HTML 5 provides a standard for embedded SQL statements into script code. SVG (scalable vector graphics) does what its name suggests, but also brings motion into places where only static bitmap graphics worked before. SQL (through SQLite) and SVG are linked into Safari, not plug-ins. CSS 3 sets up implicit and explicit animation, with both managed by the renderer.

In the transition from Safari 3.0 to Safari 3.1, WebKit coders and Apple somehow blew the doors off prior JavaScript performance. Apple created a JS benchmark, SunSpider (a click here will run it immediately; be aware that it takes some time), to prove its point. It measures the average time taken to complete a few cycles of complex JavaScript tasks. An 8-core, 3 GHz Xserve ran the SunSpider suite on Safari 3.0.4 in 6624.6 millisconds (6.62 seconds). A dual-core, 2.4 GHz Santa Rosa MacBook Pro running Safari 3.1 completed the SunSpider suite in 3211.8 milliseconds, or 3.21 seconds. The fact that SunSpider expresses its results in thousandths of a second portends sub-second results.

As for persistence, well, Apple decided that cookies and XML just wouldn't do. Since SQLite is already pervasive in iPhone OS, Apple wired it into Safari to give JavaScript coders the ability to manage data using real, grown-up SQL with transaction support. SQLite is strictly client-sized, but very powerful for a database that links entirely into your code (and it's open source). I wasn't that hot on SQLite in OS X's Core Data until I saw it in action in the iPhone SDK. Now that I see it it running on an embedded device, I see SQLite for the tight coolness it is.

There is another motivation to using SQLite as the persistence mechanism for iPhone Safari applications: It forces developers to give much more thought to their use of storage, which is a finite commodity on a phone or music player. It also slashes a lot of tree walking and in-memory XML out of your script code. But if you've just got to do the DOM, Apple did fold in two new native-ized DOM query methods to displace still more iterative scans.

Safari on iPhone 2.0 (and iPod touch 2.0) pushes the envelope in so many ways that Mac users will want it in desktop Safari and Dashboard. Okay, I'll speak for myself. I've been hollering for standalone browser-based applications, not those pseudo-apps that require a teeny HTTP server, for years. I'm on record saying that if Apple just did persistence in iPhone's Safari, I'd quit harping at them about a native SDK. I got what I wanted and then some, so now I can harp at you about what Apple poured into iPhone/iPod touch 2.0, Safari and the SDK.

Posted by Tom Yager on March 19, 2008 07:14 PM

March 10, 2008 | Comments: (0)

New iPhone enterprise developer program, $299; musings about iPhone app licensing

Companies and organizations that don't want to make their iPhone/iPod touch software publicly available through AppStore can now apply for a special $299 enterprise development license that entitles them to create and distribute custom software strictly for internal use. The application must be submitted by an individual empowered to make legal commitments on their employer's behalf.

This raises some questions in my mind. If you run a consulting shop that creates commercial iPhone software for clients' (say, government agencies') private use, does each client need an iPhone enterprise license? $299 is not prohibitively expensive, but some clients might balk at signing a contract with Apple as a condition of running the code you sold them. Commercial developers don't necessarily want to share their client lists with Apple.

I'll ask Apple how it works, but I'm hoping that the $299 program is the equivalent of an unlisted number. If the extra $200 buys the privilege of bypassing Apple's validation, distribution and customer registration systems, then it's the right approach.

You could argue that anyone who carries an iPhone is already registered with Apple when they activate their phone, so whatever secrets a user would wish to keep are already out. However, in enterprises, handsets are purchased and activated by the employer, not individual users (a purchase model which has, to this point, been denied iPhone buyers by AT&T). Once a phone is purchased as part of an enterprise deal, it should drop off the map where the handset manufacturer is concerned, and the wireless operator's role is limited to supplying the service and sending the bill. Which individual is using the phone, what for, where they work and what applications they're running should be nobody's business. Anything from personal security to trade secrets might be at stake. Once Apple picks up the enterprise baton, it has a lot to live up to.

iPod touch is a special case, and given my overall lack of enthusiasm for AT&T, my favorite case. touch can be used exclusively inside company, agency or a home's walls for any private use the purchaser has in mind. There is no carrier to protect. There is no requirement to sign up with iTunes or any other service in order to use iPod touch for applications. My first application for iPod touch will be to use it as a remote control for an iBootBar rack power controller. This has several network interfaces, but Telnet is the most versatile and will hide well under a GUI. This won't be a difficult first assignment. I'm more uncertain about licensing for personal applications than I am the SDK.

My read of Apple's signing and licensing requirements is that once you pay your $99 or $299 and are issued a certificate, you can start using iPhone/iPod touch units for development (prior to licensing, you can only use the emulator), permitting you to use real devices as develop and debug targets. I have a hunch that units are activated for development use individually (how and how many, I have no idea; perhaps an iTunes-like model) to prevent the use of the SDK as a means of distributing apps.

Where applications written for my sole use are concerned, do I have to sign my code, upload it to AppStore, wait for approval, and re-download it in order to use it? Do I have to re-sign and resubmit the app I wrote for myself every time I make a change (because the checksum changes)? So many questions.

Developer and user licensing will be the messiest aspects of iPhone custom development leading up to the public release in June. I'm going to try to snag a briefing with Apple prior to the release to go over iPhone/iPod touch certificates and licensing. I'll share those details with you.

Posted by Tom Yager on March 10, 2008 07:06 AM

March 06, 2008 | Comments: (0)

iPhone/iPod touch Q & A

Q: Why is Apple the exclusive distributor of third-party software for iPhone and iPod touch?
A: Somebody has to take full responsibility for customer security. Apple is taking responsibility for security by issuing developer certificates that irreversibly link every app a traceable, physical creator. Apple is a good groundskeeper, too; the site's always going to look splendid.

Q: Why do I have to pay $99 to write code for iPhone, and what's that buy me?
A: You can write code for iPhone for $0; download the tools from developer.apple.com. Mess around in the simulator to see if it piques your interest. If it does, then $99, plus answers to the validation questions that Apple will ask, gets you a certificate that will burn your name into your code. When you get that, you can start debugging with a physical iPhone or iPod touch. And you can upload your software to AppStore.

Q: What is AppStore, and how do I get in it?
A: The AppStore icon will be added to iPhone and iPod touch

Q: I meant, how can I get my software in it?
A: Sign up as an iPhone developer. They'll guide you through it.

Q: What kind of merchant account, PayPal, Kagi thing will I need to get my software sold?
A: This is much as you need to worry about money: a) Pay Apple $99 to be a developer; b) write something worth buying; c) decide what people should pay for it; d) upload it to Apple; e) rejoice as you're paid 70% of your monthly sales.

Q: Is anything about this program open source?
A: Steve Jobs says no. You will find references to ARM (the MCU used in iPhone and iPod touch) scattered around the Darwin source code.

Q: Do you think it's possible to completely overwrite the software on iPhone so I can do what I want?
A: For carrier unlocking: a) Buy iPod touch; b) Buy unlocked telephone

Posted by Tom Yager on March 6, 2008 04:31 PM

March 06, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Apple's iPhone software strategy moves me

A colleague scolded me for applauding during Apple's press conference to announce iPhone 2.0, next-generation firmware that will bring a host of enterprise features and support for a native software development kit (SDK) to iPhone and iPod touch. In my defense, I kept my pen and pad in my hands while the room went berserk over Apple's deal with Microsoft to bring an extraordinary array of Exchange Server connectivity to iPhone. I was moved, but not to clapping, by Apple's implementation of Cisco VPN compatibility, WPA2 security and other touches that IT administrators set as requirements for devices that connect to their networks. The enterprise half of Apple's new mobile strategy speaks to IT, and therefore to me as an IT journalist. iPhone 2.0 brings iPhone and iPod touch many steps closer to parity with the high-end BlackBerry, Windows Mobile and Nokia QWERTY and stylus handsets that are enterprise mainstays now. My journalist appreciates having a new contender in enterprise mobile, but does not applaud at press conferences presenting same. I nod and note.

[ Read my iPhone 2.0 Q&A. Read about the developers' reaction to the news. Read our special report, "IT's guide to the iPhone." Learn how to make the iPhone work at work. ]

But I am more than a journalist. I worked in engineering, consulting and technical management in the wireless industry before coming to InfoWorld. I've covered wireless, mobile and embedded technology during my entire tenure here simply by continuing to think and operate like a professional with skin in the mobile and embedded game. For over a decade, I've seen wireless carriers, hardware and component manufacturers and OS vendors come at custom software development from every imaginable angle but the right one. I've known for so many years that the barrier to a boom in mobile applications is a stable, simple, documented platform and a matched set of development tools. I've known that these things don't exist because no entity has found a way to make such an effort profitable. Apple has.

Lest I carry on too long in one post about a topic that will take many posts to cover, I'll clue you in on the points that provoked my applause.

Apple's native dev tools include live remote debugging and run-time profiling of USB-connected devices. During the demo, Apple showed Xcode's Instruments (formerly Xray, derived from Sun's DTrace) recording stack traces in real-time from software running on an iPhone. Developers of embedded software--and that's precisely what handset apps are--appreciate how difficult, expensive and tedious it is to design, code and debug with a tethered physical target, and what a big deal it is to have live debugging baked into an embedded platform and a free toolset. English translation: Applause.

Apple is hosting a catalog of third-party applications (AppStore), splitting the proceeds with developers 70/30, and paying developers for software sold on a monthly basis. AppStore will automatically notify iPhone and iPod touch customers when new releases of their purchased software is available. No desktop approach to shareware and small-volume licensing is adaptable to mobile. All a third-party developer needs to do is upload its software to Apple, hang on it the price tag of his choice, and it'll be added to the catalog. From there, the developer just waits for the checks. And, one hopes, responds to calls for support.

Apple will not charge developers or customers for free third-party software. Huzzah!! Developers will need their $99 certificate, but you can band together with your buds and code under an assumed name. Only the guy that actually has the phone needs the license. Everyone else can work for free, using free tools, with the free simulator.

Apple is opening the same APIs that it uses internally. OS X, BSD, TCP/IP, Sockets, security, power management, Keychain, Core Services (e.g. Address Book, Mail), Core Audio, OpenAL, audio recording, graphics (JPG PNG TIFF), PDF, Quartz 2D, OpenGL ES and H.264, to name a few. A new GUI API layer, Core Touch, has been added. A database layer, managed by SQLlite, is in there. Might could get something done with all that.

Apple will charge $99 per developer to issue a code signing certificate, and Apple will police the AppStore catalog for malware and the like. That's cheap, and in return, Apple's taking responsibility for security. Gutsy.

The iPhone SDK and documentation are entirely free of charge for use with the integrated iPhone simulator. You don't have to buy a certificate to write code. You don't even need an iPhone.

Interface Builder (the GUI designer in the Xcode toolset) is loaded with all standard iPhone and iPod touch interface elements and actions. No more AJAX hacks that look sorta like...

Safari WebView was only mentioned as a term, but if it gives me locally-hosted apps, written in JavaScript, with an HTML front end, I'm down. That might tide me over until Silverlight and Flash come around.

No, seriously, I won't wait. I must code.

After the break, a Q & A with our resident cynic.

Posted by Tom Yager on March 6, 2008 03:43 PM

March 06, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Apple distributes 3rd-party apps through AppStore and iTunes; how developers can get it

Third-party developers can distribute their apps through Apple facilities.

AppStore is exclusive way to get software to iPhone users. Dev gets 70 pct of sales price, paid monthly.

FREE APPS DISTRIBUTED FREE on AppStore and iTunes.

IPhone 2.0 beta with all new features ships to developers today, ships to all as free update in June. IPod Touch users will pay for update.

Developers can get SDK with simulator for free, and develop directly on a device for a $99 membership.

Posted by Tom Yager on March 6, 2008 11:04 AM

March 06, 2008 | Comments: (0)

iPhone native SDK opens Apple's own dev tools to public

As of today, Apple has opened the native Application Programmaing Interfaces (APIs) and tools that Apple uses for iPhone and iPod Touch development.

Coding for all layers, covering: Core OS X, Core Services such as address book and database, Media (including H.264 MPEG-4, positional audio, PDF) and Cocoa Touch for UIs.

Xcode supports full set of iPhone/iPod Touch interface elements. Software is downloaded, debugged and profiled (with Instruments a.k.a. Xray or DTrace) live using the regular USB cable.

IPhone Simulator simulates entire API stack for local debugging.

Details follow.

Posted by Tom Yager on March 6, 2008 10:21 AM

March 06, 2008 | Comments: (0)

iPhone gets Exchange support, aims for BlackBerry

Apple has licensed ActiveSync from Microsoft and will build push e-mail, calendar, contacts, and global address lists in the next release of iPhone software.

Apple will also roll in essential enterprise features, such as stronger authentication and more broadly compatible remote access (VPN). But most important for large enterprises, Apple's next release will support Exchange Server's central management for policies, fleet configuration and remote data wiping.

Apple wants to tag BlackBerry, which Apple claims is the only enterprise handset outselling iPhone.

My next entry will be on iPhone's native application software development kit.

Posted by Tom Yager on March 6, 2008 10:08 AM

January 14, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Thoughts on the iPhone/iPod touch SDK

[Late note to helpful commenters: I only write from my experience, observation and analysis. I don't read anyone else's work on topics I cover.]

If everything is still on track, Apple will roll out a software development kit (SDK) for iPhone and iPod touch, which share a platform, in February. I have been pondering some possibilities about that SDK. I don't have answers, but perhaps the questions will get you thinking.

Why do an SDK? Certainly not to make the world happy. If Apple spoke with me about iPhone, it would point out that I'm among a tiny handful of people campaigning for a native iPhone SDK. Casual developers would be overjoyed if Apple beefed up iPhone's Javascript to provide programmers with access to a protected subset of the filesystem and the ability to add icons to the home screen. If it were possible to browse "file://" in Safari, then local HTML apps with XML data stores could function as off-line applications.

A similar purpose would be served by a tiny HTTP server capable of performing data binding and mixing of local and on-line content.

In the long run, I think that the reason for doing a native iPhone SDK is to make iTunes Music Store a marketplace for downloadable mobile software. It's been done; Forum Nokia has catalogs of third-party software and hosts developers' applications. An icon on your phone takes you to the Nokia catalog, and software that you purchase from there gets tacked onto your phone bill. Developers get a check for their cut. Games and network tools are very popular.

Commercial developers (shareware and up) need to wire their code for time-limited trials and phone home activation, which is harder to work into non-native software. Nokia tags offerings in its catalog by programming language, and the vast majority are written in C.

If the iPhone SDK is genuinely native, that is, compilers can target the ARM CPU, then that openness will come with high-tensile strings attached that will prevent working around any of the restrictions that protect Apple and wireless operator revenue, and to protect non-savvy iPhone users (the majority). If the SDK permitted the opening of arbitrary TCP sockets, for instance, half of the world's iPhones would be running P2P file sharing clients 24/7, at wireless operators' expense. Trusting users would be downloading malware-stuffed Tetris clones that ship address books and mail folders to identity thieves. I don't see Apple opening itself to this.

Apple will provide as much cover for customers as it can. iPhone apps will be sandboxed so that system and iTunes files are invisible. The first custom app you run will see an empty file system from / on down. Further protection will be afforded by Apple just as Nokia has done it (and with great controversy): Vendor code signing. There is no getting around the fact that native mobile apps, except for those you write for yourself, must be signed, and that no developer can be equipped with the means to sign code that runs on another device. Code has to blessed by a single trustworthy authority. I can't imagine what the signing process would be, how long it would take or how much it would cost--I'd hate to see no potential for iPhone/iPod touch freeware--but I don't think that it's something Apple will farm out.

iTunes' adaptable infrastructure and digital rights management technology are already there. After receiving and signing an app on behalf of a developer, Apple need only add a workflow item to ship that material, price attached, to iTunes. The question in my mind is how developers will get paid. Is Apple going to cut hundreds of developers individual checks? Will Apple demand to be the only source through which signed applications can be acquired?

So many questions. That's what I love about this job.

Posted by Tom Yager on January 14, 2008 11:17 PM

January 14, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Macworld Conference and Expo: Why am I here?

I always look forward to Macworld Expo, but this year my expectations are especially high. It may be the bracing San Francisco weather that's got my blood moving, but it's my anticipation of the keynote and the exhibit floor that have me blogging in the shower.

Apple has scheduled two briefings with me this week. One is a keynote follow-up on Wednesday, and the other is a sit-down on Mac Pro and Xserve on Thursday. I've already got the skinny on Mac Pro and Xserve, both quite impressive, but both falling under the category of pre-show announcements that make room for something else. So will the Wednesday briefing be all about iPhone?

I am braced for that possibility. With 3G, a lower price, streaming media and an upcoming software development kit (SDK), I'm prepared to treat iPhone '08 as a new device. I have speculation related to the SDK that I'll relate under separate cover. Suffice it to say that I don't expect to be able to wipe iPhone's system software clean and replace it with Darwin. That would subvert the primary purpose of Apple's mobile platform: To be an iTunes terminal that fits in your pocket and sticks to your dashboard. The only need that I can see for an iPhone SDK is to allow Apple to market signed commercial software on iTunes Music Store. The only justification that I can see for native code is to support games, and to allow commercial code to enforce licenses.

Apple could surprise me. After all, there is no obvious revenue justification for publishing those portions of Darwin that are not covered by GPL, the GNU Public Licenses that require vendors to publish their adaptation of software covered by the license. I can imagine, and I'm sure that others can, too, iPhone and iPod touch being the world's most sought-after robotics controllers and de facto platforms for university courses in embedded systems. I don't expect iPhone/iPod touch to be opened to kernel hackers, but I think that in the long run, Darwin has good potential as an embedded OS.

I hear from my editors that there is still speculation about a Mac tablet. I'm bearish on that; PC tablets aren't hot commodities. With so much low-hanging fruit yet to harvest from the seasonal evolution of Mac, iPod, iPhone, iTunes, Leopard, Pro Apps and .Mac, I can't foresee any bold new lines of business for Apple right now. My attention this year is largely focused on third-party vendors. I am always hopeful for products that I didn't see coming, and I'd be delighted to hear Steve say something that nobody expects.

In any case, this'll be fun. I hope you'll come along.

Posted by Tom Yager on January 14, 2008 01:05 PM

December 05, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Wii News Channel report: German court re-locks iPhone, bad dad blogger baffled

The funny thing is, this happened (link to AP) before I filed my brilliant analysis on the subject of European court and law-imposed unlocking of iPhone. However, even though the German court, operating under my precisely tuned radar, pulled its injunction against iPhones locked to T-Mobile, German law still requires that iPhones be unlocked after the 2-year contract expires.

Anyways, my point remains.

You can't get this kind of up-to-the-yesterday news commentary at any price, my friend. It may also interest you to learn that I spotted the updated AP story on my trusty news ticker, the Nintendo Wii that I'm giving my kid for Christmas.

I see that despite the fact that I have tons of actual work to do, I'll have to explain why I had my son's gift out of its box. I had to pair it with my Airport Extreme, install the batteries in the remote and set the parental controls. And wouldn't it be a drag if it came out of the box on Christmas not working? Yes, I absent-mindedly left it out in my office, and it was sitting next a GameCube controller and Blockbuster rentals of Super Mario Galaxy and Sonic Heroes. He saw that whole pile, but in my office, they blend. When we're all gathered 'round the tree, he'll pretend to be surprised, and I'll pretend that I didn't check it out. Isn't that everybody's Christmas?

Stop judging me.

Posted by Tom Yager on December 5, 2007 01:35 PM

December 04, 2007 | Comments: (0)

France and Germany sell unlocked iPhones. What price freedom?

Apple assumed that it could extend the reach of its U.S. sales model for iPhone, which requires the purchase of a two-year service contract with AT&T, across the Atlantic. But in France and Germany, consumers are able to purchase unlocked iPhones over store counters, without shame and in broad daylight. It seems that "over there," governments take a dimmer view of companies telling consumers that this cake must be purchased with that icing. At least in two European countries, consumer freedom is a cost of doing business.

Does Apple face a danger that iPhone carrier choice may catch a favorable ocean breeze and drift to the States? Not likely. There are Americans who still assert that they have the right to use iPhone with any GSM carrier, but these protesters commiserate via iPhones on AT&T's network. The number of Americans torqued off at the exclusive AT&T deal roughly matches the number who march on Cupertino over Apple's refusal to let OS X run on PCs. Translation: Nobody with a life really cares about it. If someone wants an iPhone, AT&T won't be a show-stopper.

Perhaps it is noteworthy that Apple hasn't packed up its marbles and walked away from Germany and France for their refusal to bow to Apple's American model of carrier exclusivity. It potentially leaves Apple's chosen partners at a disadvantage: A customer with an unlocked iPhone can sign with another carrier that treats iPhone like any other phone, a carrier that doesn't pay dues to Apple and can therefore undercut Apple's official partners.

But Apple has a clever strategy to make freedom pay. It can make any of iPhone's canned applications work only on select networks. Imagine the letdown of bringing your unlocked iPhone home, sliding in the SIM card from your old phone, and getting a "this feature is not supported on your network" message when you tried to access Visual VoiceMail or YouTube. Sure, an unlocked iPhone will work on any network, but if that network doesn't have Apple's partner services, will an unlocked iPhone really be an iPhone, or an iPod Touch that makes phone calls?

I expect that it's difficult to light up the bars on an iPhone in a way that satisfies consumers' expectations without somehow giving Apple something off the top. Some consumers may find carrier freedom that comes at the cost of iPhone services unfulfilling.

Posted by Tom Yager on December 4, 2007 03:38 PM

November 22, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Cool facts about the Leopard kernel

Source code for the x86 and PowerPC OS X (Darwin) kernels have been merged in Leopard for the first time. Prior to Leopard, PPC and x86 source trees had to be downloaded and managed separately. Now instead of building the right tree for your system type, you identify your target architecture at build time.

The Darwin sources now self-build a bootable Darwin using only make. Previously, you had to download a separate set of build tools called Darwinbuild.

x86 and PowerPC aren't the only targets for the Darwin kernel. The build example in the xnu README attached to the Leopard kernel makes reference to a Freescale MX31ADS ARM9 eval board (link to PDF manual) build target. That bodes well for the reach of the iPhone/iPod Touch developer kit in February, eh?

Posted by Tom Yager on November 22, 2007 07:40 AM

October 17, 2007 | Comments: (0)

From Steve Jobs: Third-party iPhone SDK in early '08

Steve Jobs just issued a letter in response to criticism of Apple's decision to keep iPhone closed to third-party developers. The full text of the letter can be found at Apple Hot News. What follows is my commentary on Jobs' text. I have not included his full letter, only the portions on which I chose to comment. Jobs' text is set off in italics.

Let me just say it: We want native third party applications on the iPhone, and we plan to have an SDK in developers’ hands in February. We are excited about creating a vibrant third party developer community around the iPhone and enabling hundreds of new applications for our users.

iPhone crackers can quit gloating. This isn't their win. It's a response to customers and alignment of policy with the state of the mobile device market. iPhone can't reach consumers like me because show-stopper apps and functionality, like TeleNav turn-by-turn navigation and Java MIDP, will never work on the phone, but work on all other devices I'd carry.

It will take until February to release an SDK because we’re trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once—provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc.

Agreed. Having an SDK without tight security is as inadvisable as having no SDK. I'm adamant on this point.

Mobile devices are constantly connected to the Internet, and like PC users, most wireless subscribers haven't the faintest idea how to respond to firewall pop-ups like "Grant application xxx access to the Internet?" All a hacker needs to do is give malware an important-sounding name like "cingular_update" to get 95 percent of phone users to let it run amok.

This is no easy task. Some claim that viruses and malware are not a problem on mobile phones—this is simply not true.

Correct, but for balance's sake, let's say that cell phone users assume that the cellular network is safe and secure, and that operators cultivate that assumption because it's good for business.

Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example, is not allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known developer.

Requiring signed apps is cool with me as long as phone manufacturers don't turn software registration into a developer tax. Nokia grants free signatures to freeware authors, and developers can self-sign software for testing, but commercial signatures cost money.

Nokia also lets users disable application signature checking on their phones.

Prior to delivering an SDK, I'd be pleased if Apple initiated support for Java MIDP and Flash Lite, both of which are extremely secure environments for local applications.

P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for iPod touch.

Very smart.

Thank you, Steve.

Posted by Tom Yager on October 17, 2007 04:10 PM

October 12, 2007 | Comments: (0)

iPhone batteries, $30, buy now

200710121446

Exhibit A, "non manufacturer-approved battery vents with flame (battery biz term of art) in back of car." Note headrest in top picture.

Many thanks to batteryuniversity.com for showing that $80 is cheap for a new iPhone battery.

Posted by Tom Yager on October 12, 2007 12:59 PM

September 06, 2007 | Comments: (0)

iPod touch: Because I demanded it, and it's good for other people, too

iPod touch wipes out all of my objections to iPhone. I win, Apple wins, consumers win, and everybody who wants to leave work at work, and yet still remain just connected enough to stay on top of things, wins. Reverse-engineering projects lose. iPod touch's price, $299 or $399, genuinely defies reason, for reasons I explain below. iPod touch, plus a sweet phone, is all I need to bring with me on quick business trips.

I am, in the words of one blogger remarking on my photo (which I disavow), smug and condescending, so of course I believe that Apple created iPod touch based on my feedback and for my benefit. The fact that it was designed before I laid hands on an iPhone won't keep me from taking credit for it.

I've told you what I want, and don't want, from an Apple handheld device. I don't want it to have a lid. I don't want it to ring or light up an "available" icon on anyone's buddy list when I go on-line. At those times when the sight of a computer knots my stomach, and when QWERTY is a four-letter word, I'd still like to get some studying in, watch WWDC sessions that I couldn't attend, read comments to my blogs, pull up a datasheet for the mystery part that I just yanked out of my old DirectTV receiver, listen to Stevie Wonder's 4-disc boxed set, or perhaps even do something that's not horizon-broadening (fark.com). Out of pocket shouldn't have to mean off-line.

Oh, before I forget: Merry Christmas, Microsoft.

With the season in mind, I have blessed iPod touch's expanded distribution to addresses not my own. Nobody over the age of twelve will fake an enthusiastic reception of an iPod touch. One box per loved one, shopping's done, have a martini. Ones not quite so loved will enjoy any of Apple's lesser iPods, and the one that you're replacing with an iPod touch will take a nice polish. In coming years, all holiday/birthday obligations will be satisfied by iTunes gift cards, denominations scaled according to your affection for each recipient. Apple has a helpful table on its Web site.

And now, a spin of my beanie. iPod touch's price does not make sense. I may miss my guess slightly, but I believe that what we have here is an embedded system with a 32-bit CPU, 8 GB of flash (base model), a 3.5-inch backlit true color LCD and controller that's fast enough to run 30 full-screen frames per second with frame-accurate audio sync (if that's done by blitting from the CPU, double wow), a multitasking OS with a TCP/IP stack, Wi-Fi and high-speed crypto, and a battery, all mashed into an 8mm enclosure. Now, compare the 8 GB iPod touch, at $299, to the 8 GB iPhone, at $599. Ask yourself how Apple knocked down its engineering and build costs enough to pay for a $300 price drop while still keeping an Apple-esque margin. "Calm down, it's iPod nano with Wi-Fi, dude" comments will be filtered. From this mystified embedded-fascinated geek to Apple's enlightened ones, I can only say that I am not worthy. I just threw out my breadboard and Mouser catalog.

Back to you, reader. Are you about to pop The Question? Your intended won't think twice about feeding you your diamond over that illustrated diary in your ex's blog, but your (new) sweetie will forgive you to avoid giving back that engraved iPod touch. Anniversaries? That's right: iTunes gift cards, denominations graded by half and full decades of bliss. Consult the table on Apple's Web site.

Posted by Tom Yager on September 6, 2007 03:39 PM

August 26, 2007 | Comments: (0)

The unholy Apple/AT&T alliance has been undone, but iPhone is still a waste of money

If your biggest gripe with Apple's flagship media player is that it refuses to make voice or data calls on anything but AT&T's wireless network, you're officially free. But the price of freedom, in this case, is either a very steady hand and soldering iron, or a willingness to send money to Australia in exchange for a "Turbo SIM," delivery date unknown. Of the two methods, I prefer the third: Buy a real phone. Following an exhaustive comparison of alternatives, I have overwhelming backing for my early conclusion that iPhone is vastly outmatched by several devices in its price class.

200708262054
If you simply must buy and unlock an iPhone, use George Hotz's (forum nickname "geohot") 10-step hack, the one that requires soldering. If you need help with the soldering, go to a ham radio fest or sit in on a robotics club meeting. If you want to tackle it yourself, practice with throwaway surface-mount electronics, scraping conformal coating from circuit traces and soldering wire to them before you crack the case on an iPhone. George's method is the easiest possible hack to a surface-mount board. While George recycled his wire from a motor, I suggest you buy new magnet wire from Radio Shack. The thinnest wire in the three-spool pack is the 30-gauge Kynar insulated wire you need. Scrape or burn the insulation off the ends.

Posted by Tom Yager on August 26, 2007 06:56 PM

August 08, 2007 | Comments: (0)

iPhone: iTunes 7.3.2 (iPhone firmware 1.0.1) update does not mess up "activate and cancel" iPhone

For those buyers who wish to use iPhone solely as a media player and Wi-Fi Internet tablet, I have advocated the use of an activate and cancel method to escape AT&T's monthly charges. My method leaves iPhone functional for emergency calls, and unlike the activation crack, iPhone's Youtube application continues to work, and I figured that you shouldn't need to worry that future software updates might return your iPhone to its out of the box, wholly unusable ("bricked") state.

It turns out that I was right. Apple's recently-released iTunes 7.3.2 update overwrites iPhone's firmware with version 1.0.1. I installed the update, and even after cycling power on the device, iPhone continues to work exactly as it did before the update.

An iPhone with cancelled phone service can still place emergency calls.

Posted by Tom Yager on August 8, 2007 05:42 PM

July 17, 2007 | Comments: (0)

BlackBerry tether (mobile Internet gateway) for Macs isn't coming in August, it's already here

While I was Googling to track down one of my own stories, I came across this BlackBerryCool.com entry promising that Mac users will soon be able to use their BlackBerry handsets for tethered Internet access.

I've been tethering a MacBook Pro through my T-Mobile BlackBerry 8800 since May; I point to the very well-documented procedure in a prior entry to Enterprise Mac. Follow the instructions, and your Mac will dial your Bluetooth-equipped BlackBerry like a modem and link it to your wireless operator's data network--in T-Mobile's case, that's 128 Kbps EDGE--whenever it needs access to the Internet. Tethering isn't unique to BlackBerry. I've done the same with Symbian (e.g. Nokia, Samsung) handsets, and tethering is baked into Windows Mobile. Whether you can use it, and how much it'll cost you, is really up to your wireless operator. Free tethering is permitted under T-Mobile's BlackBerry Unlimited plan, while AT&T requires the use of a special data plan. I'm not familiar with other carriers' policies.

iPhone does not yet support tethering.

Posted by Tom Yager on July 17, 2007 01:23 PM

July 13, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Canceling AT&T service does not lock your iPhone

At the time I wrote the iPhone review, it was not clear to me (or anyone) how iPhone would behave if the device were activated, a process that requires a two-year commitment to AT&T Wireless, and the AT&T Wireless service were subsequently cancelled. I called AT&T yesterday to cancel my service, something that you can do without penalty within 14 days. My iPhone's only been one day without AT&T, but so far, all of the device features that don't rely on the cellular network--pretty much everything but Visual Voice Mail--work without issue. And if I had to call 9-1-1, I could.

The only sign that anything's amiss is "NO COVERAGE" where the carrier name, mobile net signal bars and EDGE data indicator appear.

The first and final AT&T bill for iPhone service comes to about $69. That covers activation and 12 days' worth of prorated service.

Is activate-and-cancel smarter than using the unbricking crack? Users who have applied a "crack-tivation" technique to unbrick (i.e. get past the "Activate with iTunes" lock screen) their iPhones have found that YouTube does not function, and that other applications that use the network complain about not being able to find an EDGE connection before they connect with Wi-Fi. I haven't had any of those problems, but I can't say what would happen if I did a hard reset on iPhone or wiped out the MacBook Pro that I used to activate it. I also don't know whether Apple's first iPhone software update will re-brick my iPhone.

It shouldn't. The SIM is valid. It's in the same state it would be in if I had missed a payment, or if I were out of wireless range and couldn't register with the network. Even so, I'll turn off the GSM/GPRS/EDGE radio to save a bit of battery.

AT&T was very quick and courteous. I was impressed with the professionalism of the AT&T reps that handled my cancellation. I only had to talk with two people, neither of whom gave me a hassle. My contribution to the "how can we keep your business?" exchange was an offer to stay on if AT&T would let me add data service for another device onto my account so that I could move iPhone's SIM between two handsets (one device on the mobile network at a time). The rep understood what I wanted: "You want to keep your existing phone but carry iPhone once in a while?" Exactly. "I can't do that." she said. "You can't use an iPhone rate plan with another phone, and you can't use another phone's rate plan on iPhone." I offered to pay them more money per month, but they turned me down. iPhone really is a game-changer.

As soon as you add iPhone data service to an existing rate plan, it wipes out any other data service you have on the account. I learned that on my own. An iPhone SIM only works for voice in another phone.

Posted by Tom Yager on July 13, 2007 11:59 AM

July 10, 2007 | Comments: (0)

The unofficial Apple TV SDK is a model for white hat iPhone hackers

iPhone crackers have their priorities mixed up. They're laboring to unlock iPhone to work on multiple wireless operators' networks. That's effort that AT&T and Apple will actively block because it interferes with revenue. Remember that Apple's exclusive deal with AT&T puts money in Apple's pocket every month for every iPhone subscriber that signs up. If you go taking money out of Apple's pocket, you should expect to have your effort rendered wasted by a future firmware update.

Crackers have discovered that iPhone's firmware bootloader is locked up tight and will only boot code that's encrypted against Apple's private key, and now they're picking away at an interface to iPhone's radio chip to work an unlock. I respect the desire for freedom, but I think that some of the guys who are pushing their way into iPhone should be focusing on work that's of more immediate benefit to iPhone owners and to potential developers. Access to iPhone's sandboxed file system and adding plug-ins to Safari are more productive goals. That effort would help sell iPhones, and I doubt that it would draw much fire from Apple.

There is a precedent for that belief. Apple rolled out Apple TV as a non-user-extensible platform. Apple released no SDK, no technical documentation and no development tools, and informed me in a briefing that Apple would not be supporting custom development on Apple TV. Bummer. Why, I wondered, weren't developers protesting about being shut out of Apple TV?

Mac developers spend no time complaining. When Apple says "no," they find a way to do it anyway. Apple expects that, and I believe it counts on it. Many outside Apple are as smart and resourceful as the engineers inside Apple, especially when they can work without answering to management and marketing.

I wasn't surprised when early Apple TV users uncovered traces of a mechanism used for enhancing Apple TV through downloadable plug-ins. I wasn't surprised by hacks, albeit ugly ones, that get Apple TV to boot full OS X (possible, but awfully silly since you end up with a Mac that has 256 MB of RAM). But I underestimated how seriously the Mac developer community would take the mission of opening Apple TV to developers, a goal that I consider worthwhile, and in a way that doesn't deny Apple any income.

There is an independently-authored Apple TV "Back Row" SDK, developed by Alan Quartermain, which comes complete with Xcode templates, sample code, an emulator and tutorials. And in the best Mac tradition, it's all free and open source. Some of the really useful plug-ins that were built against this SDK are listed on the Awkward TV site, and developers took the time to make them mesh with Apple TV's UI and its clean, commercial look and feel. I'm not interested in making my Apple TV a Mac, but extending it with additional video codecs and access to content beyond iTunes and YouTube make an investment in Apple TV more worthwhile. There aren't many who will be willing to go through the process required to get Back Row apps and plug-ins running--you still have to crack Apple TV's case--but it's turned out to be a fun device for harmless hacking, and non-hackers who can stomach the risks benefit from the effort.

"Harmless" is the operative word.

Posted by Tom Yager on July 10, 2007 11:41 AM

July 10, 2007 | Comments: (0)

How to store files in iPhone for off-line viewing: E-mail them to yourself

iPhone Web apps can't use iPhone's internal file system. Storage has to be handled on the server end, which makes off-line viewing of documents and Web pages challenging.

However, there is a solution to this that I haven't seen discussed elsewhere. Web sites that want to persist data should e-mail it to the user. Word, Excel, PDF and HTML attachments are directly viewable from inside iPhone's mail app while iPhone is not on the network. The mail app warns you that you can't access data while off the air, but you can ignore it. Attachments are downloaded. Hyperlinks with long parameter lists can stand in for off-line storage. I created a special e-mail alias that I set aside solely for that purpose.

You can't insert pointers to other e-mail messages, and there is still no way to access iPhone files directly.

You can also use e-mail to create a desktop of sorts containing icons for sites and Web apps you use often. Bookmarks in Safari are text-only, but an HTML page in Mail can use IMG hyperlinks just fine.

Posted by Tom Yager on July 10, 2007 10:38 AM

July 10, 2007 | Comments: (0)

iPhone Web app development speeds ahead

If you want to create perfect iPhone Web apps, or see examples of sites that make the grade, you only need to study this magnificent page at iPhoneWebDev.com.

The iPhoneWebDev site, like most good things related to Web development for iPhone, is a by-product of iPhoneDevCamp, a flash-mob gathering of iPhone coders that convened right after the device's launch.

There are already some marvelous iPhone app/sites out there--check out appleopolis.com. Many of these app/sites are listed in multiple Appleopolis' directory categories, so the count looks higher than it really is. I've got a column to file, so I'll check back in with the gems from this collection. You don't need iPhone to see them. Grab the Safari 3 beta and use iPhoney. iPhoney isn't a simulator--Apple really needs to do one--but it does create a properly-sized window for accurate display of sites that want to look like native iPhone apps.

Posted by Tom Yager on July 10, 2007 10:01 AM

July 06, 2007 | Comments: (0)

iPhone unbrick (activate w/o AT&T service) hack works; single-step tool for Mac

Update: This page has a one-step downloadable tool for Mac users, and it includes the keys that make the directions in the following link easier for PC users to follow. The whole business in the PC technique about decompiling the .net assembly is to dig out encryption keys embedded in that code. The author of the original crack, Jon Johansen of DeCSS (the DVD copy protect crack) fame, didn't want to make it too easy.

You can now buy an iPhone and "unbrick" it (meaning, get past the globe and the activation nag) using a hack that's not a simple process, and a PC is required, but it is laid out step by step.

It comes down to this. You patch itunes.exe, set Apple's authorization host to 127.0.0.1, and run a mini-server that acts like Apple's activation server.

There are many reports of success and lots of confusion. Once you're unbricked, apparently you stay that way until the next major release. In other words, every time Apple issues a patch, it's very likely that it will undo prior cracks. iPhone may become a brick again if it's activated improperly.

Ideally, Apple would let the unbricking crack stick. It gives users the freedom to use iPhone as an iPod/PDA/WLAN browser without paying $60+/month to AT&T, and Apple maintains deniability because the crack wasn't its idea.

In the ideal ideal, Apple will just ship iPhone unbricked, which would have been the right thing all along. Paying $499 or $599 for a perfect media player, and then having to pay $36, plus committing to $60 x 24 months before you can play a song, is ludicrous.

Posted by Tom Yager on July 6, 2007 07:25 AM

July 04, 2007 | Comments: (0)

iPhone SIM works in any non-iPhone handset for calls, but not for data

As I expected, you can pull the SIM card from an activated iPhone and place it in any phone you wish. However, all you'll be able to do is make phone calls. Any Web or e-mail access you attempt with the other phone will be billed to you at $.01/kilobyte, or $10.24 per megabyte. Information Superhighway robbery.

I tried attaching a generic AT&T data plan ("MEdia Net") to the SIM. It seemed to work at first, but then AT&T's automated daily sweep of subscriber records removed it. The company's policy stipulates that if an iPhone Data Plan is active on an account, no other data plan is allowed.

This is probably no big deal for anyone else, but it's a show-stopper for me. I need to be able to swap that SIM between phones in order to do reviews. If I want to pay the extra $19.95/month for a non-iPhone data plan, AT&T ought to take my money, don't you think?

Posted by Tom Yager on July 4, 2007 08:37 PM

July 04, 2007 | Comments: (0)

The unofficial Apple TV SDK is a model for white hat iPhone hackers

"Harmless" is the operative word.

Posted by Tom Yager on July 4, 2007 08:08 AM

July 02, 2007 | Comments: (0)

Commentary on Jefferson Graham (USA Today) iPhone interview w/CEOs Jobs and Stephenson

Jefferson Graham's interview of Steve Jobs and AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson (USA Today, 6/30/07) is the only non-technical piece written on iPhone that's worth reading. So go read it. I intentionally pulled as little text as possible from the piece, so this is not a summary or "best of" cut of Graham's work. My thanks and kudos go out to USA Today and Jefferson Graham for an excellent interview.

Graham: The critics were effusive in praise for the iPhone, but had issues with the iPhone and the EDGE network, which they say is slower than others. How do you respond?

Stephenson: With a device like this, you need a broad based network that covers every nook and cranny of the country. That's EDGE. It does a nice job.

The AT&T 3G device I have here falls back to EDGE, so at least one 3G device qualifies for "...every nook and cranny."

Stephenson: (cont'd) It [iPhone] also has Wi-Fi, which is better than anything you'll find in any handset.

This is incorrect and unfair to other handset manufacturers. There are many handsets in iPhone's price range, some in AT&T's own catalog, that are equipped with Wi-Fi.

Jobs: [...] What we've found is that Edge is terrific for e-mail and basic Internet usage. When people need more speed, there's Wi-Fi. The nice thing about Wi-Fi is it's way faster than 3G. People are in areas with Wi-Fi much more than they think. I walk into work with the iPhone, and it instantly switches to a Wi-Fi network. If I'm walking down the street in downtown Palo Alto, the iPhone will switch from EDGE to Wi-Fi. It's very fluid.

I apologize to USA Today for pulling this long passage intact, but Graham's question drew Jobs into an answer that's his most relevant and telling statement on iPhone to date. Jobs' pitch that Wi-Fi is commonplace supports the use of iPhone as a handheld PC (like MS Windows Mobile Pocket PC Edition). A consumer who already has a phone would find iPhone well worth its cost in this capacity, but Apple has explicitly blocked that option. I believe that's bad business. I understand that its contract with AT&T makes it dicey to open iPhone to other carriers, but Apple can remove immediate AT&T activation as a requirement for making iPhone function as a handheld PC, and it must be pressured to do so.

Jobs also describes a usage scenario that positions iPhone as a mobile professional's handset, so it deserves to be judged against other devices in that category.

Graham: What about corporate e-mail? I understand that's an issue for many consumers, who may not be able to hook up to their company networks?

Great question!

Jobs: You'll be hearing more about this in the coming weeks. We have some pilots going with companies with names you'll recognize. This won't be a big issue.

Might this be the first of the third-party software developed with an unreleased software development kit? Perhaps that which will hit the fan is already in mid-flight.

Graham: When will the iPhone go on sale overseas?

Jobs: We have no announcement to make now.

I'm guessing that the deal with AT&T makes this dicey. For iPhone to be sold overseas, it has to be opened to multiple operators, including AT&T competitors that operate in the US and international operators that have roaming agreements with AT&T competitors. This would also create a gray market for re-imported iPhones.

Graham: So many analysts have suggested that with the expected success of the iPhone, Apple is about to be transformed into a different kind of company. What's your take?

Jobs: Working together with a partner like AT&T is a change for us. [...] By working together, we can come up with innovations that are exciting.

Stephenson: Voicemail is one of the least favorite products I sell. Now, with visual voice mail, it's a product I like.

Visual Voicemail is iPhone's killer professional feature. It's a significant step toward unified messaging, where all inbound communication is accessible through your inbox. I'd like to see all handset manufacturers and wireless operators jump on this. It requires a team effort, and AT&T and Apple deserve credit for bringing it together.

Graham: Do you still think you'll sell 10 million iPhones in the first calendar year — or will it be more?

Jobs: We think 10 million is a realistic goal.

If iPhone goes global, it'll hit that goal. Apple will have to open iPhone to developers to see those numbers in the US. Games alone would push iPhone over the top; VOIP over Wi-Fi, which could be done in open source, would be huge. If iPhone could be used as a handheld PC without AT&T activation and $60/month service, and if it was sold through Apple's broader iPod channel, its US sales would triple.

Graham: Except for operating system upgrades and Apple TV, the company historically announces a product and then has it for sale immediately. The build-up and hype for the iPhone has been unprecedented — will this change the way you market products?

Great question!

Jobs' response sums up to "no," and that's a good thing.

iPhone could have been done as a traditional quiet launch. It would have sold just as well, and the craze that Apple attempted to provoke wouldn't be the running joke that it is.

Posted by Tom Yager on July 2, 2007 09:08 AM

July 01, 2007 | Comments: (0)

iPhone purchase day findings: Good, bad, silly, sleazy

I'm not sure which stories belong where, so here's the iPhone story I wrote the first day with the device.

Posted by Tom Yager on July 1, 2007 09:04 PM

June 26, 2007 | Comments: (0)

AT&T positions new 8525 Pocket PC, promo price $299, as key iPhone alternative

Mobile buyers brought to AT&T's site by iPhone's pre-launch excitement will be greeted with a number of iPhone alternatives, but AT&T has pushed one to the front of the pack. AT&T chopped $300 off the $599 list price of its newest top-end 3G device, the 8525 Windows Mobile 5 Pocket PC, just in time for iPhone's launch.

I find AT&T's re-pricing particularly interesting since the 8525 is the very handset I chose to pit against iPhone. The 8525 is a business handset with consumer features, while iPhone is a consumer handset with business features. They both converge, yet they end up in very different places.

The features table below is part of a work in progress for my InfoWorld Test Center shoot-out among iPhone, T-Mobile BlackBerry 8800 and the AT&T 8525. The 8800 is not in this table. You'll see the contrast in manufacturers' business/consumer priorities clearly. It would be a mistake to read opinions into this table, and the table may contain typos or research misses. As I said, it's a work in progress.

I've been carrying an 8525 for about a month in preparation for the shoot-out and as part of my real-life road warrior mobile device testing regimen. I'll hold my opinions for the review, but I will say that the 8525 is dear at its $599 list price, appropriately priced at AT&T's standard $449 2-year subsidized price, and is worth checking out in person at $299.

AT&T has not set an end date for the 8525's $299 promotional pricing, but it will end.

The 8525's killer feature will be its Windows Mobile 6 upgrade, which AT&T promises for the third quarter of this year. Expect it to be downloadable, but not necessarily free. If the 8525 had shown with Windows Mobile 6 in time for iPhone's launch, the landscape might look quite different.

	AT&T 8525	Apple iPhone
Mobile networks	GSM/GPRS/EDGE, 3G (UMTS/HSDPA)	GSM/GPRS/EDGE
Unlocks for non-AT&T networks	Yes, at AT&T's discretion (ask at end of contract)	Unknown
TCP/IP downstream speed	400-800 Kbps AT&T est.	No Apple est. (EDGE ~128 Kbps)
Wi-Fi	802.11b/g	802.11b/g
Bluetooth	2.0	2.0 + extended data rate (EDR)
Camera	2 megapixel w/LED flash	2 megapixel
Platform	Windows Mobile 5 Pocket PC (upgrade to WM6 in Q3)	OS X
Display	2.8" 320x240 touch (finger/stylus)	3.5" 320x480 capacitive multi-touch
Keyboard	Backlit QWERTY, slide out	On-screen QWERTY
Buttons	Power, trackwheel, push to talk, nav pad+select, others	Power
CPU	32-bit Samsung ARM	Intel x86
E-mail	Pocket Outlook (Exchange/IMAP/POP), Good, AT&T Xpress Mail	Proprietary (IMAP/POP)
Browser	Pocket Internet Explorer Opera opt.	Safari
Chat/IM	Yahoo, AOL (iChat), Windows Live, SMS, MMS	SMS
Media player	Windows Media 10	Proprietary/QuickTime
Java VM	Yes	No
Flash Player	No	No
Dev platform	.net Compact Framework	JavaScript/Dashboard
Dev tools	Visual Studio 2005, $799	TBD (Leopard Dashcode?)
PC Internet gateway/modem	Yes,EDGE/3G	TBD
Attachment View/Edit	Word,Excel,PowerPoint	HTML (edit?)
Light sensor	Yes	Yes
Orientation sensor	Keyboard slide-out switches to landscape	Yes, accelerometer
Proximity sensor	No	Yes (answers call)
Voice dialing	Yes,in-phone	TBD
Voice commands	Yes	TBD
Sync	ActiveSync, MS Direct Push OTA Contacts,calendar,e-mail,tasks	iTunes Contacts,calendar,e-mail,bookmarks
User memory	64 MB internal + add-in SD card (opt)	4 or 8 GB, non-expandable
Talk time	5 hours	8 hours
Standby time	240 hours	250 hours
Size	4.43 x 2.28 x 0.86"	4.5 x 2.4 x 0.46"
Weight	6.2 ounces	4.8 ounces
Price	$599 list $449 w/2 yr contract $299 AT&T 2 yr contract promo 6/26/07 ($100 of promo discount is mail-in rebate)	$499/$599 list 4 GB/8 GB RAM 2 yr contract req'd

Posted by Tom Yager on June 26, 2007 10:14 PM

June 26, 2007 | Comments: (0)

iPhone distribution set: Apple Store, Apple on-line Store and AT&T Store. Now, what's an AT&T Store?

If you haven't seen an AT&T Store around, they might not have taken down their Cingular sign yet.

There are AT&T stores and AT&T Stores. Most locations are Authorized Dealers rather than company-owned stores. I have a feeling that, at least initially, iPhone will be sold through AT&T company-owned stores.

How can you tell the difference? AT&T's store locator lists "Apple iPhone" among the store search criteria. However, selecting it brings up zero matches. AT&T provides an overlay for Google Earth that identifies the locations of company-owned stores. As you can see from the attached image, there are a few near me.

I'm disappointed that Apple didn't authorize my favorite place to buy phones. Jokes about the 'Shack abound, but they bend over backwards to support wireless customers after the sale. I think that iPhone's channel may broaden after a few months to include AT&T Authorized dealers.

I have all kinds of questions about the handling of iPhone customer support that I hope to have answered in a briefing with Apple.

Posted by Tom Yager on June 26, 2007 11:34 AM

June 26, 2007 | Comments: (0)

iPhone rate plans announced

Apple has posted a video guide to activating the iPhone, which resolves the last remaining mysteries related to Apple's first wireless mobile device.

AT&T's iPhone rate plans will be $59.99, $79.99 and $99.99 for 450, 900 and 1350 daytime minutes, respectively. The $59.99 plan includes 5000 night and weekend minutes, while the other two plans come with unlimited night/weekend minutes. 200 SMS messages are standard with all plans. An additional $10/month will buy you 1500 SMS messages, and for $20/month, AT&T offers unlimited text messaging.

An activation fee of $36.00 applies to all new accounts.

All of the iPhone plans include unlimited data service for e-mail and Web browsing, along with unlimited use of "visual voice mail," which is Apple's on-phone GUI for voice mail retrieval.

Relevant screens from the activation process follow.

Snapshot 2007-06-26 11-21-30