iphone + exploit + homebrew = virus/malwares/brickers(PSP term)

In the iPhone’s case, it’s an iPod that can be a phone and that’s how it is being marketed. There are points backing up my argument when people stop thinking of it as a smart phone/pda and more like an iPod.

Fair enough, and I agree that Apple would love for people to see it as a consumer-level device, an iPod + a cell phone.

There are three big problems with that, though: 1) it’s 500-600 dollars, 2) their own keynote called out smartphones as their competitors — the Motorola Q instead of the RAZR, for instance, and 3) it’s presented as doing the things a smartphone does. By that I mean the main interface isn’t a music player that also makes phone calls, but a suite of components.

And yeah, it really is a big deal that we can’t install stuff on this device. For one thing, the current data rates away from a WiFi hot spot are anything but “high speed.” Plus, they’re expensive. Even if those two points weren’t enough to kill it, a web-based app (especially if Flash and Java aren’t supported, and most reports indicate they won’t be) isn’t going to be as good an experience. Otherwise, I could just say my RAZR phone can do anything I could possibly want using its web browser — obviously, it can’t. And on top of that, a web-based app can’t access data elsewhere on the phone — for instance, some kind of todo list app that incorporates your mail attachments and address book contacts.

I hope you’re right, and Apple does address third party support. From what I’ve seen, that’s the biggest early complaint against the iPhone so far. (Apart from Cingular exclusivity, which sounds like it’s an insoluble problem for now). I’m not optimistic about it, though. Every independent app means they lose a potential sale over the iTunes Store, and Apple doesn’t have a good track record of altruism.

My point is very simply that the Mac community is highly talented and creative. Is it that big of a deal that we can’t install stuff on this device when it has Wi Fi and high speed cellular data access? Why couldn’t we be creative with this, running an app within Safari and providing creative ways that the zoom functions perform?

I do believe that Apple will, by choice or not, have to address the third party developer issue. I have no contempt for them, it’s what makes this platform amazing. In the iPhone’s case, it’s an iPod that can be a phone and that’s how it is being marketed. There are points backing up my argument when people stop thinking of it as a smart phone/pda and more like an iPod.

The most convincing argument to make the iPhone an open system is right there in the keynote, every time the phone gets turned on its side. It switches to CoverFlow, which wasn’t made by the geniuses at Apple but by a freeware developer who had access to an open development system. From the looks of things, the software included with the phone is nice. The software that could be developed by the thousands of developers out there who are excited about the phone, could be even better. The only reason not to let them do it: Apple and Cingular’s greed. Simple as that.

Well, here’s my problem: Apple decides whether or not my “great idea” for a phone application is worthy. By the way, do you think Apple will ever say “No”? Remember, Apple doesn’t say “No.” They say nothing because even saying “No” might give some meaning to their future plans.

Here’s how it works:

Step 1: I present my “great idea” to Apple in order to get software developer kits and such that I need to develop on for the iPhone.
Step 2: Nothing happens.
Step 3: The person I spoke with at Apple stops returning my calls.
Step 4: Six months pass.
Step 5: One year passes.
Step 6: Steve Jobs gets up on stage to announce an amazing new “iGreatIdea” app that Apple has developed.

Of course, there’s no way of knowing if Apple took my great idea or if they had already been developing my great idea.

Now tell me what business is actually going to take that chance?

Here’s the problem, as I see it: Apple is selling something which is not a “smart phone” at a “smart phone” price. Now, I think they iPhone is way cool. I think the interface is awesome. But it’s also too expensive for what it does. I’ll be able to spend the same money in six months and have a phone that does more. Or I can spend less money on a phone that does what Apple’s does.

Apple will sell a bunch of these initially, to the MacHeads that just gotta have it. But I think it will be a less popular device at $500. On the other hand, when Apple releases the iPod and especially the iPod nano with this interface, they are going to sell an absolute metric ton of these.

That and the fact that JavaScript is (currently) way slower than native or Flash apps – might change if they embed Adobe’s VM as Mozilla are.

What’s still unclear – to me – is whether third-party Widgets will be allowed – are widgets applications or not. And do any of the widgets shown support gestures?