iPhone

iPhone - News, Features, and Slideshows

News

  • iPhone trumps BlackBerry as user device

    Mobile solution decisionmakers, from individual professionals to CTOs, are beginning to see the need for style to play an increasing role in device selection, and the iPhone 3G is the de facto choice.
    Apple's iPhone 2.0 OS brought Cisco VPN, Exchange Server email, and native custom applications to Apple's devices, bringing utility to the mix to make the iPhone an enterprise shoo-in. On style, the iPhone is unbeatable. As a lure for prospective employees, a salve for ailing morale, or an image-setter in a business meeting, the iPhone 3G is unmatched. For some millions of buyers, that's the whole story, full stop, and there is nothing wrong with that.
    You may know that I have embarked on a project to supplant deployed BlackBerry handsets with iPhone 3G devices in an enterprise scenario. I've spent the past month or so with this.
    There's too much to cover in one column, so I'll reveal my findings over several weeks, with this week dedicated to the user experience of a professional switched from BlackBerry to iPhone 3G.

  • Obama camp offers iPhone app

    Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign team has released an application specifically for iPhone users to help supporters of the candidate connect with others and get involved, stay up to date on breaking issues and more.

  • How will Android compare to the iPhone?

    Google's Android is an open-source operating system meant to give smart phone manufacturers a powerful platform on which to base their phones. It's even been touted as a challenger to Apple's iPhone OS.

  • iPhone grabs top smartphone spot

    Apple boosted its share of the U.S. consumer smart phone market by 55 percent after cutting the price of its iPhone and rolling out a 3G model this summer, a research firm said Monday.

  • Apple to refresh iPod line, say analysts

    Apple will refresh its iPod line this week at an event in San Francisco, but it's uncertain what, if anything else, it will spring on customers, analysts said Monday.

  • iPhone hackers go too far, get shut down

    I was all set to give this week's column over to a new register-direct implementation of a JavaScript interpreter that's many times faster than all currently available implementations. It's not exactly growing hair on a billiard ball, but a nitro-boosted JavaScript will put a shine on AJAX and keep my most beloved language on track to becoming the gold standard for dynamic languages.
    Apple decided to nix that story in favour of yet another iPhone piece, this one to celebrate the short life of a project that opened the iPhone and the iPod Touch Unix to developers. The keepers of the project are responsible for its demise, because they made it impossible for Apple to discern between innocent developers looking to create an unencumbered open source community on Apple mobile hardware, and those who want to force Apple to break its exclusivity deal with AT&T.
    Up until a couple of days ago, it was possible to develop software for iPhone 2.0 devices (the iPhone, iPhone 3G, and iPod Touch running 2.0 firmware) without the encumbrances of Apple's onerous developer contracts and code-signing requirements. A very tidy iPhone 2.0 app called Cydia set up an App Store equivalent for open source developers and those interested in sampling their wares. With Cydia, there's no credit card required, no tracking of who had downloaded what, and no restrictions on the capabilities of applications.
    Open source software for iPhone 2.0 is produced and traded within a relatively small community that, in the majority, exemplifies the commandments of ethical hacking: Don't create victims, don't take money out of anyone's pocket, and make sure that the community's influence stays within the community. In other words, no malware, no piracy, and no infiltration among the non-savvy. If you keep to these rules, a community of hackers will generally be tolerated. Apple has quietly allowed open source iPhone development since the original iPhone was introduced. The community was gaining ground and respect. Books have been published, and one iPhone open source community leader addressed an SRO crowd at no less than an Apple Store.
    Wherever treasure is unearthed, pillagers gather. iPhone open source development was enabled by a pre-SDK project to "jailbreak" iPhone 1.x firmware so that user-created iPhone applications could be installed and run. This required changes to the firmware, but it could be done without redistribution (Apple makes it freely downloadable). After jailbreaking came research into unpublished APIs and into the extent to which POSIX APIs were supported.
    Open source development got under way in earnest, but for some of the people who undertook it, the jailbreak project was a stepping stone towards the ultimate goal of unlocking iPhone for use on any carrier's network. This was primarily a reaction to Apple's US exclusive with AT&T. I'm not crazy about that either, but hackers need to understand that Apple is contractually obligated to keep iPhone owners locked to Ma Bell's network. That means that Apple has to attack well-publicised efforts to unlock its device until its deal with AT&T expires.
    iPhone unlockers recently issued a foolhardy boast that put them on the front page. They claimed that they had successfully unlocked the first-generation iPhone, using nothing but software, in such a way that Apple could not relock the device to AT&T. A Mac utility called Pwnagetool gave nonsavvy users a foolproof means to jailbreak and carrier-unlock their first-gen iPhones running 2.0 firmware.
    I ran Pwnagetool on my iPod Touch because I needed a secure shell (SSH) client for use on my wireless LAN. There is no cellular radio in an iPod Touch, so unlocking doesn't enter the picture. The tool is easy. Cydia pointed me directly to the open source package I needed, which turned out to equip the iPod Touch with an SSH server as well. Yup. The iPhone open sourcers can run background processes on your iPhone. It's fun to SSH into an iPod and run a shell session, but I found reaching out from the iPod Touch to my servers far more useful.
    Apple's 2.0.1 firmware update accomplishes what hackers had claimed Apple couldn't do: It relocks an iPhone to AT&T. The original boast was predicated on the fact that through all of its prior updates, Apple had never updated the baseband (cellular radio) firmware. Well, 2.0.1 breaks this tradition, and it breaks unlocking.
    Apple's iPhone 2.0.1 firmware also breaks iPhone open source development. My iPod Touch, which never made any trouble for AT&T or Apple, and never cost any App Store vendor a dime in lost sales, won't run Unix apps any more. I'm back to hauling a notebook around when just my iPod Touch would do.
    Maybe the iPhone open source community will hack the iPhone open again. In the meantime, it's still possible to operate an iPhone or iPod Touch with open source jailbreak by avoiding the 2.0.1 firmware update, but as it does with iTunes, Apple is adept at turning voluntary updates into a practical necessity by making related products dependent on the latest update.
    There is an amicable way out of this. The best thing for all concerned would be for Apple to enable iPhone 2.0 open source development and the running of unsigned applications (such as shell or Python scripts), but only for device owners who explicitly consent to it. I'm all for protecting users from unwittingly welcoming nonpedigreed software into their iPhones. I'll be big about it and set aside the fact that an Apple-issued pedigree doesn't make software run any better.
    An open source iPhone community benefits Apple by turning the iPhone into a platform in the Mac sense of the term, and this isn't at odds with Apple's App Store venture. Yes, iPhone unlockers spoiled the party for everybody. But Apple can lock out the unlockers while letting the iPhone open source party go on.

  • iPhone contracts leave developers speechless

    Apple apparently chose the best possible template for its iPhone developer programmes: its own Apple Developer Connection for OS X. Why it then made the iPhone SDK confidential even for those who download it for free poses a puzzling contradiction in the company's seemingly open approach to development.
    The basic ADC membership is open to everyone and free of charge. All you need is a verifiable (at least temporarily) email address to obtain a free Apple ID. Free and paying ADC members get exactly the same commercial-grade development tools, samples and docs. Depending on their membership level, paying members get additional access to pre-release software, prepaid tech support incidents, hardware discounts, and WWDC tickets. Free members face no disadvantages when it comes to creating and distributing applications for the current or prior release of OS X. That cornerstone of the Mac platform accounts for its large catalogue of high-quality free and inexpensive applications, as well as its loyal and welcoming community of developers. ADC is the magnet that draws developers to the Mac from other platforms.
    By choosing ADC's tiered programmes as a model, it seemed that Apple had tilled the field for an instant and vibrant iPhone developer community. Then it salted the ground by making the iPhone SDK confidential even for those who download it for free. The upshot is that every citizen of planet earth can get the iPhone SDK at no charge, but they're contractually obligated to Apple not to discuss the SDK or exchange ideas with others. The agreements leave no room for forums, newsgroups, open source projects, tutorials, magazine articles, users' groups or books.
    The terms and conditions of the most restrictive agreements to which all iPhone developers are bound are secret. A few sentences from the nonconfidential iPhone Registered Developer Agreement (PDF) are sufficient to illustrate the breadth and severity of the restrictions. As is always the case, you must not rely on my excerpts or analysis as a summary of the agreement or as legal advice.
    From Section 3, Confidentiality: "You agree not to disclose, publish or disseminate any Confidential Information to anyone other than to other Registered iPhone Developers who are employees and contractors working for the same entity as you and then only to the extent that Apple does not otherwise prohibit such disclosure in this Agreement."
    What's "Confidential Information"? The Agreement contains two definitions, one in Section 3 that's broad and rambling but with specific and liberal exceptions, and one in Section 4 that's concise and inescapable:
    From Section 4, iPhone Materials: "All iPhone Materials shall be considered the Confidential Information of Apple"
    Section 4 also makes unrestricted allowance for additional tightening of screws (not quoted in full): "All use of the iPhone Materials shall be subject to this Agreement, unless such iPhone Materials are accompanied by a separate license agreement, notice or disclaimer (collectively, "Other Agreement") in which case such Other Agreement will govern to the extent of any inconsistencies with this Agreement [...]"
    There are two Other agreements (the secret ones): one that governs free use of the SDK and the other, responsibilities of iPhone Developer Program members. I have no problems with the latter. When money gets involved, that changes the rules, and Developer Program members have access to trade secrets. My problem is that Apple brands publicly available information — that is, the released and freely downloadable iPhone SDK — as confidential. Laypeople who are ill equipped to interpret the secret Agreement attached to the free iPhone SDK are likely to assent to it without reading it, if they're aware that it applies to them at all.
    I can't discuss the secret SDK Agreement, but you can read it for yourself by signing up as an iPhone Registered Developer.
    This isn't Apple-bashing. This is serious business. You'll see arguments from armchair legal analysts that the iPhone developer Agreements won't stand up in court — but those analysts certainly won't stand up in court on your behalf. When you download the SDK, you grant Apple special rights to injunctions and suits against you for unspecified damages in addition to their rights under the law.
    The iPhone developer Agreements covering the freely accessible iPhone SDK are not EULAs that you can blindly click to sign without study. It turns out that the iPhone developer programmes are the antithesis of the developer-friendly Apple Developer Connection. The iPhone Agreements are risk-laden contracts that make the iPhone SDK one of the most dangerous downloads on the internet. It is certainly the most heavily encumbered free software I've encountered.
    If you're planning a forum, newsgroup, users' group, open source project, book or any discussion of iPhone development, the only path to protection from liability is explicit written approval from someone at Apple. Have a lawyer draft your request for exemption, and make sure that the Apple staffer granting it personally commits to status as authorised to approve exceptions to the iPhone Registered Developer and iPhone SDK Agreements.
    The concerns I have expressed relate only to free access to the SDK. Terms of the paid iPhone Developer Program are appropriately confidential, and in my view, Apple offers paying individual developers a generous balance between benefits and responsibilities. This said, shutting the door to all opportunities for discussion of the freely available iPhone SDK hurts all iPhone developers.

  • IDC warns iPhone users over data costs

    Analyst firm IDC is warning Australians that the overall value in iPhone 3G pricing plans leaves a lot to be desired and comes with costly excess usage charges.

  • Apple's MobileMe offers Mobile life without Exchange

    The competitive marketing brickbat that Apple flung at BlackBerry — that BlackBerry's push email works only with Microsoft Exchange, as if Exchange were an onerous burden — has quietly vanished from Apple's campaign.
    Exchange Server turns out to be the only customer-hosted messaging back end supported by iPhone 3G and first-gen iPhones running 2.0 software. It's true that BlackBerry requires BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES), but BES integrates with Domino and Groupwise as well as Exchange, and BES works transparently with non-BlackBerry devices through BlackBerry Connect. I'll always be here to set the record straight.
    If you balk at the extra $3,000 to $10,000 it takes to strap BES onto Exchange, then your needs are more basic. You may be best served by a third-party hosting provider, but even that can be overkill for individual professionals and small businesses. RIM's solution for individuals is BlackBerry Internet Services (BIS), its own hosted push messaging. BIS is bundled free with T-Mobile's BlackBerry coverage plans (I can't speak for other carriers), and it replaces an earlier consumer-targeted service that included a web-based mail reader and server-side message filters.
    I liked that service, but it carried a stringent limit on mailbox size, which BIS does away with, in addition to the Web interface. On T-Mobile's network, messages aren't stored where you can get at them using anything but your BlackBerry, but BIS can keep an unlimited number of messages in flight until they're either fully delivered or they bounce to the sender after several days of failed delivery. BIS can maintain multiple mailboxes for each subscriber, with separate folders on the device's home menu and dedicated client-side filters (for example, vibrate for VIP messages even when the phone is in quiet mode). You can gateway POP3 mail through BIS, and although POP isn't inherently push-capable, once BIS picks up a message, it follows the same assured delivery path as any other BlackBerry missive.
    Anything that's free comes with a catch, and in the case of BIS, it only handles email. You can send and receive appointments and individual contacts packaged as standard email attachments, but they don't hit your calendar or address book until you open the attachment. Also, unless you're running BES, your calendar and address book live only on your device until you manually back them up on your desktop. BIS affords users no gateway to the sort of live collaboration, shared folders, and instant messaging offered by Exchange and BES. That's why "enterprise" is BES's middle name.
    Apple didn't frame .Mac, its subscription-based online service for Mac clients, as a solution for professionals. However, Steve Jobs touts .Mac's evolved form, MobileMe, as "Exchange for the rest of us" — quite a boast indeed. MobileMe, which costs US$99 per year or Us$149 for a five-user pack, is the only way non-Exchange users can get push email to their iPhones. MobileMe has that in common with BIS, but the similarities end there.
    I am a longtime .Mac subscriber, so I'm familiar with MobileMe's features: 10GB of sharable online storage, slick AJAX mail, address book and calendar clients with sweet touches like recipient completion, the requisite personal website/blog, and photo gallery.
    Fairly recently, .Mac took on a couple of new roles custom tailored for professional users. It provides manual or scheduled synchronisation of contacts, bookmarks, appointments, mail rules and mailboxes (not messages) across multiple Mac clients. Everything synced with your Mac is reflected immediately in MobileMe's web interface. Back to My Mac, also relatively new, is a secure screen-sharing gateway that burrows through residential Internet providers' NAT and router firewalls. For those of us who have more than one Mac, .Mac is our sanity's savior. MobileMe is at least that.
    A simple characterisation of MobileMe is that it's .Mac with iPhone support. That would be enough to recommend it, but there's much more to it. MobileMe adds push capabilities for email, calendar and address book so that the clients and devices you enrol for synchronisation with your MobileMe account are updated within seconds of any change made by a client or via MobileMe's web interface. The update delay, as demonstrated by Apple, is minor — short enough to allay my suspicions that iPhone is just polling MobileMe at close intervals.
    Based on Apple's claims, which I can't prove out until my iPhone 3G arrives tomorrow, MobileMe has the power to elevate iPhone to lead consideration among smartphones for mobile professionals. If MobileMe doesn't already read too good to be true, consider the grace note: Windows Outlook clients can now be joined to MobileMe's pool of push-synced clients. If calling MobileMe "Exchange for the rest of us" doesn't target MobileMe at individual professionals, then support for Outlook, which is hardly the mail client of choice for home users, makes a clearer case; $99 per year for push email plus over-the-air, cross-platform desktop/device sync is an absolute no-brainer.
    I've contemplated, but not tested, the notion that Apple might have used ActiveSync or a protocol enough like it to fool Outlook, to push MobileMe messages and updates. Why not? We know that Apple licensed ActiveSync for its iPhone 2.0 software. I'm getting ahead of myself by imagining MobileMe as a premier individual messaging and sync service for Windows and Windows Mobile smartphones, but that'd be a kick in the head.
    BIS may end up looking pretty anemic compared to MobileMe from a features perspective, but it executes its limited feature set flawlessly. There's no need to qualify my recommendation of BIS to a professional user that only needs push email with guaranteed intact delivery in both directions. I have used BIS in that role, on and off, for years. The problems I've had with it have been of my own making. MobileMe has to prove itself to be a bulletproof individual push messaging solution above all else, and I'll be taking regular and ruthless shots at it as I give iPhone 3G a chance to serve where BlackBerry has gone before it.
    Enterprises don't need a stand-in for Exchange Server. Neither BIS nor MobileMe permit the building of workgroups, and they don't enforce policies or otherwise enable central management of devices. Organisations with these needs that have even a few handsets in their fleet will find Exchange, Groupwise or Domino a necessity. iPhone will have to earn its reputation as an enterprise device by mating with Exchange Server as seamlessly as my BlackBerry and Windows Mobile devices do. But iPhone also has to satisfy the needs of one, two, or five users. MobileMe puts Apple on an ambitious path toward that goal.

[]