Third-Party iPhone Software Deal Breaker
In my opinion Apple's decision regarding third-party iPhone application development needs to be based on their target market.
The closed-architecture option will satisfy the $50 flip phone user who is looking for a device with additional capacity and enhanced feature-set. These individuals have accepted the closed environment, and will likely remain satisfied with this phone for several years after the purchase. Unfortunately, they are also accustomed to being rewarded with a new phone when they renew their contract every two years. This will probably be the more difficult sale for Apple.
On the other hand, Palm and Windows Mobile Pocket PC owners are familiar with the $400 price tag. Looking at the price alone, this would likely make for an easy sale. However, the limitations of the closed-architecture Apple is considering will not impress these individuals. I work with someone who runs several third-party applications on a Windows Mobile 5 PPC device. This person has told me he is impressed with the design and interface of the iPhone but would not consider the purchase unless he knew he could get a replacement for his eWallet application. In this case, a $30 password tracker will reduce Apple’s iPhone sales by one. A possible solution would be for Apple to develop a replacement for every eWallet type application out there. How long do you think it would take Apple to recreate the 12,691 software titles listed on Handango for the Windows Mobile Pocket PC and 10,385 applications for the Palm? They had better start hiring some more developers!
An argument I have heard to support the closed-architecture is that having "Apple Approved" applications for the phone will improve its overall stability and user experience. Are they saying that they can't protect the core functions of the device from the applications? I find it a little hard to believe that Apple would create a device based on a modified version of OS X that could be so easily compromised. Also, a Newsweek article quotes Steve Jobs as saying "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn’t want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up". I would expect Cingular/AT&T to secure their network from iPhone applications in the same way they do from the applications that run on the Windows Mobile devices they sell. Now for the user experience argument. I would expect a consistent interface could be created if Apple required developers to utilize standard development tools, controls, API's, etc.
Perhaps Apple never intended this device to be a replacement for the Pocket PC. The confusing thing for consumers is that the iPhone looks like, acts like, and is priced like a full featured PDA.
This is an important tradeoff between security and openness. We want both. We’re working through a way… we’ll find a way to let 3rd parties write apps and still preserve security on the iPhone. But until we find that way we can’t compromise the security of the phone.
Update: During D5 1:15 p.m.: Is the iPhone's platform closed? And if it is, will it be open to developers in the future? Jobs says it's a security issue, but Apple is working to find a way to allow developers to build applications for it. Jobs says he doesn't want the iPhone to be "one of those phones that crashes a few times a day." He adds: "We would like to solve this problem and if you could just be a little more patient with us, we'll do it."
Apple is being very short-sighted on this issue. As a former Trio owner I'm accustomed to having 3rd party applications available to me, i.e. Wine Guide, Pocket Quicken, Solitaire to name a few.
I'm also disappointed in Apple for not including a To-Do List manager on the iPhone, and I'm equally disappointed in myself for not catching that before I made my purchase. How can you call the iPhone a PDA without this feature?
If Apple is worried about 3rd party applications interfering with the iPhone's functionality or AT&T's network, than they should provide 3rd party developers with an SDK, and approve the app before allowing it to be sold to the public.