iPhone 3.0 Software Announced 619
Apple unveiled the iPhone 3.0 software just now in Cupertino. Here's MacWorld's live-action blow-by-blow coverage. The announcement included new features for developers and users. For developers, the big items were in-app purchasing (for example for game upgrades, map content, and subscriptions) for paid apps only; peer-to-peer connectivity via Bluetooth; giving apps access to hardware via the dock connector or Bluetooth; maps embeddable in apps; and push notifications. For users, there's finally cut-copy-paste available in all apps; search across everything in the iPhone; landscape keyboard; MMS messaging; and voice memos. Developer beta starts today and 3.0 will be available in the summer — free for all 3G phones, $10 for iPod Touch.
Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that covers a list of features I really wanted as a would be dev and a iphone owner. All I can say is "fucking finally!"
Touch users have to pay??? (Score:4, Insightful)
WHy does apple do this kind of crap? Is the touch less expensive or subsidized or ANYTHING that would justify having to pay vs their Iphone counterparts?
Congratulations, Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
You've now achieved what Palm devices could do ten years ago.
Yeah but... (Score:0, Insightful)
Still no Adobe Flash (Score:2, Insightful)
For crying out loud... (Score:5, Insightful)
*EVERY* time Apple announce something new for the touch/iphone, it costs an extra $10 on the touch.
*EVERY* time someone moans about that.
*EVERY* time someone else points out that Apple account for iphone sales over a period of time, thus allowing them to maneuver around the ridiculous Sarbonnes-Oxley requirements. They bill the touch as a one-off, so can't add new functionality without there being a representative charge.
Whether you agree with them or not, that's their position (presumably that of their highly-paid lawyers, too). Get over it, *every* time you add onto the touch, you're going to pay extra.
Simon.
Copy/Paste (Score:2, Insightful)
I, for one, welcome Apple to 1983 by gaining the capabilities of the Macintosh 512k.
Re:Congratulations, Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, some of it anyway. Still no good calendar or to-do list. (And yes, I'm ignoring anything which stores data on 3rd party servers and requires internet access to look at.)
Re:what's STILL missing (Score:3, Insightful)
So you really want a Blackberry Storm with an Apple logo on it?
Re:what's STILL missing (Score:5, Insightful)
* tell me how many characters my damn SMS is at
Re:Now about that 32GB issue... (Score:3, Insightful)
That 32GB iPod Touch just isn't cutting it at all and I loathe that classic iPod. Hurry up with the 64GB upgrade already.
Yeah, because you really need more than 10,000 songs on you. God forbid you have to listen to the same song twice in 2 months.
I have a metric crap ton of music too. But realistically. Even the 8GB model is more enough for music, especially if you can re-sync it once a week or so.
And while I wouldn't mind a capacity bump in the next release, its hardly the most important feature. I'd value battery life, better speaker, gps, and dozen other features more than more memory.
Re:DLC Hell (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed; I am not a fan of the microtransaction model.
I like my game purchases to be complete games, not games with huge gaping holes in them (coming soon!) or games that are really only shells for lots of nickle-and-dime DLC, which is exactly what that FPS they demoed appeared to be.
However, buying content though apps is not without merit. Kindle for iPhone currently takes people through Safari to make purchases, which quite a few people complained about. They would be able to buy new books directly from the app. (Of course, Apple has a Free-means-free policy, so they'd probably have to start charging for the app in addition to the books- but $.99 is easier to swallow than $359). This could also work for companies like iVerse Media, who sells comic books. Rather than have each issue as a separate app complete with reader software, they could bundle them all up under an iVerse app. That way I won't have a bunch of issues of Atomic Robo all over my home screen.
The best move Apple made was the free-means-free policy. If an app is free, you can't go charging for bits inside it. I would not be happy to download a free app and find that I had to pay $.99 per widget in order to unlock all the useful bits.
Re:I don't think you are going to be happy (Score:3, Insightful)
Huge mistake by Apple; this is one of the few features that Palm hasn't (yet) confirmed for the Pre, and it's one that business users in particular want. Heck, Apple itself sells a Bluetooth keyboard! {ProfJonathan}
Let the complaints begin . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's is something you don't like about the iPhone, you have choices like the Android but if you are patient, Apple might address your issue sometime in the future. It's not a matter of life and death that Apple didn't release the feature you wanted:
2001:
.
Apple: Introducting the iPod: 1000 songs in your pocket.
Naysayers:"No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." Seriously who's going to buy this? It is Mac only, uses Firewire, and costs $400!!
2002:
Apple: iPod 2.0: Touch sensitive scroll wheel. Now compatible with Windows. Up to 20GB
Naysayers: Okay, more space than a Nomad, but no wireless. Firewire only. Still expensive. Easily scratched
2003:
Apple: iPod 3.0: UI Redesign. Now USB compatible. Up to 40GB
Naysayers:Still waiting for wireless. Still expensive. No video or photo capability. Really I need something smaller, maybe flash based. Easily scratched. Still expensive
2004:
Apple: iPod mini: Smaller version of iPod. 4 or 6 GB disk based. iPod 4.0. UI Redesign. Clickwheel. Up to 40GB. iPod 4.1: now with color and photo capability. Up to 60GB
Naysayers:Still no wireless. Still expensive. No video. Maybe a phone/iPod combination would work. Easily scratched. Still expensive
2005:
Apple:iPod Shuffle: Ultra-portable iPod. Up to 1GB. iPod mini v2: New colors. iPod nano: Flash based. Color. Replacing mini. Up to 4GB. iPod 5.0: Now with video. Up to 80GB
Naysayers:No screen on the shuffle. Small video screen on the iPod. And it's not a touch screen. Replace the profitable mini, are they insane? The nano scraches too easily! Still no wireless. When is Apple going to make an iPhone? Still expensive
2006:
Apple:iPod Shuffle: Even smaller. Metallic shell. Up to 2GB. iPod nano: New scratch-resistant metallic shell. More battery life. Up to 8GB.
Naysayers:I can't use the new shuffle as a USB stick! Still no wireless or widescreen or touchscreen. No iPhone. Easily scratched. Still expensive
January 2007:
Apple:iPhone: multi-touch, widescreen iPod + mobile phone + internet browser + wireless
Naysayers:I wanted the phone part to be separate. It's only on AT&T. It's not 3G. I can't buy music wirelessly. It's frickin' expensive.
September 2007:
Apple:iPod Touch: iPhone without the phone. iTunes Music Store built in. iPod nano: New form factor. Video. Up to 8GB. iPod Classic: Metallic shell. Up to 160GB
Naysayers:iPhone is still only AT&T and not 3G. iPod touch is only 8GB and 16GB. And it's frickin' expensive.
February 2008:
Apple:iPod nano: new colors: iPod shuffle: new colors. iPouch Touch: 32GB available
Naysayers:iPhone is still only AT&T and not 3G. iPod Touch and iPhone are still expensive
June 2008:
Apple:iPhone 2.0: 3G. Slimmer, faster, more apps, cheaper. 8GB $199. 16GB $299
Naysayers:iPhone is still only AT&T. No cut and paste. The camera is 1.3MP and not video. Not cheaper: AT&T 3G plan costs me more than 2.5G plan. I blame Apple for this.
March 2009:
Apple:iPhone 3.0 software: Cut and paste. Bluetooth peer-to-peer connectivity. Complete iPhone search. landscape keyboard. MMS messaging. and voice memos.
Naysayers:Where's my total Exchange interoperability? No printing. No email filtering. No video recording.
Fast forward to the future . .
2020:
Apple:iPod femto: Size of a business card, but thinner. Direct neural interface. No charging, uranium battery last 5,000 years. Up to 500TB. iPhone X: Instantaneous, realtime language translation. Up to 20PB
Naysayers:Still no ogg. Should be 1PB. Neural interface is only in HD and not Extreme-HD. Should have used plutonium batteries that last 10,000 years. iPho
Skype over 802.11? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not SOX, just GAAP (Score:4, Insightful)
The basic issue is that they want $.
They could easily post estimates for continued support and development.
There is N O T H I N G in the legal or accounting realm that prevents this. If this were the case, there would be no free support or added content for other hardware, software, etc. The fact is, there's TONS of it, from companies who don't treat their customers as bottomless teats.
CRAAP (Score:3, Insightful)
Sony doesn't charge me for firmware upgrades for my PS3. Nintendo doesn't charge me for firmware upgrades for my Wii. BlackBerry and T-Mobile don't charge me for upgrades for my BlackBerry.
And most tellingly, Apple doesn't charge me for firmware upgrades for my Time Capsule, even when they add functionality.
So I don't buy the excuse.
Re:Touch users have to pay??? (Score:1, Insightful)
So basically, the even shorter answer is that Apple doesn't want to make the accounting effort when they can just complain about SOX and get paid money at the same time.
Re:Touch users have to pay??? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's because they can.
There is absolutely no legal or accounting reason they have to charge for anything. Anything any Apple employee says to the contrary is a bald-faced lie.
Plenty of other companies give out free support, upgrades, and content for hardware and software.
The issue is Apple doesn't want to report the costs for the development and support of updates in their reports, so they act as if they'll never happen.
When demand reaches a point (WHERE THE FUCK IS MMS OR COPY AND PASTE?!) they can no longer ignore, they crank out the update and offset the cost by selling it. This pleases investors (and thereby keeps regulators off their backs), who would otherwise say "But you said costs were $X, and we launched last year! What the fuck is this new cost for?"
As to why iPhone users get it free and Touch users have to pay, I suspect that carriers are eating the cost (at a much-reduced rate).
Apple could easily report costs as $X, with an estimated $Y per year for continued support and development, for Z years.
Apple does not like to do things this way because they prefer to hide the cost (and then recoup them by selling the update). Apple also likes to be secretive. If you saw a report stating that the iPhone support costs are $Y per year for Z years, you could figure out that Z-1 years from now we'll be seeing the next iPhone hardware. And as we all know, Apple likes to keep new products under wraps for as long as possible, so people keep buying the old one up until very the day of the conference, when they all run out and buy the new one.
That sir, is your answer.
Re:Tethering (Score:4, Insightful)
So in other words, AT&T has to make it as useless as possible, so Apple would have been better off just not having it...
...because AT&T is the only carrier anywhere in the world on which the iPhone runs, of course. If it sucks in the US, that doesn't necessarily mean it'll suck everywhere.
Re:CRAAP (Score:3, Insightful)
Your firmware updates for your PS3 did not enable hardware that existed already but that you could not use. Now, if Sony included a Blu-Ray player originally, but sold the device advertising only "DVD playback", then later, with a magic firmware upgrade announced "all PS3s in the field with this update can now play Blu-Ray HD disks!", then they'd fall under GAAP and have to charge you for the upgrade....
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Touch users have to pay??? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Missing (Score:3, Insightful)
A2DP
Oops. Not so missing. My bad. :)
Hey, /., how about easing up on the 2nd-post-wait timer for subscribers, huh?
Re:Touch users have to pay??? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is absolutely no legal or accounting reason they have to charge for anything. Anything any Apple employee says to the contrary is a bald-faced lie.
This. Just to offer an example, Creative announced that they would add certain features to the Zen Vision MP3 series including a 'DJ' feature and the ability to record from the radio.
It's funny how I didn't have to pay for that.
Wow. Perhaps the fact that Creative is based in Singapore has some bearing on whether they need to follow American SOX accounting rules? Funny how companies in other countries get to play by other rules.
Too advanced a concept for you? Or are you just bitching and whining for the sake of bitching an whining like all the other losers on Slashdot?
Re:Real handicap (Score:5, Insightful)
And with a laptop, you could use your iPhone to make calls while you're getting actual work done.
Re:CRAAP (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:For crying out loud... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it that you don't think $10 for a yearly update bringing major new functionality is worth it? Is it that you can afford the hundreds for the device, but not $10 a year for upgrades? Is it that you're not satisfied with the device as it is and feel the upgrade was promised in the first place?
I don't understand why getting paid for your work is considered "money-grubbing". Obviously iPhone owners are paying every month, but iTouch users aren't. So you pay for the upgrade. It really sounds quite fair to me.
Re:Flash (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the "real web" including all pages with "real web developers", create both flash and non-flash versions of their pages. Any web designer with any salt should know that. There are, and will continue to be, many devices and browsers that don't have flash. It may not be a webdesigner's responsiblity to support highly-outdated software (like IE5 for Mac, or Netscape 4.7), but flash is far from ubiquitous when you get into mobil devices. So flash should not be an absolute neccessity for any website. Therefor, if the iPhone isn't able to access a flash-based website, then it's the developer's fault, because it will limit dozens of other devices too: phones, game consoles, various other mobil devices, etc.
Re:CRAAP (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically, they resent being second-class citizens.
Re:Now about that 32GB issue... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is this so hard to understand? The reason for wanting enough space for your entire music collection is so that you can play anything you want on demand. Who cares if 80% of it never gets listened to?
If 80% of it never gets listened to, who cares if its not there?
That one day when I'm in the mood to listen to a particular album, I don't want to be cursing the fact that it's not on my iPod at the moment.
If you went the last 5 years without listening to the song, and then not being able to play it today, right now, this very second sends you off cursing your ipod. You need a sense of perspective more than a bigger ipod.
Why try to predict which subset of your music you'll feel like listening to?
Its not really case of prediction.
For example in addition to a number of playlists I have my ipod set to sync every single track I've listened to more than once in the last 5 years. Plus every single track I've listened to at least once in the last year. Plus every single track I've added in the last 6 months. Plus every single track I've bothered to mark with any number of stars.
And it all fits with plenty of room to spare.
And while it happens that sometimes I'll be in an eclectic mood and want something I don't have it doesn't happen anywhere near often enough for me to curse the device, or wish I could have spent hundreds more for more capacity.
God forbid someone would ask for a feature that would make their usage more convenient.
There is a limit to how much is really worth moaning about. And when they ship with 1TB the OP will moan that he can't have his entire dvd collection with him.
I'm not saying 32GB is 'enough' and that no one has a use for more, but its hardly something to rant about.
Who mods this shit insightful?
Evidently people who agree the 32GB limit is not a particularly woeful shortcoming of the ipod touch.
Re:And it should stay missing (Score:3, Insightful)
spam filtering in email: :P
You haven't answered the question why you aren't doing spam filtering on the server rather than your phone? Set up a hosted email server and set up your spam filtering there. You have to get your email from somewhere, again, filter on the server. Hundred lines of code my ass, it's not a matter of lines of code if ten lines on a server would be less work. What if your phone goes down and you need to access your email from another PC or a web browser? It would be even better to filter there if you use IMAP. If you are still using POP then this discussion should be over
Printing:
I can understand sometimes you might want to print something, but why not email the project plan? Or use that handy dandy peer to peer stuff in 3.0? You also need to be more specific about printing from a deskop because the reasons to print from a desktop are not all great ones. Some bad reasons are:
- I can't read it (I respect this reason but if you can't read your document on an iPhone you shouldn't have an iPhone.
- I like to have a paper copy as backup (you should be backing up electronically and not wasting paper)
- my coworker doesn't have X so I can't send it to him (well then get coworker X because if you are paperless and your buddy isn't and you work for the same company then your company is being stupid.
- Paper just feels better (sure it does, and it's nice and flexible, but if you are printing out 20 emails a day, you aren't getting good work out of your screen are you?)
Come companies require paper, and government still requires paper. However, the reasons for printing are becoming less and less each day. While I do understand the reasons for printing, what you haven't answered is the demand itself, which I asserted in my sentence as being lower than you think. Saying Ford should have sold buggywhips on the side because people still want to use them kind of flies in the face that you have this shiny new mode of transportation that doesn't need them. Sure you are going to be pining for a buggy whip once in a while when you have a buggy and horse and no way to get the horse to move, but does that mean every Ford should be sold with them just in case?
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
For everything else (including copying paid apps too I guess), there's jailbreaking.
I'm terribly sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash games and applications bypass the app store.
If you bypass the app store, AT&T and Apple don't get to extract [more] money out of you or out of the end user. Apple and AT&T are more interested in money than in truly unifying the mobile and fixed web browsing experiences. End of story.
Re:My God! Since when does Cut-n-paste merit bulle (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple invented standardized copy and paste in the OS with the Macintosh. It invented mobile copy and paste conventions with Newton.
So ask yourself, is Apple just too stupid to please an arrogant but anonymous coward, or are you perhaps uninformed on what might be involved in developing secure copy and paste on a new platform with a unique security model?
Do you understand that other phones with copy/paste features do not sandbox their apps? That their kernels will pretty much run any code from any source? That rogue apps can do anything?
The more you learn, the less you'll view the world in simple black and white as a bunch of things to be outraged about.
Re:Let the complaints begin . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Fanbois: "Who wants wireless and the Nomad is Fugly. PC lusers will turn to the Mac in droves, and Apple just doesn't do low-end"
In 2001, no one had wireless not even the Nomad. It wasn't practical as the fastest that existed was 802.11b and there were not a lot of wireless points. Even if you could get wireless, using would not be useful for transfer until 802.11g or 802.11n and then you would have to wait until there were a lot of wireless access points. Also at the time technology was not mature enough to shrink it to a usable size. The Nomad back then was then size of a portable CD player. Also wireless = more battery drain. Besides data transfer, the original iPod doesn't have any other use for wireless. The iPhone does as it has a browser and can access the iTunes store. If it's a tradeoff of more battery life or use of wireless to transfer once in a while, most people would choose more battery.
2002:
Apple: iPod 2.0:
Fanbois: Who needs wireless? Firewire is the superior technology, Apple will never turn to USB. You have to take care of your exclusive, high-end Apple device.
Again no wireless on the Nomad either. I think one or two devices started to include it but they were more tablet PCs than MP3 players. As for USB vs Firewire, in 2002, Firewire really was the best standard to use at the time. USB 1.1 transfer rate was 12MB/s while Firewire 400 was 400MB/s. At the end of 2001, USB 2.0 was finally released but it wouldn't be widespread for a few years. Even then the max ideal transfer rate is 480MB/s; most of the time the rate is lower. When USB 2.0 was universally available did Apple switch to it.
Fanbois: Wireless has been around and will never take off. It is a large capacity, high end MUSIC player. Apple DO NOT make low end devices and WILL NOT make a cheap iPod. Flash is not appropriate for a portable music player, look at all those cheap screen-less devices out on the market.
Apple never said it would not. I think Apple being a smaller company back then had to maintain focus on a few devices along with their computer line rather than launch a large line of unfocused, unrefined models.
Fanbois: Wireless is a dead end. Video will just render then thing useless, music and photos are what the iPod does. It is designed for a specific purpose. Nobody want to have their phone run out of power on them by doubling for a music player.
June 2003: 802.11g is released as a specification. It would be a few years before widespread adoption. But then again, what the heck would the iPod use it for but for data transfer between it and the computer. If you're transferring data, you might as well use a cable.
Fanbois: Apple is about well designed products and convergence devices like phone-music players just don't work. Apple only want to release a flash based player that has a screen, see they can do it and haven't need to cut out the screen and compromise quality.
Your statement is actually true without the snide commentary. Others can do it but with half the quality and attention to detail has always been true. But most of those companies don't sell as well or are even around anymore so what does that say?
2006:
Fanbois: No device convergence. Never. It is an ugly hash and Apple is driven by simple design. The click wheel is all you need, and touchscreens are unusable. Why put wireless on there? Nobody needs it.
Yes why do you need wireless when all you can do is transfer files? That's a single use only. Other than the cool factor, it's rather meaningless. Until they upgraded the iPod to be a computer (hence the iPhone), would wireless not be useful.
Fanbois: 3G is not all it is cracked up to be, EDGE is enough for anybody. 3G is another needless