I recently described Steve Jobs comments around iPhone openness as FUD, scaring users away from the concept of third party applications with threats of security and compatability nightmares.

Adam left a well thought out comment on that blog post.

You’re right, this isn’t really about security. It’s about controlling the user experience by keeping it pure (and just how Steve says it should be). I don’t think this is totally evil though. There’s a reason the iPhone will blow the user experience of other phones out of the water, just as the Mac does to the PC: it’s consistent and reliable. Microsoft OEMs put so much third-party crap onto their PCs and devices that no matter what Redmond, does the end product is going to suck.

Most of the Java apps I’ve used are sluggish, ugly, and frequently hang my phone (ok, this is a problem with the JVM, but most just aren’t up to the task). Look for a simpler web-like, widget-focused(?) third-party development story. Sure you can’t build more advanced apps with the environment, but most users won’t care.

I disagree with the assertion that JVM apps have to be slow and crappy, but more on that later.

Adam was right on about the web-like third party development story, although Apple took that direction a little too literally.  Third party apps are strictly limited to browser applications. 

True, it’s a full featured Safari implementation that can support AJAX, but applications built on this platform will be distinctly second class citizens compared with native phone apps, and are also limited by a much narrower and unreliable network pipe compared with PCs.

Macworld describes the iPhone platform announcement as going over like a lead balloon:

The iPhone runs a version of Mac OS X. And since the day it was announced, Mac developers have wondered: will there be a way for them to write software that runs on the iPhone, much as they do for the Mac?

Apple’s approach to the subject has evolved over time. In January, it all sounded quite unlikely. By early May, the company was “wrestling” with the matter. By the end of May, Steve Jobs was suggesting that Apple would find a way to let developers write software for the iPhone by the end of the year.

In that encouraging context, the announcement that Jobs made Monday at WWDC went over like a lead balloon. To be fair, the suggestion that anxious would-be iPhone developers can write snazzy Web applications that would work on the phone’s built-in Safari web browser isn’t a bad one — it’s actually a clever workaround that most developers would have suggested themselves if they had gotten the chance.

No, the problem is that as snazzy as Web applications can be these days, they’re still not a replacement for the real thing. If they were, why would Apple bother writing full-blown programs for the iPhone? Why convert Mail to run on the iPhone if Google Mail in a browser will work just as well? Because it won’t.

Applegazette calls the browser only announcement “phenomonally insulting” to third party developers and “anti-Apple” in terms of the simplicity possible with third party apps.

What I find phenomenally insulting is the constant mention of keeping the iPhone safe and secure. The way that it keeps being said makes it sound like developers have the plague or something. It seems , to me anyway, to be disrespectful to the developers that make the Mac so great.

I love my Mac. I love the Apple software on my Mac too…but part of what makes my Mac so great are the Applications that Apple had nothing to do with (Quicksilver, anyone?)…and I can’t understand why they wouldn’t want the same style of innovation on the iPhone.

This web based concept, at least in its current form, is also very anti-Apple from a simplicity standpoint. Instead of pressing a button to launch the application you need, you’re going to have to open a web browser, open your bookmarks, then click on the application you want - then (in most cases I would assume) you’re going to have to log in to said application.

That’s turning what should be a one button press process into a three button press (and a log in) process. I don’t believe that’s the right way to go about this. If they’re going to require that all applications be web based, they could at least allow you to have an icon on the screen that links directly to the website and stores your log in information. I don’t think that’s asking too much.

(If Apple were to a build extended browser platform that retained the advantages of browser based applications while adding offline/async support and participations as first class iPhone apps, that would be far more interesting.  Thus far there are no signs that they plan to do this.  Perhaps Adobe or some other third party partner will build such an application with Apple and AT&T’s blessing?)

I also believe that if Apple wanted to, they could produce a JVM implementation that offers good performance, deep integration with OSX, and security. Sure, there are underpowered phones and crappy JVM implementations out there, but it doesn’t have to be that way, especially on hardware of the iPhone’s caliber.

A good case study is the Blackberry. The Blackberry and all of its applications are built in Java and offer snappy performance and good stability on relatively lowe end hardware. Third party apps like GMail and Google Maps are also snappy and offer good usability. 

I imagine that Apple has both extended browser models and JVM solutions in progress, and are adopting FUD strategies because they need to buy some time while they get these platforms in place. Developers need to exert continued pressure to make sure that these platforms are open as they ought to be, and so that Apple doesn’t place undue constraints over third party innovation in the name of “security”.