Software

Gearlog posts a story that shows Apple’s stance on the modding their hardware:

I asked [Apple’s Greg Joswiak] about independent, native software development for the iPhone. He said Apple doesn’t oppose native application development, which was new to me. Rather, Apple takes a neutral stance - they’re not going to stop anyone from writing apps, and they’re not going to maliciously design software updates to break the native apps, but they’re not going to care if their software updates accidentally break the native apps either. He very carefully left the door open to a further change in this policy, too, saying that Apple is always re-examining its perspective on these sorts of things.

This is pretty consistent with previous devices (Apple TV hacks, the existing Linux-on-iPod project). By being neutral to software development they allow the minority who “need” custom features to still get them in some fashion without being beholden to support them officially. For example, Apple never had to add OGG support because those few who needed that audio format on an iPod were likely satisficed by the Linux project. Apple is focused on the mainstream, and being developer-neutral allows them to trend-watch their devices from a extremely safe distance. If a feature is a) important enough to risk breaking the thing and b) is popular enough to be rapidly adopted by users and developers of the hacked devices, they know it is a feature that might be worth developing internally or with a partner that will help the bottom-line. It can also help fine-tune and set priorities for existing projects already in the pipeline (just think of every late-to-the-party feature of .Mac service, and the quick upgrade to the 160 GB Apple TV after hackers learned how to upgrade the HD).

I take their statement to mean what I’ve been assuming all along — if we are to ever see an official iPhone SDK released, its countdown is in years, not months.

Especially after this update in the same article:

Apple says “software updates will most likely break” native apps as they go forwards.

It seems like with the launch of Pownce that it is going to be some sort of battle between it and Twitter. However, I think that the two systems are quite complimentary. Twitter aims to be a multiplatform messaging system. Pownce aims to be a multipurpose sharing system.

Twitter sends small text bursts to an user’s network of friends across the web into as many formats as needed: desktop, texts, instant messenger, etc. Perhaps in the future, Twitter will expand into text-to-speech (to leave voice mail) or even just plain email alerts. But the point is that it aims to be a one-input-to-many-outputs texting system. Twitter launched without a special application because SMS was Twitter’s special application. Sharing location and ideas are perfect for this. Sending structured data, like links and threaded replies, is awkward but possible. Sending things only to specific groups of a user’s network, not at all.

Pownce, on the other hand fills this void. It is designed to take binary data (like files) or structured data (like events) and share them with specific friends or groups easily. Public sharing is enabled simply because it is possible, and attracts new users. But rich data must be sent to systems that can read it. There’s no good reason to send a 100MB file to a mobile — yet — which is why the computer desktop is the focus for now. It is also designed to circumvent restrictions of other networks, like in the case of file sharing, which is why a desktop client is such an integral and promoted component of the site.

Notice the subtle differences yet? Twitter aims to supplement existing messaging technologies, while Pownce aims to supplant them. Twitter will happily integrate into your Google Talk account and route your messages into your instant messenger. Pownce wants you to skip the instant messenger entirely. On Twitter, I am either public or private, period — and when I am public, the world has access all the time… it is an electronic megaphone blasting out in all forms (just check out Twittervision!). On Pownce, I have no explicit state because it all depends on how I chose to send things on a post-by-post basis. My privacy is dependent on what and how I wish to share items. I don’t broadcast, I conditionally publish. My material is hosted. In this sense, I see Pownce vs. Tumblr as the real point of conflict, not Pownce vs. Twitter.

In the end, I see both companies going in different, but complimentary directions. Sure, you can share text on Pownce but you can’t get that Pownce as an SMS. And you can share a link on Twitter but you can’t get a file, either. It’s all in how you choose to share yourself the most. What I am doing and what I want you to see are, in fact, different things and they will continue to be surfaced in different ways by these services.

Holy moley! I had thought Sofa Control was a great app for the old Mac mini, but it comes nowhere close to Remote Buddy. The latest release—Preview 6—includes a “construction kit” where you can make your own behaviors and actions for any app with only a basic concept of coding.

Each application control command can be a sequence of keystroke commands, applescripts, pre-defined global Remote Buddy actions, and even mouse-wheel commands (oddly enough). Within minutes, I had my own actions and behavior set up to control Transmission from the sofa. Duly impressed.

Not to mention: the app works properly with screen savers, dismissing them when they are active (unlike Sofa Control which sends its commands to the “background”), and even works within MediaCentral—making the promise of using both it and Front Row together a possibility (Sofa Control will launch the app but will disable itself in the process since it conflicts).

Totally worth the 10 euros I spent on it. If you own Remote Buddy, you can download my Transmission definitions below.

Here’s a fascinating promotion: the authors of AppZapper are going to be giving away the application for free on macZOT!—a kind of woot.com for Mac software—if enough bloggers mention it on their sites.

For those who don’t know, AppZapper is a rather nifty uninstaller for those of you out there that love trying out new software but hate having to manually remove preferences files, etc. once done testing the beasties out.

The app itself is very slick and OS X-like, and it’d be a nice bonus to be able to get it for free, so… sign me up. Go check out the app and then check out macZOT! afterwards. But you only have until the end of today, PST.