nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Making an iPhone app....do i need a mac??

Bubba

Hi there,

I've heard that you need a mac to develop iPhone apps as windows machines cannot handle the iphone SDK from apple.

Is there anyway around this as I only have a Dell?

Cheers.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

aidan_walsh

To run the iPhone SDK you need a machine running OS X 10.5 Leopard or higher.

Zombrex

Bubba wrote: »

Is there anyway around this as I only have a Dell?

Not really without hacking the crap out of your iPhone/iPod and losing all the nice things that come in the SDK, such as an emulator. To release your app you would need a Mac so it doesn't seem worthy it trying to develop it without one

Bubba

Ok thanks lads.

Know anyone who wants to buy a very nice Dell Vostroo 1700?

Genghiz Cohen

To dev iPhone & iPod Touch apps you will need.

An Intel based Mac running Leopard.
The free iPhone SDK.
You can only use the built in emulator to test, which is fairly accurate.

To sell Apps you need a Developer License. $99 from Apple per year.
This also allows you to test apps on your own personal iPhone or on a 3rd party's iPhone as a beta tester.
It also allows you to submit Apps to the App Store for approval and sale, then monthly Apple will send ~70% of the sales profit.

Bubba

I've decided to develop an android app instead.

Sparks

Bubba wrote: »

I've decided to develop an android app instead.

Granted this is from the US, but what we're hearing over here tallies with it:

Hobbes

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

To sell Apps you need a Developer License. $99 from Apple per year. This also allows you to test apps on your own personal iPhone or on a 3rd party's iPhone as a beta tester.

I think that Dev license is to sell the apps. You can use XCode to send to your personal device. I have done this on a non-jailbroken iTouch.

When you plug the device in it will ask if you want to use this for dev testing.

Hobbes

Sparks wrote: »

Granted this is from the US, but what we're hearing over here tallies with it:

I don't have exact figures but for EU your probably look at more S60 / Windows Mobile / J2ME biting into the iPhone Dev.

Sparks

A year or so ago, maybe. But both Boingo and JiWire concur on the usage patterns and JiWire is a global report.

Atomic Pineapple

Whats the cheapest Mac you can get to get into iphone dev then?

Sparks

Mac Mini probably.

Evil Phil

Yeah, mac mini or you may pick a second hand mac up on adverts.ie (shamless plug).

ocallagh

I've got 10.5 running on a Sony Vaoi (dual boot with XP) - it's possible to get up and running as Leopard uses Intel - The only thing that doesn't work is the internal wireless card, but you can get external cards that work with it. However for the pain and effort I went through to get this up and running I'd have spent 500 on a second hand mac..

padraigmyers

I have been happily developing for the iPhone on a PC for the last few months.
You can install Mac OS on a PC (though your not legally allowed to do this), it takes a bit of work, but once its up and running, its stable. There is no hardware hack needed (as someone said above). There are many different distributions of OSX86 (Mac OS on PC hardware), the one I am using is iPC, and I've had no problem with it. Its running Leopard 10.5.6

If you want to distribute applications in the AppStore you will need to join the Developer Program, this costs $99 a year, but you can download and use the SDK without paying this.

If you want to get in there an learn about coding for the iPhone, this would be the cheapest way of going about it. Install MacOS on you PC and then download and use the iPhone SDK for free. If you feel after this that you want to go ahead and distribute some of you apps, then go join the developer programme. Buying a Mac is something that you can do if you feel like it, however you can distribute your apps from a Hackintosh (PC running Mac) without any problems.

The iPhone SDK that you download comes with an iPhone simulator that will let you see how your app would work on an iPhone. The simulator is very good, so in effect, you don't even need an iPhone to develop for the iPhone!

As for how difficult it is to code for the iPhone, the first step is to lean Objective-C, if you know C or C++ already, then its very similar once you get used to the different syntax. You can install an Objective C compiler on your PC and tinker around with it first.

Developing the UI's for the iPhone is pretty easy, you use a tool called Interface Builder which makes it just a drag and drop procedure. However the framework of how application are structured will take a bit of getting used to, but it all makes good sense. There is a very good book called Beginning iPhone Development that has just been updated for firmware 3.0 that's a good starting point for learning the ropes, however you'll need to have some idea of Objective C before you tackle any iPhone development. There also plenty of tutorials out there for free as well.

Hope this helps.

Teh Russ

If you're au fait with Flash and Actionscript 3 (enough to code an AIR application), then Flash CS5 (coming at the end of the year) will offer the facility to develop and publish iPhone apps directly from Flash.

I'm not sure if that functionality would be restricted to the Mac version, but I doubt it. Adobe aren't known for platform-specific features. Regardless, you'll still need access to a Mac to digitally sign the app before submitting it to the App Store.

any key

Hi folks,

I've been tinkering around with an idea for an iPhone app, and would like to outsource the development to someone with relatively decent app dev knowledge. Any advise on where/how to find someone in Ireland to do this, its a simple app with a modest budget.

Thanks

paddy2k

Sparks wrote: »

Granted this is from the US, but what we're hearing over here tallies with it:

That's about to change Gartner say that by 2012 it'll be Android and Symbian having the most smartphones out there. http://url.ie/2pjk

With Meteor and Vodafone launching the Hero and Tattoo respectively soon, the number of Android handsets in Ireland is set to grow rapidly in the next 6months.

If you want to stay platform independant you can create a webApp either from scratch or using a framework like IUI. As Android and the iPhone are HTML5 browsers you can access more advanced features such as GPS, local storage, and improved graphics using canvas and svg (take google wave for example). Also it makes it easier to have a cut down version for users with other phones/browsers.

Sparks

paddy2k wrote: »

That's about to change Gartner say that by 2012 it'll be Android and Symbian having the most smartphones out there. http://url.ie/2pjk

Yes, one analyst is saying that. On the other hand, actual real data is saying something entirely different.
Me, I go with data over projections. But, hey, that's just me.

What platform to write mobile apps for?

The Corinthian

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, one analyst is saying that. On the other hand, actual real data is saying something entirely different.
Me, I go with data over projections. But, hey, that's just me.

I would not necessarly say that those projections are correct, but I do think it is very foolish to simply develop on the basis of current data.

Unless you are able to churn out an application within a few weeks from your bedroom, the development process can take months, even years. By then the device landscape can change dramatically, and this is particularly true of mobile development. Even if you can publish today, the market is not going to sit still for your benefit.

That the iPhone is presently the market leader, no one will deny. As much as I hate the damned thing, it has done a lot of good for the mobile internet and smartphone industry.

But there is no guarantee that this will remain so. I used to use a Mac up until the mid nineties, as did many. But with the move by MS from Windows 3.11 to 95, people deserted it until it had all but vanished by 1998.

The same with Netscape - it was once the dominant browser out there and by 2002, it barely registered any more. Even IE, which supplanted Netscape, and was the dominant browser, has been steadily losing market share, first to Firefox and now also to Chrome.

On mobile, especially in the US, you really had to optimise for the Openwave browser eight to ten years ago. Most US mobile Internet content was not written in WML, but HDML. Where's that now?

The iPhone, like the Lisa and Mac, is a major market ground breaker. But Apple did lose the top spot before as the market matured and history often has a way of repeating itself. So don't discount projections - certainly assess them coldly and with a pinch of salt, but don't discount them. It's no fun being a legacy developer, after all.

Keedowah

OP - no need to get rid of your dell - just install VMware Player (its free) on it and then you can run OS X from within there.

Sparks

The Corinthian wrote: »

I would not necessarly say that those projections are correct, but I do think it is very foolish to simply develop on the basis of current data.

Well, if your "business model" is to ignore trends (iPhone still climbing, it was announced two days ago that it was passing out the Blackberry in the global figures) and to ignore current data, might I suggest you take your funding to the bookies? That way you'll get faster feedback on your design decisions.

The Corinthian

Sparks wrote: »

Well, if your "business model" is to ignore trends (iPhone still climbing, it was announced two days ago that it was passing out the Blackberry in the global figures) and to ignore current data, might I suggest you take your funding to the bookies? That way you'll get faster feedback on your design decisions.

Isn't jumping on a climbing bandwagon, because it is climbing, the logic that was used during the property speculation bubble?

Of course it is climbing now. However, if you want to build a business model you also need to look at two, three or five years ahead; and in this business even two years is a very long time - as the figures you presented demonstrate.

Indeed, two years (two and a half if you measure from the official launch) is all that it took Internet Explorer to overtake Netscape Navigator:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#EWS_Web_Server_at_UIUC_.281996_to_1998.29

Of course the iPhone may retain it's dominant position for years to come and I would not be so ready to write its obituary - however, neither would I bet the bank on this dominance continuing, especially given the competition.

So with all due respect, you appear to be adopting the stance of an evangelist rather than analyst - which is not unheard of where it comes to supporters of Apple.

Sparks

The Corinthian wrote: »

Isn't jumping on a climbing bandwagon, because it is climbing, the logic that was used during the property speculation bubble?

Precisely. That's why I was pointing out the data, instead of saying "Oh, Android will be huge, develop for that!".

Of course it is climbing now. However, if you want to build a business model you also need to look at two, three or five years ahead; and in this business even two years is a very long time - as the figures you presented demonstrate.

First off, it's not just climbing now, it's the dominant market player now and is still climbing faster than its competitors - who are in the initial burst phase of their growth cycle. If Android or WebOS were going to be serious competitors to the iPhone, they should be growing faster now than they are, or offer something more than they do. Instead they're very small in market share, growing slower than the market leader, and offer nothing as a "killer app" that can break the lockin that the iPhone appstore currently enjoys. Nokia might have something with the new Maemo platforms, but only because they have so much weight to swing behind it in their deals with operators and retailers. Had they put UMA circuitry in the N900, you might have been looking at a real competitor because it'd have been the first phone that had a shot at solving the data offload problem natively - and operators would kill for that right now.

So with all due respect, you appear to be adopting the stance of an evangelist rather than analyst - which is not unheard of where it comes to supporters of Apple.

Except that I'm not a supporter of Apple. Personally, I find them bloody appalling to work with, I find the appstore policies hugely restrictive and unhelpful, and I don't really like the style they espouse. So calling me a fanboy as a rebuttal to my argument is not only ad hominem and weak-ass from the get-go, it's also hugely inaccurate.

What I'm am, however, is not blind or stupid. The statistics and data on the market dominance of the iPhone in this area is irrefutable, whether you like Apple's kool-aid or not. And one projection by one company for where the the market might be in several years is a ridiculous datapoint to base a business plan on, especially when (as you say yourself) it's so hard to predict accurately that far out in this market.

If you want to develop for Android or WebOS because you find them technically interesting, that's a whole other ballgame. But from a business perspective, it makes no sense to go for anything but the iPhone platform right now. If the others do defy the odds and succeed, let others take the first step, then follow them. You'll note it has worked rather well for Microsoft, much as they're disliked for it.

The Corinthian

Sparks wrote: »

Precisely. That's why I was pointing out the data, instead of saying "Oh, Android will be huge, develop for that!".

You could also have pointed at data in 2006 at how property prices were still going up and still be in negative equity now.

If Android or WebOS were going to be serious competitors to the iPhone, they should be growing faster now than they are, or offer something more than they do.

Absolutely, I completely agree with you with the present situation. However, I think you overestimate the importance of the foothold that the iPhone has or that one of these other platforms could not displace it in the future.

Instead they're very small in market share, growing slower than the market leader, and offer nothing as a "killer app" that can break the lockin that the iPhone appstore currently enjoys.

Why does it need a 'killer app' - the PC had only one 'killer app' against Apple; it was cheaper. Also, Windows API's aside, it was also a Hell of a lot easier to develop for, I can tell you.

Nokia might have something with the new Maemo platforms, but only because they have so much weight to swing behind it in their deals with operators and retailers. Had they put UMA circuitry in the N900, you might have been looking at a real competitor because it'd have been the first phone that had a shot at solving the data offload problem natively - and operators would kill for that right now.

Nokia has numerous problems, not least of all that it is stuck with its Symbian investment and as an OS it is looking increasingly dated. Windows Mobile is possibly worse, to the point that HTC had to effectively hack it to make it usable. And Android, et al, are just not at the races yet.

So I'd agree that iPhone is likely to remain dominant - for the next 18 months - but after that, I would not rule out the competition, especially Nokia, if they belatedly get their act together.

Except that I'm not a supporter of Apple. Personally, I find them bloody appalling to work with, I find the appstore policies hugely restrictive and unhelpful, and I don't really like the style they espouse. So calling me a fanboy as a rebuttal to my argument is not only ad hominem and weak-ass from the get-go, it's also hugely inaccurate.

I apologise, but that is certainly how you came across.

What I'm am, however, is not blind or stupid. The statistics and data on the market dominance of the iPhone in this area is irrefutable, whether you like Apple's kool-aid or not. And one projection by one company for where the the market might be in several years is a ridiculous datapoint to base a business plan on, especially when (as you say yourself) it's so hard to predict accurately that far out in this market.

Again I agree, but I was responding to your dismissal of the idea. It is entirely plausible to believe that the iPhone might lose it's dominance within two years, thus making any such dismissal foolish, it is more than likely that is shall lose its dominance within five years.

Certainly I would not count on the opinion of one techno-journalist, but neither would I rely too much on it's present growth.

But from a business perspective, it makes no sense to go for anything but the iPhone platform right now. If the others do defy the odds and succeed, let others take the first step, then follow them.

Which is my point, the odds change far too quickly and too often in this game.

Sparks

The Corinthian wrote: »

You could also have pointed at data in 2006 at how property prices were still going up and still be in negative equity now.

And you could have pointed out (as many were in 2006) that the data globally did not support that position. There is no such data in this case; if you have some I've not seen, please present it rather than hinting there might be some. I realise absence of proof is not proof of absence, but that argument says that there might be a teapot in orbit around Mars as well...

I think you overestimate the importance of the foothold that the iPhone has or that one of these other platforms could not displace it in the future.

Do I think the situation is set in stone? No. Do I think you'd be foolish to not develop for the overwhelmingly dominant and currently fastest growing player in the market if your objective is to sell your work? Yes.

Why does it need a 'killer app' - the PC had only one 'killer app' against Apple; it was cheaper.

No, it had three:

It was backed by IBM, the dominant player in the computer market at the time;
It was out first (3 years earlier than the Mac);
It had more applications built for it (thanks to it's earlier appearance on the market).

Also, Windows API's aside, it was also a Hell of a lot easier to develop for, I can tell you.

I programmed to both the raw win32 API (pre-MFC) and to the raw OS6 APIs (long before OSX completely replaced the Mac OS with Unix and a pretty X windows theme). The Mac API was definitely better documented, but that doesn't mean it was easier to program for. Leaving aside the strict policies Apple were trying to impose on its 3rd party programmers even back then (16 years ago), there's the point that OS6 was a dog even compared to the win32 API (both, obviously, were not really fit for purpose by comparison to even the unix platforms available at the time). The Mac OS didn't even know how to do proper memory management for crying out loud.

So please, don't tell me the Mac was easier to program for. I was there and it wasn't.

Nokia has numerous problems, not least of all that it is stuck with its Symbian investment

Which it's dumping for Maemo on the high end and keeping at the low end, where the iPhone and others cannot challange it because of price and hardware realities.

Windows Mobile is possibly worse, to the point that HTC had to effectively hack it to make it usable. And Android, et al, are just not at the races yet.

Agreed.

I apologise, but that is certainly how you came across.

Because I presented actual data and stated that making business decisions without actual data was a bad idea? You've got a fairly odd idea of what a fanboy is there. Almost 180 degrees out of phase with everyone else's idea, so far as I can see.

Again I agree, but I was responding to your dismissal of the idea. It is entirely plausible to believe that the iPhone might lose it's dominance within two years, thus making any such dismissal foolish, it is more than likely that is shall lose its dominance within five years.

You're assuming the iPhone remains static and everyone else innovates. That's just not realistic. Going on the development of other Apple products, we probably can't expect something utterly new and revolutionary, but we certainly can expect more of the incremental improvements we've seen to date. Apple has a major headstart here and has shown in the past that when it owns a market, it can defend it quite well - take the iPod-v-Zune matchup as an example.

To be honest, I don't see Apple losing their top spot here until something truly revolutionary happens to change the market itself, at which point all bets are off - but in the event of that happening, noone gets an advantage, and there's certainly no reason to think one of the current competitors will automatically benefit.

Certainly I would not count on the opinion of one techno-journalist, but neither would I rely too much on it's present growth.

I'll take sales figures as a pretty good indicator myself, pending any more pertinent information as to market sizes

Which is my point, the odds change far too quickly and too often in this game.

I think that's illusion. I've said it before, Apple didn't win big and dominate the market because of slick marketing or inside deals with operators or because any technical tricks, Apple dominates right now because we spent the last decade concerned with questions like whether or not to have a .mobi domain, or whether we should allow transcoding, or whether WAP had any future at all, or how we should best degrade standard HTML to view a website on a tiny screen on a standard phone. And all the while, the real problem was sitting right there - the largest demographic in the market was nontechnical, found the user interface a right pain in the gonads, didn't like a small screen or a hinky keyboard, and when Apple came along with a simple UI, a big screen, and frankly sub-par technical innards, that demographic ate it up and Apple ate the market. They solved the real problem. Until someone identifies the next real problem and solves it, I can't really can't see the market changing by the amount the android/webOS/maemo hype suggests. Maybe the iPhone won't always own 97.1% of the market like it does now in the US, but it's always going to be the dominant force unless it truly screws the pooch.

The Corinthian

Sparks wrote: »

Do I think the situation is set in stone? No. Do I think you'd be foolish to not develop for the overwhelmingly dominant and currently fastest growing player in the market if your objective is to sell your work? Yes.

Depends on what you're developing. Some software can take years to develop. Even if it does not, developing is only half the battle, marketing can add it this. Unless your product cycle is pretty short, I think that you would be taking a major risk betting the house on any single platform.

Look, I'm not discounting that the iPhone could remain dominant for years, but I am simply saying you seem a little too certain of it's continued hegemony beyond a point in the future where it is wise to predict.

So please, don't tell me the Mac was easier to program for. I was there and it wasn't.

Actually I wasn't suggesting the Mac was easier to program for, I was saying Windows/DOS was, sorry if that was unclear. The Mac was an utter pain, remember ResEdit?

Sparks

The Corinthian wrote: »

Depends on what you're developing. Some software can take years to develop.

Oh come on. On the iPhone? I've seen apps developed for the iPhone inside of a fortnight to a usable point. Our own took less than a month to port from a Windows version. Getting the software onto the appstore is usually the longer process.

Besides which, if you're taking years to develop your software, the underlying SDK will be obsolete, if not the actual platform itself by the time you finish. At that stage, worrying about the market at all is an academic exercise.

Unless your product cycle is pretty short, I think that you would be taking a major risk betting the house on any single platform.

So you'll do what instead, develop for them all simultaneously? I can't quite see that speeding things along.

You want it done fast, pick one platform and go for it. And if you're going to pick one, pick the biggest healthiest one around. And that's the iPhone right now and there's no data out there that says that's going to change anytime soon.

I am simply saying you seem a little too certain of it's continued hegemony beyond a point in the future where it is wise to predict.

Show me data (not some prediction pulled from a company's posterior based on pleasant thoughts and hype) that supports any other player taking over dominance inside five years. Any data at all.
And if you're writing for the appstore, five years is an epoch.

Actually I wasn't suggesting the Mac was easier to program for, I was saying Windows/DOS was, sorry if that was unclear. The Mac was an utter pain, remember ResEdit?

With a sensation akin to hearing the sound of nails on a blackboard. But it was digging through Apple's human interface guidelines that brings back the worst memories.

The Corinthian

Sparks wrote: »

Oh come on. On the iPhone? I've seen apps developed for the iPhone inside of a fortnight to a usable point. Our own took less than a month to port from a Windows version. Getting the software onto the appstore is usually the longer process.

I wasn't talking about porting. If that is all we are debating, then I would certainly concede that porting to the iPhone makes sense at present. But if we are talking about developing an application from concept, then it becomes an issue.

Of course, not everything is on the same level as, say, games programming, where something like World of Warcraft can take years to go from concept to market. Most software is far less complex, or requires only a relatively thin client and thus you have less to worry about where it comes to the device. Nonetheless, I would not make a blanket recommendation as you have because not all software development cycles are the same.

Besides which, if you're taking years to develop your software, the underlying SDK will be obsolete, if not the actual platform itself by the time you finish.

It could be, which is one of the dangers with mobile development as it is still in far greater flux than the desktop/laptop or Internet browser markets. I can begin work on a Windows or browser based application that could take three years to get to market, but I can far more safely say that while the technology will change (requiring some underlying adjustments), it won't to the point that I will have to throw everything out the window and start again.

The mobile market is nowhere near as stable, on the other hand. I was still seeing healthy demand for WAP based applications as late as four or five years ago. Now all that code would need to be ported or thrown out.

At that stage, worrying about the market at all is an academic exercise.So you'll do what instead, develop for them all simultaneously? I can't quite see that speeding things along.

No, but I would look at technologies that are almost certain to still be around in a few years, such as Web based thin clients (if applicable) or J2ME as the primary platform, then look at the iPhone and Symbian in terms of ports.

You want it done fast, pick one platform and go for it. And if you're going to pick one, pick the biggest healthiest one around. And that's the iPhone right now and there's no data out there that says that's going to change anytime soon.

I don't think you will find data that it's going to change any time soon, and I honestly don't think we can predict the future that way as something almost always pops up and surprises everyone when they least expect it.

I'm simply more cautious than you about the iPhone's dominance; for me I think it will certainly retain it for 18 months, probably for up to 24 months and after that I wouldn't bet the bank on it. So if you can get to market quickly, a straight port being a good example, then at least you know you will get your money back. Once you get into developing something major from concept where you may need years to turn a profit, then I'd be more careful.

Sparks

The Corinthian wrote: »

I wasn't talking about porting.

And I wasn't just talking about porting. Our app was ported from C++ to ObjC, that took under a month. I've seen from-concept stuff developed for the iPhone in less time than that. That is not that uncommon in mobile development.

But if we are talking about developing an application from concept, then it becomes an issue.

No, it really doesn't.

I would not make a blanket recommendation as you have because not all software development cycles are the same.

Well, if you think my "blanket recommendation" covered everything from systems programming to cobol-written bank software, you'd have a point, but since this is the Mobile Application forum and we're talking about mobile platforms to write mobile apps for, I think we're safe enough to not have to worry about NASA writing shuttle flight control software on android...

It could be, which is one of the dangers with mobile development as it is still in far greater flux than the desktop/laptop or Internet browser markets. I can begin work on a Windows or browser based application that could take three years to get to market, but I can far more safely say that while the technology will change (requiring some underlying adjustments), it won't to the point that I will have to throw everything out the window and start again.

I wouldn't feel safe developing anything in the browser that was going to take three years to get to market. On the Desktop, maybe, but three years is a long lead time to get to market for anything other than major software packages. Which really, you wouldn't discuss in the Mobile Applications forum, to be blunt.

I would look at technologies that are almost certain to still be around in a few years

Such as the iPhone. Which is the dominant player.
Look, seriously - you can't turn round and say that we shouldn't consider the iPhone as it's too fluid a market to bet on the largest, fastest-growing, 97%-of-the-US-market-owning player; but we can bet on J2ME and talk about porting to platforms afterwards, even though J2ME doesn't run well on three of the four main deployed platforms.
Android only looks like J2ME, it's a port with a bit of work in it; WebOS and iPhone don't natively run J2ME and if you need the client to install J2ME to run your app, you're limiting your market from the get-go. So you can't port from J2ME, you have to rewrite. Since mobile apps aren't huge, it's doable, but it's not trivial.

And If you're planning on a mandatory rewrite of your app before you can sell it to the largest segment of the market, you need to rethink your business plan!

I don't think you will find data that it's going to change any time soon

In which case, why waste time bemoaning the lack of perfect knowledge and why not just get on with coding?

I honestly don't think we can predict the future that way as something almost always pops up and surprises everyone when they least expect it.

It's impossible to rule that out; but it's also impossible to rule out dropping dead of a heart attack before you finish coding. We don't stop development because of the latter, so why would we stop for the former?

Besides which, you're going to have to do more to convince me that when there's strong data supporting one dominant platform and no data saying something else is going to eat that platform's lunch, that it's a good idea to develop commercial software to anything but that dominant platform. It's just a bad idea without any supporting data beyond the vague hand-waving hope that maybe "something will come along" that will magically change the market. Maybe that will happen - in the meantime there's more money to be made coding for the iPhone, so I say go do that and when something happens to change the market, port your code then.

I'm simply more cautious than you about the iPhone's dominance;

There's cautious and there's irrational paranoia. Paranoia has it's place; this ain't it.

for me I think it will certainly retain it for 18 months, probably for up to 24 months and after that I wouldn't bet the bank on it.

And you can't get to market in four times the average to-market times for mobile apps? If that's the case, the platform's marketshare is not going to be your biggest challange, and you might want to be looking to your development skillset. I'm all for taking the time to do it right, but four times the average development time is an indication of a deficiency unless there's some seriously complex stuff in the app.

The Corinthian

Sparks wrote: »

I've seen from-concept stuff developed for the iPhone in less time than that. That is not that uncommon in mobile development.

No, it's not uncommon, but in my experience that tends to be the modus operandi of cowboy development.

No, it really doesn't.Well, if you think my "blanket recommendation" covered everything from systems programming to cobol-written bank software, you'd have a point, but since this is the Mobile Application forum and we're talking about mobile platforms to write mobile apps for, I think we're safe enough to not have to worry about NASA writing shuttle flight control software on android...

Only, possibly, if your application is relatively simple and I would dispute that mobile development is limited to that - although if you do limit yourself to that kind of development, then you have a point.

Look, seriously - you can't turn round and say that we shouldn't consider the iPhone as it's too fluid a market to bet on the largest, fastest-growing, 97%-of-the-US-market-owning player; but we can bet on J2ME and talk about porting to platforms afterwards, even though J2ME doesn't run well on three of the four main deployed platforms.

I didn't say we shouldn't consider the iPhone. I said we shouldn consider technologies that are more likely to be around no matter what and J2ME would probably fall into this category (at least more so than any of the individual OS's). Additionally, J2ME runs on all of them - arguing that it does not run 'well' is a bit pedantic, especially if one is not developing for how it runs now, but when you get to market.

Since mobile apps aren't huge, it's doable, but it's not trivial.

Again, you're being short sighted. It wasn't all that long ago that a mobile app, or at least WAP deck was limited to 1.4Kb. What you could do with a mobile is increasing in leaps and bounds, to the point that companies like Nintendo are getting nervous that there is little separating them from their own offering.

Of course, if you're just developing small and simple apps, then this is a non issue, but that is not where mobile development is going. Thus you really cannot apply your blanket advice, when it frankly will not work in all cases.

And If you're planning on a mandatory rewrite of your app before you can sell it to the largest segment of the market, you need to rethink your business plan!In which case, why waste time bemoaning the lack of perfect knowledge and why not just get on with coding?

Because almost every software company that I have ever known that went bust followed similar advice.

It's impossible to rule that out; but it's also impossible to rule out dropping dead of a heart attack before you finish coding. We don't stop development because of the latter, so why would we stop for the former?

Where did I suggest stopping coding? Why are you coming up with these strawman arguments?

Besides which, you're going to have to do more to convince me that when there's strong data supporting one dominant platform and no data saying something else is going to eat that platform's lunch, that it's a good idea to develop commercial software to anything but that dominant platform.

I have given data supporting 'one dominant platform' scenarios in the past that subsequently lost their top spot and drifted off into obscurity. That's the reality of IT; today it is a virtual monopoly, tomorrow, maybe it still is - or on the other hand it is an also ran.

It's just a bad idea without any supporting data beyond the vague hand-waving hope that maybe "something will come along" that will magically change the market. Maybe that will happen - in the meantime there's more money to be made coding for the iPhone, so I say go do that and when something happens to change the market, port your code then.

And, as I have already said, of course there is money to be made in developing for the iPhone, but not for all products. if what you want to bring out to market can be done so quickly, then by all means go the iPhone route. Otherwise, be more cautious and hedge your bets.

There's cautious and there's irrational paranoia.

And you were the one complaining of ad hominem attacks...