Its functionality is locked in, though Apple can change it through remote updates. Indeed, to those who managed to tinker with the code to enable the iPhone to support more or different applications, Apple threatened (and then delivered on the threat) to transform the iPhone into an iBrick. The machine was not to be generative beyond the innovations that Apple (and its exclusive carrier, AT&T) wanted. Whereas the world would innovate for the Apple II, only Apple would innovate for the iPhone. (A promised software development kit may allow others to program the iPhone with Apple’s permission.)”

3

illustration by John hersey

The parenthetical remark has since come true (the iPhone Software Development Kit was released in March 2008), and as of this writing in late 2008, several months after the introduction of iPhone 2.0, it is difficult to imagine the iPhone without its outside apps. This is a partial vindication of generative technologies over sterile ones, but with caveats that may make this the worst rather than the best of both worlds.

The application environment for the iPhone flips from the PC-with-antivirus-software’s blacklist system to a whitelist scheme unchangeable by the user. With rare exceptions, such as a special ad hoc program allowing very limited distribution. Outside developers must register with Apple, promise not to disclose anything about how apps are written, and if approved they may then submit their software to Apple for review and possible inclusion in the iPhone App Store, the only way for the public at large to obtain it.

Apple can change its mind at any time about a particular piece of software’s inclusion in its store. And even software already obtained from the iPhone App Store can be recalled— that’s just a subset of Apple’s ability to remotely reprogram any aspect of the phone at any time.

For vendors of iPhone apps, Apple’s goodwill is thus vital. Apart from deciding whether an app lives or dies, Apple can feature favored apps in its store, and it can make app updates and bug fixes available slowly or quickly. For these reasons a gag order in the license

agreement demanding that software authors not discuss codewriting for unreleased software was taken very seriously among app developers. Apple doesn’t need to bring a lawsuit against a developer who violates license terms; it already has the power to destroy the iPhone-based livelihood of anyone disfavored, for any reason.

NetShare, an app that allowed users to gain wireless connectivity for their PCs through a connected iPhone, disappeared, and as of this writing the company says it doesn’t know why. Box Office, an app that provided movie times, was removed from the iPhone App Store for several weeks. Its developer has declined any comment since its return. Other developers for mail and podcast-related programs say their apps were turned down with the explanation they were “duplicative” of (that is, competitive with) existing iPhone functionality.

Should we care? Apple likely wouldn’t kill apps people really like since they make money along with the authors: 30% of all sales. And people think of an iPhone as a more unified device, expecting all of it to work at