Some bloggers have gone as far to say that they won't buy an iPhone without third party app support. I don't think this reflects the average consumer.

While this is true, it's also not the whole story, and I think it perfectly illustrates why Apple's treading on dangerous group by not opening up the iPhone just a little bit.

Apple's always understood that in technology, some consumers are much more valuable than others. There's a certain group of "influencers" -- early adopters that many others look to for implicit advice.

Take a concrete example: I bought an iPod as soon as I could get my hands on it, and spent the next few months talking it up to less technically-savvy friends. There's probably fifteen people who got an iPod because I did, and probably a few hundred who bought an iPod because one of my friends did.

And I'm nobody special! Think of the number of people who bought an iPod because Kottke (say) raved about it.

Or look at TiVo: when they first launched, they sent free TiVos to a small number of geeks, who blogged, reviewed, and raved about them. There's an almost unlimited number of other examples: Netflix, Flickr, Amazon.com, Firefox...

So what really disappoints me about the locked-down iPhone is that Apple seems to have forgotten this principle. Mac OS X with all its geeky Unixy underpinnings is the poster child for targeting the influence peddlers, so it really sucks to see Apple fail to embrace it as far as the iPhone is concerned.

All that said, I have no doubts that it'll be successful financially; I just think that by ignoring the value of tech influencers, Apple's missing the opportunity to completely dominate the industry.

I bought an iPod as soon as I could get my hands on it, and spent the next few months talking it up to less technically-savvy friends.

You can't develop code for iPod, either. Didn't seem to stop you from liking it and telling people about it.

I don't see the connection you're making between an open platform and impressing tech-savvy influencers.

Everyone should get out of the mode of thinking that the iPhone is a tiny Macintosh; no one ever claimed it was. That one silly slide about OS X existed only to convey the point that it's "really powerful, like a Mac is really powerful".

More than anything, they wnat the device to make calls and they want it to look slick.

Yes.

More than anything, they wnat the device to make calls and they want it to look slick.

I will follow up here and address Scott's actual topic by saying that I believe that 3rd party developers *could* provide some real value to the iPhone (value to iPhone = more sales of iPhone = profit!). iPhone will have a large installed base relative to any particular model of any other smartphone handset, which allows for greater developer gravity on the platform and more consistent apps. Apple will also presumably have a really clean and easy to use sync system for it, so even the less tech-savvy users may be quite willing to add little widgets to it if they are compelling enough, which is probably less intuitive on a WinMobile handset.

All that said, there is no reason to think any of that is to be expected on day 1, and lots of good reasons why it probably won't be.

You can't develop code for iPod, either. Didn't seem to stop you from liking it and telling people about it.

True, but the ipod wasn't entering a well-established market with other mp3 players that already did have open APIs.

I think the main issue is that the Apple calls the iPhone a 'smartphone', when it so obviously runs against the core attribute of smartphones that set them apart from 'featurephones'.

If you look at the iPhone as just a featurephone, it's awesome, the pinnacle of featurephone evolution in every regard.

That is, except price. Apple's trying to price a really good featurephone as a truly amazing smartphone. Anyone care to imagine what it costs without a 2-year contract subsidy from Cingular?

You can't develop code for iPod, either. Didn't seem to stop you from liking it and telling people about it.

Ah, but see -- I se my phone for a lot more than just listening to music and making calls. I upload photos to Flickr, SSH into servers in an emergency, play (lots of) games, sync my calendar with Google calendar every hour, and more.

You're right that openness doesn't automatically impress influencers, but the lack of openness on a platform that needs it, well, does.

(Aside: am I the only one who's completely flabbergasted by the lack of games on the iPhone? Even if I don't like the lack of openness, I can at least understand it... but does Apple seriously not get the size of the casual gaming market?)

am I the only one who's completely flabbergasted by the lack of games on the iPhone
I'm pretty sure the final product will have games, especially since the iPod already does.

I agree with Scoot that all those complaining tech-bloggers may not be representative for the average customer. Actually, I know a lot of people who never install any additional software on their computers, apart from MS Office.

Of course, that should have been Scott, not Scoot (why do you always see typos at the exact same moment that you press the button?)

Ah, but see -- I se my phone for a lot more than just listening to music and making calls. I upload photos to Flickr, SSH into servers in an emergency, play (lots of) games, sync my calendar with Google calendar every hour, and more.

Then guess what? You ain't the target market.

Yet.

Dane (above) says some right-on things. The term "smartphone" is misleading and is increasingly meaningless. iPhone is a smartphone insofar as it does some really key internet stuff with general browsing plus integrated maps, email, etc. Apple wants to hook you into their end-to-end world, which doesn't today include Flickr or Google calendar (but if you are a dedicated iPhoto/photocast user and you keep your iCal up to date, it'll surely work great for you). This might well be a strategic misstep if they force it down everyone's throats for too long. The iPod succeeded precisely because it carves out a crisp vertical in your music life. But people (especially business types working inside existing technologies) come to the smartphone table with more than just a stack of CDs to rip-- they have various calendaring systems, and other needs. Will the iPhone meet their needs? Maybe eventually, probably not at launch.

So who is the iPhone targeting then? Not specifically today's smartphone owners, and I think this is important to think about. The real meaty market is the people who today are using RAZRs and iPods, who are interested in the extended features of network capability, etc, but haven't ever found a phone for it that wasn't super geeky and pretty difficult to understand. They don't bring expectation baggage with them. The place where the puck will be, Apple is betting, is the time in the future when basically all average-and-up phones are internet-enabled, and they want to be the clear brand and technology leader in that space by the time everyone else gets there. The current iPhone is a first shot across the bow-- they're working on acquiring the masses of the future, not converting today's smartphone users who demand the ability to ssh into a server somewhere on a whim.

(Ranting slightly off-topic: the iPhone in its present incarnation is a relatively unimpressive ripoff. It looks cool, the basics work cool, but $500+ is a LOT of money to be asking for what it does, and it is indeed conspicuous in what it cannot do.)

As just another plain-old-joe average user I love the phone as it was demoed (hoping for gps though) and I am not all that particlarly interested in 3rd party apps. If I have work to do I'll sit at my desk or pull out my laptop. That doesn't mean I won't be looking at 3rd party apps when they come out, but I won't miss them if not available. Having said that, I will pay for gps, word/excel reader, and maybe a game if any of these become available. Yeah, it would be cool to be able to ssh into my server also (you got me there). But none of that is a deal breaker. I hate my cellphone so much that I will drink whatever kool-aid Jobs is selling.

I think that as soon as Apple figures out how to sandbox 3rd party apps they will open up the APIs. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to keep emphasizing OS X. When iPod came out they never talked about the operating system. I do bet that Google will find a way to make docs & spreadsheets work on the iPhone.

So, 3rd party apps would be cool, but I don't care, and a year from now I don't think any of this will be an issue.

" iPhone will have a large installed base relative to any particular model of any other smartphone handset, which allows for greater developer gravity on the platform"

While I agree that the iPhone has the potential to expand the smart-phone market way beyond business and early adopters, it's popularity with consumers would make it a huge target for new and current mobile developers - many of which would sign up as first-time Apple developers. Although I'm sure there are some very talented developers out there, many of these apps would lack the look and feel, polish and design of the Macintosh and significantly pollute the iPhone experience.

Unfortunately, Apple would have a difficult time weeding out these developers, so it's all or nothing. We indie Mac developers get left out in the cold.

However, I'd still love to get my hands on a iPhone SDK - even if the resulting apps were limited my own personal use and couldn't be sold.

Two points:

I currently have a 'dumb' phone, although a very smart dumb phone, a Sony Ericsson Z800. (No, I don't use the 3G; I've had it for months and just got a 3G SIM card by accident.) My previous phone was a smart phone (Nokia 6600), but I didn't use any of those special features except for Opera, which I'm fairly sure I could download right now for the Z800.

The thing that people are getting worked up about is that *even in some reasonably dumb dumb phones, you can write and use your own software*. Sure, it's Java, but now that it's not in the iPhone, and now that we also write Cocoa, and now that OH MY GOD IT HAS COCOA... it didn't really matter that we never wrote one app for the current phone. (Although this may simply be a function of the developer tool proliferation: I was going to take a look at the J2ME API last night - I couldn't even figure out which package to download.)

The other point is that the iPod part of the iPhone will not run "iTunes" iPod games, ie those that you have bought, since even if they get a clickwheel up on the screen, it's going to be worse by far to play since there's a tactile difference between scrolling past the top and clicking "MENU" on it. I'm fairly sure it'll have games, but I'm kind of wondering what Apple's going to do with the 5G games now.

I think we can fairly say that some consumers want iPhone indie apps, just as some people want shareware apps for their computer. Some people don't care about third-party apps. I think there are very few people who actively want third-party software not to exist. I think the conclusion is clear, but eh, I didn't invent the iPod.

I think there are very few people who actively want third-party software not to exist. I think the conclusion is clear, but eh, I didn't invent the iPod.

If the "few people who actively want third-party software not to exist" happen to be the heads of the iPhone bizdev and development organizations, then their opinions might turn out to be undemocratically relevant here.

I think we can fairly say that some consumers want iPhone indie apps

"Indie." Indie, indie, indie. It's such a oft-used word in this little corner of the world. Why is that when I write software for Windows I'm a software developer (or ISV), but when I write a program for a Mac I refer to myself like I'm Death Cab for Cutie?

The first (non mac) person I talked to about the iPhone, their first question was, Can I install TomTom on it. No prompting.

In the US Apple may fill out most of what you do, but here in the UK their are bound to be gaps we need third parties to fill with localised content.

For myself, I think the iPhone would make a great universal remote, and I would love to have FileMaker Pro, Pages, & Keynote running on it.

There's this emotional thing with the iPhone that makes us want to develop for it -- or at least being allowed to. But most users don't care about adding software to their phone / smartphone / PDA.

I've been developing Palm software for 10 years and the trend we're seeing is that users, especially smartphone users, don't feel the need to add software to the product they purchased. Most of these devices are bundled with enough apps for the common crowd, and only power users and a small percentage of users are actively looking for third party applications.

Also, I think people are focusing too much on the term "smartphone", arguing that the iPhone is not one because you can't add software. From what we've been shown, the iPhone is smarter than most of the smartphones out there, and that's what counts to the end user.

Apple wants to provide and control a complete user experience for the iPhone. I'm sure there will be 3rd parties invited to the party, but you'll have to have good connections and a good product to bring to the table. In the meantime, smart developers will build remote applications with HTML / JavaScript with appearance and size tuned for the iPhone.

I think the question of third-party apps is a rather artificial one, and it originates from the fact that the most vociferous people discussing the iPhone on the web are geeks and tech bloggers and Mac fans, who would all love to install third-party apps, or even develop some.

The real question is, however, whether or not the iPhone will have good apps, either pre-installed or available for download. Skype or iChat come to mind, but with Cingular's stranglehold on the iPhone, it's dubious.

Also, the iPhone simply isn't going after the (tiny) market of the Treo or the P990. It isn't a business phone, or a geeky phone. It is for people who would never consider a Treo, but still want to surf the web and use e-mail.

My only doubts are whether or not the iPhone's decidedly limited initial functionality will be enough. No, I don't mean that users would miss SSH or Xcode, but rather that they'd miss speed dial, contact search, and other basic phone functionality that people expect to find on any cellphone.

If Apple invents a Smartphone, even "smarter" than everything before, they NEED to provide capability for developing third party apps. They NEED to add at least a JavaVM.

But my concerns are basicly related to the daily usage "as phone".

I am currently using a SE P910 and I really like the possibility to run e.g. TomTom as a mobile navigator. I also like to choose between three different browsers. It allows me to dial by voice, by using the jog dial, or by pressing a short key. It may possible to establish a call by using one hand with the iPhone, but after all the "revolutionary" UI always depends one much more "optical feedback". The P910 sports a mail client, syncs perfectly well with my iMac via BT. And - last but not least - I don't need to handle it like an egg!
Imagine you suddenly drop down such an iPhone... My gosh!

So far we've seen a phone with a revolutionary interface, melted together with an iPod. On the other hand we've seen the lack of a replaceable battery, the lack of a card slot to expand its memory, no UMTS, no GPRS...

No question, the iPhone will be a great success and the price is okay. But you should consider to get a second phone for daily usage. And don't forget to get an issurance for the egg! :-)

@Ben: the iPhone in its present incarnation is a relatively unimpressive ripoff
I'm not sure what to make of this. The iPhone interface looks like no phone UI I've ever seen, and it certainly doesn't work like anything else. What is it ripping off?

@Chuck: I think there are very few people who actively want third-party software not to exist
Not directly, of course, but there are plenty of people who want their phones to work reliably and don't understand the potential side effects of downloading third party software. It's a tricky thing.

@Ben: Why is that when I write software for Windows I'm a software developer (or ISV)
I think we have enough acronyms. The "indie" thing is a convenient way to talk about small developers. I agree it's used a lot, but it is descriptive. The term used to be "shareware developer," but that's longer, not technically accurate, and I think, suggests a lower standard than what we see today. I like the Death Cab reference, though.

@Andrs Puiz: My only doubts are whether or not the iPhone's decidedly limited initial functionality will be enough
The ship date is six months out. I'm sure the software is still being worked on, so none of that is final.

"Indie." Indie, indie, indie. It's such a oft-used word in this little corner of the world. Why is that when I write software for Windows I'm a software developer (or ISV), but when I write a program for a Mac I refer to myself like I'm Death Cab for Cutie?

Actually, the "I" in "ISV" stands for "independent."

It doesn't factor in my decision either, really. I don't want extra things on my phone.

@Scott: Sorry, "ripoff" in the "costs too much money for what you get" sense.

Re: ISVs. I know "indie" is an apt term here; I was kidding around because I like it! It has so much more panache than ISV, which means (of course) the same thing.

I know "indie" is an apt term here; I was kidding around because I like it! It has so much more panache than ISV, which means (of course) the same thing.

Yeah, being called an ISV makes me feel like some doctor is going to try to stick me up somebody's unspeakable parts.

I can understand why Apple - or Cingular - doesn't want to have 3rd party software on the iPhone: You could install some Skype or other client and Cingular won't earn much from your calls. It's a Apple-Cingular deal.

But I don't understand why Apple doesn't give developers the ability to install Javascript based widgets. From the technical side it's no difference if you have a widget or a web site with Javascript. The only difference: You have to be online for the web site.

This shying away from the "shareware" label is amusing. Of course it's shareware and the majority of Mac developers are shareware developers. We might call it something else at cocktail parties, but that's just spin and marketing.

To hoity-toity developers who wish to avoid label stigma: add some text to your downloadable product to the effect "Please do not distribute this demo". Let us know how your sales go, ok? :)

This shying away from the "shareware" label is amusing. Of course it's shareware and the majority of Mac developers are shareware developers. We might call it something else at cocktail parties, but that's just spin and marketing.

"Shareware" seems to imply more freedom to redistribute than is usually intended. For instance, there are demo versions of InDesign and Dreamweaver, but I don't hear anybody calling them shareware, because there's no way Adobe would be OK with me sharing my copy of InDesign with somebody else.

Chuck, that's because they're not shareware. They're demos.

If you're selling an app that is downloadable, and you enter a serial number to validate it, then you're selling shareware, and you're a (gasp!) shareware developer. As such a developer, you're hoping everyone who downloads your software also passes it on everyone they can. (But without the serial, which is another topic altogether.)

I understand the need by some people to distance themselves away from the negative aspects of the "shareware" label, but come on, we're developers. We can leave the spin for the press releases.

If you're selling an app that is downloadable, and you enter a serial number to validate it, then you're selling shareware, and you're a (gasp!) shareware developer. As such a developer, you're hoping everyone who downloads your software also passes it on everyone they can.

Hmmm. This makes me reflect a little bit.

I'm going to posit that the word shareware is increasingly anachronistic, and maybe that's why it's not used as commonly anymore. I remember when I actually shared disks with friends (Apogee PC games, 15 years+ ago) and occasionally paid full fare by mail order for more levels, etc. Shareware was named more for the distribution model than the business model, and that distribution model arose from necessity. But I don't share disks with anyone anymore. When I find a cool program that's out on some website put up by some guy or small team, I just mail my buddies an URL to the page where they can download the unregistered version, same way I would point my buddies to anything interesting on the web. The distribution model that shareware gave a name to is actually utterly defunct today.

The people who would have been shareware devs 10-15 years ago are now distributing downloadable demos on the web. Often today more traditionally distributed commerical applications also will offer demo downloads and online license registration for convenience. That really blurs the line: it's the same business model on top of the same distribution model! The only differences you can point to are that the "big boys" are both more likely to sell physical bundles at retail, and are somewhat less likely to offer limited downloadable demos. But those are some pretty vague differences at the fundamental level.

All other differences flow from the size of the company (in $$) and how much it spends in development, marketing, support, etc.

So not only is Shareware a misnomer, I'll claim that even "indie" is selling oneself a little short. An "indie" developer is just a little guy whose revenues (or strategy) don't support all the marketing and development that would make them think of themselves as anything but "indie". There's nothing wrong with this-- an "indie" developer sits on the other side of the same continuum as Microsoft and Adobe for all practical purposes in the current industry.

Ben, I agree that shareware is in some senses an outdated term, but for better or worse that's the term that most consumers understand. "Indie" or "ISV" may make some people feel better about their occupation but they don't describe what it is we're doing.

Nobody likes the negative connotations of labels. That's why we have such inanities as "office professional" for secretary, "administrative officer" for clerk, "client executive" for salesman and of course, the wonderful "sanitation engineer" for ratcatcher. But to my ears, "ISV" sounds just as hollow.

Again, our press releases don't have to mention shareware, but when we're together like this, having a nice little chat, I think we can forego the window dressings.

My memory of the term "shareware" is that it originally meant the author wanted you to pay, but it was based on nag messages, not expriring demos. This is closer to today's donationware. Also, shareware software was often miles behind commercial packages because you needed a large infrastructure investment just to get things on the screen.

So given that the software we're talking about uses a commercial model and the quality is often equal to or even beyond packages from larger developers, I really think a different term is justified. The term "shareware developer" just doesn't fit what Panic, Delicious, and Macromates/TextMate do.

@David.
OK, I'll leave the neutral linguist persona behind and speak personally on the subject (I stand by previous comments in the abstract, but you've made me want to engage more directly). I actually don't agree that most consumers understand "shareware" to mean anything in particular. If anything, I believe that the nomenclature implies a lower quality bar than traditional commercial software. Consumers who are developers like us understand it, because we have the context and history and the word feels appropriate somehow.

But I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's not always appropriate. It's wrong because if you're a software developer actually trying to sell software and maximize profit in so doing, then you're a software company just like Adobe is, but smaller. (Smaller in marketing, perhaps smaller in market size.) Think of yourself as an ISV (a dry term, but it carries some respect), think of yourself an independent developer, whatever you want. But if you really think of yourself as a shareware developer, then you ain't aiming high enough, and you'll never generate seriously scalable rewards or a self-sustaining company out of it, unless it's completely by accident.

Names are powerful, and not just in press releases. I don't know what you create/produce/sell, David, or what your motivations are in so doing (profit, hobby, etc). If one does stuff on the side as a hobby, then maybe "shareware" is a reasonable way to think of what one produces. I'm not trying to claim that there isn't a complex taxonomy of small development outfits around.

But if the day comes when I see fit to sell my application, then you can be damn sure that not only will it not be officially called "shareware," but the word will never appear in my own lingo to describe my work. Why? Because if I'm even thinking of myself as only a shareware developer, then I have already lost the competitive war, and I might be able to eke out a living, but I won't be building a real company, which it would be my goal to do.

This is just how I feel about it-- maybe the connotations you get out of it are totally different, which is completely OK. But even while we're here having a personal chat between developers, I can tell you that I don't think of myself as a shareware author. Conceding that, for me, would be to choose to limit myself to business mediocrity. I'm a professional, and so are most of the people who are writing and releasing small Macintosh applications. I think that's one of the reasons the word indie has gained currency over shareware in this market.

Ben, that's fine. I <b>do</b> regard what many Mac developers do as "shareware", and if you develop and distribute applications as described above then I believe you're a shareware developer too. Of course, that has nothing to do with how you see yourself, and I don't feel demeaned to be a shareware developer. It doesn't keep me up at night. (Being a "sanitation engineer" might though.)

More importantly, I believe most people still regard the download/serial mechanism as shareware even if they don't know its history or are even old enough to remember completely free software that nagged the customer.

In this sense, fighting a term like shareware is a bit like science fiction fans going on about "SF" instead of "sci-fi". All very well, and I'm sure it's comforting and validating to collectors of "graphic novels" and speculative movies involving the X-Men everywhere, but it's preaching to the converted -- the rest of the world is going to call it "sci-fi".


Scott, things change. Shareware generally came to mean more than donationware a long, long time ago. And yeah, I've done both, and have no problems with the terms. Does the label change me, or change what I do? No. Do I get a sense of validation from the description of what I do? No.

Do I include the words "shareware" in my PR? No. But that's PR. Your municipal council doesn't offer the services of "ratcatcher" either...


<i>The term "shareware developer" just doesn't fit what Panic, Delicious, and Macromates/TextMate do.</i>

Oh well, we'll just have to disagree. I think it fits it better than any other common term.

What an interesting tangent this turned into. I was thinking about the same issue when submitting my product to MacUpdate.com. Is it demo, shareware, or commercial? Looking at just a few examples, there doesn't appear to be any consistency. In the end I chose shareware because it seems the most inviting, and reinforces that this is a small focused product from real people.

Again, as a developer I'd love to be able to write software for the iPhone, but I don't think an open API is something that is even on the radar of most of the 10 million people Apple is hoping to ship to this year. It's not a factor in my purchase decision.

For the record: If I remember correctly, Steve said they want to ship 10 million iPhones until the end of 2008.

End users don't care how you make the special sauce, just so long as it's tasty, and doesn't make a big mess. But, they definitely want sauce!

For most stuff, widgets would probably be fine, but for a few things, a native level API would be required (I'm thinking of novel uses for the accelerometer in particular.)

As I mentioned in my post to the other thread, Apple could provide a developer API via paid ADC membership with the stipulation that to be released into the wild, you have to prove your creation safe to them first (otherwise, it won't install). Build a bad app? No release keys. Crack the SDK (or use somebody else's crack)? They kill your SIM card and sue you.

@Ben: Because if I'm even thinking of myself as only a shareware developer, then I have already lost the competitive war, and I might be able to eke out a living, but I won't be building a real company, which it would be my goal to do
Very well said. You hit the nail right on the head.

Where did anyone say they regarded themselves as "only a shareware developer"???

If you're in business, the shareware mechanism is just one form of product distribution, understood by most people these days whether they call it that or not. It doesn't exclude the businessperson from any other business activities or distribution methods, it doesn't limit their goal setting.

Getting hung upon whether or not you're being labelled as a "shareware developer" is a bit silly, and maybe a little precious.

I seriously doubt that the guys at Freeverse, Delicious Monster, Ambrosia or any one of the other companies that have made big money by distributing software through shareware, really go to bed at night worrying that they're "only shareware developers".

@David: Getting hung upon whether or not you're being labelled as a "shareware developer" is a bit silly, and maybe a little precious
I believe Ben's point is that it's essentially how you frame things in your head. This gets into a slightly fuzzy area, but agree that thinking of yourself as a "just a shareware developer" can be self-limiting. I don't think most people would picture a shareware developer as being a five-person company with office space, for example.

Clearly this is really depends on what you think of the term "shareware," but I agree with Ben that it has baggage. For example, if you go back to the Mac OS 8 days, shareware was nowhere near the quality level of commercial software. I also can't really think of any prominent individuals who did full-time Mac shareware development.

You may personally not have a mental connection between the word and the historical definition, but I think most people do. What Ben says makes a lot of sense to me, and I think using a different term makes plenty of sense when there's a different meaning. This is all just philosophical, though. Clearly we'll each use whatever we want anyway.

Scott, I think we'll just have to leave the semantics argument as one we disagree with. It's not worth pursuing.

However, this bit has me truly stumped, and I'm sure it's baffling to the people who have disproved it through their own actions over the years:


I also can't really think of any prominent individuals who did full-time Mac shareware development.

???

Just for starters, Ambrosia made (and presumably still do) a healthy living out of doing exactly what you are describing. Andrew Welch is at least "prominent". Peter N Lewis has sold more than a million buckos worth of shareware, probably millions by now. Ditto the Lynch Smiths of Freeverse.

They may not be prominent bloggers, but they're prominent, successful developers who have made a living (and then some) out of shareware distribution, regardless of whether they use the label.

There are many others.

Just for starters, Ambrosia made (and presumably still do) a healthy living out of doing exactly what you are describing
I didn't mean to imply they didn't exist, it's just that none jumped into my head. However, I believe Delicious Monster, Panic, and Realmac Software probably carry more weight than any single shareware developer did in the Mac OS 8 days. Some of this is blogging, some of it is distribution/bandwidth, some is certainly the quality of the tools. As you say, there's no one "right" viewpoint here. I just wanted to explain my comment.

Scott, fair enough. By "carry more weight" I'm not sure if you mean in terms of business success, blog cred, awards, etc. There are successful Mac developers who hardly show up on blog radar, preferring to concentrate on product development (and profits) over the acclaim of their peers. Brian Greenstone, for example, hardly says a word, doesn't get any developer talkback on Cocoa sites, yet has been successfully selling Mac shareware, boxed software and bundles since before Cocoa (or the Web) even existed. The Wil Shipley's of this world sure do garner attention, born showmen that they are, but there are successful, if less flamboyment (and opinionated) "shareware" developers out there, too.

Anyway, the point is: regardless of what we want to call it, shareware can be professional, class-leading and more importantly, profitable. If people want to call themselves Indies, ISVs, fine, whatever, but we're still doing much the same thing.

@Scott:

The iPhone interface looks like no phone UI I've ever seen, and it certainly doesn't work like anything else. What is it ripping off?

MyOrigo's MyDevice phone. I'm sure there are other products and work at universities that have been used as source for inspiration.

Here's a video of the MyDevice's interface, which frankly does seem quite similar to iPhone. Obviously it's not nearly as iterated and polished as iPhone but there's a lot that is familiar, almost identical. The device has some additional tricks Apple chose not to "get inspired of".

Here's a bit silly comparison made by some anti-fanboy (or MyOrigo fanboy but that's quite unlikely :)

Some history, MyOrigo was a small Finnish company that tried to come to the market with their innovative phone, MyDevice was introduced in 2003 and even sold in 2004 but it never succeed financially and the company went under in the end of 2004. AFAIK most of it's IP is currently owned by F-Origin.

MyOrigo's MyDevice phone. I'm sure there are other products and work at universities that have been used as source for inspiration
That's pretty interesting -- particularly the tactile feedback and waving motions. It really doesn't strike me as being similar to the iPhone though, other than the rotation and obvious fact that it has a touch screen. Interesting stuff, though.

Um... Doc Reader, ebook reader, rss readers, planetariums, astronomy GSM, remote controls(Serial, IR and Bluetooth) Bloodpressure managers, Spreadsheets, Powerpoint, games(2d/3d), Google Maps, ePocrates, Image Editors, personal walking direction type of apps, Log books and organization apps of all sorts, including: inventory, POS, Downloaded (and uploaded!), even "little black book" types of apps; restaurant menus, LOL also.. a mirror(.. never used it..) ..... yep interms of applications, Treo beats out and the pants off of an iPhone with no 3rd Party apps... and really isn't .... as smart. Yeah.. i want one.. but, i'd have to keep my treo too. .... please apple... don't drop the ball on this one... oh .. yeah.. and keeping minutes for meetings using a stylus... is a lot easier and faster than using thumbs on a tiny keyboard.... i guess a wireless keyboard is cool.. but, wow... that means i have to carry it around....

@Startyger: No question these are useful apps, but I don't think most of them apply to the market Apple is going after. The iPhone is a mainstream consumer device. Google Maps is good fit, but Apple is developing a custom version in conjunction with Google. A lot of the other ones have great web-based equivalents.

Certainly Apple's approach doesn't cover every angle, which is an opportunity for the Treo and other phone, but I think the iPhone addresses at least 80% of the needs -- even more if you consider the needs of the average consumer.

I don't use the word "shareware" to describe what I write simply because it has a negative connotation in my mind. You say "shareware" and I hear "crapware" -- I don't want to be a crapware author. I don't want to think of myself that way.

Words have the power to drag me down.

On the other hand, if anyone else likes the term "shareware" I don't really mind if they use it -- for me, however, it's a pejorative.

--

On a different topic, how come everyone posting here is so well-spoken and reaonable, and my blog has crazy people ranting about crap?