Steve Jobs was recently interviewed by David Pogue of the NY Times. In that interview, Steve is quoted as saying that there will no Java running on the iPhone.

Java's not worth building in. Nobody uses Java anymore. It's this big heavyweight ball and chain.

While most of the posting address the other comments made by Steve Jobs in the interview, there where a few that addressed the question of not having Java available on the phone and all pointed out the folly in that decision. This prompted a clarification from AronT, a commenter [Editor's note: it is not clear if AronT has any affiliation with Apple], stating that:

When SJ said nobody uses Java he meant as a browser plugin. Web 2.0 is a superior solution, even if the app is Java on the server side.

Is this really what Steve meant or is there more to this story than Java being heavy? Steve also states in the interview that Apple will define everything that is on the phone.

You don't want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore.

Commentary on the subject includes an insightful blog by Ed Burnette. In that posting he points out that mobile phone manufacturers have all pretty much decided to include Java on their production offerings. Ed points to Motorola's new Linux-based MOTORIZR Z6 which features a Java VM as one example. He offers this comment:

Perhaps someone should tell Steve about one of the advantages of supporting Java: managed applications in Java or .Net are inherently safer than unmanaged applications. Unmanaged applications, written in languages like C++ or Objective C (the standard OSX programming language), are closer to the hardware and can suffer from problems like wild pointers, buffer overruns, and incorrectly using deallocated memory.

Finally, Ed comments that it will be quite some time before the iPhone will be released to the public and a lot can change in that time. The "real shame" as he puts it is that iPhone applications will be developed by Apple alone. From an enterprise perspective: is Steve ignoring this segment of the market? Will not including Java on the iPhone lock out custom Java applications that enterprise users may depend upon? And, will Apple's stance on Java on the iPhone hurt adoption by corporate users?

I guess the idea is that the iphone will be so popular that they don't need to worry about compatibility. Apple's strategy is all about being proprietary. Personally, I never understood the whole ipod craze. I can't imagine spending hundreds of dollars to listen to a format that turns music into a faint of shadow of the original. I guess if you are listening to Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson or such mindless drivel there's probably very little subtlety to lose. I haven't heard anything about the iphone that makes me think I'll be interested in it.

Steve is funny...I want my phone works like a computer though!!! Why not? you have all those media playback and little gadgets, those are all computer programs. If you need a pure phone, you ask Bell. I wouldn't mind having Java capabilities built-in the phone and in fact, I am sure it is better to have that because business users would need it more. However, I've read an article saying that business users do not want iPhone. But consumers love to download a lot of Java games too! Steve, think twice before you roll up iPhone.

Maybe Apple is not even capable of porting Java to their new wonder. I remember Java 5 being seriously delayed on macs. All their moves in the last years suggest the fact that software development is an increasingly difficult task for them. This goes for Microsoft too and it seems we area in the middle of a crisis here.

Maybe Apple is not even capable of porting Java to their new wonder. I remember Java 5 being seriously delayed on macs. All their moves in the last years suggest the fact that software development is an increasingly difficult task for them. This goes for Microsoft too and it seems we area in the middle of a crisis here.

Oh oh, Mac and Microsoft have problems with Java, not the other way round. Now that explains a lot! :-D

Oh oh, Mac and Microsoft have problems with Java, not the other way round. Now that explains a lot! :-D

What problems are there with Java and Microsoft?

Has Apple developed the JVMs for OS X or has Sun developed them?

I seems apple did. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=23120

Maybe Apple is not even capable of porting Java to their new wonder. I remember Java 5 being seriously delayed on macs. All their moves in the last years suggest the fact that software development is an increasingly difficult task for them. This goes for Microsoft too and it seems we area in the middle of a crisis here.

uhh im gonna have to disagree strongly. software becoming "more difficult" for them? how do you figure? Perhaps it isnt enough for you, but id say the release of 6 operating systems in the past 6 years, yearly updates to iTunes, iMovie, iDvd, iPhoto, Garageband, the introduction of iWeb, Pages, Keynote (which all integrate seemlessly), BootCamp, and OS X running on intel all prove otherwise. Java 5 was never "delayed" on Macs. u could go to the java.sun.com website and download the development kit whenever you wanted. What apple DID delay, was the forced upgrade to java 5. apple later added the option to install java 5 right alongside java 1.4. perhaps you were inconvenienced by the fact that you couldnt simply go to SoftwareUpdate in the top left corner of OS X and install java 5 on the day it came out. of course, i guess it never crossed your mind to thank apple for even giving you Java out of the box...considering Apple OS X has been and is still the only operating system to come with Java preinstalled (that later changed with Sun Desktop Linux...which lasted about 2 seconds). yes....we are in a crisis...a huge crisis. java is dead. jee has no purpose. ibm's entire software portfolio has become deprecated overnight, .Net and mono shriveled away back to where they came from, and all we have left is javascript and web2.0....yes, all this happened overnight with the release of the iPhone.

Java 5 was never "delayed" on Macs.

The Mac JDK5 came out at least one year (maybe even two, don't recall exactly) later than for any other OS. I posted a few more thoughts on Apple and Java on my blog. -- Cedric http://testng.org

Well I'm not going to comment if Apple strategy about the iPhone is right or wrong from a business perspective. First I'm not a business expert and second the history of Apple tells us that they do either extraordinary clever or extraordinary fool things. Right or wrong choice, a "closed" iPhone is not clearly a professional tool, just a cool gadget. This will somewhat shrink the market share. IMHO Apple is under a great pressure for its new product and they may be running into some technical problems - probably by stripping off stuff they are just trying to reduce the risk. If things are in this way I'd be not disturbed - what disturbed me is that they announced the iPhone as a way to revolutionize the concept of phone, while they have just presented a new cool phone. I reckon only they have did a lot of improvements in the interface, but to me this doesn't revolutionize the phone concept: I'd be pretty satisfied by my Treo 650 if only Palm OS was more robust and multitasking (two things that the "wannabe-OS-X-for-iPhone" has still to demonstrate). BTW that "web 2.0" thing is interesting. I've read other similar blogs today about Ajax on the iPhone and I'd like to know if it's speculation or a real strategy by Apple. This could change perspective, as maybe there's some sort of strong technology endorsemen here.

If the iPhone was really running OS X it wouldn't be a problem - the user could simply install Java and run what they want. Unfortunately, that appears to be another case where marketing attempts to overrule reality -- the iPhone really doesn't run OS X, it runs yet another proprietary OS. With more and more lack of matchup between marketing and reality, I'm concerned that the iPhone will end up being its own worst enemy; we've certainly seen that happen before.

If the iPhone was really running OS X it wouldn't be a problem - the user could simply install Java and run what they want.

Unfortunately, that appears to be another case where marketing attempts to overrule reality -- the iPhone really doesn't run OS X, it runs yet another proprietary OS.

You make it sounds as if OS X is not a proprietary OS... OS X and its derivatives (iPod, iPhone, ...) are all proprietary, period. It doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things, though, you can be sure they will all be hacked if there's enough interest.

With more and more lack of matchup between marketing and reality

Now you make it sound as if there used to be some kind of match up between what Jobs says at keynotes and reality :-) -- Cedric http://testng.org

it runs yet another proprietary OS.

You make it sounds as if OS X is not a proprietary OS...

???

I thought i read somewhere ( on one of those apple watchers sites) Apple doesn't want people to be able to install any 3rd party apps on the iphone, no matter what language they have been written in.

Java's not worth building in. Nobody uses Java anymore. It's this big heavyweight ball and chain.

While most of the posting address the other comments made by Steve Jobs in the interview, there where a few that addressed the question of not having Java available on the phone and all pointed out the folly in that decision.

I believe what is meant here is java support in the browser (that is java applets).

As far as I am aware the iPhone does not support 3rd party software. They will tell you it is for security reasons, but that is an excuse for having a flaky operating system and to tie you in into their software. With regards to Java, there are two places where it can tie in, a Personal Java JVM (MIDP etc..) which allows for the creation of applications that can run on the phone (usually games). These JVMs support only a simple API tailored for phones. The other place where java can come in is in their browser to support applets. I don't know of a single phone that has that since I assume it would entail a much more complex JVM that supports a large set of APIs as compared to MIDP for instance. I am quite disappointed with the iPhone, no 3rd party software, no 3G, expensive.... I guess if the batery life is good and you are going to get an iPod than you 'might' be interested in it. Not for me though.

There's no mention of Java support for the iPhone, so the assumption is that there is none. I hope the opposite is true. There are tons of Java apps available for the mobile phone and I use a few regularly. Looking at the 11 icons that is shown on the iPhone, there's still space for 4 more. Maybe one of the icons will be a "coffee-cup" icon when the iPhone goes live in July this year.

Reading this thread, I just had to add my own two cents. Apple launches the coolest digital device we've seen in years and the only thing TSS has to say is "what no Java?" I think the iPhone needs to be commended for the user interface inovations alone. As for No Java, well there's no C++ or Ruby or anything as I understand it out of the box. The idea is that the iPhone is a device that just works. Who wants the headache of installing third party software any way? BTW. In the presentation Steve Jobs quotes Alan Kay. For those who do not know, Alan Kay came up with the vision of the Dynabook, which lead to Smalltalk, then the Apple Lisa, and Windows etc. Well the iPhone is the nearest thing to the Dynabook yet. So thinking "Dynabook", rich content should just appear on the iPhone and just work. The chances are that in time this content won't be AJAX/HTML or Java Applets, but WPF/e. And guess what you can write WPF/e applications in Smalltalk: http://vistasmalltalk.wordpress.com/page/2/ So it looks like we are going back to the future once more! Paul.

Reading this thread, I just had to add my own two cents. Apple launches the coolest digital device we've seen in years and the only thing TSS has to say is "what no Java?"

I think the iPhone needs to be commended for the user interface inovations alone. As for No Java, well there's no C++ or Ruby or anything as I understand it out of the box.

You are missing the point completely. Java has become the standard for development of applications on mobile devices and phones. This is not so much Apple rejecting Java, it is Apple rejecting the standard for software development in this area.

Reading this thread, I just had to add my own two cents. Apple launches the coolest digital device we've seen in years and the only thing TSS has to say is "what no Java?"

I think the iPhone needs to be commended for the user interface inovations alone. As for No Java, well there's no C++ or Ruby or anything as I understand it out of the box.

You are missing the point completely. Java has become the standard for development of applications on mobile devices and phones. This is not so much Apple rejecting Java, it is Apple rejecting the standard for software development in this area.

Hi Steve, Look at Steve Jobs keynote: http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/live-from-macworld-2007-steve-jobs-keynote/ Apple are launching the iPhone as a iPod + Phone + Internet Communicator. It is not a "Smartphone" or PDA as we commonly understand it. The iPod and Phone parts do not need Java, and an Internet Communicator allows you to view internet content - it's that simple. Incidently in the same presentation jobs makes the announcement that "Apple Computers" have changed their name to just "Apple". So it looks like they are trying to get away from the "Computer" label. If you look at their recent products: iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, you can see how the name change makes sense. I'm not a business strategest, but Wall Street have definately responded positively to the new Apple strategy. Paul.

It is not a "Smartphone" or PDA as we commonly understand it.

It certainly looks like one to me - stuff like web browsing, push e-mail etc.

The iPod and Phone parts do not need Java, and an Internet Communicator allows you to view internet content - it's that simple.

No, it isn't. Things aren't that black and white. The device is running rich applications, like Google Maps. This means rich software is running on the thing. Also, the iPod may not need Java, but you can run Java on it. The interesting thing is that Apple plans no developer kit at all for the iPhone. It is a very closed strategy. It will be interesting to see if it works.

Also, the iPod may not need Java, but you can run Java on it. The interesting thing is that Apple plans no developer kit at all for the iPhone. It is a very closed strategy. It will be interesting to see if it works.

Agreed. At the end of the day it is a business strategy. Personally, I don't think many people are bothered find, download and manage third party applications on their phone (I'm a techy and I don't do it). In the keynote Jobs says that the Killer App is... voice calls on the phone. Having worked in the mobile phone industry, I tend to agree. I believe Apple are promising a superior user experience by offering better integration between the phone and voice mail and better integration between the phone and PDA type features like allowing you to answer a voice call whilst listening to music to set them apart. I am an avid Smartphone user, and I'm yet to find a Smartphone that integrates Phone and PDA features well. It is either a good phone or a good PDA, but seldom both, and seldom well integrated. We'll have to wait and see how the iPhone compares to the rest. Paul.

Personally, I don't think many people are bothered find, download and manage third party applications on their phone (I'm a techy and I don't do it).

You are wrong - the mobile phone third-party app market is huge, especially for games: http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6146288.html?sid=6146288 "According to M:Metrics, one in four US mobile customers have played games on their cell phones, while almost nine percent have downloaded one." Just think of that - 9% of all mobile phone users in the USA have downloaded a game. I am amazed that Apple doesn't want part of that market. You probably don't do it because you are far too busy working hard to play games :)

Personally, I don't think many people are bothered find, download and manage third party applications on their phone (I'm a techy and I don't do it).

You are wrong - the mobile phone third-party app market is huge, especially for games:

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6146288.html?sid=6146288
"According to M:Metrics, one in four US mobile customers have played games on their cell phones, while almost nine percent have downloaded one."

Just think of that - 9% of all mobile phone users in the USA have downloaded a game. I am amazed that Apple doesn't want part of that market.

You probably don't do it because you are far too busy working hard to play games :)

Yeah, all that hard work :^) The other thing to consider is how many game playing kids will have $600 to pay for an iPhone? I'm sure the iPhone will find a market, and the 1% market share target suggested by Jobs sounds doable to me, if they get it right. Paul.

Yeah, all that hard work :^) The other thing to consider is how many game playing kids will have $600 to pay for an iPhone?

I'm sure the iPhone will find a market, and the 1% market share target suggested by Jobs sounds doable to me, if they get it right.

Paul.

Don't assume it's only kids playing games. I guarantee you many people have 'discovered' playing games on their phone will waiting in an airport or riding on the train.

Yeah, all that hard work :^) The other thing to consider is how many game playing kids will have $600 to pay for an iPhone?

If you looked at the market, you will see it is far more than just kids.

I'm sure the iPhone will find a market, and the 1% market share target suggested by Jobs sounds doable to me, if they get it right.

Paul.

Perhaps, but why cut yourself off from the downloadable games/app market? Puzzling.

Hi Steve,

Perhaps, but why cut yourself off from the downloadable games/app market? Puzzling.

I see your point. But in business you do need to decide your unique selling point. Controlling both the software and the hardware has made the Mac unique. I don't think Apple like to do "the same as everyone else". As always they are trying to be different. It may pay off big time like the iPod or fail miserably like the Newton, but the iPhone is different. BTW, they are not only controlling the hardware and software on the iPhone, but the iPhone will only be available on the Cingular Network. So with control over everything including the Network Channel, they will be in a position to create some great branded content. IMO in the end it could be content where the real money is made. Paul.

Hi Steve,

Perhaps, but why cut yourself off from the downloadable games/app market? Puzzling.

I see your point. But in business you do need to decide your unique selling point. Controlling both the software and the hardware has made the Mac unique.

But they haven't done that. Since the Mac was first released, they have always been friendly to developers, initially supplying toolkits for Pascal (which I used). They haven't controlled the software - they have controlled the look and feel of software.

I don't think Apple like to do "the same as everyone else". As always they are trying to be different. It may pay off big time like the iPod or fail miserably like the Newton, but the iPhone is different.

BTW, they are not only controlling the hardware and software on the iPhone, but the iPhone will only be available on the Cingular Network.

Maybe you should call that 'at&t'... can I point you at this: Even as a Brit, I have become a serious fan of Stephen Colbert... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj1Mtv9cD0I

So with control over everything including the Network Channel, they will be in a position to create some great branded content.

IMO in the end it could be content where the real money is made.

Paul.

I am deeply surprised by your comment Paul. I assumed you were always against imposed standards, about restrictions. When Sun or JCP impose things, you complain loudly about 'vendors' and how they force things on developers and users. But now, when Apple want to control everything, you support them. I find this inconsistent, and am interested in your response :) I really get a "Newton" feel about this product - underpowered, closed, and overpriced.

I am deeply surprised by your comment Paul. I assumed you were always against imposed standards, about restrictions. When Sun or JCP impose things, you complain loudly about 'vendors' and how they force things on developers and users. But now, when Apple want to control everything, you support them. I find this inconsistent, and am interested in your response :)

My main interest in the iPhone is innovation. Apple are innovating which is rare knowadays. What I am against is premature standards whose main purpose is to provide a secure and guaranteed market for vendors. What ever way you cut it Apple are taking a risk here, and in the end the consumer will decide. Apple are innovating, and integrating vetically. Vertically they have a monopoly, but as a consumer you can choose an alternative vertical stack. Microsoft on the other hand have a horizontal monopoly, and it is pretty difficult to avoid the 'Microsoft piece', what ever you do. I believe Sun and the Java cartel would like to do the same on the server as Microsoft as done on the client, and in so doing the consequence is to stiffle innovation on the server IMO. You see, I think things between IBM, Oracle, Sun etc is a little too cosy and predictable to be viewed as real competition, and I can't remember when any of then last truly innovated in the Java space. In fact I believe that Sun has joined into another cosy arrangement with Microsoft recently, conceeding the client to them (WPF/e etc), whilst retaining control of the server (J2EE) for themselves. I'm all for choice and letting the Market decide, I'm against cartels and monopolies. I may be wrong, but what I think Apple is offering is an integrated product/service - if it isn't to your liking (features, ease of use, flexibility, etc), then you are free to go elsewhere.

I really get a "Newton" feel about this product - underpowered, closed, and overpriced.

You could be right, - I'm going to suspend judgement until I get my hands on one and get to see whether it lives up to the hype. Paul.

I am deeply surprised by your comment Paul. I assumed you were always against imposed standards, about restrictions. When Sun or JCP impose things, you complain loudly about 'vendors' and how they force things on developers and users. But now, when Apple want to control everything, you support them. I find this inconsistent, and am interested in your response :)

My main interest in the iPhone is innovation. Apple are innovating which is rare knowadays. What I am against is premature standards whose main purpose is to provide a secure and guaranteed market for vendors.

You mean the way that Apple has closed the iPhone, to allow itself a guaranteed and secure market for all its software on the device, with no competitors?

What ever way you cut it Apple are taking a risk here, and in the end the consumer will decide.

No, the consumer can't decide. There are no alternatives to Apple software on the device.

Apple are innovating, and integrating vetically. Vertically they have a monopoly, but as a consumer you can choose an alternative vertical stack. Microsoft on the other hand have a horizontal monopoly, and it is pretty difficult to avoid the 'Microsoft piece', what ever you do.

I believe Sun and the Java cartel would like to do the same on the server as Microsoft as done on the client, and in so doing the consequence is to stiffle innovation on the server IMO.

Sorry Paul, but this sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me. Sun are actually funding development of Java alternatives on the JVM. They have open sourced Solaris, they have realised ZFS and DTrace as open source, to wide acclaim. They are open sourcing Java. They are funding development of open source alternatives to Java on the JVM, such as JRuby. These are all the exact opposite actions of a company that was trying to stifle things. To quote your own phrase back at you - you have to stop seeing things in such black and white terms!

You see, I think things between IBM, Oracle, Sun etc is a little too cosy and predictable to be viewed as real competition, and I can't remember when any of then last truly innovated in the Java space.

Well, IBM and Sun would definitely disagree with you on that respect regarding servers.

In fact I believe that Sun has joined into another cosy arrangement with Microsoft recently, conceeding the client to them (WPF/e etc), whilst retaining control of the server (J2EE) for themselves.

Sorry, but that is laughable. The recent huge effort Sun has made to improve Swing in Java 6 is to boost client presence. Swing use is increasing significantly. All I see here is anti-Sun bias. We need to make objective judgements. Any closed platform is a bad thing for developers and users. I can imagine what would you have said if Sun had released a closed product like this.

Hi Steve,

Sorry Paul, but this sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me. Sun are actually funding development of Java alternatives on the JVM. They have open sourced Solaris, they have realised ZFS and DTrace as open source, to wide acclaim. They are open sourcing Java. They are funding development of open source alternatives to Java on the JVM, such as JRuby. These are all the exact opposite actions of a company that was trying to stifle things. To quote your own phrase back at you - you have to stop seeing things in such black and white terms!

Perhaps you are right, and this is just paranoia on my part. I agree that the evidence is mixed.

All I see here is anti-Sun bias. We need to make objective judgements. Any closed platform is a bad thing for developers and users. I can imagine what would you have said if Sun had released a closed product like this.

I'm not anti-Sun, I'm just very suspicious of the motives of any corporation, given that their first responsibility is to their shareholders. This goes for Apple too. You asked what I think, and I told you. Now if Sun followed through on the original promise of Applets and came up with something new and innovative to compete with WPF/e then I would be proven wrong, wouldn't I? Paul.

Now if Sun followed through on the original promise of Applets and came up with something new and innovative to compete with WPF/e then I would be proven wrong, wouldn't I?

Paul.

Like Looking Glass? Well except Looking Glass works with more than one OS. :)

Now if Sun followed through on the original promise of Applets and came up with something new and innovative to compete with WPF/e then I would be proven wrong, wouldn't I?

Paul.

Like Looking Glass? Well except Looking Glass works with more than one OS. :)

I wondered what happend to that? Tried to find out on the web, and found this wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Looking_Glass I guess it speaks for itself :( Know if you want to see a live project that is innovating in this space checkout this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opencroquet Paul.

I wondered what happend to that? Tried to find out on the web, and found this wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Looking_Glass

I guess it speaks for itself :(

Paul.

I am not sure what I am supposed to be seeing on the Wiki. If you follow Java news sites, you would have seen announcements and progression on it. When I googled "Looking Glass" the first link I got was http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/

I wondered what happend to that? Tried to find out on the web, and found this wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Looking_Glass

I guess it speaks for itself :(

Paul.

I am not sure what I am supposed to be seeing on the Wiki. If you follow Java news sites, you would have seen announcements and progression on it.

When I googled "Looking Glass" the first link I got was http://www.sun.com/software/looking_glass/

Hi, When Sun open sources a project it usually means that they no longer see it as commercialy significant. Much like they have done with Jini and JavaSpaces. So I don't think they are gearing up "Looking Glass" to compete with WPF (or WPF/e). Put it this way, I don't expect to see Looking Glass on the average desktop any time soon. As for innovation, I was an early Java adopter and I remember the vision of "Java Everywhere". We were promised mobile software agents, federating and cooperating through Jini over the network/internet. We where promised Java on our SmartCards, embedded processors that ran Java byte code, finger rings that ran Java byte code etc. Where are they? Applets where meant to be the start, and true mobile objects and Jini where to follow. Now when it comes to mobile code running in your browser Microsoft are making the running. How did that happen? Microsoft didn't even have a VM when Sun and Netscape launched the idea. Sun like most large corporations is a multi-headed beast, and I'm sure that some inside Sun wanted to make these things happen, but in the end the company chose to take a more conservative approach. Sun and Microsoft have kissed and made up, and agreed to cooperate on interoperability. What does this mean? .Net on the client, Java on the Server? We will have to wait and see. Paul.

Sun like most large corporations is a multi-headed beast,

Indeed.

Sun and Microsoft have kissed and made up, and agreed to cooperate on interoperability. What does this mean? .Net on the client, Java on the Server? We will have to wait and see.

Paul.

No, you really don't need to wait and see. As I have already posted in this thread, but you have chosen to ignore, Sun have put a huge investment into Java on the client. Java 6 is a vast improvement in client-side integration and Swing. It is obvious to anyone who takes time to research this matter that Sun is pushing hard for Java on the client.

No, you really don't need to wait and see. As I have already posted in this thread, but you have chosen to ignore, Sun have put a huge investment into Java on the client. Java 6 is a vast improvement in client-side integration and Swing.

Hi Steve, I know that you are relatively 'new' to Java, so you may not share the historical perspective I do, but back in the mid to late 90's Sun was promising to revolutionise the desktop. Desktop PCs where out to be replaced by Java "thin client" terminals. These Java clients consisted of just a screen and a keyboard and enough memory to run a local browser and Java Applets loaded over the web. This was going to be the future of desktop computing. This was not vapour ware, and companies where actually producing the things. Infact I remember using a Java terminal on a training course at Valtech in 1997.

It is obvious to anyone who takes time to research this matter that Sun is pushing hard for Java on the client.

Is it? Not as hard as they were. Paul.

Hi Steve, I knew I weren't going mad! I've managed to track down a link to the stuff I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaStation This device had a JavaOS, and there was even plans for a Java Micro Processor based version. Scott Mc Nealy of Sun and Larry Ellision of Oracle was making all sorts of noises at the time about the "Network Computer" being the next big thing. We are a bit off topic, but at least this shows where my "off key" views come from. Paul.

No, you really don't need to wait and see. As I have already posted in this thread, but you have chosen to ignore, Sun have put a huge investment into Java on the client. Java 6 is a vast improvement in client-side integration and Swing.

Hi Steve,

I know that you are relatively 'new' to Java, so you may not share the historical perspective I do, but back in the mid to late 90's Sun was promising to revolutionise the desktop. Desktop PCs where out to be replaced by Java "thin client" terminals.

No, I am not relatively new to Java, and I have detailed knowledge of its history. I even used Java in it's pre-1.0 stage. The only thing that is relatively new for me is to be able to recommend and use Java for general purpose development.

These Java clients consisted of just a screen and a keyboard and enough memory to run a local browser and Java Applets loaded over the web. This was going to be the future of desktop computing.

This was not vapour ware, and companies where actually producing the things. Infact I remember using a Java terminal on a training course at Valtech in 1997.

This is not what Java on the client means for many of us. I am not talking about applets. I am talking about applications running stand-alone.

Is it? Not as hard as they were.

Not as hard in terms of the situations you describe, but very hard in terms of general Swing applications.

This is not what Java on the client means for many of us. I am not talking about applets. I am talking about applications running stand-alone.

OK, now we are on the same page. So in this context, Sun has more or less surrendered the desktop client to Microsoft IMO. Back in the mid nineties it was a different ball game - it was all out warfare. Back then Microsoft was beginning to encroach on the Server, launching a new Server Operating System: Windows NT, and server applications, like Microsoft SQL Server, Microsoft Transaction Server and Microsoft Exchange. Sun, Oracle and to a lesser degree IBM where really worried that Microsoft would extend their monopoly from the client on to the server and effectively put them out of business. Then along comes Java, or should I say the JVM. Suns new ubiquitous platform to wrestle back control of the Server and challenge Microsoft on the desktop through the use of thin clients, the Netscape Internet browser and applets. Applets proved slow to download and problematic,and most people stuck to CGI/HTML web applications. So out with RMI and in with HTTP, and J2EE Application Server sales rocketted. Since then IMO Sun (and Oracle and IBM) have mostly neglected the client, and have focused on the Server and J2EE. TSS is just one consequence of this "Enterprise Server" focus IMO. So what is the Java vision? IMO all these companies have no vision, their goal is to make money for shareholders, period. So in hindsight I see Applets and the JavaStation as a cynical ploy to make sure that Sun and Oracle etc "stayed in the game". Once App Servers took off and Java's future was secure on the Server, all talk of "thin clients", Network Computers and Applets was dropped. Today the new Applet is WPF/e from Microsoft. Paul.

IMO all these companies have no vision, their goal is to make money for shareholders, period.

So in hindsight I see Applets and the JavaStation as a cynical ploy ....

And at this point my 'conspiracy theory' filter kicked in...

IMO all these companies have no vision, their goal is to make money for shareholders, period.


So in hindsight I see Applets and the JavaStation as a cynical ploy ....

And at this point my 'conspiracy theory' filter kicked in...

Conspiracy or not, the facts are that Applets and the JavaStation are no more, and by 2008 if you choose to run a rich internet application over the web that downloads code to run on a local VM, you will most likely be running WPF and IE7 on Windows. Paul.

Conspiracy or not, the facts are that Applets and the JavaStation are no more,

Things aren't that simple. Applets are still used. Today on indeed.com there are more jobs for Applet developers than for Rails developers.

and by 2008 if you choose to run a rich internet application over the web that downloads code to run on a local VM, you will most likely be running WPF and IE7 on Windows.

Paul.

I seriously doubt it. Do you honestly think server-side developers who have moved mainly to Java over years are going to want to switch to a subset of .NET? To download yet more plug-ins? Remember how Active/X failed? There are many mechanisms for providing rich client-side functionality. One is called Javascript. It is not a great solution, but it works, it works now, and it is truly cross-platform. Another is Flash - again, cross-platform. Also, as for your comment about IE7, have you seen the latest surveys that show IE down below 80% of the market, even after over a million downloads of IE7?

and by 2008 if you choose to run a rich internet application over the web that downloads code to run on a local VM, you will most likely be running WPF and IE7 on Windows.

Paul.

I seriously doubt it. I thought you would have your doubts. Which is why I said, wait and see :^) BTW. I can tell that you haven't done your homework on WPF. XAML is just XML markup for defining applications on the client and can easily be produced in Java, or any other language on the server. Another thing, XAML allows you to specify call backs for events, these can be in Javascript, so you can do AJAX with XAML, and ofcourse you've got the option of IL byte code as your call backs which can utilise the rich .NET framework on the client. Microsoft has just announced .NET for Mac OS X: http://weblogs.asp.net/pwilson/archive/2007/01/13/breaking-news-future-version-of-net-framework-to-run-on-the-mac.aspx I agree that the other player on the radar is Apollo from Adobe, which is based on Flash. My point is that Sun and Java have no solution that can compete in this space. Maybe that's why Apple left Java out of the iPhone? Paul.

BTW. I can tell that you haven't done your homework on WPF.

We shall see.

XAML is just XML markup for defining applications on the client and can easily be produced in Java, or any other language on the server.

I know. It is what Microsoft developed to avoid having to use an established standard - XUL. I have been following this for years.

Another thing, XAML allows you to specify call backs for events, these can be in Javascript, so you can do AJAX with XAML, and ofcourse you've got the option of IL byte code as your call backs which can utilise the rich .NET framework on the client.

Sorry - which .NET framework on the client? Ah yes - the one you have to download if you aren't using a recent version of Windows. We are back to the business of downloads and plugins again. Didn't work that well for Java+Applets.

Microsoft has just announced .NET for Mac OS X:

No, they haven't. They have announced a small subset of .NET. In fact, you already have a larger subset of .NET on the Mac right now in the form of Mono. This is typical of Microsoft. Whereas Sun provides the full implementation of Java cross-platform, Microsoft ensures that you only get the 'full experience' on Windows.

I agree that the other player on the radar is Apollo from Adobe, which is based on Flash. My point is that Sun and Java have no solution that can compete in this space.

Nothing much is going to compete with Flash. I really don't think that developers are going to be happy writing apps that have to be a subset of features to work on non-Windows platforms. Microsoft tried tie-in to Windows with IE. That has significantly failed. They are trying it again with WPF/E (come to Windows for the best experience!).

Maybe that's why Apple left Java out of the iPhone?

Paul.

No, if you look at Apple's plans for the iPhone, they don't intend anyone to download virtually ANY software to it. If you think you are going to be allowed to download C# or VB.NET applications to run on the iPhone, you have (according to my understanding) got it wrong. To quote Steve Jobs: http://blogs.business2.com/business2blog/2007/01/iphones_biggest.html "We define everything that is on the phone"... "These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them". Java applets are out, Java mobile apps are out, but so is just about everything else.

No, if you look at Apple's plans for the iPhone, they don't intend anyone to download virtually ANY software to it.

If you think you are going to be allowed to download C# or VB.NET applications to run on the iPhone, you have (according to my understanding) got it wrong. To quote Steve Jobs:
http://blogs.business2.com/business2blog/2007/01/iphones_biggest.html

"We define everything that is on the phone"...
"These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them".

Java applets are out, Java mobile apps are out, but so is just about everything else.

You've gone back tp confusing thin client Rich Internet Applications that download to memory and run in the browser, and thick client Apps that you download/install to disk. Using your interpretation of Jobs words would mean that the iPhone won't run Javascript either! Anyway thanks for the debate. One thing we both agree on is that we need to wait and see. Paul.

You've gone back tp confusing thin client Rich Internet Applications that download to memory and run in the browser, and thick client Apps that you download/install to disk.

Using your interpretation of Jobs words would mean that the iPhone won't run Javascript either!

No, I am definitely not confusing them. Apple is against even sandboxed downloaded applications running on the iPhone, which would include the .NET equivalent of applets, which need a version of the CLR installed. Obviously Javascript is not the same thing, as support for that is built-in to the pre-installed browser. If you are thinking that the iPhone is going to be a device on which you can automatically run some equivalent of Vista Smalltalk, I think you are in for a disappointment.

Apple is against even sandboxed downloaded applications running on the iPhone, which would include the .NET equivalent of applets, which need a version of the CLR installed. Obviously Javascript is not the same thing, as support for that is built-in to the pre-installed browser.

If you are thinking that the iPhone is going to be a device on which you can automatically run some equivalent of Vista Smalltalk, I think you are in for a disappointment.

Hi Steve, If you follow my posts carefully you will see that I explicitly say that the iPhone does not support WPF/e today. I also say that Apple are marketing the iPhone as a device that just works out the box, hence my comparison to the Dynabook. In this context I see rich client web applications as web 'content'. Today the only mobile code content that is supported by the iPhone is Javascript I think. I have read nothing to exclude the iPhone supporting WPF/e or Appollo in the future. So my speculation is on the possibility of the iPhone supporting rich web content in the future and what that content could be. You are making the assumption, that Apple will not choose to pre-install the .NET or the Appollo runtimes on the iPhone at some stage in the future. Apple could also choose to automatically update these runtimes alongside Mac OS X updates. In effect .NET and/or Appollo could become part of their default Safari browser installation. What will drive Apples future decisions in my opinion will be the quality and quantity of rich content available on the web for each runtime. If the Zune device from Microsoft has access to all the best content, then the iPhone will look less attractive to consumers. For now this is all speculation. I've got my views, you've got yours, so lets just wait and see. Paul.

If you follow my posts carefully you will see that I explicitly say that the iPhone does not support WPF/e today.

Yes, but you explicitly also mentioned that Microsoft was developing a version of .NET for OSX, and as the iPhone runs OSX...

In this context I see rich client web applications as web 'content'.

You need to be careful with terms. 'Java on the client' could mean anything from an Applet, Midlet, through Web Start to a full stand-alone Swing application.

I have read nothing to exclude the iPhone supporting WPF/e or Appollo in the future.

Well I have: "These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them". Direct quote from the man himself. WPF/E or Apollo or a JRE would allow people to load software on them.

You are making the assumption, that Apple will not choose to pre-install the .NET or the Appollo runtimes on the iPhone at some stage in the future.

Well, I take Steve Jobs at his word. If he says he doesn't want custom applications downloaded onto the iPhone, I assume that that is what he means.

Apple could also choose to automatically update these runtimes alongside Mac OS X updates. In effect .NET and/or Appollo could become part of their default Safari browser installation.

Well, if Steve Jobs does a dramatic U-turn yes, otherwise it is just wishful thinking. If they want to make money, there is a phenomenal Java mobile game market. It is far more likely that they would give in an include a JRE, but I think the chance of either happening is remote.

What will drive Apples future decisions in my opinion will be the quality and quantity of rich content available on the web for each runtime.

Apple is not wanting different runtimes on the iPhone for a variety of reasons - so that they can control the look and feel of everything, and so that people can't bypass the use of the voice system, cutting back profits for the telecoms provider.

What will drive Apples future decisions in my opinion will be the quality and quantity of rich content available on the web for each runtime.

One exciting thing about Apple is their unpredictability; I don't envy anyone the task of trying to predict their future decisions.

I have read nothing to exclude the iPhone supporting WPF/e or Appollo in the future.

Well I have:

"These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them".

Direct quote from the man himself.

WPF/E or Apollo or a JRE would allow people to load software on them.

!Wow .. you read all of that into those few words. Let's just say that my take on what he means is a little different. Mac OS X supports Dashboard Widgets, which again are mobile code. So will the iPhone block these too? Lets just wait and see :^) Paul.

Wow .. you read all of that into those few words.

Of course it wasn't just those few words. I have been researching the iPhone in depth; both the direct statements from Apple and associated articles.

Let's just say that my take on what he means is a little different.

Well, if there is some other possible interpretation of statements from Steve Jobs, I would be interested to know how they could be arrived at.

Mac OS X supports Dashboard Widgets, which again are mobile code. So will the iPhone block these too?

Lets just wait and see :^)

Paul.

You are missing the point. If there are Widgets on the phone, or any other mobile code, they will come from Apple, pre-installed. From EWeek: "The iPhone will also come bundled with several widgets similar to those in Mac OS X's Dashboard, providing, for example, live sports scores and weather." There is no contradiction between this feature and Apple's insistence that they will provide virtually all software and restrict development for the device. There is no need to wait and see - the answer is there with just a little research. I am certain that there will be competing devices that will provide WPF/E, but I think to try and spin what Steve Jobs and Apple have said to allow for it on the iPhone is simply ignoring what they have said. Still, anything can happen.

Wow .. you read all of that into those few words.

Of course it wasn't just those few words. I have been researching the iPhone in depth; both the direct statements from Apple and associated articles.

Let's just say that my take on what he means is a little different.

Well, if there is some other possible interpretation of statements from Steve Jobs, I would be interested to know how they could be arrived at.

Mac OS X supports Dashboard Widgets, which again are mobile code. So will the iPhone block these too?

Lets just wait and see :^)

Paul.

You are missing the point. If there are Widgets on the phone, or any other mobile code, they will come from Apple, pre-installed. From EWeek:

"The iPhone will also come bundled with several widgets similar to those in Mac OS X's Dashboard, providing, for example, live sports scores and weather."

There is no contradiction between this feature and Apple's insistence that they will provide virtually all software and restrict development for the device.

There is no need to wait and see - the answer is there with just a little research.

I am certain that there will be competing devices that will provide WPF/E, but I think to try and spin what Steve Jobs and Apple have said to allow for it on the iPhone is simply ignoring what they have said. Still, anything can happen.

Hi Steve, Sometimes I find you incredulous. So from yet another sound-bite, you have concluded that the iPhone will only allow pre-installed widgets, but won't allow you to download widgets of your own choosing! What are widgets all about, if you can't download the ones you like? The only person spinning Steve is you. I tell you what though, you're entertaining :^) I'll leave you to have the last word. Over and out, and enjoy the rest of your weekend. Paul.

So from yet another sound-bite, you have concluded that the iPhone will only allow pre-installed widgets, but won't allow you to download widgets of your own choosing!

No, I simply take Steve Job's word for what the device will do, and what we will be allowed to do with it.

What are widgets all about, if you can't download the ones you like?

Because the way they are used is familiar to existing OSX users? Even if I am wrong about widgets, they generally involve nothing more that some web coding and Javascript, so unless you expect someone to implement Smalltalk in Javascript...

As I have already posted in this thread, but you have chosen to ignore, Sun have put a huge investment into Java on the client. Java 6 is a vast improvement in client-side integration and Swing. It is obvious to anyone who takes time to research this matter that Sun is pushing hard for Java on the client.

And they are currently hiring two Swing Developers.

You asked what I think, and I told you. Now if Sun followed through on the original promise of Applets and came up with something new and innovative to compete with WPF/e then I would be proven wrong, wouldn't I?

Paul.

I think the issue is that you are only calling something innovative if it matches your specific criteria. I personally don't think that releasing a subset of .NET to developers is innovative, but then I have my own criteria as well. Unlike Microsoft, Sun releases full versions of products for those who want to work cross-platform. If what you mean by 'the original promise of applets' is something more dynamic, then you should consider that you can code applets in dynamic languages on the JVM - you can have Ruby applets, for example.

My main interest in the iPhone is innovation...

Back to the future from 2002 http://www.mobileburn.com/review.jsp?Id=547

Maybe you should call that 'at&t'... can I point you at this: Even as a Brit, I have become a serious fan of Stephen Colbert... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj1Mtv9cD0I

Just saw the youtube sketch. Very funny and concerning at the same time. To be honest, I don't know what to do about 'ubiquitous' technology and the possibility for corporate monopolies/cartels. In the Telecoms sector, I believe the Europeans had the right idea, in realising that telecommunications should be 'public'. Since then, much of the telecoms industry in Europe has been privatised, but it still remains heavily regulated. Personally, I believe that the Software industry may benefit from international/state regulation too - an international regulatory body similar to the ITU in telecoms but for Software. Would that make things better or worse? Not sure. One thing I can say though is that the Mobile telecoms market developed much faster in Europe then it did in the States, and I would put that largely down to the EU and ETSI (European Telecoms Standards Institute). Paul.

Maybe you should call that 'at&t'... can I point you at this: Even as a Brit, I have become a serious fan of Stephen Colbert

That and the Daily Show. Not sure how else I'd get my daily news. BTW, you need to watch Mad Money to get the last part of that. FUNNY.

Personally, I don't think many people are bothered find, download and manage third party applications on their phone (I'm a techy and I don't do it).

You are wrong - the mobile phone third-party app market is huge, especially for games:

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6146288.html?sid=6146288
"According to M:Metrics, one in four US mobile customers have played games on their cell phones, while almost nine percent have downloaded one."

Just think of that - 9% of all mobile phone users in the USA have downloaded a game. I am amazed that Apple doesn't want part of that market.

You probably don't do it because you are far too busy working hard to play games :)

Yeah, all that hard work :^) The other thing to consider is how many game playing kids will have $600 to pay for an iPhone? I'm sure the iPhone will find a market, and the 1% market share target suggested by Jobs sounds doable to me, if they get it right. Paul.

The idea is that the iPhone is a device that just works. Who wants the headache of installing third party software any way?

Huh? Millions of people are downloading java games to their cells everyday!

The chances are that in time this content won't be AJAX/HTML or Java Applets, but WPF/e. And guess what you can write WPF/e applications in Smalltalk

But will it run on OS/X? It would take a very long chain of not-so-likely "chances" for that to happen (WPF/e + smalltalk + iPhone...). Besides, I can't see why Apple would bet on WPF/e but not on Java, given each technology's mobile market penetration.

The idea is that the iPhone is a device that just works. Who wants the headache of installing third party software any way?

Huh? Millions of people are downloading java games to their cells everyday!

Yes, true - How many OS X Dashboard widgets are downloaded each day from the web? Can't these be games too? Java is not the only "mobile code" format out there.

The chances are that in time this content won't be AJAX/HTML or Java Applets, but WPF/e. And guess what you can write WPF/e applications in Smalltalk

But will it run on OS/X? It would take a very long chain of not-so-likely "chances" for that to happen (WPF/e + smalltalk + iPhone...). Besides, I can't see why Apple would bet on WPF/e but not on Java, given each technology's mobile market penetration.

They are not betting on WPF/e or Java. The only thing they are betting on at the minute is HTML ( and AJAX?). Have you seen the Safari browser on the iPhone? You can see a full web page on the screen at once, thanks to the high screen resoultion, and zoom into parts of the page if needed, just using your fingers. So no need for WAP. I do not work for Apple, but it seems to me that they are focusing on internet "content". Apple support for WPF/e is already in the pipeline. This is just one possible future option. When it comes to rich internet content the only other big thing on the radar is Appollo (next generation Flash) http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo Java Applets don't even come close. Paul.

Yes, true - How many OS X Dashboard widgets are downloaded each day from the web? Can't these be games too? Java is not the only "mobile code" format out there.

Who said it was? Steve Jobs reportedly stated that "no one uses Java [Applets] anymore." That's demonstrably false. I for one would be pretty pissed if I couldn't play on my favorite Go server or play "hell of falling sand" on my new fancy phone. Just because OS Dashboard Widgets exist doesn't mean that everything has been implemented as one.

Yes, true - How many OS X Dashboard widgets are downloaded each day from the web? Can't these be games too? Java is not the only "mobile code" format out there.

Who said it was? Steve Jobs reportedly stated that "no one uses Java [Applets] anymore." That's demonstrably false. I for one would be pretty pissed if I couldn't play on my favorite Go server or play "hell of falling sand" on my new fancy phone. Just because OS Dashboard Widgets exist doesn't mean that everything has been implemented as one.

Agreed. My point is that most use cases can be satisfied using internet applications. So not having Java donwloads isn't such a big deal. BTW, most Dashboard Widgets are internet applications (Weather reports, Travel etc). The only thing Java has in this space is Applets. Paul.

Agreed. My point is that most use cases can be satisfied using internet applications. So not having Java donwloads isn't such a big deal.

BTW, most Dashboard Widgets are internet applications (Weather reports, Travel etc). The only thing Java has in this space is Applets.

Paul.

I guess. What I question more than the 'no Java' thing is this idea that there will be no support for external software. That seems bizarre to me in this day and age. I wouldn't bet on the 'we know what's best for you' strategy but I could be wrong. Maybe my perspective as a developer is different from the average developer in this regard. We'll see what happens. I have thought for decades that a lack of software (especially games) for the mac has been one of the biggest reasons it has remained a niche platform. I kind of think that Adobe Photoshop kept the Mac from disappearing entirely. It's seems odd to me that Apple would purposely bring this on themselves in a new product.

Agreed. My point is that most use cases can be satisfied using internet applications. So not having Java donwloads isn't such a big deal.

BTW, most Dashboard Widgets are internet applications (Weather reports, Travel etc). The only thing Java has in this space is Applets.

Paul.

I guess. What I question more than the 'no Java' thing is this idea that there will be no support for external software. That seems bizarre to me in this day and age. I wouldn't bet on the 'we know what's best for you' strategy but I could be wrong. Maybe my perspective as a developer is different from the average developer in this regard. We'll see what happens. I have thought for decades that a lack of software (especially games) for the mac has been one of the biggest reasons it has remained a niche platform. I kind of think that Adobe Photoshop kept the Mac from disappearing entirely. It's seems odd to me that Apple would purposely bring this on themselves in a new product.

I understand you. The perspective I believe they are taking is seeing the iPhone as a product, much like a MP3 Player or a DVD player, rather than a general purpose computing platform. If you look at things this way it makes more sense. BTW, I think they are possibly looking to make money out of content aswell, much like they currently do with the iPod and iTunes. Paul.

BTW, most Dashboard Widgets are internet applications (Weather reports, Travel etc). The only thing Java has in this space is Applets.

Paul.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Any Java application can connect to the internet. Given the proper OS support, Java seems like a damn good platform for widgets, actually.

My point is that most use cases can be satisfied using internet applications. So not having Java donwloads isn't such a big deal.

BTW, most Dashboard Widgets are internet applications (Weather reports, Travel etc). The only thing Java has in this space is Applets.

Paul.

Wrong, most java apps running on phones are J2ME apps, not applets! If Apple decides to leave J2ME out, they'll be cut out of a huge market.

Wrong, most java apps running on phones are J2ME apps, not applets! If Apple decides to leave J2ME out, they'll be cut out of a huge market.

Speaking of J2ME, it's still only a subset of Java 1.1 in terms of the language spec, right? It almost seems like Sun has abandoned it. It seems like the market is a lot better for this than it was when it first came out. Why don't they bring it into the current century?

Have you seen the Safari browser on the iPhone? You can see a full web page on the screen at once, thanks to the high screen resoultion, and zoom into parts of the page if needed, just using your fingers. So no need for WAP.

No, I haven't seen it on an iPhone, but basically the same Safari-based browser has been a standard feature on high-end Nokia smartphones for a year or so. It also allows you to see the full page on the screen at once and zoom into wherever you want. It has a certain "this is cool" appeal for a while, but it's not very usable in practice. Zooming in and the inevitable horizontal scrolling is very annoying after a while. If Apple has managed to cram in better zooming with good anti-aliasing for the fonts etc. it might help a little, but I wouldn't get too excited at this point. 3G (which iPhone doesn't have) or WiFi access is also a must when using the browser, because it really loads everything that is on the page just like a desktop browser. EDGE is too slow for a pleasant browsing experience. Interestingly, J2ME-based Opera Mini 3.0 is still by far the most *usable* mobile browser out there - for me at least. iPhone has some nice features, but an expensive high-end phone in 2007/2008 without J2ME support is ridiculous. I don't think anyone was seriously even wanting it to have a full Java 5.0 runtime.

basically the same Safari-based browser has been a standard feature on high-end Nokia smartphones for a year or so.

This is getting a bit off-topic (sorry), but I forgot the link: http://www.s60.com/business/productinfo/applicationsandtechnologies/webrowser

basically the same Safari-based browser has been a standard feature on high-end Nokia smartphones for a year or so.

What I meant, of course, is that both Nokia's S60 browser and Safari are based on the same open source code (WebCore).

basically the same Safari-based browser has been a standard feature on high-end Nokia smartphones for a year or so.

This is getting a bit off-topic (sorry), but I forgot the link:

http://www.s60.com/business/productinfo/applicationsandtechnologies/webrowser

Thanks, I didn't know this. The iPhone is claiming an extremely high screeen resolution, so perhaps on the iPhone you may not need to zoom so much. We will have to wait and see how it compares. Paul.

I agree, and i also think it is the only innovation we can talk about. The problem here is that Apple is not creating a market, like with the iPod. There are hundreds of millions of telephones out there, where people do install Java games everyday. There are around one hundred millions Symbian telephones sold, where you can load Java applications and Symbian C++ applications, and are already multitasking. Without talking about Palm and Windows devices, that cover a small share of the smartphone market. And in general, people do install third party applications; there are a few hundreds of Symbian applications available. For example, I counted ten third party applications on my Nokia. On the functional side, there is nothing that the iPhone can do that my Nokia or any high end device on the market cannot, but there are many things my phone (and many high end device) can do and an iPhone cannot (on paper), like reading and editing a MSOffice document, opening a PDF file, making a SIP or a Skype VoIP phone call, etc ... Yes, the user interface is different and innovating; i hope for apple they have not screwed up it, remember that no device based on a touch interface has been successful in the past. Maurizio

>The problem here is that Apple is not creating a market, like with the iPod. There are hundreds of millions of telephones out there

so what your saying is that the iPhone is just a new user interface? as far as i remember the ipod WAS just a new user interface as well. with hundreds of mp3 players existing before it. granted...i think we still need to wait to see what this thing can/cant do. and im not too happy if they dont include any sort of JVM in it but i wouldnt underestimate it just yet.

Reading this thread, I just had to add my own two cents. Apple launches the coolest digital device we've seen in years and the only thing TSS has to say is "what no Java?"

I'm not surprised seeing how this is a Java forum. I am about as surprised as seeing that Balmer trashing it.

well there's no C++ or Ruby

So, some good news. :)

:)

If i was Steve i wouldn't stuff java in my phone either, as if anything would happen with that. Nobody programs java on phones, once bitten twice shy i guess.

Nobody programs java on phones

Que? I didn't know I had my name changed to "Nobody" over night.

Nobody programs java on phones

Que? I didn't know I had my name changed to "Nobody" over night.

oops, i am sorry i didnt inform you on time about that one. For all the others that still program java enabled phones : as from today on your name will be NoBody. That will be your first and your lastname in one go. You are allowed to pick a firstname of choice for everyday use and to prevent miscommunications but officially you are NoBody. Now may i be excused for making bad jokes and being rude, i cant help myself.

The iPhone can be the most interesting mobile all-in-one but it's not the unique. The connect people certanly will buy an iPhone by Blackberry and all other mobile all-in-one will continue to be sold out. It's amazing think that iPhone will be the unique on market. Qualcomm has a good cell phones, blackberry and so on. I think that revolution is a good way to inovate but it's a good one to rivals copy. As example we can look at Nintendo, it was that invent the pad, power glove, pistol, glass that was copied by Sega, Sony and Micro$oft. Now Nintendo developed the Wii with sensitive joystick. Someone has any doubt that the next generation ( or even this one ) we will see the Sony and Micro$oft with their "revolution" joysticks?