And the first Microsoft iPhone app is .. Windows Live? Hotmail? Office? umm… Not quite

Great. They release an app for the iPhone but forget to FIX WINDOWS MOBILE. Yeh, Yeh. We see the LOGIC. Oh, wait it is Microsoft. Nothing Unusual.

Shame Apple blocked Silverlight on iPhone or this wouldn't be necessary.

Thanks Mike. Nice to see Microsoft writing software for the iPhone. Could be the win - win Jobs has been talking about. Yawn!

@mikegalos: Silverlight is second rate. MS even uses Flash in places where they could tout their much loved Silverlight. How much belief can one have in one's own product when one doesn't use it?

@mikegalos: "A win-win would be Jobs letting Silverlight on the iPhone so you wouldn't need iPhone specific apps that are done on the other platforms by using the Silverlight runtime but that's pretty unlikely." That would only further open the flood gates and let in even more Windows developers that have no taste, developing dodgy apps for the iPhone. You can see plenty of old VB and Windows developers polluting the AppStore already.

This gets even more interesting: >>The Seadragon team recently released a Seadragon Ajax version, for viewing Deep Zoom photos using standard Web technologies. Earlier the group had released Deep Zoom technology for Microsoft's Silverlight interactive technology.<< SIlverlight for the loss. :)

Be it a very odd choice for the cherry-popping iPhone app, this d*mn thing is just really cool... completely useless... but very very cool. When on wifi, this thing blows Google Earth mobile out of the water. For me, it's just another one of those "WTF Microsoft?" moments. Awesome software--odd implementation.

Who cares about silverlight ? Funny that webpage from MS lab has the same ton of Pingback as this blog...

robersjoe, I thought you left?

You know, I mostly agree with Mike on this one (Yah, scary.) There's no reason not to allow Flash and Silverlight on the iPhone. I'd love to have netflix streaming for my iPhone, but ain't gonna happen without Silverlight. This extreme anal retentiveness over what can be put on a iPhone is just way over the top. In this instance, Steve Jobs control mania is just too much. Users are perfectly capable of deciding what they like and don't like on their phone and proceeding as they see fit.

"You know, I mostly agree with Mike on this one (Yah, scary.)" Nope. Scary is when you agree with robertsjoe. Compare mike's remarks from yesterday with robertjsoe's and you'll see. I mean, robertsjoe makes lindy appear saintly. No mean feat, that. ;-)

@Mike Galos, Apple "should" support Silverlight on the iPhone based on the same logic that requires that Microsoft "should" have fully supported Open GL or MPEG 4. I think you would/do defend Microsoft's right to pursue their own strategy for platform technologies and I think it's only fair to allow Apple the same courtesy intellectually. I'm not saying Microsoft should be forced to do things against their own interest. In fact, my increasingly strident libertarian studies has lead me to conclude that the anti-trust suit against Microsoft was total garbage and purely the result of the company's lack of Washington lobbying prior to the assault. So, we'll see if Apple's strategy succeeds or fails, but I see no reason right now for Apple to be more open on the runtime front given how much control they'd instantly lose by doing so. It IS in their interest to put all developer interest into the SDK and build it out as a robust platform. If demand for Flash or Silverlight becomes enough of an issue, I'm sure Apple will open up support for them. The company is not nearly as ideological as anyone claims. That's a big narrative fantasy that simpletons in the media love to play up because it makes writing about the company seem more mysterious.

And now Mozilla is saying they had to reverse engineer Apple's secret APIs in OS X to get Firefox 3.1 to support multitouch gestures since Apple doesn't publish the multitouch APIs for 3rd party developers and only allows them to be used in Apple developed applications.

"The iPhone is a much nicer place because of the lack of Flash or Silverlight.. that is, until The Dear Leader deigns us worthy of having Flash on the iPhone." Like he did with expansion slots or color or choices of monitors or more than one model or different amounts of memory. (All of which were things Jobs insisted had no place in Macintosh until they did)

"(All of which were things Jobs insisted had no place in Macintosh until they did)" Isn't that the role of the CEO of a company? And isn't it the company's right to make such choices? You, I, and others may not agree with it...but it is totally OK for Apple or any other company to make those kinds of decisions about the products and services that they sell/provide. If enough people disagree with that strategy, it will show in sales figures...as it has with the Macintosh computer...but not the iPod/iPhone. --tayme

tayme "Isn't that the role of the CEO of a company? " No. Not really. It's within the power of the CEO to lie about future plans or to attack competitors for doing features you plan on doing yourself but that's hardly the role of the CEO. You see, there are lots of honest CEOs out there who try to actually help their customers and partners plan for a long-term future with their products. They may not telegraph every future plan but they don't intentionally decieve their customers and partners. On the other hand, in Steve Jobs' case, it's more likely that he really believes these technologies are bad and prohibited until he decides he likes them at which point they're mandatory. As I said, it would be very Jobsian to see a future for Macintosh where: You can only buy software for the Mac direct from Apple. Only software approved by Apple could be used on a Mac. Apple has the right to deny any developer the ability to sell software for the Mac if it competes with anything Apple makes or might choose to make in the future. Apple has the right to kernel panic your machine if you install any software they didn't approve or if you tried to disable Apple's locking code. After all, the relatively open Macintosh is stagnant compared with the relatively closed iPhone. Apple is using "Secret APIs" to take advantage of features on Macintosh that they don't give out as part of their SDK. It's not as though Jobs has ever had a fondness for openness. I can certainly see a locked Mac happening. (And people here condemning the idea until it happens then cheering it once it does)

While Mike bellyaches, developers are getting rich on the iPhone platform: >>Whichever platform draws the most developers will likely rule the market. Right now "it's a 100-yard dash and Apple is already 75 yards down the track while the other guys are still trying to get out of the blocks," says Ken Dulaney, analyst at researcher Gartner in San Jose. -- "It's crazy. It's like lottery money..."<< http://www.newsweek.com/id/174266/output/print

@ Ocean: "While Mike bellyaches, developers are getting rich on the iPhone platform:" While developers are also getting rich on Windows platform, why the false bellyaches and outrages about monopolistic practices of MSFT? Why doesn't all the money being made on the Microsoft platform(s) excuse any alleged wrongdoings on Microsoft's part? Hypocrite!!

panache Those weren't "Secret APIs". Secret APIs are a part of the OS that lets the platform vendor's apps run better than 3rd partys' apps. What this talks about is how two proprietary apps talk to each other and not how the operating system works. It's not the "OS Maker Advantage" that Apple is doing right now and that Microsoft was accused of (and found innocent of) Now, where's that condemnation from you (as loud as your condemnation was of Microsoft when you incorrectly thought they were doing it) about what Apple ACTUALLY IS DOING right now?

Oh Mike, you are truly so wrong... http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms807073.aspx Here is another excerpt from the link I just provided. "Microsoft teams identified a few hundred undocumented Windows interfaces or parameters that were used by one or more of the Microsoft Middleware components. Microsoft's technical writers have documented these interfaces and made them available as APIs in the MSDN Online Library." they identified a few hundred UNDOCUMENTED interfaces or parameters... Oh Mike, here is what those UNDOCUMENTED items were for. "As part of that settlement, Microsoft agreed to document the interfaces used by "Microsoft Middleware" (as defined in the proposed consent decree) to obtain services from the Microsoft® Windows® 2000 and Windows XP desktop client operating systems." They were used to get services from the OS... Ok, go ahead, spin away Mike. Let's see how you try to get out of being wrong again.

Once again Mike, you are making things up. I never said I have condemnation towards a company has hidden APIs. I said I don't like it that MS or Apple does it. I have not condemned MS for doing it...stop saying I have.

Mike, 1) First, I am a developer as a profession. 2) Your ticky tack definition of what "Secret API" case is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. You are saying Microsoft was forced to document APIs that even THEY were NOT using? LOL. 3) I have NOT YET CONDEMNED ANYONE FOR DOING IT. Show me where I have and I'll condemn the other guy just as loudly. The more you go on about this, the clearer it is that you have pro-MS delusions. It's actually quite funny that you think I condemned MS for doing anything.

@Mike, I agree with the distinction you've made. Apple's is clearly controlling what can get onto the iPhone where Microsoft never controlled what could be installed on Windows. Point well taken. I think the crucial difference is the nature of the iPhone as a phone/appliance and the user expectations and network-related security issues that come with that. It's clear that the iPhone is not as robust of a platform as Windows or Mac OSX, both of which are totally open to extension. But I think the trade-off in flexibility for stability and support probably continues to make sense right now. Plus, I think that the strategy Apple is pursuing is to leverage the device's popularity to open up the ecosystem of developers in Cocoa Touch. That's a smart play. As for Open GL... clearly, it's benefitted Microsoft to develop and default DirectX. That was a smart strategic move that locked a generation of GPU-centric developers and game publishers into a Microsoft-only API set. Apple is pursuing the same strategy with Cocoa Touch, only they have the power to deny the alternative API's from even getting installed on the platform. Again, It's not open. But it's probably smart, and it doesn't seem to be slowing interest in the platform. My guess is it's forcing developers like the Live Labs group to learn it, and thus proving the strategy to be successful.

Panache I'm glad you're amused by Apple using their OS producer advantage to harm competitors. Now your claim is that Microsoft produced an internal-only application level SDK that gave Microsoft Applications an advantage over 3rd pary applications developers. After all, that's what Apple is clearly doing and you don't deny that. Yet, you haven't ever shown that. And neither did the courts. Really. Saying "everybody else does it, too" is a rather sad defense. Even moreso when you claim that you condemn the practice. And especially when the claim that "everybody else does it, too" is demonstrably false.

johnpapola If personal computers were still in the days of individual, disconnected systems I'd accept the need for tighter restrictions on an "always network connected" device like the iPhone. I'd disagree, but I'd accept the reasoning. However, nowadays personal computers are as much "always network connected" devices as a cell phone so the argument no longer is valid. If the iMac doesn't need the restrictions, there's nothing about the iPhone that justifies tighter restriction.