Disclosure: I know the inPulse guys and I am an iPhone developer. Also the inPulse guys are awesome.
Any hardware manufacturer that wants to integrate with the iPhone needs a special $1 chip and a licensing agreement with apple. Mostly because you are going to use their product names and Made For iPhone graphics. From those I have talked to in this program, its very painless and simple, and gets you extra functionality in terms of backgrounding since the user expects it and obviously trusts the hardware device they purchased. The problem is that this chip makes it incompatible with other phones. (see wakemate as an example).
Apple is not against innovation, and it bothers me when people say that. The correct statement is that they are about control. I use a hackintosh and many apple products. I like that i can do anything with my mac, but my iphone has some limits in place that make sure (if it wasn't on at&t) it will always work as a phone. I had many windows mobile phones and even an android that were buggy or had too much cool extra software that prevented the phone software from working reliably. Consumers get a choice. When it comes to my pocket, I choose apple's infrastructure.
I don't think anyone said Apple is against innovation, just that a side-effect of their need for control creates obstacles to those who would like to use their devices in ways Apple does not anticipate.
I can understand (and appreciate) the desire to control the platform, and for the first two years I even defended it; all I am saying now is that the cost of this control is growing as competing devices close-in on providing similar levels of functionality without such restrictions.
Apple may not be against innovation, but they are trying to control innovation. That is inherently counter to innovating, and is an oxymoron.
You're saying that this simple 5 dollar chip (not 1 as you claim, by the way) doesn't hurt innovation, but it does. For instance, what if you wanted to connect your arduino to your iphone? Is it really worth paying 5 dollars to connect a 7 dollar chip?
Now suppose it is still worth it. Could a programmable microcomputer get by Apple's "Works with iPhone" standards? Not a chance.
I can think of a hundred cool things to do with an iPhone connected to an arduino, but those are all dead. I can think of a hundred more pieces of hardware I'd love to connect to my portable phone, but those can't work either.
Any hardware manufacturer that wants to integrate with the iPhone needs a special $1 chip and a licensing agreement with apple. Mostly because you are going to use their product names and Made For iPhone graphics. From those I have talked to in this program, its very painless and simple, and gets you extra functionality in terms of backgrounding since the user expects it and obviously trusts the hardware device they purchased. The problem is that this chip makes it incompatible with other phones. (see wakemate as an example).
Apple is not against innovation, and it bothers me when people say that. The correct statement is that they are about control. I use a hackintosh and many apple products. I like that i can do anything with my mac, but my iphone has some limits in place that make sure (if it wasn't on at&t) it will always work as a phone. I had many windows mobile phones and even an android that were buggy or had too much cool extra software that prevented the phone software from working reliably. Consumers get a choice. When it comes to my pocket, I choose apple's infrastructure.