I, for one, definitely see this as that inevitable scenario where Apple begins to allow third-party applications to be developed for the iPhone, predictably licensing software houses rather than releasing an API to the public. Apple wants to protect the experience, so a public API would not be practical, no matter how desirable it would be. This is the closest we’re going to get to applications on the iPhone outside of hacking it; however i do not see this as a bad thing. And perhaps in time, as the platform matures, they’ll eventually open up licensing more, or just open the platform to the public.

That’s my interpretation of the rumor. Perhaps I’m thinking too far ahead, but I can dream, can’t I?

I for one would LOVE to see the Mac OS licensed to third parties even though I doubt it would happen. I’d rather see Apple keep it’s control of the hardware / software connection and instead open the iPhone OS to third party developers. Here is a place they could really make a difference and make the iPhone explode! I work for Versadial, a company that makes software ( http://www.versadial.com/call_monitoring_pda.html ) for Windows based smart phones and PDAs and we’d love to port that to the iPhone. I’m sure our company is not alone in wanting to develop for the Mac mobile OS. However it’s going to take a huge public demand to get that in the same way Bootcamp was brought about by public demand. (And some dedicated hackers) So spread the word and let’s get Apple’s attention!

Its not Apple giving them a license to sell the iPhone or iPhone software– but Apple setting the terms under which Apple will let them develop software for the iPhone platform.

@Sebhelyesfarku
Please, if you’re going to make a public comment, at least get yourself generally familiar with the topic. The claim that the iphone is generic is asinine, wishful thinking of socialist who think that any invention should be free for the taking.

But it does make sense for other things… for example… let’s say BMW wants to put an iphone-like user interface on the computers inside their cars. Then it makes sense because Apple does not make cars or computers that go inside cars. ;-)

Now let’s say a bank wants to use the same iphone-like user interface for their ATM machines. Again it makes sense here.

But I really don’t know… I’m just going by common sense.

Regardless of what you or I think of the different possibilities of how Apple could play the whole iPhone-related experience out, this article doesn’t have or share any more information about it than already publicly existed. Take that whole mountain of salt as suggested at the beginning, folks.

The beauty of the iPhone is that is has only ONE BUTTON ON THE FRONT!!! So, from an industrial design perspective, it’s nearly impossible to screw it up. If Apple says to vendors “okay, we’ll license the OS, but you need to make a phone that has 1 button and a certain size screen”, then the chances of screwing up the hardware is much less. At least, that’s what it seems. So it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they decided to attempt to become the de facto mobile platform for the next decade.

190 on the BS meter