Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Announces Multitasking in iPhone OS 4.0

I want multi-tasking!

I don't care if my 3g is to slow for multi-tasking! I want it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love and hate apple! I don't know why I buy their products. Oh yeah, I buy apple's stuff because apple makes good products.😕 yeah........:apple:
 
Grimace said:
A+ update for sure.

Sorry for the iPhone 3G folks, but you can't do much more if the hardware won't support it! Strange that the iPad has to wait until the fall.
Click to expand...

wishful thinking but i think we might get expose in iPhone os 4.0 for the iPad. they just HAVE to leverage the extra screen space. just my AUS$0.02 (USD$0.018 based on current conversion rates)
 
I'm a bit afraid that the 4th-gen iPhone's power supply will be perfectly designed for multitasking, but perhaps not 3GS. I guess at worst I'd just have to plug it in every night instead of every second, which isn't terrible considering what one gets. Plus, I have only 10 apps aside from natives, so doubt I will be using this much. Never did feel a urgent need for it, but perhaps 4.0 will change that. XP

Nice update. Be interesting to see how it works out.
 
Well-- considering I have a second-gen touch with no plans to upgrade soon, it looks like I'll be sticking to OS 2.2.1 (yes I am still using OS 2). Multitasking and folders are the only real advantages of 4.0 as far as I'm concerned, and since I can't multitask and I'll likely be charged $5 for the OS update, it's not worth it just for folders (and whatever I'm missing by not having OS 3).
 
macsimcon said:
How about this? Apple could have allowed the user to choose any four apps that would have background access at any one time. They could have even included a simple multitasking slider control, to allow the user to choose between greater battery life at one side to greater performance on the other. Nice and simple, and a great compromise so the user doesn't end up having to quit applications like they do on Android.

You see? I thought of that in five minutes, and I'm not as smart as Apple's engineers. What I saw today was a half-measure. My proposal gives the user true multitasking, without a confusing interface.

As for notifications, the Palm PRE (sales notwithstanding) has a superior notification interface to the iPhone, and allows multiple information to appear the screen at the same time. In addition, it's done without Apple's current dialogs which bring whatever you're doing to a halt so you can dismiss whatever SMS, FaceBook, or similar notification is in your way.

Trying to think of ways to improve the iPhone isn't trolling. Maybe you just haven't spent the time thinking about it that I have.
Click to expand...

The way it has been implemented seems much better and less confusing than this method. Most of the work done by developers instead of users.

Many typical users can use the iPhone just like now, without knowing what multi-tasking means. Except now, when they press home button from Pandora, it will keep playing. That's the simplest implementation!
 
Takuta-Nui said:
I'm a bit afraid that the 4th-gen iPhone's power supply will be perfectly designed for multitasking, but perhaps not 3GS. I guess at worst I'd just have to plug it in every night instead of every second, which isn't terrible considering what one gets. Plus, I have only 10 apps aside from natives, so doubt I will be using this much. Never did feel a urgent need for it, but perhaps 4.0 will change that. XP

Nice update. Be interesting to see how it works out.
Click to expand...

That brings up another interesting point: will the new multitasking architecture improve battery life and performance for those who only use native apps (that already run in the background)? If apps like Safari can move to a suspended state when in the background, we should save the cycles that were used under the previous setup. Also, will those with a 3G get that part of multitasking? Mostly rhetorical, but if anyone wants to chyme in, feel free.

Luke
 
Takuta-Nui said:
I'm a bit afraid that the 4th-gen iPhone's power supply will be perfectly designed for multitasking, but perhaps not 3GS. I guess at worst I'd just have to plug it in every night instead of every second, which isn't terrible considering what one gets. Plus, I have only 10 apps aside from natives, so doubt I will be using this much. Never did feel a urgent need for it, but perhaps 4.0 will change that. XP

Nice update. Be interesting to see how it works out.
Click to expand...

4th Gen will probably have the Apple A4 SoC or a later version. Apple will strip out anything not needed and this will be a big boost to the battery life. like the iPad
 
No Radio API yet....

Still no radio access...
It will probably be the last thing once all other avenues are exhausted and there's nothing more to squeeze from the device except listening to the radio..
 
I just got back from a week's vacation out of touch, so does anyone know the answer to the following questions?

From the little I've read, Apple says the OS will decide when to kill off an app, not the user. Correct? (This was the original automatic model used by WinMo, btw. Not a good idea if an app is doing something you don't want it to. A user should always be able to stop an app.)

So the user has no control over which app to stop if they start too many?

I mean, at least on Palm WebOS it warns you that you have too many apps already going and you need to pick one or more to stop... which makes sense and works very well. People understand this model since it is the same as daily life with choosing priority tasks.

I'd hate to open too many iPhone apps and have the most important one (to me) go away without me noticing. Could that happen under 4.0?
 
kdarling said:
I just got back from a week's vacation out of touch, so does anyone know the answer to the following questions?

From the little I've read, Apple says the OS will decide when to kill off an app, not the user. Correct? (This was the original automatic model used by WinMo, btw. Not a good idea if an app is doing something you don't want it to. A user should always be able to stop an app.)

So the user has no control over which app to stop if they start too many?

I mean, at least on Palm WebOS it warns you that you have too many apps already going and you need to pick one or more to stop... which makes sense and works very well. People understand this model since it is the same as daily life with choosing priority tasks.

I'd hate to open too many iPhone apps and have the most important one (to me) go away without me noticing. Could that happen under 4.0?
Click to expand...

i'm pretty sure i saw a vid on http://9to5mac.com/ that showed the user manually cancelling some active apps from the multitask bar/dock/thing/watever you call it.
 
Bafflefish said:
Not quite... (and I "cringed" at your incorrect view on multitasking, btw)

Apps aren't doing it in the background, per-say. Services that the apps use, are doing the background operations. That's why there's a list of what services are available to run in the background:



So no, apps themselves won't be "multitasked", just the services that some apps used. There will still be A LOT of apps that unfortunately will function mostly as they do today.
Click to expand...
Wow, so it's not multitasking to the letter, it's better. Can you give me a relevant situation that wouldn't benefit from this "multitasking"? Things won't be the same as before for the most part either. Lets say you're playing a game. Today, if you wanted to check MLB scores or something, you'd have to completely stop the game check the scores and come back, and start a new game. Now, you can leave the game, check the scores in Safari, do a bunch of other things, and be right back where you were. You'll be using many apps at the same time. Sure, they might not be operating at their fullest capacity 100% of the time, but that isn't necessary.
 
it's ok, on my 3G the ProSwitcher is doing multitasking since ages already. Thanks Dev-Team for your work!
And no, no thanks for more ads!
Android, here I come..
 
colourtheatre said:
i'm pretty sure i saw a vid on http://9to5mac.com/ that showed the user manually cancelling some active apps from the multitask bar/dock/thing/watever you call it.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Okay, so a user can press and hold to get a minus sign to kill an app. That part sounds like the visual task manager on other phones.

(Others have commented that the task manager could often fill up with running apps that you really didn't want there, so a way to get them off the manager dock was important.)
 
nagromme said:
By my math, 2160 apps means that we still have the same max of 180 home icons (4 in the dock plus 11 pages of 16). Only now, every single icon slot (even in the dock) can be a folder, and each folder is limited to 12 apps. 180x12 = 2160. Not bad!

I have about 500 apps on my iPhone now, and must access many of them via Spotlight (with a Notepad list for reference) since they’re past the last page.

I’d love unlimited apps per folder (or nested folders) but the 2160 limit suggests otherwise. Only 12 I think. (So I’m sure I’ll sometimes have 2 to 4 folders in a row for a single category, then... like Tower Defense 😛 But it will be worth it—I’ll have a lot fewer home pages to thumb through.)

OS 4.0 plus rumors of front-facing camera and high-res 960x640 screen are leaving me even more excited about my next iPhone than about the iPad!
Click to expand...

500?! wtf you doing with all of them?!
 
Compile 'em all said:
What do you mean more ads? do you even understand what iAd does?

jeebus! 🙄
Click to expand...

I do, and I don't want that HTML5 thing to wasting my allowance downloading some s#itty video-ads in the background. I, read capital I, want to decide how I'm using my bandwidth allowance, not some stupid bandwidth-consuming add.
Why I'm saying "more", because the temptation to embed more&more "free" add is bigger than before..I guess. 😕

Again: Android, here I come!😉
 
macsimcon said:
Pausing apps in the background isn't multitasking. Why can't my Twitter app be getting tweets in the background? Why can't Mail be downloading mail from my various accounts in the background?

Why can't I run two applications on the screen at once? I'd love to have Mail on the top two-thirds, and my Twitter feed on the bottom third.

This is completely unimaginative. Apple should be ashamed to develop such an underwhelming OS update.

FAIL.
Click to expand...

Trolling really is an art. 🙄

Do you really think anyone cares about your twitter updates anyway? Just because they're "followers" doesn't mean they actually read it.

You can do everything you asked for- it's called a laptop. You're demanding that you are able to run 2 apps side by side on a tiny little screen?
 
2992 said:
I do, and I don't want that HTML5 thing to wasting my allowance downloading some s#itty video-ads in the background. I, read capital I, want to decide how I'm using my bandwidth allowance, not some stupid bandwidth-consuming add.
Why I'm saying "more", because the temptation to embed more&more "free" add is bigger than before..I guess. 😕

Again: Android, here I come!😉
Click to expand...

Since Android might get Flash support one of these days, maybe your bandwidth will be wasted with ads made with that instead 😉
 
ethana said:
In my opinion the iPhone just is a better all-around device. I'm happy with Apple's "closed system" (as your signature states) because it works perfect for me.
Click to expand...

And it's funny how the "Android is OPEN!" fanatics fail to mention the OS exists for the sole purpose of helping Google achieve its mission of being the paid gatekeeper for the world's information.

Oh yeah, there's free and open computing for you. Uh huh. 🙄

There's no such thing as a free lunch, people. Enjoy your delusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back