Background Apps: They did "Nail" it.

[eezing]

Just played around with my buddies 3GS, and wow. The background feature single-handedly killed every other smart phone on the market. Yes, I realize other phones can run apps in the background, but Apple did it properly.

To see one app roll off screen to the left as another quickly rolls on from the right is just simply pleasing to watch. App switching on the 3GS is hitch free, I'm excited to see how well my iPhone 4 will do with twice the RAM.

 

[Prolif1k]

Just played around with my buddies 3GS, and wow. The background feature single-handedly killed every other smart phone on the market. Yes, I realize other phones can run apps in the background, but Apple did it properly.

To see one app roll off screen to the left as another quickly rolls on from the right is just simply pleasing to watch. App switching on the 3GS is hitch free, I'm excited to see how well my iPhone 4 will do with twice the RAM.

Plus it'll be even better once more and more third party apps start implementing it.

 

[rjohnstone]

"Killed"... I think that is a bit of an overstatement.

You do realize it's not true multitasking right? The apps aren't actually running in the background.
In most cases the app is simply suspended.

As for "how" it switches between apps... meh.

 

[grmatt]

"Killed"... I think that is a bit of an overstatement.

You do realize it's not true multitasking right? The apps aren't actually running in the background.
In most cases the app is simply suspended.

As for "how" it switches between apps... meh.

Do you want the app "actually running" in the background, eating up your precious battery? Apple has implemented well-tuned APIs for apps to use to continue running in the background when needed.

I don't understand this argument. Wouldn't one rather an app not be using battery when it doesn't need it than to be able to say it's "actually running" in the background? Are these just Fandroids grasping at straws?

 

[thelatinist]

You do realize it's not true multitasking right? The apps aren't actually running in the background. In most cases the app is simply suspended.

I can confirm, though, that streaming audio apps do continue to run in the background. I've watched the running processes on my jailbroken iPhone very carefully. Seems most of the work is being done by Apple's 'fairplayd' process, but both Pandora and TuneIn Radio remain memory-resident unless actually manually removed from the taskbar.

 

[redman042]

"Killed"... I think that is a bit of an overstatement.

You do realize it's not true multitasking right? The apps aren't actually running in the background.
In most cases the app is simply suspended.

As for "how" it switches between apps... meh.

I think we all realize that. We also realize this is a phone running off a battery, not a PC plugged into a wall. It's all about balance my friend. For 95% of us, Apple struck the right balance like no one else has. At least until iPhones come with little nuclear power plants inside.

 

[Fuchal]

I was very surprised how instant app switching is between apps that were updated to support saved state.

 

[bripab007]

I agree, for the most part, that, assuming the developers hold up their part of the deal, this is probably the best "backgrounding"/multi-tasking solution for a phone.

 

[Dsr1205]

try updating a twitter app or loading ANY data in the background, now thats the reason we need multitasking, all the stuff they added works but they forgot the most important multitasking feature which is background downloading of data in apps.

 

[grmatt]

I was very surprised how instant app switching is between apps that were updated to support saved state.

Agreed. I tried this with Pandora and WordPress. They might as well have been "actually running" in the bg because they came up instantaneously... and this is with a 3GS.

 

[bripab007]

try updating a twitter app or loading ANY data in the background, now thats the reason we need multitasking, all the stuff they added works but they forgot the most important multitasking feature which is background downloading of data in apps.

They didn't forget it at all. I think everyone needs to read this article explaining the different types of multi-tasking Apple's implemented before commenting on it: http://whenwillapple.com/blog/2010/04/19/iphone-os-4-multitasking-explained-again/

 

[Downey92]

Or until something like secure wireless power supply over 3G/Wi-fi can be invented. That'd be awesome.

 

[rookie1082]

Do you want the app "actually running" in the background, eating up your precious battery? Apple has implemented well-tuned APIs for apps to use to continue running in the background when needed.

I don't understand this argument. Wouldn't one rather an app not be using battery when it doesn't need it than to be able to say it's "actually running" in the background? Are these just Fandroids grasping at straws?

It's not about the suspended apps that everyone is talking about. It's about the OTHER things that TRUE multitasking brings. Believe it or not, Android suspends their apps just like apple. The difference? Is that Android gives those suspended apps a lot more freedom and choice when it needs to bring it back to the foreground. It's not limited to 7 API's. Apple multitasking can be likened to "Multitasking for Dummies" ... Just like the entire device. Its dumbed down in every possible way. Sure user friendly, but dumbed down.

So, I present to you.. A dumbed down version of Android vs Apple multitasking. For you dumbed down iPhone owners.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/194350/apple_iphone_vs_android_multitasking_a_comparison.html

 

[/dev/toaster]

Looking at it from a software architecture level, I think the way that Apple handled it was very well done. Keep in mind, I am NOT talking ANYTHING about GUI level. Just looking at the performance level and the amount of effort required by developers to implement it.

Battery is a very serious issue on smart phones. You will never have true multitasking like a desktop on a mobile device. (If you expect the battery to last more then 12 minutes)

I haven't used the upload / download threads, but from what I read it was also very well done. Something that is very needed, and I am sure other mobile architectures will follow these examples.

Its not perfect, but I agree they nailed it.

 

[gloss]

So, I present to you.. A dumbed down version of Android vs Apple multitasking. For you dumbed down iPhone owners.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/194350/apple_iphone_vs_android_multitasking_a_comparison.html

How witty you are!

Looking at it from a software architecture level, I think the way that Apple handled it was very well done. Keep in mind, I am NOT talking ANYTHING about GUI level. Just looking at the performance level and the amount of effort required by developers to implement it.

Battery is a very serious issue on smart phones. You will never have true multitasking like a desktop on a mobile device. (If you expect the battery to last more then 12 minutes)

I haven't used the upload / download threads, but from what I read it was also very well done. Something that is very needed, and I am sure other mobile architectures will follow these examples.

Its not perfect, but I agree they nailed it.

You don't understand. You're dumbed down.

 

[gloss]

(merge)

 

[PhoneI]

It's not about the suspended apps that everyone is talking about. It's about the OTHER things that TRUE multitasking brings. Believe it or not, Android suspends their apps just like apple. The difference? Is that Android gives those suspended apps a lot more freedom and choice when it needs to bring it back to the foreground. It's not limited to 7 API's. Apple multitasking can be likened to "Multitasking for Dummies" ... Just like the entire device. Its dumbed down in every possible way. Sure user friendly, but dumbed down.

So, I present to you.. A dumbed down version of Android vs Apple multitasking. For you dumbed down iPhone owners.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/194350/apple_iphone_vs_android_multitasking_a_comparison.html

As an Android owner I can say that the battery life on my EVO suffers greatly the more apps I have running. I like what Apple has done here.

 

[/dev/toaster]

How witty you are!



You don't understand. You're dumbed down.

Don't understand what ?

 

[rookie1082]

As an Android owner I can say that the battery life on my EVO suffers greatly the more apps I have running. I like what Apple has done here.

As a Nexus owner I can say that my battery life is consistently 24+ hours on moderate use. I never have to kill tasks.

This is with 3 push email accounts, facebook and twitter pushed, and numerous other news and weather apps refreshing every 30 minutes. Very heavy text message use and 15-20 phone calls a day.

I chalk the great battery life up to the great DEVS that are committed to the Nexus. When I first used my phone out of the box, I didnt get more than 12 hours on a GOOD day.

 

[anjinha]

I can confirm, though, that streaming audio apps do continue to run in the background. I've watched the running processes on my jailbroken iPhone very carefully. Seems most of the work is being done by Apple's 'fairplayd' process, but both Pandora and TuneIn Radio remain memory-resident unless actually manually removed from the taskbar.

Being in memory is not the same as running in the background.

 

[gloss]

Don't understand what ?

Sorry. See the post above your original.

 

[redman042]

It's not about the suspended apps that everyone is talking about. It's about the OTHER things that TRUE multitasking brings. Believe it or not, Android suspends their apps just like apple. The difference? Is that Android gives those suspended apps a lot more freedom and choice when it needs to bring it back to the foreground. It's not limited to 7 API's. Apple multitasking can be likened to "Multitasking for Dummies" ... Just like the entire device. Its dumbed down in every possible way. Sure user friendly, but dumbed down.

So, I present to you.. A dumbed down version of Android vs Apple multitasking. For you dumbed down iPhone owners.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/194350/apple_iphone_vs_android_multitasking_a_comparison.html

You know what's great here? Android took one approach. Apple took another. Each has their pros and cons. Consumers get to CHOOSE! So go out there and choose the best phone for you, then join a forum for that OS and talk about how great it is.

Or you can spend time here calling others dumb, I suppose.

 

[STEVESKI07]

try updating a twitter app or loading ANY data in the background, now thats the reason we need multitasking, all the stuff they added works but they forgot the most important multitasking feature which is background downloading of data in apps.

First of all, I don't know a single person who uses Twitter. I'm not sure what age range does, but I'm pretty social and in my mid 20's and I don't know anybody that uses it. Not that this has anything to do with the reasoning, but can you tell me why you need your Twitter updated when you aren't looking at it? I don't need my news feed on facebook updated every 20 minutes if I check it once every few hours. It will just load up when I decide I want to see it.

Apple purposely avoided the data in the background feature because that is what kills the battery the most.

 

[bundu]

Apple implemented this the same way every other OS does. The only difference is, just like Apple does with everything, the limited what developers can do.

Apple didn't come up with something new.

 

[bundu]

You know what's great here? Android took one approach. Apple took another. Each has their pros and cons. Consumers get to CHOOSE! So go out there and choose the best phone for you, then join a forum for that OS and talk about how great it is.

Or you can spend time here calling others dumb, I suppose.

No.

They both took the same approach. Android just left it up to the developers whether or not to use background data services.

I know Apple customers aren't used to having a choice, but I tell you... Its really nice.