Why do people care so much about background apps? Those are battery killers. Plus with 3.0 and the new way of doing push, apple will be even more ahead of the field.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
IF the iPhone gets killed....
- Thread starter TSX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why do people care so much about background apps? Those are battery killers. Plus with 3.0 and the new way of doing push, apple will be even more ahead of the field.
So if I wanted to listen to Pandora while websurfing, I shouldn't be allowed to? I don't deserve that choice?
I did this when I was jailbroken. Didn't really make a big difference. Pretty much the same as using the iPod, a little more consuming because of the internet side of it but nonetheless not a huge impact.
I will say that RAM would get caught up quick.
3.0 beta (YES I KNOW IT IS A BETA) doesn't allow you to kill an app by holding home, therefore it would freeze all.the.freaking.time. so I had to get a memory freeing app to clear the RAM.
I think it comes down to this: the iPhone's RAM and battery life is limited, therefore Apple doesn't want certain features to be available since the current iPhone can't handle it, therefore saving them the hassle of dealing with complaints and peoples iPhones freezing up on them.
It's one thing for people to complain about no background on a rumor site. It is another thing for people to be able to actually bring their iPhones into the store and show them that the RAM sucks and everything is laggy/freezing.
I'd be interested to see streaming music and websurfing at the same time. It may work wonderfully, it may not. Of course, add to that any other background apps you may have open on the Pre.
If Apple want's to say "We believe we'll have less security issues, less kernel crashes, more battery life and a more responsive system if we exclude background applications," shouldn't they be allowed? Don't they deserve that choice?
The simple truth is my girlfriend, mom, sister and girlfriend's brother are all ignorant of technology. Yet they get full use out of their iPhones with ZERO problems except maybe a crashing 3rd party application once in a while. If that's at all due to Apple's choice to prevent them from doing something stupid, then I'm all for it because they love what they can do. And you, well you have the choice to go with another manufacturer that provides the multitasking experience you want.
For many people the iPhone is a luxury good, and for that reason many people place what it represents (style, sophistication, cutting-edge) above what it can do and what it costs.
Why do people still buy original original Gucci products, when there are identical, cheaper items, for half the price (this is an example (althought not a very good one) dont pick at any mistakes in it). For exactly the same reason many people buy an iPhone. Because it is Gucci. Or becuase it's an iPhone.
And thats it. Many people buy it because of the functionality it brings with it, and the intergration. But many other people buy it simply because it's an iPhone. It has been erected as this icon that people still 'wow' at.
Personally I think it's the iPod that gave it this status. And the whole 'i-' range before it in particular. Whenever someone saw an "i...." product they instantly associated it with the same level of luxury as its predecessors. The "i-" range (iPods esspecially) made sure the younger audience as well as the older audience were attracted, giving the iPhone a huge target to hit.
I dont think anything will really kill the iPhone. Unless it has the same setup and help that the iPhone was given, so that it can make such a large impact on people, and make as many people aware.
Why do people still buy original original Gucci products, when there are identical, cheaper items, for half the price (this is an example (althought not a very good one) dont pick at any mistakes in it). For exactly the same reason many people buy an iPhone. Because it is Gucci. Or becuase it's an iPhone.
And thats it. Many people buy it because of the functionality it brings with it, and the intergration. But many other people buy it simply because it's an iPhone. It has been erected as this icon that people still 'wow' at.
Personally I think it's the iPod that gave it this status. And the whole 'i-' range before it in particular. Whenever someone saw an "i...." product they instantly associated it with the same level of luxury as its predecessors. The "i-" range (iPods esspecially) made sure the younger audience as well as the older audience were attracted, giving the iPhone a huge target to hit.
I dont think anything will really kill the iPhone. Unless it has the same setup and help that the iPhone was given, so that it can make such a large impact on people, and make as many people aware.
It all depends on what you define as 'killing' the iPhone.
If it's merely better technical specifications and/or features, then many devices do this already.
But we all know, that it's a lot more than that. It's a combination of everything;
1): Brand recognition. - This is huge, and goes back at least 10 years, to when Apple became cool again with the first iMac introduction.
You don't see the phrase "(insert desired name here) killer" anywhere else, do you?
2): User Interface. - And I just don't mean scrolling/flipping through a few icons on a home screen. It's the UI in all apps and menus, that make it such a joy to use. That, coupled with a superb touchscreen, and super-responsive software, thanks to the power of an OSX core.
3): Intuitiveness. - You don't need a manual to use any of the features. It just make sense when you pick it up.
4): iPod integration. - So many times I see folks with all manner of different phones, a lot of them 'music' phones, but still prefer use an iPod Nano or Touch for their music and video playing. The iPod has become part of the vernacular. Adding a phone to that is always going to be killer.
5): Safari. - Still by far the most pleasurable browsing experience on a phone, and this is all before 3.0 and the new hardware release.
6): The App Store. - This is just genius. Sure, people have been able to download apps to their Win-Mo, Palm and Symbian devices for years, but never has there been one place to get everything before. No obscure websites to trawl through.
The fact that rivals are rushing to get their 'App Stores'(another name that's entering the vernacular, regardless of what rival 'stores' are really called) active, is proof of this.
7): One device per year. - This is also brilliant. Look how many devices there are from Samsung(worst culprit), LG, Nokia, etc, released in any one year. Prospective iPhone buyers, will know that there's just one device, one set of specs, to focus on, so there is no confusion.
Us geeks/enthusiasts will know everything about all the devices, but the average Joe won't, or simply cannot be bothered, to find out.
8): iTunes. - Being able to access the most popular music store, all on the device, via all connection methods, is another big thing. Again, this has been possible for years on other devices, but the fact that it's iTunes, it's now all DRM-free and higher bitrate than before, is another blow to rivals.
For any device to kill the iPhone, it'll have to at least match all of these points, IMO.
When one manufacturer thinks they're getting close(Pre), the next hard/software revision will raise the bar even higher.
IMO, the Palm Pre, is the end result of an initial reaction, to a June 2007 iPhone, just like Nokia's N97 is. The Blackberry Storm, was a rush-job, rising out the same June '07 reaction by RIM, just to get a slice of the touchscreen pie.
If it's merely better technical specifications and/or features, then many devices do this already.
But we all know, that it's a lot more than that. It's a combination of everything;
1): Brand recognition. - This is huge, and goes back at least 10 years, to when Apple became cool again with the first iMac introduction.
You don't see the phrase "(insert desired name here) killer" anywhere else, do you?
2): User Interface. - And I just don't mean scrolling/flipping through a few icons on a home screen. It's the UI in all apps and menus, that make it such a joy to use. That, coupled with a superb touchscreen, and super-responsive software, thanks to the power of an OSX core.
3): Intuitiveness. - You don't need a manual to use any of the features. It just make sense when you pick it up.
4): iPod integration. - So many times I see folks with all manner of different phones, a lot of them 'music' phones, but still prefer use an iPod Nano or Touch for their music and video playing. The iPod has become part of the vernacular. Adding a phone to that is always going to be killer.
5): Safari. - Still by far the most pleasurable browsing experience on a phone, and this is all before 3.0 and the new hardware release.
6): The App Store. - This is just genius. Sure, people have been able to download apps to their Win-Mo, Palm and Symbian devices for years, but never has there been one place to get everything before. No obscure websites to trawl through.
The fact that rivals are rushing to get their 'App Stores'(another name that's entering the vernacular, regardless of what rival 'stores' are really called) active, is proof of this.
7): One device per year. - This is also brilliant. Look how many devices there are from Samsung(worst culprit), LG, Nokia, etc, released in any one year. Prospective iPhone buyers, will know that there's just one device, one set of specs, to focus on, so there is no confusion.
Us geeks/enthusiasts will know everything about all the devices, but the average Joe won't, or simply cannot be bothered, to find out.
8): iTunes. - Being able to access the most popular music store, all on the device, via all connection methods, is another big thing. Again, this has been possible for years on other devices, but the fact that it's iTunes, it's now all DRM-free and higher bitrate than before, is another blow to rivals.
For any device to kill the iPhone, it'll have to at least match all of these points, IMO.
When one manufacturer thinks they're getting close(Pre), the next hard/software revision will raise the bar even higher.
IMO, the Palm Pre, is the end result of an initial reaction, to a June 2007 iPhone, just like Nokia's N97 is. The Blackberry Storm, was a rush-job, rising out the same June '07 reaction by RIM, just to get a slice of the touchscreen pie.
How hard is it for smart phone manufactures to look at the Iphone and say we can beat it? So why design a phone if you cant beat the top competition (iPhone) when its already out there for them to copy off of and put better hardware and software to their design.
Because they have to beat the software too, which is *much* harder, as noone (except maybe Palm) is really close. They've got to copy app store with its 25k apps and 800 million downloads.
That is unless Apple lets email languish for long enough for RIM to beat them.
To be honest BergerFan has really covered it in detail.
If it were that simple, where would we be in technological advancements?
There are limitations to everything, which is part of the debate about background applications. Some companies think it's a key to success, others don't. But, I'm sure that many companies think they are putting out great products that include what the people really want - often resulting in feature bloat. Other companies, and I'd put forth Samsung here, just want to sell more phones based on what's hot at the moment.
It's easy to put on paper what should be done, it's different to look at what can feasibly be done. And it's harder to put it all together in a way that works.
So why not fix this? Offer a better processor and more RAM? Work the hardware to meet what the people want to do with the software.
Exactly, this is the only way smart phone makers are going to be able to keep up. Make them faster and have a good O.S.
You do know that pretty much everyone expects a new iPhone in June?
And until you can give me a break down of the risk vs rewards of offering background applications, I'm pretty sure that Apple has weighed their options.
Wait a second, didn't Scott Forstall say, "It's easier for us to do background processes."
Just because something is easy, the technology is there and it's what people want, doesn't mean it's actually the best/preferred solution. Here are a few other bits he threw out about their research regarding how to best provide a solution for applications that needed "background awareness."
- With background applications, phones can't sleep or go to lowest power state.
- Standby time on Windows Mobile, Android G1 and Blackberry all dropped standby battery life by 80% simply by having an popular IM application open in the background.
- Background processes by their very nature eat up processor time and therefore performance.
Apple did more work and used more resources (servers, bandwidth, etc) to implement Push Notification than they would have to just allow background applications. After all, iPhone OS is based on Mac OS X which has background processes. Not to mention, the iPhone already has the iPod app, the new Voice Memos app and the Phone App that run in the background.
I'm actually not debating that point. However I am saying that it is presumptuous for Apple to tell me what I can/can't/shouldn't do on my device.
Back in the day, people would push Apple to provide better and better hardware/software solutions. It was a customer base that argued for choice and better implementation. I fear that has been lost since the iGeneration. Now, we tend to take what they say at face value and deal with it.
If you're not debating it, you sure aren't getting it.
They never said you can't do what you want. But, they don't have to facilitate anything either. If you want you can install Windows Mobile on it.
It has nothing to do with you or me or anyone else. It has to do with their brand image and they'd rather you buy something else than to provide you with a potentially poor experience.
The iPhone as is struggles to keep up with the battery life of phones that should have their standby battery time cut by "80%". Apple makes them self look bad when they make a claim like that.
Haha and Push notification could not be that hard to implement if other people have been doing it for years.
I have a Bold and it sleeps just fine running multiple apps.
All that said i will have the next gen iPhone by the end of the year but i wont blindly ignore its flaws and try to make up lame excuses for Apple's poor decisions