iOS 7 - True multitasking?

[Menneisyys2]

At the time, how long did a typical (if not pretty much all) Android phone batteries lasted? And there you go.

I'm speaking of 2013 - as I've always spoken of iOS7's multitasking model. (In 2010 - that is, with iOS4 - I, because of the pretty weak hardware, I wouldn't have purchased an Android handset.) Now, in the hands of a decent user actually knowing how to kill background tasks, an Android handset is much more powerful and versatile than a non-jailbroken iOS one - even with iOS7.

 

[rtomyj]

At the time, how long did a typical (if not pretty much all) Android phone batteries lasted? And there you go.

Beat me to it I guess... Haha

 

[Menneisyys2]

So... basically you are arguing with something that you made up yourself?

Did it call iOS' multitasking immensely better than the then-current multitasking OS'es - Windows Mobile, Symbian or, maybe, even Android? (I'm unsure about the then-current Android's MT capabilities. If they were significantly worse than that of 4.x, then, only Windows Mobile and Symbian, both allowing for full, unrestricted multitasking, should be compared to iOS4.)

Good argument. But can you be more specific as to what you disagree with that he actually said?

He was right in that there's no way of leaving a process in the background using the CPU for too long. However, this doesn't mean it's BETTER than true multitasking. For the Average Joe not knowing what process managers are, it surely is. For a power user wanting to truly run apps in the background and knowing how to kill ones that he doesn't need any more, definitely not.

 

[rtomyj]

I'm speaking of 2013 - as I've always spoken of iOS7's multitasking model. (In 2010 - that is, with iOS4 - I, because of the pretty weak hardware, I wouldn't have purchased an Android handset.) Now, in the hands of a decent user actually knowing how to kill background tasks, an Android handset is much more powerful and versatile than a non-jailbroken iOS one - even with iOS7.

Actually you were speaking directly toward iOS 4 and how Apple takes credit or some red haring. In theory, iOS 7's multitasking sounds better for developers.
It does everything in the background <check>
Emphasis on power efficiency <check>
Smart download of data <bonus>

Again theory and might change by the time it's GM.

 

[Menneisyys2]

Beat me to it I guess... Haha

Yes, the Nokia 1100 has weeks of uptime. Is it better than iOS? When it comes to battery uptime, sure it is. Otherwise? Hell, no!

You're comparing an inherently less capable OS (iOS) to a much more capable one (Android). Apples to oranges.

----------

Actually you were speaking directly toward iOS 4 and how Apple takes credit or some red haring. In theory, iOS 7's multitasking sounds better for developers.
It does everything in the background <check>

Absolutely wrong. Please read my other, iOS7 MT-dedicated posts. I've (as a seasoned programmer) posted quite a lot of info on it in this very forum.

In a nutshell: no, you in no way can do "everything" in the background without jailbreaking and using tools like Background Manager.

 

[BaldiMac]

Did it call iOS' multitasking immensely better than the then-current multitasking OS'es - Windows Mobile, Symbian or, maybe, even Android? (I'm unsure about the then-current Android's MT capabilities. If they were significantly worse than that of 4.x, then, only Windows Mobile and Symbian, both allowing for full, unrestricted multitasking, should be compared to iOS4.)



He was right in that there's no way of leaving a process in the background using the CPU for too long. However, this doesn't mean it's BETTER than true multitasking. For the Average Joe not knowing what process managers are, it surely is. For a power user wanting to truly run apps in the background and knowing how to kill ones that he doesn't need any more, definitely not.

You're still arguing with a strawman.

 

[C DM]

Yes, the Nokia 1100 has weeks of uptime. Is it better than iOS? When it comes to battery uptime, sure it is. Otherwise? Hell, no!

You're comparing an inherently less capable OS (iOS) to a much more capable one (Android). Apples to oranges.

A feature phone comparison against a smartphone would certainly be apples to oranges, but Android to iOS, while there are certainly differences, is not really an apples to oranges comparison, more of a different sort of apples comparison (but still apples, so to say).

 

[Menneisyys2]

A feature phone comparison against a smartphone would certainly be apples to oranges, but Android to iOS, while there are certainly differences, is not really an apples to oranges comparison, more of a different sort of apples comparison (but still apples, so to say).

Multitasking-wise, Android is much-much more powerful. In this regard, the feature phone (Nokia 1100) vs. iOS analogy is indeed right - iOS, when it comes to multitasking support, is MUCH worse than Android.

 

[rtomyj]

Yes, the Nokia 1100 has weeks of uptime. Is it better than iOS? When it comes to battery uptime, sure it is. Otherwise? Hell, no!

You're comparing an inherently less capable OS (iOS) to a much more capable one (Android). Apples to oranges.

----------



Absolutely wrong. Please read my other, iOS7 MT-dedicated posts. I've (as a seasoned programmer) posted quite a lot of info on it in this very forum.

In a nutshell: no, you in no way can do "everything" in the background without jailbreaking and using tools like Background Manager.

Yea I'm gonna go and read other threads you've posted in, ok buddy. We are in the here and now as in this topic, this thread. In this thread you were spouting nonsense about revolutionary iOS4 stuff. You know a red haring.

Let me clarify what I meant. Any task can be put in the background<check>
Why would you want anything running in the background is beyond me and is a mute argument.

 

[BaldiMac]

iOS, when it comes to multitasking support, is MUCH worse than Android.

Depends on your priorities, doesn't it? As a seasoned programmer, you might consider that you have different priorities than an average joe.

 

[C DM]

Multitasking-wise, Android is much-much more powerful. In this regard, the feature phone (Nokia 1100) vs. iOS analogy is indeed right - iOS, when it comes to multitasking support, is MUCH worse than Android.

Depends on how you look at it. As far as purely multitasking itself, not looking at anything else within the OS, hardware, of overall phone performance/experience, sure, perhaps that's the case. But, if you factor everything else in overall, it's not quite so "black and white", so to say (and certainly wasn't as far as my original reply in regards to this comparing when it was just launched in iOS 4 vs. what was available for Android and Android phones at the the time).

 

[rtomyj]

Multitasking-wise, Android is much-much more powerful. In this regard, the feature phone (Nokia 1100) vs. iOS analogy is indeed right - iOS, when it comes to multitasking support, is MUCH worse than Android.

In that Case.
App quality wise Android is much worse than IOS. You can even compare it to windows 8 and BB10.

Cherry picking works both ways and opinions are subject. I have a Nexus 7 for app development and it lags with my app and a browser open. I don't use it for anything else. I know my app isn't optimized yet so it could be that the system lags because of it or just because Android isn't coded correctly and therefor has multitasking issues. Now why would I want a bunch of tasks and lag when I can have selected process by the app itself and have a fluid experience?

For example. Playing music. You can just have audio play and suspend everything else from the app that isn't associated to it.

 

[Patriot24]

How do you figure it'll affect battery life if you don't even use it.... People treat the general pop. as if its retarded. They have the option to not use it which is the option that it'll take. For the record, android has it, and its userbase is far greater than that of ios.

Yes, and the Google Play store is full of Task Killer apps to address the issues that multitasking brings to the table. It quickly becomes a chore and something that novice users don't really understand or care about.

People want their devices to "just work". Creating a situation where it doesn't "just work" because someone thought it was important to have multitasking on a 4 inch screen that only displays one app at a time makes no sense.

People have enough to deal with in life. Manually managing apps running in the background is not one that they want to add to the list.

 

[Menneisyys2]

and certainly wasn't as far as my original reply in regards to this comparing when it was just launched in iOS 4 vs. what was available for Android and Android phones at the the time).

Back in 2010, Symbian and WinMo had definitely better (= much more capable in the hands of a non-casual (that is, geek) user) MT support. (Android might also have - dunno. I should check the API.) That is, back in 2010, while the MT support of iOS4 was indeed much more non-techie-friendly, it still didn't offer iOS users / programmers as much freedom as the truly multitasking Symbian / WinMo.

In 2013, Android has also grown much better (=free, more capable - again, I don't mean non-techie-user-friendliness but capabilities) and more capable, MT-wise. Particularly if Google indeed adds full windowing capabilities to Android 5.0 - as is rumored.

BTW, I'm very busily posting in the new VLC thread ( https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1611485/ ) and will be preparing a full review of the new VLC version tonight. This means I may be unable to join this # for some hours. I'll try to reply later.

----------

Yes, and the Google Play store is full of Task Killer apps to address the issues that multitasking brings to the table. It quickly becomes a chore and something that novice users don't really understand or care about.

People want their devices to "just work". Creating a situation where it doesn't "just work" because someone thought it was important to have multitasking on a 4 inch screen that only displays one app at a time makes no sense.

People have enough to deal with in life. Manually managing apps running in the background is not one that they want to add to the list.

You're forgetting that there are two kinds of people:

- ones that you've described

- and power users / geeks wanting to use their handsets as freely as possible. Almost all of them JB on iOS so that they can access, among other things, true multitasking-enabling tweaks like Backgrounder / Background Manager / (for pre-iOS6 iPads) Quasar.

 

[Patriot24]

You're forgetting that there are two kinds of people:

- ones that you've described

- and power users / geeks wanting to use their handsets as freely as possible. Almost all of them JB on iOS so that they can access, among other things, true multitasking-enabling tweaks like Backgrounder / Background Manager / (for pre-iOS6 iPads) Quasar.

I haven't forgotten anything. The simple fact is the the second group of people you mentioned is so infinitesimally small in comparison to the first that the conversation doesn't even make sense outside of our fantasy land where we think that Apple should cater to us (I'm including myself in the second group).

If you think that Apple is going to cater to people that want to jailbreak their devices, then all I can do is laugh.

 

[appleisking]

Yes, and the Google Play store is full of Task Killer apps to address the issues that multitasking brings to the table. It quickly becomes a chore and something that novice users don't really understand or care about.

People want their devices to "just work". Creating a situation where it doesn't "just work" because someone thought it was important to have multitasking on a 4 inch screen that only displays one app at a time makes no sense.

People have enough to deal with in life. Manually managing apps running in the background is not one that they want to add to the list.

Here's what I'm suggesting. The ability to run two apps side by side on a 10 inch display. It's really not complicated, regular people are more than qualified to manage it, and won't be as a big a drain on battery, RAM, or performance as you're suggesting. I can give u a UI right now. Touch and hold two apps at the same time, which will toggle a small panel asking, run side by side? Click yes and bam done. Nothing complicated, and yet true multitasking. On a phone you don't need it. On a tablet, would be very useful.

 

[C DM]

Back in 2010, Symbian and WinMo had definitely better (= much more capable in the hands of a non-casual (that is, geek) user) MT support. (Android might also have - dunno. I should check the API.) That is, back in 2010, while the MT support of iOS4 was indeed much more non-techie-friendly, it still didn't offer iOS users / programmers as much freedom as the truly multitasking Symbian / WinMo.

In 2013, Android has also grown much better (=free, more capable - again, I don't mean non-techie-user-friendliness but capabilities) and more capable, MT-wise. Particularly if Google indeed adds full windowing capabilities to Android 5.0 - as is rumored.

BTW, I'm very busily posting in the new VLC thread ( https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1611485/ ) and will be preparing a full review of the new VLC version tonight. This means I may be unable to join this # for some hours. I'll try to reply later.

----------



You're forgetting that there are two kinds of people:

- ones that you've described

- and power users / geeks wanting to use their handsets as freely as possible. Almost all of them JB on iOS so that they can access, among other things, true multitasking-enabling tweaks like Backgrounder / Background Manager / (for pre-iOS6 iPads) Quasar.

Apple, at least as far as iOS is concerned, caters much more to the vast majority of their market, which is not the "power user", no matter how many of those users there actually are and how vocal they are, when compared to all the rest of their users.

 

[BaldiMac]

Here's what I'm suggesting. The ability to run two apps side by side on a 10 inch display. It's really not complicated, regular people are more than qualified to manage it, and won't be as a big a drain on battery, RAM, or performance as you're suggesting. I can give u a UI right now. Touch and hold two apps at the same time, which will toggle a small panel asking, run side by side? Click yes and bam done. Nothing complicated, and yet true multitasking. On a phone you don't need it. On a tablet, would be very useful.

While I like the idea of two apps at the same time on an iPad for certain applications, I think your suggestion is as flawed as Samsung's implementation. Starting with... what do you do if the apps are on different pages!

I think Microsoft's Surface ad with the baseball scouts is a fantastic example of a situation where two apps at once is useful. Like the surface, I think it would be better to have a specialized panel or overlay for apps that add support for use in that situation. (Knowing Apple, probably just Apple apps to begin with.)

 

[C DM]

While I like the idea of two apps at the same time on an iPad for certain applications, I think your suggestion is as flawed as Samsung's implementation. Starting with... what do you do if the apps are on different pages!

I think Microsoft's Surface ad with the baseball scouts is a fantastic example of a situation where two apps at once is useful. Like the surface, I think it would be better to have a specialized panel or overlay for apps that add support for use in that situation. (Knowing Apple, probably just Apple apps to begin with.)

Just wanted to say that that particular Surface ad actually didn't show any usefulness at all. There was absolutely no reason why someone would need to have a video of someone on the screen while they are looking something up in a different app--you can still continue talking to someone and look something up in a different app very simply and quickly (sure, without seeing that person in a video at that moment, but why would you need to anyway).

 

[Jimmy James]

That doesn't make it the right decision.

That was the same reasoning behind the iPhone not having Apps to begin with.

The idea that "people don't need Apps" is hilarious to us now, but that's what Steve Jobs said.

iOS didn't need multitasking.

Then the limited multitasking they added in iOS 4.0 was enough.

Now they're adding more.

Notice a trend?

It also doesn't make Apples's implementation of multitasking the wrong decision.

I'm thinking about the apps that stay fully active in the background. A number of them destroy my battery life, but they're easy to manage because there aren't too many.

Unrestricted multitasking sounds ideal in theory but I don't want to manage it. A kill-alll switch doesn't seem great either because I would typically only want to close select apps, which would become numerous.

I like Apple's implementation. I'm also curious about the implementation and pros/cons on other platforms.

 

[robjulo]

Lack of true multi tasking and ability to run processes in the background is a huge Android advantage. Try using dropbox camera uploads with ios and have photos automatically upload, doesn't work, can't run in the background. Ios is more like an app launcher than os.

 

[AndyMoore]

So here's my question on multitasking in iOS7, if I go running and use the Nike + app to track my run, could I also use Run Zombies, Run! For instance? Would one interfere with the other?

 

[robertosh]

iOS 7 will also monitor when you open which apps so for example if you open a news app on your lunch at 1pm everyday iOS will learn this and refresh it around that time so its ready for you.

is this true? It is a waste of battery if you one day don't open the news app...

 

[Menneisyys2]

There was absolutely no reason why someone would need to have a video of someone on the screen while they are looking something up in a different app

There's a clear demand towards app devs to write apps that do allow for simultaneous video playback and note writing / Web browsing. This is why there's for example “Video DS - DualScreen Video Player” ( https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/video-ds-dualscreen-video/id470648308?mt=8 ) in the AppStore. Another example of users' requsting video playback + Note taking: http://forums.imore.com/ipad-3/233455-why-cant-i-watch-movies-do-other-things-same-time.html

----------

Lack of true multi tasking and ability to run processes in the background is a huge Android advantage. Try using dropbox camera uploads with ios and have photos automatically upload, doesn't work, can't run in the background. Ios is more like an app launcher than os.

Exactly.

----------

Apple, at least as far as iOS is concerned, caters much more to the vast majority of their market, which is not the "power user", no matter how many of those users there actually are and how vocal they are, when compared to all the rest of their users.

Unfortunately, that's right. This is why they dropped their high-end, "pros only" 17" MBP series too.

 

[robjulo]

I like Apple's implementation. I'm also curious about the implementation and pros/cons on other platforms.

I've used Android and currently have a 4s running ios6 so I'll add what I can. To me the biggest advantage with Android is that processes can run in the background.

I gave the example of dropbox camera uploads in another post. With ios6 (I haven't read that 7 will be any different), I have to manually open the dropbox app every time I want to upload pictures to dropbox. With Android, I didn't have to do that. Take a pic and it automatically uploaded, no intervention from me at all.

With Android, I didn't have to worry if my podcasts were going to download in 10 minutes (when ios6 forced the app to shut off), the downloads happened in the background.

Those are two that personally affected my use of the phone and I don't believe, from what I've read, either will change with ios7.

Another poster asked if ios7 would allow two running apps at the same time, again, I don't see any way that happens in ios7 based on what I've read.

Personally, I do like the iphone and its simplicity, but IMO it is far more akin to an app launcher than a true operating system.

The con to the Android implementation is supposed to be battery life. I can only comment that battery life was not an issue with my GS4, it was better than I get with my 4s.