iOS is JUST getting notifications?! As much as I like the iOS seems like theyre always a little behind, even in the hardware sometimes. Multitasking came after android implemented it. Theyre talking about releasing a voice assistant which android already has and works well. Im sure springboard widgets are next.
The features you mention all stem from the same source. iOS is NOT a true multi-tasking operating system, at least not as implemented by Apple. The "multi-tasking" you mention is a very limited feature that enables specifically "privileged" apps to run in the background while another app is running.
What looks like "multi-tasking" from a user's point of view is limited to a few "tasks": listening to music while browsing, some notifications, etc. For most users this is sufficient. Do you need to browse the internet in the background while updating a spreadsheet (or vice versa) on your iPad? Probably not.
Apple chose this approach (in contrast to Android's full-fledged multitasking that allows an unlimited number of applications to share CPU cycles) in order to preserve a predictable user experience (i.e. "smoothness" and absence of "lag") for a given level of CPU performance and available memory. In contrast, Android devices can be "overloaded" with demands for simultaneous service from multiple apps. When that happens, the device doesn't crash but it may appear to "lag" or run more slowly than usual. The solution? A faster CPU and/or more memory.
Apple places a very high priority on preserving predictable performance regardless of what a user is doing. Apps should open and run at a predictable pace. (Not necessarily as fast as possible, but to the extent possible always at the same pace.) This reinforces a user's confidence that their device is operating correctly. And it tends to dampen consumer demand for faster processors and more memory. That means satisfied customers who are more likely to recommend their devices to others and to purchase an Apple device the next time around.
In contrast, even when operating correctly, an Android device's performance may vary depending on the load on the OS. This is nothing more than the OS doing its job but it can be disconcerting to a user. It means that an Android user can add all sorts of apps that run "in the background" (greater flexibility) but only at the price of unpredictable performance. Widgets that constantly monitor (i.e. "run") in the background are a major source of such unpredictability. So are heavily customized user interfaces that consume memory and must be swapped in and out of active memory when they are accessed. Again, more customization and flexibility but less predictable performance.
A side effect of the Android approach is that users frequently try to "solve" their performance problems with "task killers." In almost all cases this is futile since most apps the user tries to "kill" are not really "running" but simply sitting in otherwise unused memory. (But that's another topic.)
All in all, the difference comes down to fundamentally different philosophies on the part of Apple versus Google. Apple sells hardware; Google doesn't. Thus, Apple wants to maximize their hardware investment and not be pressured to upgrade it frequently. Google doesn't care; dealing with such pressure is the responsibility of hardware manufacturers who use Android. And the constant "upping the ante" on the part of manufacturers just means that there are more Android devices.
Apple makes decisions about which apps consumers want to run simultaneously (e.g. music and browsing) and which apps should be "suspended" when another app demands CPU cycles. Their decisions meet the needs of most users and give the "illusion" of multi-tasking (at least from a user's perspective.) And while it limits individual users' flexibility in the use of their devices, it also assures that any two randomly selected users will have almost identical experiences in using the same device.
Pay your money and take your choice.
