None of these things really matter and I doubt Apple is concerned, the phones memory management and scheduler could be optimized for multitasking easily. Apple is probably mostly concerned about security and maintaining control over how apps can communicate with one another.
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.
More Rumors of Limited Third-Party Background Apps Coming to the iPhone?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
None of these things really matter and I doubt Apple is concerned, the phones memory management and scheduler could be optimized for multitasking easily. Apple is probably mostly concerned about security and maintaining control over how apps can communicate with one another.
Third option?
Rather than allow apps in the background, why not create some specific Processes that can run after an app closes. For example, a process that allows music over the Internet, or a process for local notifications/alarms. The advantage to this approach would be the performance and user experience could be streamlined. Maybe in the end you allow background apps too, I'd just like to see a more creative, elegant solution.
Rather than allow apps in the background, why not create some specific Processes that can run after an app closes. For example, a process that allows music over the Internet, or a process for local notifications/alarms. The advantage to this approach would be the performance and user experience could be streamlined. Maybe in the end you allow background apps too, I'd just like to see a more creative, elegant solution.
I would also like to see background applications enabled (without noticeably affecting the overall performance of the phone), but somehow I doubt this is the way Apple will go about it. I can already see potential problems with this approach. What if all or most applications meet their "criteria" to be allowed to run in the background, or what if applications that use even less resources than ones already approved are introduced, are they going to pull the already approved apps? I can also see this approach driving away "rejected" developers to other OS's. Their solution needs to be system wide.
Icon Spot...
Why don't they just put an icon spot or two on the dock where the one or two applications in those locations will run in the background. That way whatever application that you decide to put into that position will run in the background. Then every time you are in one of those applications and close it, it will ask you if you want to keep it running or close it. That sounds like a perfect idea to me because then apple won't have to separately approve applications for background processes and it gives the user the choice to put whatever application they want in those one or two icon locations.
Why don't they just put an icon spot or two on the dock where the one or two applications in those locations will run in the background. That way whatever application that you decide to put into that position will run in the background. Then every time you are in one of those applications and close it, it will ask you if you want to keep it running or close it. That sounds like a perfect idea to me because then apple won't have to separately approve applications for background processes and it gives the user the choice to put whatever application they want in those one or two icon locations.
The blackberry storm allows any and EVERY app to run in the background and it SUCKS BALLS!
Every single app if not closed properly will continue to run in the background until you notice that your battery is full when you go to bed, and is COMPLETELY drained and running in a sort of power save mode by morning.
I'll agree that having msn or a few things open in the background would be nice on the iPhone there is still that reason why apple hasn't done it yet.
Every single app if not closed properly will continue to run in the background until you notice that your battery is full when you go to bed, and is COMPLETELY drained and running in a sort of power save mode by morning.
I'll agree that having msn or a few things open in the background would be nice on the iPhone there is still that reason why apple hasn't done it yet.
If they also open the dock connector up to new accessories then someone could make a case that uses an app that runs in the background. When that app sense that the iphone is in free fall using the accelerometer it could deploy an airbag out of the case. Of course it would be a small airbag so it would fit in the case with out it being too bulky.
No more broken screens. And it would also float so if dropped in water it wouldn't get wet.
No more broken screens. And it would also float so if dropped in water it wouldn't get wet.
more modern os's are more limited than the dated ones?? sorry but that doesn't make any sense at all. iphone has the "juice" and ram to provide multiprocessing, linux provided multiprocessing in 1991 on i486 processor running @50MHz, the graphical user interface required 128MB of memory... similar functionality was provided by on of osx ancestors, 386bsd in 1992.
well this multiprocessor thingy appears to be evidence pointing into that direction.
so iphone os is more complicated but provides less functionality? what'd be the point in that??
the apps in the background don't run unless they are performing something - just take a look at activity monitor on your own computer: there maybe five process that a doing something at any one time, the rest are just sitting idle.
tiger woods golf is not doing nothing if you're not playing, calculator app isn't calculating anything if you haven't told it to. browser isn't doing anything if you're not making it to fetch pages or viewing them.
apple may have several reasons to lie: as you mentioned the more recent mobile operating systems (osx and android) either don't offer multiprocessing or are providing it poorly, they are not as mature as the established mobile operating system, and as you have pointed out the iphone users are very reluctant to admit it, they keep telling themselves "this is the most modern mobile operating system around". so apple might want to lie to keep up that perception.
otoh lots of the programs that require multiprocessing are programs the operators feel competing with their own services, voip, messaging etc. so it might be that att has told apple they don't want that kind of apps. the slingplayer debacle shows that if the operator says it doesn't want some functionality on their network, apple will deny that functionality from its users. so that is another reason for apple to lie.
Before I switched to the iPhone 3G I was a long time Windows Mobile user. I had used different devices and different versions of the software. To be honest, multitasking always has been a pain in the a$$! When I was surfing the web on OperaMini, for instance, and then wrote an email or SMS in between it felt like it took 4 1/2 hours to load the respective app. The best thing that MS introduced in WM6 (I think) was that button "Close all applications".
Although I am all for choice and self-determination, I can understand Apple's strategy. User experience would be very bad for all those using multi-tasking. Many people would be running around screaming "The iPhone sucks, look how long it takes to load my messages and the battery is dead all the time".
That will be great, it will be nice to have useful applications running in the background. Now all we have to do is wait and see if it is true and how Apple is going to deal with the approval process.
perfect answer IMO. why have selected apps, or let you choose from a list? Just let apps use background if needed, no restrictions, but make sure they warn you first so you can choose.
Apple has it the wrong way round. They aren't 'protecting' us from battery hungry background apps, they're protecting their crappy battery from normal multitasking usage
So if a couple of Apps are allowed to stay active by staying on the dock, wouldn't the dock need to be allows on the screen and Seeing Background processes is going to need more ram. So why not other changes as well like extending the screen to replace the home button maybe make the screen clickable.
I think you are on to something here- the internet music has the issue of always running the radio, but, I feel like apple could easily have a central schedule of alerts that any app could use. One process could manage iphone alarms, calendar alarms, Things alarms or any process that wanted to use it, rather than have these things bounce back and forth between push servers.
Also, from what I was reading elsewhere, this would solve a problem with push notifications. As I understand it, if your a small developer that wants to write an app that can alert people, you would have to set up servers to alert apple's push notifications which in turn alert the users. However, that server stuff is tough to pull off as a small start up. It seems that their could easily be one alert schedule process for all things that are determined ahead of time.
Different OS...WinMob can be very fast and very battery hungry depending on the device you are using. I have a Samsung Epix, and I have IMAP IDLE on all day long, Google Sync running all day, texting and phone calls, bluetooth connecting to my Redfly at least once a day, and I am usually down to 30-40% battery life by 10pm. On my iPhone, it would have been dead with that kind of use. But the HTC Touch Pro has **** battery life because it is running that huge screen...it's all relative.
The big difference is that Windows Mobile gives you the ability to control what does/does not kill your battery life. I can actively choose to shut down certain programs, or I can leave them running for convenience. Either way it is my choice to drive the battery down to zero or maximize the life and stretch it for a few days. The iPhone doesn't really give you many options, probably because running that big screen takes a lot of juice.
Have you used WinMob? It is not Win98 with a low res screen. For starters, you can have a VGA winmob screen. In addition, with the right browser (Iris Browser, for one) you can have a webkit based browser just like Safari. It's come a long way since the early days of Pocket PC. Don't talk about it if you don't understand it.
Well, Opera Mini is a java browser. No mobile device really does well with Java. A native browser like Opera Mobile or Iris is significantly better.
With enough RAM, Windows Mobile is plenty snappy.
Whether Apple lied or just stretched the truth, I think they've realized the corner they've painted for themselves...how ridiculous is it that an app has to phone home to Apple to notify you of anything? Let's take "Things" for example: You have an alarm on a task in "Things". Things needs to ping Apple to say "Hey, User X has an alarm, they need to pick up the dry cleaning at 6pm". Apple turns around and says, "Hey, User X. Pick up your dry cleaning at 6pm." User X gets the dry cleaning, goes into Things and checks off the dry cleaning entry. Things then pings Apple again to say "Call off the alarm, User X got the dry cleaning."
Overkill doesn't even begin to describe how asinine that system is.
Apple quite often lies by omission, and by intimating false conclusions. By claiming battery issues for 3G or multitasking, Apple tells a truth, but not the whole truth. Other devices prove their lie.
The iPhone has too little RAM for the OS being used, the OS is apparently unable to prevent one process from crashing the rest, and the super-simplistic UI is unable to present multitasking to the user as nicely as say, the Pre's card method.
If Apple just said they wanted to stay simple, that would be fine. Making up stuff to try to slam other devices is just sleazy. Especially since Apple will probably allow background multitasking when market pressure makes them.
That said, I think Apple could be unwise to keep straying from their original concept of an uncomplicated device for the masses, in an attempt to "keep up" with the competition.
Those OS's started back when memory and cpu and battery were far more limited than today. Since then, they've added powerful APIs. Yes, in some ways they're very dated, but they're intended for handheld use, which is quite different from the iPhone's origins.
You'd be surprised. There are some very slick WM GUI shells these days. For example, check out these YouTube videos:
SPB Mobile Shell 3
HTC's TouchFlo 3D
There are others that are iPhone like (a simple icon grid), if that's your style.
Apple should use some of the above concepts, especially cool ideas like the animated weather available on WM devices. The iPhone looks static and stale in comparison.
Plus WM has other advantages, like background Pandora and Slingbox 3G, both of which I use a LOT on my WM phones.
Well, I was referring to Palm-pre's use of cards for multi-tasking, not a phone's general UI .
Yes, I was aware of those, and am aware slick customizations are available to such phones. But I just wasn't able to see any of them performing multi-tasking in person, although I know they are capable of doing so.
I'm not sure this is the right way to go too be honest - when I think about it, there are very few apps which I would actually want to run in the background.
Instant messenger perhaps, but I tend not to use these on the iPhone.
Twitter updates, maybe, but it sounds like these would work just as well through Apple's push notification service.
What would be really valuable for me would be:
Events/Callbacks
The ability for applications to register events/callbacks with the iPhone standard apps, so for example Things could set system-wide alarms for pending tasks which would display a notification when the app is closed. This kind of basic notification system would be great when working with local data, rather than having developers worry about the server infrastructure required to do this using push notifications.
Additionally, Apple could build in hooks into their applications, so for example when a song is played in the iPod app, it can trigger my Last.fm scrobbler.
Like I say, I see this working really well for background activity which is either totally local to the phone, or event triggered stuff.
Temporary Backgrounding
The ability to temporarily leave an application and have it continue running - so for example if I get a call or text message, I can have my app sit in the background until I'm done, then I can return to it with the state preserved.
This could work in a similar way to MobileSafari where everything remains open, and if there are memory issues on the phone, then the app could just be killed automatically.
Instant messenger perhaps, but I tend not to use these on the iPhone.
Twitter updates, maybe, but it sounds like these would work just as well through Apple's push notification service.
What would be really valuable for me would be:
Events/Callbacks
The ability for applications to register events/callbacks with the iPhone standard apps, so for example Things could set system-wide alarms for pending tasks which would display a notification when the app is closed. This kind of basic notification system would be great when working with local data, rather than having developers worry about the server infrastructure required to do this using push notifications.
Additionally, Apple could build in hooks into their applications, so for example when a song is played in the iPod app, it can trigger my Last.fm scrobbler.
Like I say, I see this working really well for background activity which is either totally local to the phone, or event triggered stuff.
Temporary Backgrounding
The ability to temporarily leave an application and have it continue running - so for example if I get a call or text message, I can have my app sit in the background until I'm done, then I can return to it with the state preserved.
This could work in a similar way to MobileSafari where everything remains open, and if there are memory issues on the phone, then the app could just be killed automatically.
Some WM UIs present the running apps as tiles on a screen. You can select a tile to bring forward. Or to stop. The Toshiba comes to mind, as well as several third party addons.
Of course, the cards are just the Palm's UI... its presentation of what's running. They are not the multitasking itself. For instance, the iPhone could present a set of cards of non-running apps if Apple wished, since each iPhone app has a static startup image embedded in it. (That's what it uses to look like it launches faster than other devices, even though it can be slower.)
WM works like this: If you start Netflix or IE or whatever, they generally continue to run when you click their "Close" button (unless you've installed a button utility to do differently, or the app itself always exits to conserve memory... Slingplayer is one example) ... or until a foreground app asks for more memory (the iPhone does this too, to Safari).
To get back to a running app, you either "launch" it again (only one copy is allowed to run, usually) and it comes to the foreground... or you close an app you used after it. For example: use Google Maps to find a restaurant, then click on its menu link. The link opens your browser. When you're done, "close" the browser and you go back to the list of restaurants. The iPhone UI crudely lacks this context continuity.
For all you Apple fanboys who hate the Pre and wish it to fail, this is why you are short sighted and wrong. If it weren't for the Pre / WebOS, Apple might not even consider allowing background apps or it would be much lower on their priority list than it is today. Competition is a great thing.
I'm an iPhone user, I'm sure I'm switching to the Pre on the day it's released. Then it two years, I'll look at the iPhone again because I'm sure Apple will have evolved and added some more great features. I enjoy the iPhone but AT&T is pure garbage.
I'm an iPhone user, I'm sure I'm switching to the Pre on the day it's released. Then it two years, I'll look at the iPhone again because I'm sure Apple will have evolved and added some more great features. I enjoy the iPhone but AT&T is pure garbage.
I run an HTC Touch. The mulitasking bit just kinda happens and bone stock, multitasking apps is kinda lame. They just kinda dissapear and you have to relaunch them from the Start Menu. Enter HTC's X-Button.
It adds an appswitcher to the top right corner so I can close apps from there or switch to them. It's a really slick utility.
honestly... i can't think of a reason to have an app running in the background.. except like.. a GPS tracker.
and honestly... if you use the word productive on an iPhone - i'm pretty sure you can wait the extra 3 seconds to relaunch an app
and honestly... if you use the word productive on an iPhone - i'm pretty sure you can wait the extra 3 seconds to relaunch an app
Perhaps people need the ability first, before they can visualize reasons. Simple example:
I'm watching a game in realtime on Slingplayer and the commercial break comes along. Leaving Sling running in the background, I flip to a browser and start reading this forum.
I can still hear the TV show, so I know exactly when the commercials stop and I can flip back to watch. Next break, I flip back to my browser and continue reading or writing exactly where I left off.
As Apple fans would say, it's the little things that count.