Multitasking on the iPhone

[skwoytek]

The argument thus far has been one of app switching and OS paradigms. Pre (in most cases) has superior app switching - they literally let you switch between open applications, Apple doesn't. Instead Apple thinks the right way to handle app switching is to provide embedded access to certain applications when needed from within another application without leaving the application. This is why they've built more API's to allowing app developers to directly embed contact information, maps, etc. But this doesn't always cover every possible option you may want to do during that task process. It has its flaws. Both devices allow multitasking and arguing about the degree of multitasking misses the point - it's about the flow. Personally, I think some of Apple's embedded hooks are smoother than actually switching to the open app.

Apple, in their Human Interface Guidelines (HIG) clearly lay out how they "believe" people will interact with applications on a small screen. For my needs, I think they could open it up. To many people, it feels logical enough that they don't complain.

According to each company, they think their implementation of app switching has advantages over the other. Users from each side disagree. Buy the device that does, what matters to you, the best.

There are only a few things I really need to see in the iPhone OS regarding app switching. First and foremost, not closing the current app when I'm interrupted - this applies to any pop-up. If I'm doing anything and a phone call, sms, or push notification comes in and I decide to handle that notification. When done, I should be returned to my previous app already in progress. Second, Apple allowing a few other applications to run in the background - this applies to turn-by-turn navigation apps, Pandora, Nike+ and anything else that loses it's use if it's not actually running (push notifications solves many of these, but not all). If I'm using turn-by-turn and need to make a call to that person to say I'm almost there, I don't want the application closing - it needs to keep running.

 

[Rat-Boy]

The argument thus far has been one of app switching and OS paradigms. Pre (in most cases) has superior app switching - they literally let you switch between open applications, Apple doesn't. Instead Apple thinks the right way to handle app switching is to provide embedded access to certain applications when needed from within another application without leaving the application. This is why they've built more API's to allowing app developers to directly embed contact information, maps, etc. But this doesn't always cover every possible option you may want to do during that task process. It has its flaws. Both devices allow multitasking and arguing about the degree of multitasking misses the point - it's about the flow. Personally, I think some of Apple's embedded hooks are smoother than actually switching to the open app.

Apple, in their Human Interface Guidelines (HIG) clearly lay out how they "believe" people will interact with applications on a small screen. For my needs, I think they could open it up. To many people, it feels logical enough that they don't complain.

According to each company, they think their implementation of app switching has advantages over the other. Users from each side disagree. Buy the device that does, what matters to you, the best.

There are only a few things I really need to see in the iPhone OS regarding app switching. First and foremost, not closing the current app when I'm interrupted - this applies to any pop-up. If I'm doing anything and a phone call, sms, or push notification comes in and I decide to handle that notification. When done, I should be returned to my previous app already in progress. Second, Apple allowing a few other applications to run in the background - this applies to turn-by-turn navigation apps, Pandora, Nike+ and anything else that loses it's use if it's not actually running (push notifications solves many of these, but not all). If I'm using turn-by-turn and need to make a call to that person to say I'm almost there, I don't want the application closing - it needs to keep running.

Quoted for Truth.

 

[QCassidy352]

The whole "multitasking" debate always turns in to a mess because that term gets used to mean so many things. For example:
1) apps running in the background
2) multiple apps on the screen at the same time
3) changing between apps without returning to a home screen
4) the speed at which one can change between programs

And I'm probably missing more.

"Multitasking" is a buzz word. Tell me how a phone actually works and I'll tell you if it meets my needs.

Personally, I think the Pre's card system is Ok, but not amazing. I'd much prefer an expose implementation, where all of the open apps rearrange themselves on the screen and you touch the one you want to bring it to the front. Unlike the card system, this would a) let you see everything that's running, and b) change from any app to any other app in two gestures. (with the card system, if you're on app 2 and want to get to app 5, you have to move through apps 3 and 4. Not horrible, but not as efficient as it could be. If you have 3 mail messages, 3 browser windows, your ipod, AIM, and a game open, you could be looking at a lot of swipes.)

 

[Interstella5555]

Main Entry:
mul·ti·task·ing Listen to the pronunciation of multitasking
Pronunciation:
\-ˌtas-kiŋ\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Date:
1966

1 : the concurrent performance of several jobs by a computer
2 : the performance of multiple tasks at one time

Sorry, but that is the definition, and to say the iPhone is "fully" multi-tasking is, well, wrong.

Hmmm, both of those definitions seem to encompass me listening to the iPod App and checking my mail at the same time...or listening to music, downloading an app from the app store, sending a text and using Safari a the same time would probably qualify as well.

 

[Rat-Boy]

Hmmm, both of those definitions seem to encompass me listening to the iPod App and checking my mail at the same time...or listening to music, downloading an app from the app store, sending a text and using Safari a the same time would probably qualify as well.

First, how do you send a text and use Safari when you can only have one app open on the screen? Or do you just mean that you can hit send and then switch real quick to Safari?

And yes, for the umpteenth time, I KNOW you can listen to the iPod and do whatever else you want. Yes, I KNOW the iPhone can multi-task on a limited basis based on how Apple wants us to be able to. No one ever denied that anywhere in this thread.

This argument stemmed from the use of the word FULLY.

The iPhone can NOT fully multi-task, and if a salesmen a laymen that, the laymen would be coming back with the phone irked because they can't run other apps at the same time.

 

[cellocello]

First, how do you send a text and use Safari when you can only have one app open on the screen? Or do you just mean that you can hit send and then switch real quick to Safari?

To be fair though ... how do you surf the web and text at the same time on any phone? Given the size of the screen, I can't think of many phones that would accommodate that.

The Pre cards don't let you do this "at the same time" - there's still switching between tasks involved.

 

[Rat-Boy]

To be fair though ... how do you surf the web and text at the same time on any phone? Given the size of the screen, I can't think of many phones that would accommodate that.

The Pre cards don't let you do this "at the same time" - there's still switching between tasks involved.

Exactly.

That is why I asked.

At any rate, this whole argument is funny.

My premise for this argument was running Pandora (an app I don't even have) while playing a game, as an example. For me, I just use the iPod, so I can listen to music while I surf.

But I know people want to be able to do it, AND, that it is really the only thing that even allows the Pre to be considered competition for the iPhone IMHO.

 

[Etnies419]

Exactly.

That is why I asked.

At any rate, this whole argument is funny.

My premise for this argument was running Pandora (an app I don't even have) while playing a game, as an example. For me, I just use the iPod, so I can listen to music while I surf.

But I know people want to be able to do it, AND, that it is really the only thing that even allows the Pre to be considered competition for the iPhone IMHO.

For anyone who has to have this ability, I would suggest that they jailbreak then. There is an add-on called PandoraControls, which lets Pandora run in the background, and lets you use the iPod popup controls to control it.

While it would be nice to not have to jailbreak, sometimes you have to take things into your own hands.

 

[bigmouth]

No you don't. iPhone is fully capable of multitasking. Simple as that. Your just playing with words to fit your agenda. iPhone is fully capable of multitasking. Plenty of examples have been shown to you, yet you refuse since it doesn't fit your agenda. The iPhone fits the definition of multitasking, just not yours, since Pandora isn't listed.

Give me a break. In this context, when people refer to full multi-tasking, they mean third party applications. Some of you sound like children who just discovered the dictionary.

For anyone who has to have this ability, I would suggest that they jailbreak then. There is an add-on called PandoraControls, which lets Pandora run in the background, and lets you use the iPod popup controls to control it.

Just get Backgrounder off Cydia -- it's the best implementation of true multi-tasking. Honestly, Apple ought to just buy out Backgrounder and SBS Settings, and use those to implement background processing.

 

[slapppy]

Give me a break. In this context, when people refer to full multi-tasking, they mean third party applications. Some of you sound like children who just discovered the dictionary.

Just get Backgrounder off Cydia -- it's the best implementation of true multi-tasking. Honestly, Apple ought to just buy out Backgrounder and SBS Settings, and use those to implement background processing.

Sounds to me you and Rat are trying to conform a definition to your own liking.

 

[bigmouth]

Sounds to me you and Rat are trying to conform a definition to your own liking.

Sounds to me like you don't know the difference between literal and intended meanings. Like when my little cousin promises to "go to bed" then goes and touches the bed.

 

[slapppy]

Sounds to me like you don't know the difference between literal and intended meanings. Like when my little cousin promises to "go to bed" then goes and touches the bed.

Sounds to me that you can't even justify your reasoning.

Originally Posted by Rat-Boy
Main Entry:
mul·ti·task·ing Listen to the pronunciation of multitasking
Pronunciation:
\-ˌtas-kiŋ\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Date:
1966

1 : the concurrent performance of several jobs by a computer
2 : the performance of multiple tasks at one time

Looks like the iPhone "can" multitask, the iPhone "can" run background process.

 

[bigmouth]

k, the iPhone "can" run background process.

Not "fully." Now brush your teeth and go to bed.

 

[slapppy]

Not "fully." Now brush your teeth and go to bed.

So instead you try to insult me. Let me repeat, so that you "can" understand.

Originally Posted by Rat-Boy
Main Entry:
mul·ti·task·ing Listen to the pronunciation of multitasking
Pronunciation:
\-ˌtas-kiŋ\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Date:
1966

1 : the concurrent performance of several jobs by a computer
2 : the performance of multiple tasks at one time

Looks like the iPhone "can" multitask, the iPhone "can" run background process.

 

[Etnies419]

Give me a break. In this context, when people refer to full multi-tasking, they mean third party applications. Some of you sound like children who just discovered the dictionary.

Just get Backgrounder off Cydia -- it's the best implementation of true multi-tasking. Honestly, Apple ought to just buy out Backgrounder and SBS Settings, and use those to implement background processing.

Yeah, Backgrounder is nice, I just wish all of the options worked in 3.0. I miss the task list, I used that all the time. SBSettings is a great add-on too.

 

[bigmouth]

So instead you try to insult me. Let me repeat, so that you "can" understand.

My little cousin loves to repeat things, too. We should set up a playdate!

Yeah, Backgrounder is nice, I just wish all of the options worked in 3.0. I miss the task list, I used that all the time. SBSettings is a great add-on too.

I still haven't upgraded to 3.0. Not to threadjack, but what options don't work?

 

[Rat-Boy]

Sounds to me that you can't even justify your reasoning.

Originally Posted by Rat-Boy
Main Entry:
mul·ti·task·ing Listen to the pronunciation of multitasking
Pronunciation:
\-ˌtas-kiŋ\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Date:
1966

1 : the concurrent performance of several jobs by a computer
2 : the performance of multiple tasks at one time

Looks like the iPhone "can" multitask, the iPhone "can" run background process.

Good grief.

Still LYING out of you hind side, eh Slappy? How many times are you going to post the same thing OVER and OVER?

Everyone on the planet KNOWS you can run SOME programs in the background. You know, the ones that Apple so decided on letting us run, like Voice Recorder, iPod, Stop Watch, etc.

I NEVER said other wise you liar.

However, what I did say, which is a FACT that YOU CAN NOT DISPUTE, is that MOST mobile sites that review phones say that the iPhone CAN NOT MULTITASK.

Why is that??

Sounds to me you and Rat are trying to conform a definition to your own liking.

Yea.

It's called the definition accepted by anyone that isn't a Fan Boy.

 

[DougB541]

Good grief.

Still LYING out of you hind side, eh Slappy? How many times are you going to post the same thing OVER and OVER?

Everyone on the planet KNOWS you can run SOME programs in the background. You know, the ones that Apple so decided on letting us run, like Voice Recorder, iPod, Stop Watch, etc.

I NEVER said other wise you liar.

However, what I did say, which is a FACT that YOU CAN NOT DISPUTE, is that MOST mobile sites that review phones say that the iPhone CAN NOT MULTITASK.

Why is that??

Don't mind slappy.

He simply refuses to admit a simple short coming that hopefully will be addressed in a future iPhone.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

Looks like the iPhone "can" multitask, the iPhone "can" run background process.

We all know.

 

[BaldiMac]

However, what I did say, which is a FACT that YOU CAN NOT DISPUTE, is that MOST mobile sites that review phones say that the iPhone CAN NOT MULTITASK.

I'm not trying to get into the argument that has already run its course on this thread, but we've acknowledged that the iPhone can multitask to some extent. What does it say about these sites (such as the comparison chart posted from Gizmodo) that the say flat out that the iPhone cannot multitask?

 

[Rat-Boy]

I'm not trying to get into the argument that has already run its course on this thread, but we've acknowledged that the iPhone can multitask to some extent. What does it say about these sites (such as the comparison chart posted from Gizmodo) that the say flat out that the iPhone cannot multitask?

It says that these sites agree that the iPhone can not fully multitask, and rather than just putting a "yes*", they decided to put what is closest to the truth in layman's terms, which is no.

 

[BaldiMac]

It says that these sites agree that the iPhone can not fully multitask, and rather than just putting a "yes*", they decided to put what is closest to the truth in layman's terms, which is no.

So you are okay with it being false?! The chart from Gizmodo that you posted didn't just have yes or no. For "OTA Exchange Syncing" for a Blackberry it had "Mail Only". Why not put "Included Apps Only" for iPhone multitasking?

 

[oghowie]

So you are okay with it being false?! The chart from Gizmodo that you posted didn't just have yes or no. For "OTA Exchange Syncing" for a Blackberry it had "Mail Only". Why not put "Included Apps Only" for iPhone multitasking?

Because for that row it was yes or no, check or no check?

 

[ZebraineZ]

Because the two apps would be running at the same time, not just on a home screen by them selves.

Imagine those two apps being Pandora and Email instead of Safari and Email.

Right now, you can't listen to Pandora and do anything else on the phone.
Right.

But that is still not acceptable.

I want to be able to listen to Pandora while simultaneously surfing the web.

Can't be done on a non-jailbroken iphone.

Also, unless a game is programmed well (like, say, Flight Control), then you will lose your place in the game.

Push notifications would probably be able to handle that :0 sending the music data to the server while the app is not open, then stream/send the music to you like they send notifications to you, but this would mean that apple has to make the API for it to allow something other then information (text) and be allowed to have it stream without interuption. Like after you quit pandora it would say 'would you like to have the music stream to you using push' and you say yes and it turns on push and then blah blah blah it streams.

 

[Etnies419]

Push notifications would probably be able to handle that :0 sending the music data to the server while the app is not open, then stream/send the music to you like they send notifications to you, but this would mean that apple has to make the API for it to allow something other then information (text) and be allowed to have it stream without interuption. Like after you quit pandora it would say 'would you like to have the music stream to you using push' and you say yes and it turns on push and then blah blah blah it streams.

Or they could send you a push notification every second, with that second of the song as the sound!

Disclaimer: This is a horrible solution, and I'm just joking.