Question on the new "multitasking"

[BaldiMac]

Do you see how multitasking can begin to affect people who don't even want to use it? So maybe there will be a way to turn it off(and even specify which apps can use it), like push notifications.

I see the concerns, but I don't see the effects. Yes, you may have the added step of stopping music or clearing a route or logging out of your VOIP client. Developers can choose to leave an option for the old behavior if there is enough demand. We don't know if the App Store reviewers will require such a setting.

Other than location tracking, these same concerns would apply to various Apple apps in the current OS. Is it a problem now?

Hopefully the devs will make this work-around work well. I think it has a lot of potential if it will be tapped correctly.

What "work-around"?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the recent use list was limited to 12 apps

apparently not. Anyone here running 4.0 beta?

well not sure if it will be different with the final release but i just opened up 19 and have all 19 in the multitask bar.

Other than OCD, why does it matter how many apps are in the list?

 

[profets]

apparently not. Anyone here running 4.0 beta?

well not sure if it will be different with the final release but i just opened up 19 and have all 19 in the multitask bar.

lol guess I was wrong then

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

I see the concerns, but I don't see the effects. Yes, you may have the added step of stopping music or clearing a route or logging out of your VOIP client. Developers can choose to leave an option for the old behavior if there is enough demand. We don't know if the App Store reviewers will require such a setting.

My point is that the question was posed if multitasking can be turned off (implying that there is a want for that kind of state), and your response wasn't a simple "no". You claimed that if ppl didn't want to use multitasking that it wouldn't affect them. I'm only playing devil's advocate and claiming that multitasking will in fact affect people even if they don't want to use it.

Other than location tracking, these same concerns would apply to various Apple apps in the current OS. Is it a problem now?

I didn't say it's a concern. Only that it will have an effect. But yes I do think it could cause problems. What Apple apps have this same "effect" that will come from "multitasking"? The main culprit is the iPod app, which can be controlled from a simple double click. But now add on many more music, gps, IM, video, etc apps that canNOT be controlled without entering back into the app... Don't get me wrong, I think overall multitasking is a good thing, but I do think it was cause confusion and difficulty initially. Because it works without you wanting it to.

What "work-around"?

the fact that Apple only lets you control a few API's as opposed to having REAL multitasking running in the background. Devs will need to figure out smart solutions of how to make it seem like real multitasking in some more obscure cases. I think it will fit the need, but just need some extra brain power

Other than OCD, why does it matter how many apps are in the list?

Mainly OCD But think about it. Why does Apple limit the number of app pages? Simplicity. they just recently expanded it, but they actually wanted few pages than we have.

But on a more practical note, you must admit it would be beneficial to see which apps are still "running" in the background. By "running" I mean still in their frozen state. Once the API's are no longer being used, the state is lost, and you must reload the app, there really is no point in having it on that quick-launch bar. I would like to be able to see the apps that are still "tasked" and ready to go!

 

[BaldiMac]

My point is that the question was posed if multitasking can be turned off (implying that there is a want for that kind of state), and your response wasn't a simple "no". You claimed that if ppl didn't want to use multitasking that it wouldn't affect them. I'm only playing devil's advocate and claiming that multitasking will in fact affect people even if they don't want to use it.

How would it affect someone that is not using it?

I didn't say it's a concern. Only that it will have an effect. But yes I do think it could cause problems.

How?

What Apple apps have this same "effect" that will come from "multitasking"?

There are three different multitasking cases that have a significant impact on resources. VOIP, Music, and GPS. VOIP is just like the Phone app. Music is just like the iPod app.

The main culprit is the iPod app, which can be controlled from a simple double click. But now add on many more music, gps, IM, video, etc apps that canNOT be controlled without entering back into the app...

I admitted that GPS is a new use case. Music apps are controlled exactly the same as the iPod app. IM and video do not run in the background.

Don't get me wrong, I think overall multitasking is a good thing, but I do think it was cause confusion and difficulty initially. Because it works without you wanting it to.

How it works is between you and the app developer. Isn't that how it should be?

the fact that Apple only lets you control a few API's as opposed to having REAL multitasking running in the background. Devs will need to figure out smart solutions of how to make it seem like real multitasking in some more obscure cases. I think it will fit the need, but just need some extra brain power

I was just confused. I thought you were talking about a work-around to avoid multitasking.

Mainly OCD But think about it. Why does Apple limit the number of app pages? Simplicity. they just recently expanded it, but they actually wanted few pages than we have.

I'm sure the number will be limited. But having more apps listed won't decrease usability.

Let's say that you think 10 apps listed is the optimal number. How would you get to the 11th app if only 10 were listed? You would go to the home screen. If 20 are actually listed, you could do the exact same thing (go to the home screen) or have the option to scroll back a little farther in the list.

But on a more practical note, you must admit it would be beneficial to see which apps are still "running" in the background. By "running" I mean still in their frozen state.

Other than OCD, I don't see the benefit. It's not going to affect whether or not I switch to an app.

Once the API's are no longer being used, the state is lost, and you must reload the app, there really is no point in having it on that quick-launch bar.

The point would be that you can switch between recent apps faster without having to navigate various home screens and folders.

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

How would it affect someone that is not using it?

How?

I thought I explained this earlier. Imagine this scenario. Hi, my name is Steve (not really). I have an iPhone 3GS. I don't really want to bother with the new multitasking feature. I'm listening to music on pandora, I quit, the music keeps playing. I'm using TomTom, I quit, it keeps tracking my location and giving me directions. But I thought BaldiMac told me that I wouldn't be affected by multitasking!! Gee, I wish I could disable it!!! Now, i'm not saying I want to turn multitasking off, I'm not even arguing that there should be the option to turn it off. All I'm claiming is that there is a difference between having it "on" or "off" and that anyone (even unwillingly) will be affected and hypothetically a person might not want it.

There are three different multitasking cases that have a significant impact on resources. VOIP, Music, and GPS. VOIP is just like the Phone app. Music is just like the iPod app.

I admitted that GPS is a new use case. Music apps are controlled exactly the same as the iPod app. IM and video do not run in the background.

I was unaware that the music controls would work from a double home tap, just like the ipod. But if this is in fact true, that does make things simpler. I'm not trying to make multitasking sound like a bad thing. My only claim is that it will affect everyone and that it could prove to initially be confusing/difficult for some who don't desire this feature.


How it works is between you and the app developer. Isn't that how it should be?

not if you don't want it

I was just confused. I thought you were talking about a work-around to avoid multitasking.

negative

I'm sure the number will be limited. But having more apps listed won't decrease usability.

Let's say that you think 10 apps listed is the optimal number. How would you get to the 11th app if only 10 were listed? You would go to the home screen. If 20 are actually listed, you could do the exact same thing (go to the home screen) or have the option to scroll back a little farther in the list.

Other than OCD, I don't see the benefit. It's not going to affect whether or not I switch to an app.

The point would be that you can switch between recent apps faster without having to navigate various home screens and folders.

yes I understand this logic. And I think it mainly comes down to personal preference and simplicity. Also, in my eyes (and every casual user), the quick app switcher will be thought of as the "multitasking bar". Where you can switch quickly between all of your apps that are currently "running". When I haven't opened an app for so long that it loses its' last 'save state' and needs to completely be relaunched (with load time and all) I think it's time that it can be removed from the "multitasking bar". when I look at the multitasking bar I want to be able to view all of my apps that are still currently "open". If you disagree, that's fine. After I use the thing for a while I might find myself wanting the same thing as you, but now it just seems more logical and more "apple-like"

 

[Yakob]

FYI...

running OS4 beta 4 and just a quick check i have 56 apps in the task bar... so essentially unlimited as far as i can see

 

[BaldiMac]

I thought I explained this earlier. Imagine this scenario. Hi, my name is Steve (not really). I have an iPhone 3GS. I don't really want to bother with the new multitasking feature. I'm listening to music on pandora, I quit, the music keeps playing. I'm using TomTom, I quit, it keeps tracking my location and giving me directions. But I thought BaldiMac told me that I wouldn't be affected by multitasking!! Gee, I wish I could disable it!!! Now, i'm not saying I want to turn multitasking off, I'm not even arguing that there should be the option to turn it off. All I'm claiming is that there is a difference between having it "on" or "off" and that anyone (even unwillingly) will be affected and hypothetically a person might not want it.

I think we are slightly misaligned. I said that it will not affect you unless you choose to use it. "Choosing" includes using apps that run in the background.

My only claim is that it will affect everyone and that it could prove to initially be confusing/difficult for some who don't desire this feature.

Maybe we just have a different idea of "affect". Yes, it is different. There are lots of things that are different about the new OS. I just don't see any impact in real world usage.

not if you don't want it

Are you seriously arguing for more App Store control of developers!

yes I understand this logic. And I think it mainly comes down to personal preference and simplicity.

As I pointed out, simplicity is not an issue. I agree that it mainly comes down to personal preference, or, as I put it, OCD.

Also, in my eyes (and every casual user), the quick app switcher will be thought of as the "multitasking bar". Where you can switch quickly between all of your apps that are currently "running".

That's not what it is. But if every casual thinks that, how would that idea change how they would use the device?

When I haven't opened an app for so long that it loses its' last 'save state' and needs to completely be relaunched (with load time and all) I think it's time that it can be removed from the "multitasking bar". when I look at the multitasking bar I want to be able to view all of my apps that are still currently "open". If you disagree, that's fine. After I use the thing for a while I might find myself wanting the same thing as you, but now it just seems more logical and more "apple-like"

Why does it matter whether the app is in a saved state or not as far as whether or not you are going to switch to it? If it worked the way you described it, there may not be any apps listed to switch to if the current app uses too much memory.

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

I think we are slightly misaligned. I said that it will not affect you unless you choose to use it. "Choosing" includes using apps that run in the background.

I disagree. If I (a metaphorical "I" of course) choose to use Pandora or TomTom (which surely will have multitasking) I'm not necessarily choosing to multitask. I could not update those apps, sure, but I would surely be missing out on features in the future.

Maybe we just have a different idea of "affect". Yes, it is different. There are lots of things that are different about the new OS. I just don't see any impact in real world usage.

But there is an "on/off" like state. Someone asked if it could be turned off and instead of the correct answer (no you can't currently turn it off), you stated that he won't be affected if he doesn't want to use it. But if he still wants pandora/TomTom than he will be affected

Are you seriously arguing for more App Store control of developers!

no. I'm saying if the user doesn't want multitasking it can be confusing.

As I pointed out, simplicity is not an issue. I agree that it mainly comes down to personal preference, or, as I put it, OCD.

Tomato, tomato.

That's not what it is. But if every casual thinks that, how would that idea change how they would use the device?

if I activate the launcher and do a quick scroll to the right, I don't want to be spun 15 apps over (possibly going back weeks in time!). There would be more scrolling back and forth to find the app you want. It makes the thing feel more cluttered. There doensn't need to be so many apps, that's why Apple limited the number of pages in the first place. And remember, you can only see like 4 apps at a time?The launcher shouldn't be used for most app launching. It should only be used to move quickly between the last few apps. Maybe ppl need to be trained a little to use it effectively

Why does it matter whether the app is in a saved state or not as far as whether or not you are going to switch to it? If it worked the way you described it, there may not be any apps listed to switch to if the current app uses too much memory.

No I don't think so. I don't think any app will be using enough resources to completely cut all saved states. It doesn't need much to save the last state. Also, maybe at the minimum the launcher could keep 4 apps, just to fill the bar

 

[frunkis54]

FYI...

running OS4 beta 4 and just a quick check i have 56 apps in the task bar... so essentially unlimited as far as i can see

that makes my 19 open look just silly.

 

[BaldiMac]

I disagree. If I (a metaphorical "I" of course) choose to use Pandora or TomTom (which surely will have multitasking) I'm not necessarily choosing to multitask. I could not update those apps, sure, but I would surely be missing out on features in the future.

When an app doesn't work how you want it to work, you generally submit a request to the developer or choose a different app. I'd bet that most apps will be very clear about any change to functionality with regards to the multitasking APIs. It's still your choice.

But there is an "on/off" like state. Someone asked if it could be turned off and instead of the correct answer (no you can't currently turn it off), you stated that he won't be affected if he doesn't want to use it.

No, I gave the correct answer (No). And then I stated that there is no need to turn it off. And that if you don't use it, it won't affect you.

But if he still wants pandora/TomTom than he will be affected

How will he be affected if he wants Pandora? Yes, there will be changes in how the program works, but isn't that true of any upgrade? Is the hypothetical "he" just completely afraid of change?

Are you simply arguing that there are some people that like that Pandora stops playing music when it is closed, and so Apple should force developers to keep it that way at least as an option?

no. I'm saying if the user doesn't want multitasking it can be confusing.

Well, if an app is confusing, maybe the developer should work to make it less confusing in order to keep their users happy.

It doesn't seem that confusing that if you want the music to stop playing, you press the pause button. Just like in the iPod app. If you want to log out of Skype, you log out of Skype. If you don't want TomTom giving you directions, you tell TomTom to stop giving you directions. (Also, since location services are a privacy issue, app access is managed centrally.)

if I activate the launcher and do a quick scroll to the right, I don't want to be spun 15 apps over (possibly going back weeks in time!). There would be more scrolling back and forth to find the app you want. It makes the thing feel more cluttered. There doensn't need to be so many apps, that's why Apple limited the number of pages in the first place. And remember, you can only see like 4 apps at a time?The launcher shouldn't be used for most app launching. It should only be used to move quickly between the last few apps. Maybe ppl need to be trained a little to use it effectively

It appears to scroll one screen (4 apps) at a time, so this concern appears to be addressed. If you only want 4 apps to be remembered, don't scroll. If you want 8 apps, only scroll one screen.

No I don't think so. I don't think any app will be using enough resources to completely cut all saved states. It doesn't need much to save the last state. Also, maybe at the minimum the launcher could keep 4 apps, just to fill the bar

We are only talking about 256 MB of RAM shared with the OS and the native apps (Phone, Mail, etc.) and the fully supported third party apps (VOIP, Audio, RT Location). Safari for one could easily max out RAM and cause all other third-party apps to be cleared from RAM.

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

as much fun as our back and forth banter is, I feel like it is killing this thread. haha. I still disagree with your assertion that the ability to consciously avoid all apps that use multitasking is valid in making the claim that "multitasking doesn't affect you unless you use it". Although true, it takes a concerted effort to avoid it. That is my point. Wow, sorry. I tried to 'not have the last word' on this one but I guess I sorta took one anyway... haha

Well I feel like this thread has been sufficiently beaten... haha

 

[cmChimera]

This is slightly off topic, but, while I know it's easier to send message replies and not have to quit my game of fruit ninja, but does anyone know if the in-app sms is sorta like quickreply? Or will I have to pause the app, go to messages and then go back to the app? It's definitely not going to bother me as much, but just curious.

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

This is slightly off topic, but, while I know it's easier to send message replies and not have to quit my game of fruit ninja, but does anyone know if the in-app sms is sorta like quickreply? Or will I have to pause the app, go to messages and then go back to the app? It's definitely not going to bother me as much, but just curious.

you may have noticed I posed the same question earlier in this thread (twice), but unfortunately no one's talkin'.

 

[anjinha]

This is slightly off topic, but, while I know it's easier to send message replies and not have to quit my game of fruit ninja, but does anyone know if the in-app sms is sorta like quickreply? Or will I have to pause the app, go to messages and then go back to the app? It's definitely not going to bother me as much, but just curious.

No, in-app SMS means you will be able to initiate an SMS from an app (if a developer decides to add that feature) like you can do now with email.

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

No, in-app SMS means you will be able to initiate an SMS from an app (if a developer decides to add that feature) like you can do now with email.

but even if the dev adds the feature you will be unable to respond to a received text while in an app?

 

[cmChimera]

Yeah that's kinda disappointing.

 

[anjinha]

but even if the dev adds the feature you will be unable to respond to a received text while in an app?

Yes, this is nothing like quick reply. If something like quick reply is added it has to be OS wide, not as an API that devs can choose to add or not.

 

[brian4610]

Safari question

What about when you are loading a page, and it is taking a little longer then normal, and while you're waiting you want to check another app. Would safari still keep loading, or freeze where it was and resume when you open or enter it again?

 

[BaldiMac]

What about when you are loading a page, and it is taking a little longer then normal, and while you're waiting you want to check another app. Would safari still keep loading, or freeze where it was and resume when you open or enter it again?

It will keep loading.

However, if you run out of RAM before you switch back to the page, it may need to reload again.