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.
When will we get background processes?
- Thread starter Blink7551
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Background processes aren't coming, Apple Push Notification Service is. Hopefully by the end of the month but I doubt it. They pulled it from the dev seeds.
Just curious, what kinds of Apps do you plan on using that require being able to run in the background? I'm not being rude, but I'm not able to think of anything that I need that requires this feature.
well I would hope facebook would use it for notifications, aim for new IM's, weatherbug for severe weather alerts, I'd like the app store to check my apps for updates and display that without me making it. Can't think of anymore at the moment....
Thanks for answering my question. I like the weather and auto-App store notifications ideas, but I don't think I'd need the others. I guess it would be a nice feature to have, but not necessary for me.
Here is a good example: I use a program called iTrail to record my runs. I (it) must keep the iPhone unlocked on the program the entire time and this runs the battery down. Also if you get a phone call you must ignore it or cut off the recording. Also it would be nice to be able to stop and take a picture (and maybe email it) while iTrail keeps recording.
Yes, all those things would be nice, but the push notification won't allow any of those things to happen.
Apple's "no background processes" policy is just as short sighted as Windows Mobile keeping everything running in the background. Granted, most applications don't need a background process, but for those that do there often is no workaround.
I think most users realize its a balancing act between applications and limited resources. Why not have a "Allow background processing" option for applications that would benefit by it with the default set to Off. That way by default the phone would work as it does now but would give users the choice to enable background processing for apps important to them.
I think most users realize its a balancing act between applications and limited resources. Why not have a "Allow background processing" option for applications that would benefit by it with the default set to Off. That way by default the phone would work as it does now but would give users the choice to enable background processing for apps important to them.
Because every two-bit developer will think their app "has" to have a background process running, and every (stupid) user will turn on all of these processes.
"But, y have da opshun if dey dunt want u usin it?!?1!/11?!? LOLOLOLO"
How about letting the users decide for a change? I have no problems with my iPhone's battery life, and I wouldn't have any problems with a dozen background programs running.
You are correct.
Classic Apple. "Our users are too stupid to know what they want, so we'll just tell them what is best for them."
Sad.
Well ... aren't most users stupid?
Besides, if someone was really keen (and non-stupid) they could just jailbreak their phones and get whatever features they wanted. I don't really know of other phones that have a community like the iPhone jailbreak community.
Exactly...you can jailbreak if you have a touch of intelligence and want background apps. If you can't figure out how to JB then you probably shouldn't...
Or a simpler explanation would be that Apple has limited resources and has to prioritize new features. They were barely able to get the 2.0 software out in semi-working order almost on time. Adding APIs and management support for background processes on a device with limited resources was not as important as the features that they did complete.
Some people act like all Apple has to do is add a checkbox. It's a bit more complicated than that.
The fact that Apple does not currently allow third party background processes does not mean that it will always be that way. Three months ago they didn't allow any third party software at all. Things change.
I like the intelliscreen program and would love to have something like it for the iphone. Not much that would need to be background. I think apple should have a fee that you could pay that would allow apple to test special case apps that could run in the background. Also a popup or something that is run the first time that warns the user it is run in the background and would drain the battery.
Problem is I'd bet half of iphone owners don't even know what a 'background process' is...
It's likely they won't/don't do BG processes at the moment out of fear that every app would run in the BG putting battery life in the toilet. When that type of thing happens people will blame apple even if its a specific app's fault (ALA PC loaded with Spyware - but it must be a windows issue )
I don't want to jailbreak my phone. I want to have background processes.
It won't happen for a while, but in the future I could see it happening. When we get to the point where batteries can run for 10 - 20 hours (it's coming), they won't be so harsh on this stuff. By that time, we'll have faster, more efficient processors as well and hopefully more control over our phone's processes.
The way Apple handles background processes is just as cumbersome in OSX. What OS doesn't give you the choice to close your app when you CLOSE your app? Oh, OSX. I close the app, but guess what? It's still running?! Do you really want "newbies" leaving Limewire running all day? Windows isn't perfect with this either, but it's much better.
I think Apple's setup of the red close box is potentially great feature, it's just not refined enough. Apple should give users a checkbox option to close / run in background per application, but they don't. The application gets to choose what it wants to do. Giving users a checkbox per app would satisfy both newbies and pros alike. Snow Leopard? One can wish. O.K., my rant is over.
In the meantime, Push should satisfy most of my needs.
There is a difference between "close" and "quit"/"exit." You "close" a document. You "quit" (OS X) or "exit" (Windows) an application. If you understand the difference, it should make sense. At least it is consistent in OS X. You never know what will happen in Windows.
Of course I do. If I click the X on an application window, the application closes. Every time.
What? No they don't.
I'm not gonna sit here and list them all .... but LOTS of apps don't close with the red X, and instead minimize to the system tray.
