Why doesn't iOS allow multiple apps to run

[Daveoc64]

Sparrow doesn't push because the app developer felt that they could not handle push, not because iOS doesn't allow them to. Considering Facebook messenger starts almost instantaneously, I'm still failing to see the practical benefit of android's form of multitasking.

AGAIN! You're completely ignoring my post and the blog.

They don't want to use push. It's expensive, inelegant and has security problems.

We've already covered that the push notification model adds unnecessary unreliability and overhead into the mix.

Apple recognised that and added the VOIP API. If you think about it, if Push Notifications were timely enough, you wouldn't need a VOIP API (or at least the part that listens for incoming calls).

From the link it says Apple won't allow it in the app store. But they also say iOS can do it if Apple allowed it...

They are talking about using one of the APIs (like VOIP or Location) to trick iOS into thinking that the App should be able to check for messages in the background.

i.e. they would pretend to be a VOIP App like Skype, listening for incoming calls - although they would actually be listening for new email.

As the App Store Guidelines state, Apps that misuse the Background APIs will be rejected, so that's a non-starter.

 

[throAU]

The benefit to having apps run in the background is pretty bloody limited when you have full-screen only apps.

On a device with limited memory you want to suspend apps and get them out of RAM as much as possible.

Android's solution is to have a task manager so you can monitor resources and manage memory, etc yourself. That is not the apple way - the user shouldn't have to worry about that.

If you don't like it - android is for you. But manual task management is just not the path I believe apple will go down.

 

[cmChimera]

AGAIN! You're completely ignoring my post and the blog.

They don't want to use push. It's expensive, inelegant and has security problems.

Not wanting to use push is not the same as iOS not allowing you to use push.

We've already covered that the push notification model adds unnecessary unreliability and overhead into the mix.

Again, this is on the developer. Code well, and you have a great messenger app like Facebook Messenger. Code poorly, and you have an unreliable app. This is not an iOS problem.

 

[paulsalter]

Android's solution is to have a task manager so you can monitor resources and manage memory, etc yourself. That is not the apple way - the user shouldn't have to worry about that.

If you don't like it - android is for you. But manual task management is just not the path I believe apple will go down.

You dont have to manually manage tasks with Android either

Just leave the system to deal with it

 

[Daveoc64]

Not wanting to use push is not the same as iOS not allowing you to use push.

You're just talking about irrelevant things.

The OP asked a question and you're giving a response to a completely different one.

Nobody said that they can't use push. EVERYONE said that they can't run in the background

Again, this is on the developer. Code well, and you have a great messenger app like Facebook Messenger. Code poorly, and you have an unreliable app. This is not an iOS problem.

Not at all.

It is a fact that opening a connection to a server takes time. Every single time you open the App, it has to re-connect to the service. It has to reconnect and authenticate each and every time. That is a slow process.

It's not normally bad, but it can be.

You can't "code well" to get around these facts.

It absolutely IS an iOS problem - this is the only platform with this sort of restriction in place.

 

[siiip5]

From the link it says Apple won't allow it in the app store. But they also say iOS can do it if Apple allowed it...

And now Apple will never have to deal with Sparrow again. Sparrow was absorbed by Google several months ago. Ironcally, Gmail 4.2, which was just released, uses many similar features that Sparrow had. Probably just coincidence.

 

[theluggage]

it can't be because they can't put this functionality in the os. ..its because they don't want to ? i literally do not get it

ANS: The iPhone 1 had a 400MHz single-core processor, a 3.5" display, 128 MB RAM and relatively slow Flash memory (= not much good for virtual memory). Although the underlying OS supports full multitasking, it didn't have the legs to run more than one application at once.

I had an old-ish Android phone and you had to be careful about running too many apps or it would get really, really laggy which could be unfortunate if (for example) you received a phone call.

Only having one running App was a sensible design trade-off: since most Apps are highly interactive and the UI only allows one App at a time access to user input/output it doesn't make much sense having them run in the background.

The way iOS handles it is virtually indistinguishable from "real" multitasking 90% of the time (witness all the posters here saying "whaddyamean iOS doesn't multitask?") , especially with the ~iOS 4 enhancements that allow limited backgrounding for things like music players.

I'm a bit bemused why you find it such a night-and-day difference: I use both Android and iOS and - while I know that iOS Apps technically don't multitask & Android does - there's very little difference in experience. Have you actually discovered the app-switching features in iOS (double-press home to open the active App picker, or 4-finger swipe to cycle through Apps?

The only practical upshots I see are that, (a) on Android, you can run servers (like AirDroid, HTTP, SSH etc.) without having to have the server app 'up front' all the time ( a real advantage but not necessarily a mainstream feature) and (b) Samsung have now introduced multi-screen mode that actually lets you have two Apps on-screen side by side (which is only really usable on phablets/tablets).

Now, if Apple were designing iOS from scratch today, for phones with 1.3 GHz dual-core CPUs and 1GB RAM (let alone heavyweights like the Note 2 - 1.6 GHz Quad core, 2GB RAM) they might not make that tradeoff.

 

[cmChimera]

The OP asked a question and you're giving a response to a completely different one.

The OP asked why iOS doesn't allow multiple apps to run. This is clearly incorrect.

Nobody said that they can't use push. EVERYONE said that they can't run in the background

Which again, is clearly incorrect.

Not at all.

It is a fact that opening a connection to a server takes time. Every single time you open the App, it has to re-connect to the service. It has to reconnect and authenticate each and every time. That is a slow process.

It's not normally bad, but it can be.

You can't "code well" to get around these facts.

It absolutely IS an iOS problem - this is the only platform with this sort of restriction in place.

A developer can do anything they need to to make sure people have quick, pleasant experience with their app. I gave an example of an app that works perfectly. It's not up to me to prove that all apps work equally well.

We could debate the idea that iOS is overly restrictive in what it allows apps to do, and we may agree. However, unlike the OP suggested, iOS does allow multiple apps to run and I stand by the fact that everything in his original post is possible in iOS.

 

[Daveoc64]

The OP asked why iOS doesn't allow multiple apps to run. This is clearly incorrect.

They didn't say that at all. They were talking about genuine multitasking, not limited APIs and suspending Apps.

Which again, is clearly incorrect.

How is it? How would an email application run in the background?

A developer can do anything they need to to make sure people have quick, pleasant experience with their app. I gave an example of an app that works perfectly. It's not up to me to prove that all apps work equally well

It may work perfectly in the majority of cases, but the design is still cumbersome.

 

[cmChimera]

They didn't say that at all. They were talking about genuine multitasking, not limited APIs and suspending Apps.

Genuine multitasking is a term you made up. iOS multitasks differently from Android, but it multitasks.

How is it? How would an email application run in the background?

With Push notifications and task completion

It may work perfectly in the majority of cases, but the design is still cumbersome.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Daveoc64]

Genuine multitasking is a term you made up. iOS multitasks differently from Android, but it multitasks.

No it's not.

I'm using the dictionary definition of multitasking - you are not.

With Push notifications and task completion

Then it's not running in the background!

You just flit between different words and definitions for things that fit the exact few words you're quoting.

Make your mind up!

 

[NT1440]

They didn't say that at all. They were talking about genuine multitasking, not limited APIs and suspending Apps.

If the API gives you that ability to do what you need ex. bluetooth streaming, location services, email, audio streaming, then what the **** does it matter how its done?

I'll take the option that allows me to do what I need to do, while conserving battery life.

If the current APIs don't do what you need, go get what does. No one is stopping you.

 

[Daveoc64]

If the current APIs don't do what you need, go get what does. No one is stopping you.

That's not the point!

You can't come into a thread where people are arguing that iOS doesn't do something and respond with the exact opposite of what they want.

iOS doesn't do multitasking like Android and the OP asked why. You can explain why it doesn't (and some of the reasons are perfectly valid), but you can't deny that iOS is more restrictive.

 

[NT1440]

That's not the point!

You can't come into a thread where people are arguing that iOS doesn't do something and respond with the exact opposite of what they want.

iOS doesn't do multitasking like Android and the OP asked why. You can explain why it doesn't (and some of the reasons are perfectly valid), but you can't deny that iOS is more restrictive.

I don't care what your point is, I am free post in any thread I'd like and make my opinion heard thank you very much, but:

What the hell does it matter? If it does what you need it to, then why does the implementation have to be resource hungry and battery intensive?

I'm not going to go into specific details about API's because that has been more than explained.

Again what does the method matter if the outcome is the same for the purposes you need. If it doesn't do what you need, get what does. Anything else is just whining or a tech spec pissing contest.

Let Android do what it does, I don't care as long as I can do what I need to do. What is your reason for complaining about "restrictiveness"? No one is forcing you to buy.

----------

No it's not.

I'm using the dictionary definition of multitasking - you are not.

Hmmm, right from the dictionary built into OSX: "Computing the simultaneous execution of more than one program or task by a single computer processor".

In other words, exactly what Android, iOS, and even graphing calculators do.

 

[Daveoc64]

Hmmm, right from the dictionary built into OSX: "Computing the simultaneous execution of more than one program or task by a single computer processor".

In other words, exactly what Android, iOS, and even graphing calculators do.

But not what push notifications do.

iOS CAN do that for some things, but not everything. The exact piece I was quoting discussed an email client - they absolutely cannot fit that definition on iOS.

That's where it differs from Android and desktop Operating Systems.

Let Android do what it does, I don't care as long as I can do what I need to do. What is your reason for complaining about "restrictiveness"? No one is forcing you to buy.

Because iOS cannot do things that I and many others would like it to do.

I would love to have an RSS reader that could automatically update in the background. I'd love to see a proper third party email App that directly connects to the mail server and doesn't have to break the rules to get new messages. I'd love an IM App that's not constantly having to refresh every time I open it up.

You seem to be telling ME not to post my on-topic opinion, when you're posting your own OFF-TOPIC opinions.

 

[NT1440]

But not what push notifications do.

iOS CAN do that for some things, but not everything.

That's where it differs from Android and desktop Operating Systems.



Because iOS cannot do things that I and many others would like it to do.

I would love to have an RSS reader that could automatically update in the background. I'd love to see a proper third party email App that directly connects to the mail server and doesn't have to break the rules to get new messages. I'd love an IM App that's not constantly having to refresh every time I open it up.

You seem to be telling ME not to post my on-topic opinion, when you're posting your own OFF-TOPIC opinions.

So you admit that iOS does multitasking. No where in that definition does it say that everything has to be able to run in the background for the OS to be capable of multitasking. You can't just invent a new angle because the definition doesn't suite your argument.

I'm pretty on topic, especially because I've said three times now, If it doesn't do what you need it to do, get something else. There is no way in hell that is off topic, because we've addressed the underlying reasons as to why the operating systems do what they do differently ad nauseam.

Don't you dare tell me that I've told you to stop posting, I never have. YOUR opinion is just as valid as mine. THIS is how a discussion works.

 

[Daveoc64]

So you admit that iOS does multitasking. No where in that definition does it say that everything has to be able to run in the background for the OS to be capable of multitasking. You can't just invent a new angle because the definition doesn't suite your argument.

It does multitasking in limited circumstances, but those circumstances are more limited than any other operating system. We've already discussed this. Android was given as an alternative OS that DOES have full multitasking and the question was raised about why iOS does not. Other posters tried to suggest that iOS and Android have near identical multitasking, when that's not the case. That is the topic of this thread.

I'm pretty on topic, especially because I've said three times now, If it doesn't do what you need it to do, get something else. There is no way in hell that is off topic, because we've addressed the underlying reasons as to why the operating systems do what they do differently ad nauseam.

Don't you dare tell me that I've told you to stop posting, I never have. YOUR opinion is just as valid as mine. THIS is how a discussion works.

So why are you telling me to buy another product? If I post that I'm dissatisfied with an element of iOS, you tell me to buy something else.

Your answer is basically "go away". If that's not being allowed to have an opinion, then I don't know what is.

 

[NT1440]

It does multitasking in limited circumstances, but those circumstances are more limited than any other operating system. We've already discussed this. Android was given as an alternative OS that DOES have full multitasking and the question was raised about why iOS does not. Other posters tried to suggest that iOS and Android have near identical multitasking, when that's not the case. That is the topic of this thread.



So why are you telling me to buy another product? If I post that I'm dissatisfied with an element of iOS, you tell me to buy something else.

Your answer is basically "go away". If that's not being allowed to have an opinion, then I don't know what is.

See here is the thing about exchange of ideas, neither you or I can dictate where they go in any other way than adding our two cents. We are still within the realm of multitasking on both devices so you can say I'm off topic all day if you want but you'd be wasting your time.

As for the underlined, that discussion only came in as the thread progressed, so isn't that off topic by your own standards?

Freedom of speech, I never told you to go away and you damn well know it. If you think I'm off topic go ahead and report me, I'm sure the mods need a good laugh.


Either way, you'll see as the ARM chips further develop (wait till you see whats after A15!) we'll see more and more of these barriers come down as the tradeoffs on battery life and performance will become less and less relevant.

Which brings me to my point, if the current implementation is not sufficient for your usage, why don't you move to something that does? I understand fully if these downsides don't outweigh the good you get from iOS, but as of yet I haven't seen you try to get that point across.

 

[Daveoc64]

Which brings me to my point, if the current implementation is not sufficient for your usage, why don't you move to something that does? I understand fully if these downsides don't outweigh the good you get from iOS, but as of yet I haven't seen you try to get that point across.

In threads like this I respond to posts that I think are wrong. If someone posts that an email App can run for however long it wants in the background, I'll tell them they're wrong.

Many posters here seemed to be under the impression that iOS Apps can do whatever they want in the background.

It's also important for people to realise that the things Apple does allow and the alternatives (i.e. notifications) are not always suitable for every scenario and have their own downsides.

 

[cmChimera]

In threads like this I respond to posts that I think are wrong. If someone posts that an email App can run for however long it wants in the background, I'll tell them they're wrong.

Many posters here seemed to be under the impression that iOS Apps can do whatever they want in the background.

It's also important for people to realise that the things Apple does allow and the alternatives (i.e. notifications) are not always suitable for every scenario and have their own downsides.

I don't think many people are under that impression. People are under the impression that iOS does in fact multitask. For some reason, you're under the impression that it does not. People are also under the impression that an iPhone can do everything the OP said it could not do. They are correct.

 

[Daveoc64]

I don't think many people are under that impression. People are under the impression that iOS does in fact multitask. For some reason, you're under the impression that it does not. People are also under the impression that an iPhone can do everything the OP said it could not do. They are correct.

The first thing I replied to in this thread was the following post of yours:

The post was claiming that iOS doesn't allow you to run multiple apps. It clearly does. If the developer doesn't use the appropriate APIs that isn't a flaw of the OS.

As I replied, there are not APIs that allow you to do everything that you can on Android. While the OP gave only a few vague and limited examples, there are many more things (some of which are included with virtually every Android device) that are simply impossible on Android.

What then followed were posters using incorrect terms like "backgrounding" and "freezing".

Very few people seem to understand the iOS App lifecycle.

 

[VulchR]

As a user I doubt I'd notice the difference between true multitasking and fast switching. I do notice my battery life is pretty good. Given the small screen on the iPhone, it limits the information that can be displayed, and I just can't see the advantage of something working away in the background unnecessarily draining my battery. I think it is more important that any task that is currently in the fore ground is optimized, particularly with respect to using all of the CPU's cores and the GPU to the best advantage.

I must admit that when I heard iOS wasn't going to implement true multitasking that I worried it would us 'cooperative multitasking' like some of the early, disastrous versions of MacOS. Thankfully Apple had more sense, and what they have made now suits me just fine.

 

[cmChimera]

The first thing I replied to in this thread was the following post of yours:



As I replied, there are not APIs that allow you to do everything that you can on Android. While the OP gave only a few vague and limited examples, there are many more things (some of which are included with virtually every Android device) that are simply impossible on Android.

What then followed were posters using incorrect terms like "backgrounding" and "freezing".

Very few people seem to understand the iOS App lifecycle.

In my post I said that iOS allows you to run multiple apps and that developers must use the appropriate APIs. Was I right or was I wrong?

 

[Daveoc64]

In my post I said that iOS allows you to run multiple apps and that developers must use the appropriate APIs. Was I right or was I wrong?

Wrong, because you said that it was up to developers to use the APIs correctly.

If there's no API, how do they use it?

 

[Yujenisis]

Yeesh, it's starting to look like the beginning of RoadHouse in here.

Fraser Speirs, a longtime Apple Developer, has a great article explaining exactly how iOS's multitasking works:
http://speirs.org/blog/2012/1/2/misconceptions-about-ios-multitasking.html

Both "sides" are essentially right here but because you are both using different definitions of what multitasking is the argument has become one of semantics and not about the actual differences between Android and iOS. There will be no "winning" unless a definition of "multitasking" first is agreed upon. I happen to favor the New Oxford American Dictionary's definition:

multitasking |ˌməltiˈtaskiNG, ˌməltī-|
noun
Computing the simultaneous execution of more than one program or task by a single computer processor.
• the handling of more than one task at the same time by a single person.​

iOS does allow the simultaneous execution of more than one program and developers can take advantage of that within their apps. It is not however, the more robust approach originally favored by Google's Android.

Here it's important to note that Android and iOS are moving towards a common center on multitasking. With each iOS release, Apple continues to expand multitasking functionality and developer's ability to tap into it. Android on the other hand has continued to implement automatic memory management and "freeze states" into Android 3.0 and later.

I was never a fan of Android's Pre-3.0 old multitasking method as it required work on the part of the user as evidenced by the top apps from Cupcake to Gingerbread being mostly apps to tame the wild west-style multitasking that required a user to manually manage RAM, performance, and battery life.

You don't see many people complaining about Android's increasingly "limited" multi-tasking seen in the last few versions because it has lead to a much better user experience on the limited hardware that phones and tablets provide.

The best solution is somewhere between both implementations and both Apple and Google understand that as they work towards one another searching for that ideal compromise between unregulated multitasking and automated memory/power management. I don't think either OS has it exactly right - but we're getting there.