Apple seeds developer tools for background-conscious iPhone apps

[AppleInsider]

Apple has equipped some of its developers with the tools needed to begin authoring iPhone applications that can receive data over the internet, like instant messages, even when they're not running.

The capability to produce these applications, sometimes called background apps, has been atop the wish lists of iPhone developers, mainly because Apple prevents the iPhone from running more than one application at a time.

That means that an instant message conversation in AOL's free AIM app for the iPhone would abruptly terminate should a user receive a phone call. The user wouldn't receive any new incoming messages until the phone call was over and the AIM application was relaunched. The same would happen if a user clicked on a web link sent via instant message, triggering the Safari app to launch and the AIM app to quit.

Apple's argument against traditional background-capable applications is a sound one, and one that's in the best interest of iPhone users. During the company's recent developers conference, iPhone chief Scott Forstall noted that implementations of background applications on rival mobile operating systems are largely flawed in that they lead users to believe that they've quit applications when those apps remain open.

This in turn eats at battery life, where the iPhone 3G is already limited by power-hungry 3G and location services, and also weighs on processor performance with each additional application that continues to run as a background process.

To solve this problem, Forstall said Apple was developing an alternative to background applications known as a "Push Notification Service" that developers could tap through a series of APIs, or easy to use programming functions, beginning in September. Instead of allowing potentially dozens of third party services to simultaneously access an iPhone directly, the push service would funnel all transmissions from developers' servers through a central Apple server, which would then relay the data to iPhones through a single persistent and well-managed background connection.

Apple's overview of its Push Notivation Service.

Through this technique, Forstall said developers can push badges to icons (like the email count indicator seen on the iPhone's Mail icon), notification sounds, or pop-up text alerts like those that currently appear when an iPhone receives a text message. This management system was also developed to scale easily with larger apps, the exec said.

The first beta release of iPhone Software 2.1 last week whet the appetite of iPhone developers waiting on the push capabilities when it included some references to the feature. However, a second beta that arrived last night finally includes a rough implementation of the push services API, according to MacRumors.

"This is the second beta of the iPhone SDK targeting iPhone OS 2.1, including bug fixes to iPhone OS as well as an early implementation of the Apple Push Notification Service API," Apple said. "This API is not yet integrated with a live push server."

Only a select group developers are reported to have received the latest beta, which as Apple noted, isn't fully functional. Still, the iPhone maker has two months left to meet its self-imposed deadline to roll out Push Notification Service tools to its broader developer community. If it makes good on its promise, the first background-conscious iPhone applications should start cropping up on the App Store later this fall.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Okay... so we're not really talking about applications running in the background as the article sounds at the start, are we? We're talking about the push notification service which has already been announced and is expected? Big difference...

[stukdog]

I think this ability will be both popular and useful. I've already had quite a few iPhone developers contact me about getting some Mac servers set up to push their notifications. They're excited to have the ability.

I suppose the biggest worry is that it will be overused. (digg.com shouts anyone?) but as long as there are options to turn them off, and you keep an eye on what apps you install that use them, I suppose it will be bearable.

[psychodoughboy]

"Their" is not the same as "they're" - sorry to be a grammar Nazi, just noticed that mistake in the opening sentence.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande

Okay... so we're not really talking about applications running in the background as the article sounds at the start, are we? We're talking about the push notification service which has already been announced and is expected? Big difference...

I hope this doesn't become the new twitter(always exceeding capacity).
I wonder if they learned their lesson from the mobileMe launch?
Hopefully they will have adequate server capacity to handle all the notifications.

Every developer and his uncle is going to want to use this.

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

I hope this doesn't become the new twitter(always exceeding capacity).
I wonder if they learned their lesson from the mobileMe launch?
Hopefully they will have adequate server capacity to handle all the notifications.

Every developer and his uncle is going to want to use this.

Interesting... I didn't really consider possible network issues. But I can't imagine how that would be a problem now that I do. Not only will the volume of data in this case be much smaller than anything Apple is dealing with in terms of activating an iPhone (and especially media-rich activity on MobileMe), but the consequences of delay or trouble at the start are much smaller. They're probably going to be transmitting a simple notification (one for each badge, or a numerically weighted notification) which is then assigned to an app. It might not actually be transmitting the app's data, though it could be pretty cool if they make that possible. Say they underestimate it -- delay will mean badges don't show up on time or don't show up at all (either not much worse than the present case of having no notification of all). I imagine it will go smoothly, though.

But yes, I imagine there will be a huge demand for this. Nearly half the apps on my iPhone, by my count, could take advantage of some kind of notification service. I think it would be a great service.

I got curious when I first started reading the article. It makes it sound like background activity will be allowed (are you misbehaving, AppleInsider? Trying to get clicks?) -- something which would be very cool for programs like Pandora. Apple's reason for avoiding this is, indeed, very legitimate, though. They'd have to police an author's implementation to prevent instability and bogged down phones.

[brianus]

What they really need is some sort of background audio framework, so that apps like Pandora or AOL Radio could do what the iPod app does and keep playing even when you've moved to a different app. Unlike Push, only one app could use it at a time, and it shouldn't require keeping the entire app open, just some little 'helper' that keeps up the streaming going (or whatever the app in question does to get its audio)

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

Every developer and his uncle is going to want to use this.

And that may be where we have a problem, like Stukdog said, you DON'T want everyone using this or it will get overused.

[brianus]

Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande

Say they underestimate it -- delay will mean badges don't show up on time or don't show up at all (either not much worse than the present case of having no notification of all). I imagine it will go smoothly, though.

It's been a year and Apple still can't get email notification right (despite adding new configuration options), *and* they've utterly failed with MobileMe. Is there any reason to expect it will go smoothly? I guess something's better than nothing.

I got curious when I first started reading the article. It makes it sound like background activity will be allowed (are you misbehaving, AppleInsider? Trying to get clicks?) -- something which would be very cool for programs like Pandora. Apple's reason for avoiding this is, indeed, very legitimate, though. They'd have to police an author's implementation to prevent instability and bogged down phones.

There's a fair amount of instability with the current 3rd party apps, and it's not all due to the 2.0 firmware. The whole idea of the app store is that they're "policing" these apps (supposedly); though I agree by default all apps should shut down when not on screen, I don't see why they can't make allowances for the small subset of apps that need background audio, a feature of one of their built-in apps and really the only legitimate reason for any app to keep working in the background now that push is being made available.

[scottybe]

That's nice, sure. But in-iPhone background processing is still needed. Like brianus' example of background audio for Pandora or AOL Radio. Or location-based software. I'd love a app that would tell my family's iPhones where I am (and vice versa) every minute or so. How cool would that be on the ski slopes?! But I wouldn't be able to listen to music at the same time unless it's running in the background...

[iVlad]

Hope it doesn't crash the servers like mobileMe did. Will apple support the whole world with these push services?

I think after WindowsMe, anything with Me at the end is cursed. =) Thank god Apple did not name AppleTv -- TvMe.

[JohnnyKrz]

I think the way they are handling this is very smart for now. However, I think future iPhones will be just as capable in terms of processing and memory allocation as full-size computers and run on the same size battery. Then, we will look back and laugh at the current limitations as if it was an 80's model PC.

[G. I.]

Skype will be useless even with this notification stuff. How can an incoming call come through if the app doesn't run.

[Galley]

Originally Posted by psychodoughboy

"Their" is not the same as "they're" - sorry to be a grammar Nazi, just noticed that mistake in the opening sentence.

Hey, it's no worse than "Push Notivation Service".

[steviet02]

Removed....

[Ireland]

Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande

Okay... so we're not really talking about applications running in the background as the article sounds at the start, are we? We're talking about the push notification service which has already been announced and is expected? Big difference...

LOL yeah, talk about a "loaded" story title!

[Ireland]

Originally Posted by stukdog

I think this ability will be both popular and useful. I've already had quite a few iPhone developers contact me about getting some Mac servers set up to push their notifications. They're excited to have the ability.

I suppose the biggest worry is that it will be overused. (digg.com shouts anyone?) but as long as there are options to turn them off, and you keep an eye on what apps you install that use them, I suppose it will be bearable.

I don't see that being an issue. Developers will think carefully, as they won't want a heap of users uninstalling "their" app.

[Ireland]

Originally Posted by G. I.

Skype will be useless even with this notification stuff. How can an incoming call come through if the app doesn't run.

The push service might be able to "wake" the sleeping app somehow. Badges, textual alerts and alert sounds.

A textual alert for the Skype app might be:

Sarah is calling you on Skype?

Ignore - Answer

Tapping Answer could then launch the skype app and put Sarah and you in connection for that voice call.

I thank you.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by G. I.

Skype will be useless even with this notification stuff. How can an incoming call come through if the app doesn't run.

It lets you know that a call is incoming, and then you decide whether to accept it or not.

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Originally Posted by brianus

It's been a year and Apple still can't get email notification right (despite adding new configuration options), *and* they've utterly failed with MobileMe. Is there any reason to expect it will go smoothly? I guess something's better than nothing.

What kind of email notification? A .Mac thing? I never cared for .Mac so I wouldn't know about that -- it was pretty obvious that Apple was focused on something much bigger. If you are talking about Apple Mail, I don't share your concern. That has been a solid app for me for... well... forever.

And spare me the MobileMe drama. :P

Apple is trudging through a rocky road, definitely, but it has just come out and I have a feeling they'll be ironing this out rapidly until it becomes a well oiled machine. Unlike .Mac they have a winner, here, and I think they know it. There's nothing else on the internet quite like what MobileMe can be. If you think mistakes in regard to rolling out such an exceptional new service somehow reflect on a company with such a rock solid background of providing wonderful revolutionary products, I would suggest you look up the definition to 'perspective' in the dictionary.

Originally Posted by brianus

There's a fair amount of instability with the current 3rd party apps, and it's not all due to the 2.0 firmware. The whole idea of the app store is that they're "policing" these apps (supposedly); though I agree by default all apps should shut down when not on screen, I don't see why they can't make allowances for the small subset of apps that need background audio, a feature of one of their built-in apps and really the only legitimate reason for any app to keep working in the background now that push is being made available.

We don't know how much instability of mobile apps has to do with 2.0. It is definitely conceivable that there are a few gloomy bugs in the framework which could be affecting some of them. But most of the apps I have on my iPhone perform solidly -- I've only experienced a few application crashes since I got the phone -- so I'll wager it has a fair bit to do with a platform of young new software which is just now getting its real-world testing, on a completely new platform to which developers are just now being introduced. Then again, I don't download a program if every other feedback post talks about its instability.

I agree with you and the other poster about a background audio service, though. I think that is something Apple could implement and it is exactly the sort of thing the misleading title of this article got my hopes up about. I would love to have Pandora going while I did something else on my iPhone. It is a rocky road, though, as all it takes is some irresponsible programming in a few apps to flip the iPhone experience over on its head.

[auxio]

Originally Posted by brianus

What they really need is some sort of background audio framework, so that apps like Pandora or AOL Radio could do what the iPod app does and keep playing even when you've moved to a different app. Unlike Push, only one app could use it at a time, and it shouldn't require keeping the entire app open, just some little 'helper' that keeps up the streaming going (or whatever the app in question does to get its audio)

I second that suggestion.

In addition, I'd like to see something whereby, if you're listening to your iPod and you run a 3rd party app which wants to take control of the audio subsystem, you can choose which audio stream you want. Or better yet, just allow proper audio sharing between apps.

[Ireland]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It lets you know that a call is incoming, and then you decide whether to accept it or not.

Didn't I already answer this.

[jcw5002]

While this is going to be *AWESOME* for a lot of the Apps out there, I wonder what sort of load it's going to place on Apple's servers. We already saw that they cannot seem to handle crazy amounts of traffic and use with the MobileMe fiasco.

You're going to have tons of apps sending messages using Apple's servers as a proxy. So, unless it can be limited to very small amounts of data (such as a simple notification, small string, etc) it could cause major problems do to the sheer number of requests.

Let's say that you have AIM up and then you get a phone call. I'd imagine that this will "close" AIM and open up the call. Then, all of your instant messages that happen during the call, would now go to Apple instead of my your iPhone. Then you hang up the call and you would see that you missed 6 IM's. So, while the whole time AIM was "closed" the AIM servers hit Apple's 6 times. Even if they are only passing tiny amounts of data, this could cause major load issues for Apple's servers.

Am I missing something? Or does this sound about right?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

I hope this doesn't become the new twitter(always exceeding capacity).
I wonder if they learned their lesson from the mobileMe launch?
Hopefully they will have adequate server capacity to handle all the notifications.

Every developer and his uncle is going to want to use this.

There are some major differences to teh MM launch. One, is that teh Push email was only a small part of MM. This isn't a data server, sync server, email server, etc. with complex Ajax coding. It's just a relay server for your iPhone that works similar to SMS. It's much less complex to design and build, the data through is considerably smaller and it relies on both the developer adding the feature to the iPhone app and Apple enabling it.

Will this hiccups? Probably, there usually are with any new tech. Will be as bad as MM? Not probable.

Originally Posted by G. I.

Skype will be useless even with this notification stuff. How can an incoming call come through if the app doesn't run.

Skype will be useless without a WIFi connection, per the SDK regulations.

Originally Posted by Ireland

The push service might be able to "wake" the sleeping app somehow. Badges, textual alerts and alert sounds.
A textual alert for the Skype app might be:
Sarah is calling you on Skype?
Ignore - Answer
Tapping Answer could then launch the skype app and put Sarah and you in connection for that voice call.
I thank you.

To add more detail to that and use the alerts as they are, if you get an alert from Skype that vibrates and rings the phone (once), and adds a pop-up message saying the number or contact calling you. You can then accept or decline, but this would only access the app, which could be written to auto accept a call if you are accessing it from said pop-up. The Skype servers would still think you are available per the Apple notifcation servers so it would continue to ring until the allotted time sends it to voicemail.

But would this be enough time from the Skype server to the Apple notification server to the iPhone pop-up to you responding to get the Skype phone app to answer before it gets sent to voicemail? Could the notification service on the iPhone auto initiate the Skype app service on the notification servers when you connect to WiFi or would you first have to manually open the Skype to get it started? Since the iPhone can connect to 6 calls at once would the iPhone be able to aggregate regular cell calls and WiFi calls into one party line (I'm planning a heist and this would really help keep the Feds of my trail)?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Ireland

Didn't I already answer this.

Incorrectly. The notification service doesn't wake the app.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by jcw5002

Let's say that you have AIM up and then you get a phone call. I'd imagine that this will "close" AIM and open up the call. Then, all of your instant messages that happen during the call, would now go to Apple instead of my your iPhone. Then you hang up the call and you would see that you missed 6 IM's. So, while the whole time AIM was "closed" the AIM servers hit Apple's 6 times. Even if they are only passing tiny amounts of data, this could cause major load issues for Apple's servers.

Am I missing something? Or does this sound about right?

There are two ways this can be handled. It could be Yahoo and MSN messengers in that they will hold the chats on their servers and send to you when online or it could be as you stated that the AIM server will think that you are the Apple notification server and send your messages there after the iPhone passes you off to it after you close AIM.

Method 1:
— AIM on iPhone closes
— iPhone sends notice to Apple server which logs in as you
— AIM server sends messages to Apple server
— Apple servers holds messages and sends notifications to your iPhone

Method 2:
— AIM on iPhone closes
— iPhone sends notice to Apple server which informs AIM server to hold messages but send notice of a new message to Apple server
— AIM server sends notice to Apple server for each message
— Apple server sends notification badge to iPhone
— AIM on iPhone is opened at which time it polls AIM server for held messages and informs to send messages directly to that IP address.

The latter only works if AIM doesn't use a pop-up with the message imbedded. Judging by how poorly made the iPhone's AIM is with as much time as they have had I'm guessing they will go the easier route of letting Apple do the all heavy lifting.


PS: I know that Adium has a legal quandary with making an iPhone app, but I'd like to see Meebo make an local app portal for their great multi-client web app. They could still leave all the IM protocols on their servers and relay the messages to an iPhone app that would work with the Apple notification services. AIM for the US, but the rest of the world isn't using it.

[brianus]

Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande

What kind of email notification? A .Mac thing? I never cared for .Mac so I wouldn't know about that -- it was pretty obvious that Apple was focused on something much bigger. If you are talking about Apple Mail, I don't share your concern. That has been a solid app for me for... well... forever.

And spare me the MobileMe drama. :P

I don't have MobileMe, but its issues are well known here. What I'm referring to is the built-in Mail app on the iPhone. While it's laudable that they've added new configuration options to specify whether you want to use Fetch, Push or Manual methods of receiving new mail on a per-account basis (indeed, they give you more control over that on the iPhone than they do on their own desktop Mail.app!), it's still pretty damned buggy, and no better, as far as I can see, than it was a year ago. I have found that with GMail set to "Push" it works pretty well, but for Yahoo it's a crapshoot. Same goes for "Fetch" on my home IMAP server, even though automatically fetching mail works just fine for all the desktop clients that connect to it, including Mail 3.0. And don't even get me started on Manual... apparently, to Apple, simply opening the Mail app is the same as manually deciding that you want to check for mail from a particular account. Even if you open it into a different account! Ridiculous. But even then, that's only true some of the time.

I'm glad you've had no problems with Apple Mail, but others have. Rules, for instance, have a number of bugs and limitations that have dogged me for years, and confounded the Apple engineers I've presented the problems to, but they're still present in 3.0. Unfortunately due to Apple's opaqueness you never know what they're going to fix and what they'll let languish.

Apple is trudging through a rocky road, definitely, but it has just come out and I have a feeling they'll be ironing this out rapidly until it becomes a well oiled machine. Unlike .Mac they have a winner, here, and I think they know it. There's nothing else on the internet quite like what MobileMe can be. If you think mistakes in regard to rolling out such an exceptional new service somehow reflect on a company with such a rock solid background of providing wonderful revolutionary products, I would suggest you look up the definition to 'perspective' in the dictionary.

Having wonderful revolutionary products does not necessarily mean having the best, or least buggy, software implementation. Sometimes it means such pressure to continue pushing the boundaries that I think they put lower priority on boring, non-flashy things like bug fixes. While there always have been and always will be bugs, I don't think I'm alone in perceiving a decline in quality control at Apple of late -- issues that really SHOULD have been caught if they'd tested adequately and for enough time, with software and hardware that all comes from the same company. I've filed more bug reports since Leopard's release (and I don't just mean for the first few buggy iterations) than in the entire 4-5 years previous that I've been using Apple software.

Of course, on the bright side, perhaps a few more high-profile screwups like Mobileme will force them to put more resources into quality control. I hope so.. I'd really like to get reliable Wifi back on my phone.

[jcw5002]

Originally Posted by solipsism

— AIM on iPhone closes
— iPhone sends notice to Apple server which logs in as you
— AIM server sends messages to Apple server
— Apple servers holds messages and sends notifications to your iPhone

Method 2:
— AIM on iPhone closes
— iPhone sends notice to Apple server which informs AIM server to hold messages but send notice of a new message to Apple server
— AIM server sends notice to Apple server for each message
— Apple server sends notification badge to iPhone
— AIM on iPhone is opened at which time it polls AIM server for held messages and informs to send messages directly to that IP address.[/INDENT]

Good point. In either situation, it's going to require something to be sent to Apple each time an IM is sent to the iPhone user. Even if it's just a notification that an IM has been sent (and not the message), this is still gonig to be a lot of traffic to Apple's servers.

[lantzn]

Originally Posted by JohnnyKrz

I think the way they are handling this is very smart for now. However, I think future iPhones will be just as capable in terms of processing and memory allocation as full-size computers and run on the same size battery. Then, we will look back and laugh at the current limitations as if it was an 80's model PC.

Speaking of limitations, the article mentioned the drainage of battery due to 3G. I'm assuming the 3G is best used for fast internet and not the phone features, correct? If so, can the 3G technology be "quickly" turned on and off as needed, or better yet, be set to implement only when the web is activated?
I just ordered 2 iPhone 3G and am patiently waiting. Never own one before.

[ronlo]

I remember an Apple video explaining how great is the Apple solution for enterprise applications. No third party server to get access to emails like those proprietary solutions from RIM with Blackberries. Direct connection from your iPhone to the Microsoft Exchange server. So what's this story of a unique Apple server for push exchanges ???? The Apple world is not so open.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by lantzn

f so, can the 3G technology be "quickly" turned on and off as needed

Settings » General » Network will get you to the 3G On/Off switch. This does require the phone to drop the 3G/UMTS/HSDPA and then connect to GSM/EDGE, which takes about 8 seconds on average for me. Not really a big deal considering the juice I save, but it is a hassle. Apparently, EV-DO phones use CDMA for the call regardless so they waste less power by having their 3G enabled. I'm not sure if this is a protocol limitation or an AT&T limitation.

or better yet, be set to implement only when the web is activated?

This could be done, but as stated above it would require the 2G network to dropped and then reconnected using 3G and vice versa, which would incur an extra time delay so there is no way Apple would do it.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by ronlo

I remember an Apple video explaining how great is the Apple solution for enterprise applications. No third party server to get access to emails like those proprietary solutions from RIM with Blackberries. Direct connection from your iPhone to the Microsoft Exchange server. So what's this story of a unique Apple server for push exchanges ???? The Apple world is not so open.

This article is about something entirely different. Apple's Active Sync support does connect directly to whatever Exchange server it's tied to. This is about a Notification Server for the 3rd-party apps on the iPhone so they can get push notifications even when they aren't actively running.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by jcw5002

Good point. In either situation, it's going to require something to be sent to Apple each time an IM is sent to the iPhone user. Even if it's just a notification that an IM has been sent (and not the message), this is still gonig to be a lot of traffic to Apple's servers.

Nah, it's the equivalent of a few text characters per message. People are downloading how many multi-megabyte and multi-gigabyte songs, movies, TV shows, movie trailers, etc. from Apple every hour?

The bandwidth isn't the issue, it's whether Apple has its act together enough to implement it correctly, and the mobilme experience doesn't bode well.

[Ireland]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Incorrectly. The notification service doesn't wake the app.

When the accept / answer buttons is tapped the app would launch, "wake" was used figuratively. I answered it.

[Chaos215bar2]

Push notifications != Background application

[jcw5002]

Originally Posted by BRussell

The bandwidth isn't the issue, it's whether Apple has its act together enough to implement it correctly, and the mobilme experience doesn't bode well.

So the bandwidth might not be a problem, but it's still a lot of connections to the Apple servers. Don't you think that will have some affect?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Chaos215bar2

Push notifications != Background application

Who said differently?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by jcw5002

So the bandwidth might not be a problem, but it's still a lot of connections to the Apple servers. Don't you think that will have some affect?

It all has an effect, but the simplistic of the service makes it far easier to scale than a very complex system like MM.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Ireland

When the accept / answer buttons is tapped the app would launch, "wake" was used figuratively. I answered it.

That's the user launching the app, not, as you put it in the first sentence of your post, "The push service might be able to "wake" the sleeping app somehow."

In any case, I wasn't aware that multiple people were barred from responding to a post here at AI (especially if the first one was wrong ).

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by brianus

There's a fair amount of instability with the current 3rd party apps, and it's not all due to the 2.0 firmware. The whole idea of the app store is that they're "policing" these apps (supposedly);

I don't think that matters so much, because I've had Safari flame out more times than all the third party apps combined.