No one should have to understand the RAM and CPU requirements of each app they open so they subtract that from their device's HW specifications so they can stop opening up new apps when the limitations of their device are met. THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO MAKE A CONSUMER FRIENDLY DEVICE.
that's something the OS is more than capable of doing
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
What you're suggesting reminds me of people arguing that command line is so much better than a GUI and that anyone is too stupid or dumb to learn DOS or UNIX shouldn't be using a computer anyway. Having a task manager app or app that restarts your device nightly to deal with leaking apps IS NOT THE WAY TO MAKE A CONSUMER FRIENDLY DEVICE.
The only way this will work is for it to be intelligent and intuitive. There are about 150k apps on the App Store and yet only a handful even have a reason to run in the background and only one is presented as reason for ALL apps to run in the background all the time. It's a silly suggestion in every single way. The only viable option I've seen is to make a backgrounding API that is first in the developer's court and then an option in Settings for apps that can benefit from it.
I really don't see how having a list of running apps to easily switch to, or close is any way like needing a command line interface. It's a few taps of the screen.
You know, maybe you're right about all of this, and I'm letting personal preference blind me to what sells best to the masses.
I like your API idea though. Perhaps instead of requiring the entire app, just a few services continue to run, and switching to the service starts the app back up, which in turn uses the ram initially required, while a service could get away with minimal impact on the system.
I missed that story. Are the analysts reliable? Got a cite?
And I didn't cherry-pick. The story I based my comments upon has been all over the tech press for a couple of days.
I couldn't find the link, (I searched for about ten minutes and had to give up due to the time). All I can say is it was one of the major Mac rumour sites, and within the last few days. Probably that sounds lame, but it is true.
That being said, "Analysts" are more often wrong than just about anyone in the industry, so the standard grains of salt should be used.
Considering their more consumer based phones are not really going anywhere though, I would believe it and predict that RIM will eventually settle in it's Enterprise niche leaving the broader consumer market to Apple, Google, and (maybe, maybe) Microsoft.
On the other, other hand, if someone with some market presence and some cash was smart enough to buy Palm and give it a gigantic push, they could easily surge as well. IMO Palm has the second best OS out there and I have no idea why it isn't catching on.
Edit: I'll go even further ... I think Palms multitasking solution and it's integration solution are the best I've seen and those two things (integration and multitasking) are the two things that the iPhone platform is really missing. Apple should probably buy Palm and blend the two, but I think Steve Jobs' pride means that will never happen. Let's hope that the geniuses at Apple have an even better idea up their sleeve, but for now I'd say Palm leads the pack on these solutions.
I want you to take a LONG hard look at this graph:
...and remember, the iPhone only has ONE carrier.
Multitasking is NOT holding the iPhone back, being chained to AT&T is. It's that simple.
Android has a demographic of ~258.2 million people to pool from. The iPhone has ~85.1 million potential users. Oh, and remember... the iPod Touch (which is more popular than the iPhone, also uses the same OS. I don't see millions of users rushing out to buy Android enable music devices.
While I would absolutely love to have multitasking... I sincerely doubt I would use it in a very regular way. I DO use iTunes while using other apps... so consider me a hypocrite... so I guess I could see myself using Pandora in a multi-tasking environment... but again, it is NOT a deal breaker.
On the other, other hand, if someone with some market presence and some cash was smart enough to buy Palm and give it a gigantic push, they could easily surge as well. IMO Palm has the second best OS out there and I have no idea why it isn't catching on.
They marketed it, but not in a really effective way. Their commercials featuring that girl using it was...weird. Maybe finally being on Verizon will give it a little boost.
Just to support your statement, it's not only a question of being technologically knowledgeable. Probably most of the people here also enjoy playing with the various options on their phones. I love trying out new things and attempting to get things "just right". But my friend, Suzanne, bought an iPhone and she has done not one thing to it. NOT ONE THING. She will not even go into the settings App. To me, this is a waste because so many cool things are available if she'd just take a couple of minutes to learn a few things. To her, the iPhone works right out of the box and she's thrilled with it.
It's insulting to say that Suzanne is dumb or lazy or technologically ignorant. That would just be untrue. She simply likes getting things done as quickly and with as little fuss as possible. I have a feeling there are a lot more people like Suzanne out there than there are people like me (and possibly you).
Yes, thats my point. We have got to realize there are more people who want something that just works rather than something they have to work at. Just because we know how to work with a computer doesn't mean everyone does.
My wife want touch a computer. But she will look at my iphone on occasion. I plan on getting an iPad. I will try to teach her some basics to help her get something out of it. She is resisting so far. If I told her she had to learn how to manage what is running ( just do a double tap or a 4 finger swipe or a press this expose button), she will give up on it.
People, just stop thinking for once about the joys of having an iphone or iPad that can simulate your beloved laptop or desktop computer and start thinking about the people who want something that they can use and not have it clutter their lives. I for one am not looking forward to Apple implementing 3rd party apps for multi-tasking. And I love Pandora just like everyone else. But that is not enough to sway me for all the headaches it will give for the non-techie among us. If they could somehow just suspend third party apps to the last place where you left off, I could live with that.
Ok, I'll try to explain this in simple terms. Lets say, I have a 'dumb' phone. I decide to make my own smartphone, and I call it the AzDroid phone. So, I dump my 'dumb' phone, and start using my Azdroid. I just expanded the smartphone market. I didn't -switch- from another smartphone manufacturer, I created a new option in an existing market. Now, you come along, and see me talking up my Azdroid phone on the internet. You decide you want one so you can dump your 'dumb' phone, so I cobble one together for you and *boom*, the Azdroid marketshare just doubled, and again, expanded the smartphone market. Pretty soon, Azdroid gets so popular that lots of 'dumb' phone users are looking to make the switch to a cheap, effective smartphone. So these are -new- customers coming into the market, hopping on a -new- brand of phone. Next thing you know, Verizon is pumping the suckers out with all sorts of 'buy-one-on-a-Tuesday-get-5-Azdroid-phones-for-less-than-you-would-pay-for-a-cappuccino' offers.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Android hasn't caused people to switch from alternative smartphones. Not saying that at all. But the majority of the Android users I know *personally*, and there are quite a few, had no compelling reason to get a blackberry, and didn't want to switch from their existing provider just to get an iPhone with which to replace their prior 'dumb' phones. Of the non-techy people with an Android that I know, most of them got one because it was the best they could get with the minimal amount of effort and change involved.
The data suggests that the vast majority of smartphone buyers during the quarter chose to NOT get an iPhone. What do you think accounts for that?
I agree. We all assume that everyone knows all about computers. But most of my friends just want to use a device that works. If I told them they had to manage which programs were running and which ones were not, they probably wouldn't use it. It's just too much to think about.
Most people have a thousand other things on their minds (kids, bills, jobs, TV, etc). They bought the iphone because they wanted something that just worked. Multi-tasking sounds great for us who spend most of our lives on a computer. But think for once about your friends and relatives. I hope Apple is thinking about them. Because once they implement multi-tasking, the haters will just jump to some other missing feature in the hope to force Apple to follow what they consider is the perfect business plan.
This is just a crazy left-field kind of thought, but since people most definitely *don't* want to "manage" their phones (you are dead right about that IMO), maybe Apple could give the control to the developer instead of the user.
I'm no programmer, but perhaps they could provide some small set of standard "background pipes" for lack of a better word, that developers could use but that the user need not be aware of at all. For instance it seems to me that the only real uses of multitasking on what is essentially a single window system are:
1) music in the background
2) suspending a game when you get a call.
If this just happened automatically because Apple provides the *developer* with a secure backgrounding system, it seems to me this would solve the problem. The user could start Pandora for instance, and when they close it, it simply keeps playing. If they don't want it to keep playing, even a non-techie user could easily surmise that going back to the app and hitting the stop button would fix it. Just like the iPod app is now basically. The background "audio pipe" would only support one app at a time for obvious reasons, and if you started a second app that needed it, it would shut down the first. All of that could esily be seamless and automatic.
If we take it as a given that users don't want to manage their apps, then the only solution that really seems to work IMO is one where it all happens automatically. Then they just add a system daemon that harshly shuts apps down if someone is determined enough to run ten or twelve background apps and memory gets really bad. Almost all users would never encounter any problems or even know anything was different. They would just know that Pandora keeps playing when you leave it now.
On the other, other hand, if someone with some market presence and some cash was smart enough to buy Palm and give it a gigantic push, they could easily surge as well. IMO Palm has the second best OS out there and I have no idea why it isn't catching on.
Edit: I'll go even further ... I think Palms multitasking solution and it's integration solution are the best I've seen and those two things (integration and multitasking) are the two things that the iPhone platform is really missing. Apple should probably buy Palm and blend the two, but I think Steve Jobs' pride means that will never happen. Let's hope that the geniuses at Apple have an even better idea up their sleeve, but for now I'd say Palm leads the pack on these solutions.
I think the reason it isn't catching on is at least twofold: Their introduction was badly mistimed and their advertising was ineffective. Other folks opine that the hardware isn't good enough, but i am not convinced of that.
At this point, I am sceptical as to whether there will ever be lots of software available for it. IMO, a platform should be chosen in large part based upon the available software.
Finally Apple is getting close to catching up to competitors which have long had multitasking.
The article was well done in pointing out that iPhone OS does multitask, ( a surprise from Appleinsider ) yet you post this crap. Way to go, looks like reading for content is no longer the goal of schools.
Quote:
They are still lagging behind on screen resolution.
With a given technology your choice is either high pixel density or a bright screen. I appreciate the fact that iPhones screen is readable outdoors. It is a rather important feature on a phone. So while I won't discount that higher resolution would be nice, it isn't very useful if it is not readable. Further I want a bigger screen first, even a half to three quaters of an inch extra length woul do wonders. With a little design effort the iPhone would hardly grow in physical length and only slightly in width.
They marketed it, but not in a really effective way. Their commercials featuring that girl using it was...weird. Maybe finally being on Verizon will give it a little boost.
That might happen. One could argue that Verizon's Droid advertising was very effective in driving sales.
People, just stop thinking for once about the joys of having an iphone or iPad that can simulate your beloved laptop or desktop computer and start thinking about the people who want something that they can use and not have it clutter their lives.
Most folks might jump onto that bandwagon, but for the rest of us, the new stuff coming from other companies looks great.
Except that marketshare means little. It is about growth. Go ask the AAPL owners. Right now Android is growing faster than any other platform or do you believe that RIM is the future?
Multitasking is a need for the iPhone. It will lose to Android because of it and the lack of Flash wouldn't help it (even though I hate Flash).
This is just a crazy left-field kind of thought, but since people most definitely *don't* want to "manage" their phones (you are dead right about that IMO), maybe Apple could give the control to the developer instead of the user.
I'm no programmer, but perhaps they could provide some small set of standard "background pipes" for lack of a better word, that developers could use but that the user need not be aware of at all. For instance it seems to me that the only real uses of multitasking on what is essentially a single window system are:
1) music in the background
2) suspending a game when you get a call.
If this just happened automatically because Apple provides the *developer* with a secure backgrounding system, it seems to me this would solve the problem. The user could start Pandora for instance, and when they close it, it simply keeps playing. If they don't want it to keep playing, even a non-techie user could easily surmise that going back to the app and hitting the stop button would fix it. Just like the iPod app is now basically. The background "audio pipe" would only support one app at a time for obvious reasons, and if you started a second app that needed it, it would shut down the first. All of that could esily be seamless and automatic.
If we take it as a given that users don't want to manage their apps, then the only solution that really seems to work IMO is one where it all happens automatically. Then they just add a system daemon that harshly shuts apps down if someone is determined enough to run ten or twelve background apps and memory gets really bad. Almost all users would never encounter any problems or even know anything was different. They would just know that Pandora keeps playing when you leave it now.
That is the method I've been predicting for 2 years. The example I use is like Push Notification.
Step 1: Apple's adds the APIs to the SDK along with resource guidelines.
Stpe 2: Developers use the backgrounding APIs as they see fit, with most devs simply ignoring them because it's pointless for most apps.
Step 3: The user can choose to turn on Backgrounding from Settings. Once that is enabled they can choose from a list of apps that have added the background API. This is pretty much music streaming, VoIP, and games that will likely auto-pause when it gets pushed to the background.
This seems to solve all the problems that other mobile platforms have.
Comments
No one should have to understand the RAM and CPU requirements of each app they open so they subtract that from their device's HW specifications so they can stop opening up new apps when the limitations of their device are met. THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO MAKE A CONSUMER FRIENDLY DEVICE.
that's something the OS is more than capable of doing
What you're suggesting reminds me of people arguing that command line is so much better than a GUI and that anyone is too stupid or dumb to learn DOS or UNIX shouldn't be using a computer anyway. Having a task manager app or app that restarts your device nightly to deal with leaking apps IS NOT THE WAY TO MAKE A CONSUMER FRIENDLY DEVICE.
The only way this will work is for it to be intelligent and intuitive. There are about 150k apps on the App Store and yet only a handful even have a reason to run in the background and only one is presented as reason for ALL apps to run in the background all the time. It's a silly suggestion in every single way. The only viable option I've seen is to make a backgrounding API that is first in the developer's court and then an option in Settings for apps that can benefit from it.
I really don't see how having a list of running apps to easily switch to, or close is any way like needing a command line interface. It's a few taps of the screen.
You know, maybe you're right about all of this, and I'm letting personal preference blind me to what sells best to the masses.
I like your API idea though. Perhaps instead of requiring the entire app, just a few services continue to run, and switching to the service starts the app back up, which in turn uses the ram initially required, while a service could get away with minimal impact on the system.
I missed that story. Are the analysts reliable? Got a cite?
And I didn't cherry-pick. The story I based my comments upon has been all over the tech press for a couple of days.
I couldn't find the link, (I searched for about ten minutes and had to give up due to the time). All I can say is it was one of the major Mac rumour sites, and within the last few days. Probably that sounds lame, but it is true.
That being said, "Analysts" are more often wrong than just about anyone in the industry, so the standard grains of salt should be used.
Considering their more consumer based phones are not really going anywhere though, I would believe it and predict that RIM will eventually settle in it's Enterprise niche leaving the broader consumer market to Apple, Google, and (maybe, maybe) Microsoft.
On the other, other hand, if someone with some market presence and some cash was smart enough to buy Palm and give it a gigantic push, they could easily surge as well. IMO Palm has the second best OS out there and I have no idea why it isn't catching on.
Edit: I'll go even further ... I think Palms multitasking solution and it's integration solution are the best I've seen and those two things (integration and multitasking) are the two things that the iPhone platform is really missing. Apple should probably buy Palm and blend the two, but I think Steve Jobs' pride means that will never happen. Let's hope that the geniuses at Apple have an even better idea up their sleeve, but for now I'd say Palm leads the pack on these solutions.
I want you to take a LONG hard look at this graph:
...and remember, the iPhone only has ONE carrier.
Multitasking is NOT holding the iPhone back, being chained to AT&T is. It's that simple.
Android has a demographic of ~258.2 million people to pool from. The iPhone has ~85.1 million potential users. Oh, and remember... the iPod Touch (which is more popular than the iPhone, also uses the same OS. I don't see millions of users rushing out to buy Android enable music devices.
While I would absolutely love to have multitasking... I sincerely doubt I would use it in a very regular way. I DO use iTunes while using other apps... so consider me a hypocrite... so I guess I could see myself using Pandora in a multi-tasking environment... but again, it is NOT a deal breaker.
Excellent points.
On the other, other hand, if someone with some market presence and some cash was smart enough to buy Palm and give it a gigantic push, they could easily surge as well. IMO Palm has the second best OS out there and I have no idea why it isn't catching on.
They marketed it, but not in a really effective way. Their commercials featuring that girl using it was...weird. Maybe finally being on Verizon will give it a little boost.
Just to support your statement, it's not only a question of being technologically knowledgeable. Probably most of the people here also enjoy playing with the various options on their phones. I love trying out new things and attempting to get things "just right". But my friend, Suzanne, bought an iPhone and she has done not one thing to it. NOT ONE THING. She will not even go into the settings App. To me, this is a waste because so many cool things are available if she'd just take a couple of minutes to learn a few things. To her, the iPhone works right out of the box and she's thrilled with it.
It's insulting to say that Suzanne is dumb or lazy or technologically ignorant. That would just be untrue. She simply likes getting things done as quickly and with as little fuss as possible. I have a feeling there are a lot more people like Suzanne out there than there are people like me (and possibly you).
Yes, thats my point. We have got to realize there are more people who want something that just works rather than something they have to work at. Just because we know how to work with a computer doesn't mean everyone does.
My wife want touch a computer. But she will look at my iphone on occasion. I plan on getting an iPad. I will try to teach her some basics to help her get something out of it. She is resisting so far. If I told her she had to learn how to manage what is running ( just do a double tap or a 4 finger swipe or a press this expose button), she will give up on it.
People, just stop thinking for once about the joys of having an iphone or iPad that can simulate your beloved laptop or desktop computer and start thinking about the people who want something that they can use and not have it clutter their lives. I for one am not looking forward to Apple implementing 3rd party apps for multi-tasking. And I love Pandora just like everyone else. But that is not enough to sway me for all the headaches it will give for the non-techie among us. If they could somehow just suspend third party apps to the last place where you left off, I could live with that.
ok perhaps I was a bit harsh lol. Not morons, not unintelligent, just the least techy.
Personally, I think that the word naive is most apt, but others here might disagree.
*sigh*
Ok, I'll try to explain this in simple terms. Lets say, I have a 'dumb' phone. I decide to make my own smartphone, and I call it the AzDroid phone. So, I dump my 'dumb' phone, and start using my Azdroid. I just expanded the smartphone market. I didn't -switch- from another smartphone manufacturer, I created a new option in an existing market. Now, you come along, and see me talking up my Azdroid phone on the internet. You decide you want one so you can dump your 'dumb' phone, so I cobble one together for you and *boom*, the Azdroid marketshare just doubled, and again, expanded the smartphone market. Pretty soon, Azdroid gets so popular that lots of 'dumb' phone users are looking to make the switch to a cheap, effective smartphone. So these are -new- customers coming into the market, hopping on a -new- brand of phone. Next thing you know, Verizon is pumping the suckers out with all sorts of 'buy-one-on-a-Tuesday-get-5-Azdroid-phones-for-less-than-you-would-pay-for-a-cappuccino' offers.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Android hasn't caused people to switch from alternative smartphones. Not saying that at all. But the majority of the Android users I know *personally*, and there are quite a few, had no compelling reason to get a blackberry, and didn't want to switch from their existing provider just to get an iPhone with which to replace their prior 'dumb' phones. Of the non-techy people with an Android that I know, most of them got one because it was the best they could get with the minimal amount of effort and change involved.
The data suggests that the vast majority of smartphone buyers during the quarter chose to NOT get an iPhone. What do you think accounts for that?
Personally, I think that the word naive is most apt, but others here might disagree.
I think 'indifferent' would be far more apt.
The data suggests that the vast majority of smartphone buyers during the quarter chose to NOT get an iPhone. What do you think accounts for that?
As long as we're just postulating guesses, I'd venture to say that its an unwillingness to switch carriers.
I agree. We all assume that everyone knows all about computers. But most of my friends just want to use a device that works. If I told them they had to manage which programs were running and which ones were not, they probably wouldn't use it. It's just too much to think about.
Most people have a thousand other things on their minds (kids, bills, jobs, TV, etc). They bought the iphone because they wanted something that just worked. Multi-tasking sounds great for us who spend most of our lives on a computer. But think for once about your friends and relatives. I hope Apple is thinking about them. Because once they implement multi-tasking, the haters will just jump to some other missing feature in the hope to force Apple to follow what they consider is the perfect business plan.
This is just a crazy left-field kind of thought, but since people most definitely *don't* want to "manage" their phones (you are dead right about that IMO), maybe Apple could give the control to the developer instead of the user.
I'm no programmer, but perhaps they could provide some small set of standard "background pipes" for lack of a better word, that developers could use but that the user need not be aware of at all. For instance it seems to me that the only real uses of multitasking on what is essentially a single window system are:
1) music in the background
2) suspending a game when you get a call.
If this just happened automatically because Apple provides the *developer* with a secure backgrounding system, it seems to me this would solve the problem. The user could start Pandora for instance, and when they close it, it simply keeps playing. If they don't want it to keep playing, even a non-techie user could easily surmise that going back to the app and hitting the stop button would fix it. Just like the iPod app is now basically. The background "audio pipe" would only support one app at a time for obvious reasons, and if you started a second app that needed it, it would shut down the first. All of that could esily be seamless and automatic.
If we take it as a given that users don't want to manage their apps, then the only solution that really seems to work IMO is one where it all happens automatically. Then they just add a system daemon that harshly shuts apps down if someone is determined enough to run ten or twelve background apps and memory gets really bad. Almost all users would never encounter any problems or even know anything was different. They would just know that Pandora keeps playing when you leave it now.
On the other, other hand, if someone with some market presence and some cash was smart enough to buy Palm and give it a gigantic push, they could easily surge as well. IMO Palm has the second best OS out there and I have no idea why it isn't catching on.
Edit: I'll go even further ... I think Palms multitasking solution and it's integration solution are the best I've seen and those two things (integration and multitasking) are the two things that the iPhone platform is really missing. Apple should probably buy Palm and blend the two, but I think Steve Jobs' pride means that will never happen. Let's hope that the geniuses at Apple have an even better idea up their sleeve, but for now I'd say Palm leads the pack on these solutions.
I think the reason it isn't catching on is at least twofold: Their introduction was badly mistimed and their advertising was ineffective. Other folks opine that the hardware isn't good enough, but i am not convinced of that.
At this point, I am sceptical as to whether there will ever be lots of software available for it. IMO, a platform should be chosen in large part based upon the available software.
Too bad. I think the product itself is very nice.
Finally Apple is getting close to catching up to competitors which have long had multitasking.
The article was well done in pointing out that iPhone OS does multitask, ( a surprise from Appleinsider ) yet you post this crap. Way to go, looks like reading for content is no longer the goal of schools.
They are still lagging behind on screen resolution.
With a given technology your choice is either high pixel density or a bright screen. I appreciate the fact that iPhones screen is readable outdoors. It is a rather important feature on a phone. So while I won't discount that higher resolution would be nice, it isn't very useful if it is not readable. Further I want a bigger screen first, even a half to three quaters of an inch extra length woul do wonders. With a little design effort the iPhone would hardly grow in physical length and only slightly in width.
Dave
They marketed it, but not in a really effective way. Their commercials featuring that girl using it was...weird. Maybe finally being on Verizon will give it a little boost.
That might happen. One could argue that Verizon's Droid advertising was very effective in driving sales.
People, just stop thinking for once about the joys of having an iphone or iPad that can simulate your beloved laptop or desktop computer and start thinking about the people who want something that they can use and not have it clutter their lives.
Most folks might jump onto that bandwagon, but for the rest of us, the new stuff coming from other companies looks great.
Excellent points.
Except that marketshare means little. It is about growth. Go ask the AAPL owners. Right now Android is growing faster than any other platform or do you believe that RIM is the future?
Multitasking is a need for the iPhone. It will lose to Android because of it and the lack of Flash wouldn't help it (even though I hate Flash).
I think 'indifferent' would be far more apt.
You might be right.
It's sad that Apple now caters to the indifferent. Didn't they used to cater to enthusiasts? Or is that a misconception on my part?
Excellent points.
Of course, he's wrong that the iPod Touch is more popular than the iPhone. It's not.
You might be right.
It's sad that Apple now caters to the indifferent. Didn't they used to cater to enthusiasts? Or is that a misconception on my part?
Mmm....not that I'd recall, no. I can't see "Just Works!" as being any sort of rallying cry for those looking to tinker.
This is just a crazy left-field kind of thought, but since people most definitely *don't* want to "manage" their phones (you are dead right about that IMO), maybe Apple could give the control to the developer instead of the user.
I'm no programmer, but perhaps they could provide some small set of standard "background pipes" for lack of a better word, that developers could use but that the user need not be aware of at all. For instance it seems to me that the only real uses of multitasking on what is essentially a single window system are:
1) music in the background
2) suspending a game when you get a call.
If this just happened automatically because Apple provides the *developer* with a secure backgrounding system, it seems to me this would solve the problem. The user could start Pandora for instance, and when they close it, it simply keeps playing. If they don't want it to keep playing, even a non-techie user could easily surmise that going back to the app and hitting the stop button would fix it. Just like the iPod app is now basically. The background "audio pipe" would only support one app at a time for obvious reasons, and if you started a second app that needed it, it would shut down the first. All of that could esily be seamless and automatic.
If we take it as a given that users don't want to manage their apps, then the only solution that really seems to work IMO is one where it all happens automatically. Then they just add a system daemon that harshly shuts apps down if someone is determined enough to run ten or twelve background apps and memory gets really bad. Almost all users would never encounter any problems or even know anything was different. They would just know that Pandora keeps playing when you leave it now.
That is the method I've been predicting for 2 years. The example I use is like Push Notification.
Step 1: Apple's adds the APIs to the SDK along with resource guidelines.
Stpe 2: Developers use the backgrounding APIs as they see fit, with most devs simply ignoring them because it's pointless for most apps.
Step 3: The user can choose to turn on Backgrounding from Settings. Once that is enabled they can choose from a list of apps that have added the background API. This is pretty much music streaming, VoIP, and games that will likely auto-pause when it gets pushed to the background.
This seems to solve all the problems that other mobile platforms have.