Perhaps. It's a little nanny state perhaps though and not terribly helpful for those of us who aren't complete dimwits.
Indeed. Apple are vetting the apps anyway and it is they who will get ultimate control on the information provided on a given application's download page. For any "background" app, Apple could easily add an obvious message such as "this application runs constantly in the background and could adversely affect your iPhone's battery life".
Much better than just banning them outright. Let the user decide what battery life/functionality trade-offs they are willing to make.
Of course there's something we haven't talked about yet - heat generation. Maybe Apple are concerned about over-heating iPhones.
Indeed. Apple are vetting the apps anyway and it is they who will get ultimate control on the information provided on a given application's download page. For any "background" app, Apple could easily add an obvious message such as "this application runs constantly in the background and could adversely affect your iPhone's battery life".
Much better than just banning them outright. Let the user decide what battery life/functionality trade-offs they are willing to make.
Of course there's something we haven't talked about yet - heat generation. Maybe Apple are concerned about over-heating iPhones.
I think this is a good reason for Apple to limit how things run on the phone, in other words, not take any steps to advocate or allow things to run in the background.
The idea that Apple will have hundreds of thousands of apps available for the iPhone and they would invest that amount of time to see how they work is clearly a non-starter.
People that complain how strictly Apple is going to look at each and every app to see how it works inside haven't thought it out.
If you want to build a voip product, forget it.
No matter how much you "want" to or think it would be "neat", forget it.
Apple isn't going to allow you.
If you want access to pieces of the system that would allow you to cut out the partner phone companies that Apple is supporting, forget it.
Can everybody just stop with the "freeware - I should be able to do anything I want in my app and the downloader beware" mentality.
Apple knows about that world and is way too smart to unleash those people on "consumer electronics" customers.
They're busy building a platform.
If you don't like the restrictions that keep the operation more friendly to what Apple is trying to do, then I suggest you join the Zune developer network and download their SDK.
Maybe you can get access to the squirt API's and build your voip application for Balmer......
That's the rub. In all probability, the user won't understand and instead just think "why does my phone have such crappy battery life?"
I can see the complaints filling Apple support lines, forums, and AI now...........
So what? It works for Symbian. You see notes in most reviews of IM software that if you leave it checking for messages all the time, your battery life will go down the toilet.
Users aren't complete idiots. Most of them can fathom that if phone was working OK, then they installed a given app and the battery life tanked, then the app is to blame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder
The logic is that people will think they aren't in an application - so it won't affect the battery life - and then get pissed when it does.
Naah they won't. The more technologically clueless users tend to associate having something installed with problems, rather than having something running. On a computer, that intuition doesn't really work, but it would on the iphone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington
If you want to build a voip product, forget it.
No matter how much you "want" to or think it would be "neat", forget it.
Apple isn't going to allow you.
Actually, Apple have issued a statement that VoIP is allowed, over wifi. Which is definitely better than nothing
Quote:
If you don't like the restrictions that keep the operation more friendly to what Apple is trying to do, then I suggest you join the Zune developer network and download their SDK.
There's nothing wrong with making our voices heard. That's how better products arrive. (And before someone tells me to file bugs, I have done that too. I think identifying issues on fora is also useful, since it helps both to clarify the facts and for other people to learn about issues they otherwise wouldn't discover until later.)
Comments
The logic is that people will think they aren't in an application - so it won't affect the battery life - and then get pissed when it does.
Maybe that's true; maybe it's not. Clearly though, that's the general logic Apple is going with, and I don't think that it's without merit.
Perhaps. It's a little nanny state perhaps though and not terribly helpful for those of us who aren't complete dimwits.
Perhaps. It's a little nanny state perhaps though and not terribly helpful for those of us who aren't complete dimwits.
Indeed. Apple are vetting the apps anyway and it is they who will get ultimate control on the information provided on a given application's download page. For any "background" app, Apple could easily add an obvious message such as "this application runs constantly in the background and could adversely affect your iPhone's battery life".
Much better than just banning them outright. Let the user decide what battery life/functionality trade-offs they are willing to make.
Of course there's something we haven't talked about yet - heat generation. Maybe Apple are concerned about over-heating iPhones.
Indeed. Apple are vetting the apps anyway and it is they who will get ultimate control on the information provided on a given application's download page. For any "background" app, Apple could easily add an obvious message such as "this application runs constantly in the background and could adversely affect your iPhone's battery life".
Much better than just banning them outright. Let the user decide what battery life/functionality trade-offs they are willing to make.
Of course there's something we haven't talked about yet - heat generation. Maybe Apple are concerned about over-heating iPhones.
I think this is a good reason for Apple to limit how things run on the phone, in other words, not take any steps to advocate or allow things to run in the background.
The idea that Apple will have hundreds of thousands of apps available for the iPhone and they would invest that amount of time to see how they work is clearly a non-starter.
People that complain how strictly Apple is going to look at each and every app to see how it works inside haven't thought it out.
If you want to build a voip product, forget it.
No matter how much you "want" to or think it would be "neat", forget it.
Apple isn't going to allow you.
If you want access to pieces of the system that would allow you to cut out the partner phone companies that Apple is supporting, forget it.
Can everybody just stop with the "freeware - I should be able to do anything I want in my app and the downloader beware" mentality.
Apple knows about that world and is way too smart to unleash those people on "consumer electronics" customers.
They're busy building a platform.
If you don't like the restrictions that keep the operation more friendly to what Apple is trying to do, then I suggest you join the Zune developer network and download their SDK.
Maybe you can get access to the squirt API's and build your voip application for Balmer......
That's the rub. In all probability, the user won't understand and instead just think "why does my phone have such crappy battery life?"
I can see the complaints filling Apple support lines, forums, and AI now...........
So what? It works for Symbian. You see notes in most reviews of IM software that if you leave it checking for messages all the time, your battery life will go down the toilet.
Users aren't complete idiots. Most of them can fathom that if phone was working OK, then they installed a given app and the battery life tanked, then the app is to blame.
The logic is that people will think they aren't in an application - so it won't affect the battery life - and then get pissed when it does.
Naah they won't. The more technologically clueless users tend to associate having something installed with problems, rather than having something running. On a computer, that intuition doesn't really work, but it would on the iphone.
If you want to build a voip product, forget it.
No matter how much you "want" to or think it would be "neat", forget it.
Apple isn't going to allow you.
Actually, Apple have issued a statement that VoIP is allowed, over wifi. Which is definitely better than nothing
If you don't like the restrictions that keep the operation more friendly to what Apple is trying to do, then I suggest you join the Zune developer network and download their SDK.
There's nothing wrong with making our voices heard. That's how better products arrive. (And before someone tells me to file bugs, I have done that too. I think identifying issues on fora is also useful, since it helps both to clarify the facts and for other people to learn about issues they otherwise wouldn't discover until later.)
Amorya