But to lay a badge over an icon is a system issue, not an app issue. No app background processes would occur. It would simply rely on the same background process that exists on the iPhone - the SMS alert system and email tags, to simply add it like it does already.
They just seem to be tweaking this to make it keep a constant IP lock and data channel open, not much at all, if they optimize it correctly as part of the system.
Maybe this is why they won't release it till September.
Hmm..... was this push service based on some "intermediate" server at Apple doing the work? That is, the service provide (IM server or whatever) contacts a server at Apple that in turn contacts the phone??
If so, doesn't that sound a bit like the current RIM push mail solution? The one that Apple didn't really like...... (and why they say they are using ActiveSync)??
Hmm..... was this push service based on some "intermediate" server at Apple doing the work? That is, the service provide (IM server or whatever) contacts a server at Apple that in turn contacts the phone??
If so, doesn't that sound a bit like the current RIM push mail solution? The one that Apple didn't really like...... (and why they say they are using ActiveSync)??
Hmmm. That solves the IM problem but sadly not VoIP.
Th SDK rules forbid VoIP outside of WiFi, but I see no reason why they can't use the new services set up by Apple to push incoming calls to you while connected via WiFi. Or if the IP address hack still works, and you'll be hanging around, say, an office building all day, you could.
But what about when your in your IM application chatting away and a phone call comes in? Doesn't the IM message window you were typing in gets closed anyway?
But what about when your in your IM application chatting away and a phone call comes in? Doesn't the IM message window you were typing in gets closed anyway?
Assuming it not made incredibly poorly, it will be like typing an SMS and call comes in. SMS closes, but when you go back to it takes you to same screen you were on and everything you typed is still there waiting for you to complete it.
This is such a backhanded way of claiming to have fixed the problem, what about apps like intelliscreen, internet radio (can it run continuosly in the background?), p2p software, and notification apps having to require internet access and having to pay for notificaions from a local app is not something I am willing to do
This is such a backhanded way of claiming to have fixed the problem, what about apps like intelliscreen, internet radio (can it run continuosly in the background?), p2p software, and notification apps having to require internet access and having to pay for notificaions from a local app is not something I am willing to do
I'm not following what your concern is or why you'd be paying for these notifications. What is backhanded about it? What other solution that doesn't drain the battery by having multiple-apps in an always on state do you suggest?
P2P may be considered illegal by Apple's SDK rules. If you want that go for the unlocked version, but that is a pretty thing to want on a cellphone will a very limited CPU, RAM, Flash and battery time. These solution will permit you to get your IMs, Emails, and whatever other options 3rd-parties can come up with without you having to keep checking your apps constantly.
As for internet radio, access one of teh many websites to get it. Most people are smart enough to put music on the device beforehand instead of streaming low quality, battery killing audio to their phone.
I think everyone is missing the point. This isn't just about IM and calendar apps. It means that a whole host of applications that extend the functionality of the iPhone are not possible. For instance, that voice dialing app that's currently available under Installer for jailbroken phones wouldn't work anymore because it runs as a background process. One of my favorite apps, Intelliscreen, wouldn't work because it also runs as a background process. The same goes to the SMS notifier app that vibrates the phone every 15 seconds when a message arrives in case I miss it the first time. What Apple has done here is take us back to the days before Multifinder for no apparent reason. I've been running background processes on my jailbroken iPhone for most of the time I've owned it with no ill effects.
What Apple has done here is take us back to the days before Multifinder for no apparent reason.
You rally can't see the reason? of having a constant and static internet connection on a cellphone?
If you want to use a jailbroken device, then go ahead, but Apple makes for the majority and the majority would not understand why their phone dies in 4 hours when they haven't even been using it. Which would happen if they installed an app to try out but then forgot about it or didn't realize it was always running.
The next argument to be made is that you should be able to do whatever you want on your phone regardless of how it functions. But that pretty much screws anyone who it not technically literate and ruins the iPhone as a stable and easy to use platform. That is the main draw of the device. And then there is a parallel argument that the App Store unfairly limits developers. But that is completely bogus because without it cellphone apps would remain in the dark ages with hard to find, overly expensive choices that aren't well made or simple to install. Version 2.0 will surely be jailbroken and you can do what you like to your iPhone, but to insist that background processes and unchecked, unrefined apps should be the norm for the average user is insane.
I'm not following what your concern is or why you'd be paying for these notifications. What is backhanded about it? What other solution that doesn't drain the battery by having multiple-apps in an always on state do you suggest?
P2P may be considered illegal by Apple's SDK rules. If you want that go for the unlocked version, but that is a pretty thing to want on a cellphone will a very limited CPU, RAM, Flash and battery time. These solution will permit you to get your IMs, Emails, and whatever other options 3rd-parties can come up with without you having to keep checking your apps constantly.
As for internet radio, access one of teh many websites to get it. Most people are smart enough to put music on the device beforehand instead of streaming low quality, battery killing audio to their phone.
A lot of countries don't have phone companies with unlimited data plans so we pay pr MB, every byte counts. P2P might be a bit extreme, but nfinitespecter's examples are more real world. I want a process explorer that notifies me if an app is using excessive recources, then I can decide what I want to use my battery power for. I am staying with 1.1.3 untill 2.0 is jailbroken, an iPhone without Intelliscreen is half as much of a phone.
If you put the content on the phone before listening to it, it kinda isn't radio anymore.
A lot of countries don't have phone companies with unlimited data plans so we pay pr MB, every byte counts. P2P might be a bit extreme, but nfinitespecter's examples are more real world. I want a process explorer that notifies me if an app is using excessive recources, then I can decide what I want to use my battery power for. I am staying with 1.1.3 untill 2.0 is jailbroken, an iPhone without Intelliscreen is half as much of a phone.
If you put the content on the phone before listening to it, it kinda isn't radio anymore.
Now I'm even more confused. If you pay for each bit data separately then why even consider using internet radio?
As for a process explorer, are there rules in the SDK that restrict developers from making an app to view the current processes? If you think this should be how users decide how to delegate app usage, I dont' think we should expect the average user to analyze Activity Monitor on a phone.
Now I'm even more confused. If you pay for each bit data separately then why even consider using internet radio?
As for a process explorer, are there rules in the SDK that restrict developers from making an app to view the current processes? If you think this should be how users decide how to delegate app usage, I dont' think we should expect the average user to analyze Activity Monitor on a phone.
The SDK restricts you from having any app active when not being used as the main applicaiton, so an app that warns users of battery hogs is not possible.
I am willing to pay for internet radio, since it is live streamed over the air, I need internet (or radio) otherwise it is not possible by any stretch of the imagination. An app that makes a noise when I forget about a new SMS would't really need internet on any other OS since all it's data is stored locally, now it would have to sync up to the cloud and then have a server notify the phone of the forgotten SMS.
The SDK restricts you from having any app active when not being used as the main applicaiton, so an app that warns users of battery hogs is not possible.
I'm well aware of that. But you've mention that Apple's push technology is a bandwidth eater that you are not willing to pay for, but then go on about wanting to use internet radio. Your argument seems unfocused. That quoted sentence seems to be in reply to my question about what are you paying for, which you seem to think Apple's solution is costly, yet the data being sent is much lower than maintaining a constant connection to an IM client, not to mention P2P or internet radio.
Apple has made a choice that seems to fit in with most users' needs. Not all devices fit everyone's needs. If it is an unacceptable constraint then the iPhone is not for you or you'll need to wait until it is jailbroken to use these always-on apps. You can either eat through your battery life, reduce performance and use bandwidth; or you can reduce those three, but at the cost of running certain application types
I'm well aware of that. But you've mention that Apple's push technology is a bandwidth eater that you are not willing to pay for, but then go on about wanting to use internet radio. Your argument seems unfocused. That quoted sentence seems to be in reply to my question about what are you paying for, which you seem to think Apple's solution is costly, yet the data being sent is much lower than maintaining a constant connection to an IM client, not to mention P2P or internet radio.
Apple has made a choice that seems to fit in with most users' needs. Not all devices fit everyone's needs. If it is an unacceptable constraint then the iPhone is not for you or you'll need to wait until it is jailbroken to use these always-on apps. You can either eat through your battery life, reduce performance and use bandwidth; or you can reduce those three, but at the cost of running certain application types
An applicaiton that runs in the background isn't bound to use a lot of battery, I have no problems with my jailbroken phone with any of my apps.
Since I am not getting my point across, let me try with an analogy: On your car you pay for fuel in order for it to go, but you don't have to pay for fuel to open the sunroof or your windows.
Internet radio is like the car going to a place, by definition it needs energy, opening the sunroof (getting a notification about a forgotten SMS) doesn't really need energy in the same manner (at least not energy I have to pay for).
I don't know if that made any sense, if not, I think you should just let it go :-)
It might have been PointCast, and it seemed like several major companies tried to push it or technologies like it on computer users, but I don't know anyone that actually used it at all.
We have a winner.
PointCast was doomed, in part, by the lack of bandwidth across the general backbone, the variety of ways to connect to the backbone, a decade of network design not yet implemented and much more.
Clever idea when it's got web services and more to make it happen.
XML didn't even exist. Schemas weren't a reality and more.
You rally can't see the reason? of having a constant and static internet connection on a cellphone?
If you want to use a jailbroken device, then go ahead, but Apple makes for the majority and the majority would not understand why their phone dies in 4 hours when they haven't even been using it. Which would happen if they installed an app to try out but then forgot about it or didn't realize it was always running.
The next argument to be made is that you should be able to do whatever you want on your phone regardless of how it functions. But that pretty much screws anyone who it not technically literate and ruins the iPhone as a stable and easy to use platform. That is the main draw of the device. And then there is a parallel argument that the App Store unfairly limits developers. But that is completely bogus because without it cellphone apps would remain in the dark ages with hard to find, overly expensive choices that aren't well made or simple to install. Version 2.0 will surely be jailbroken and you can do what you like to your iPhone, but to insist that background processes and unchecked, unrefined apps should be the norm for the average user is insane.
Have you ever used a Jailbroken phone? I ask because it REALLY sounds like you are speaking from ignorance. I run a ton of apps on mine and have NEVER had a problem beyond the occasional crash in Safari, and that happens jailbroken or not. The difference in batter life is not even noticeable. On top of that, your entire second argument is a logical fallacy. What technically illiterate people do you know that go about installing applications on their phones?
Beyond that, the entire concept of protecting the lowest common denominator is unfair to anyone that is willing to take that risk. Apple isn't letting you do what you want with your phone, and that is absurd and insulting. What are you going to suggest next, that they start checking and signing applications in OS X because a few luddites don't know how to use their computers? Give me a break.
Comments
They just seem to be tweaking this to make it keep a constant IP lock and data channel open, not much at all, if they optimize it correctly as part of the system.
Maybe this is why they won't release it till September.
If so, doesn't that sound a bit like the current RIM push mail solution? The one that Apple didn't really like...... (and why they say they are using ActiveSync)??
Or have I just misunderstood everything?
Hmm..... was this push service based on some "intermediate" server at Apple doing the work? That is, the service provide (IM server or whatever) contacts a server at Apple that in turn contacts the phone??
If so, doesn't that sound a bit like the current RIM push mail solution? The one that Apple didn't really like...... (and why they say they are using ActiveSync)??
Or have I just misunderstood everything?
That's exactly what it is.
Hmmm. That solves the IM problem but sadly not VoIP.
Th SDK rules forbid VoIP outside of WiFi, but I see no reason why they can't use the new services set up by Apple to push incoming calls to you while connected via WiFi. Or if the IP address hack still works, and you'll be hanging around, say, an office building all day, you could.
But what about when your in your IM application chatting away and a phone call comes in? Doesn't the IM message window you were typing in gets closed anyway?
Ok this is all well and good.....but.
But what about when your in your IM application chatting away and a phone call comes in? Doesn't the IM message window you were typing in gets closed anyway?
Assuming it not made incredibly poorly, it will be like typing an SMS and call comes in. SMS closes, but when you go back to it takes you to same screen you were on and everything you typed is still there waiting for you to complete it.
New BlackBerry® Device
Every BlackBerry Smartphone Has A Full QWERTY Keyboard. Available Now
If I wanted a Blackberry, I wouldn't be in an AppleInsider forum now, would I?
...day question:-)
So where do I drive my car when I'm at sea? Stupid car!
/Mikael
Rhetorical question
This is such a backhanded way of claiming to have fixed the problem, what about apps like intelliscreen, internet radio (can it run continuosly in the background?), p2p software, and notification apps having to require internet access and having to pay for notificaions from a local app is not something I am willing to do
I'm not following what your concern is or why you'd be paying for these notifications. What is backhanded about it? What other solution that doesn't drain the battery by having multiple-apps in an always on state do you suggest?
P2P may be considered illegal by Apple's SDK rules. If you want that go for the unlocked version, but that is a pretty thing to want on a cellphone will a very limited CPU, RAM, Flash and battery time. These solution will permit you to get your IMs, Emails, and whatever other options 3rd-parties can come up with without you having to keep checking your apps constantly.
As for internet radio, access one of teh many websites to get it. Most people are smart enough to put music on the device beforehand instead of streaming low quality, battery killing audio to their phone.
What Apple has done here is take us back to the days before Multifinder for no apparent reason.
You rally can't see the reason? of having a constant and static internet connection on a cellphone?
If you want to use a jailbroken device, then go ahead, but Apple makes for the majority and the majority would not understand why their phone dies in 4 hours when they haven't even been using it. Which would happen if they installed an app to try out but then forgot about it or didn't realize it was always running.
The next argument to be made is that you should be able to do whatever you want on your phone regardless of how it functions. But that pretty much screws anyone who it not technically literate and ruins the iPhone as a stable and easy to use platform. That is the main draw of the device. And then there is a parallel argument that the App Store unfairly limits developers. But that is completely bogus because without it cellphone apps would remain in the dark ages with hard to find, overly expensive choices that aren't well made or simple to install. Version 2.0 will surely be jailbroken and you can do what you like to your iPhone, but to insist that background processes and unchecked, unrefined apps should be the norm for the average user is insane.
I'm not following what your concern is or why you'd be paying for these notifications. What is backhanded about it? What other solution that doesn't drain the battery by having multiple-apps in an always on state do you suggest?
P2P may be considered illegal by Apple's SDK rules. If you want that go for the unlocked version, but that is a pretty thing to want on a cellphone will a very limited CPU, RAM, Flash and battery time. These solution will permit you to get your IMs, Emails, and whatever other options 3rd-parties can come up with without you having to keep checking your apps constantly.
As for internet radio, access one of teh many websites to get it. Most people are smart enough to put music on the device beforehand instead of streaming low quality, battery killing audio to their phone.
A lot of countries don't have phone companies with unlimited data plans so we pay pr MB, every byte counts. P2P might be a bit extreme, but nfinitespecter's examples are more real world. I want a process explorer that notifies me if an app is using excessive recources, then I can decide what I want to use my battery power for. I am staying with 1.1.3 untill 2.0 is jailbroken, an iPhone without Intelliscreen is half as much of a phone.
If you put the content on the phone before listening to it, it kinda isn't radio anymore.
A lot of countries don't have phone companies with unlimited data plans so we pay pr MB, every byte counts. P2P might be a bit extreme, but nfinitespecter's examples are more real world. I want a process explorer that notifies me if an app is using excessive recources, then I can decide what I want to use my battery power for. I am staying with 1.1.3 untill 2.0 is jailbroken, an iPhone without Intelliscreen is half as much of a phone.
If you put the content on the phone before listening to it, it kinda isn't radio anymore.
Now I'm even more confused. If you pay for each bit data separately then why even consider using internet radio?
As for a process explorer, are there rules in the SDK that restrict developers from making an app to view the current processes? If you think this should be how users decide how to delegate app usage, I dont' think we should expect the average user to analyze Activity Monitor on a phone.
Now I'm even more confused. If you pay for each bit data separately then why even consider using internet radio?
As for a process explorer, are there rules in the SDK that restrict developers from making an app to view the current processes? If you think this should be how users decide how to delegate app usage, I dont' think we should expect the average user to analyze Activity Monitor on a phone.
The SDK restricts you from having any app active when not being used as the main applicaiton, so an app that warns users of battery hogs is not possible.
I am willing to pay for internet radio, since it is live streamed over the air, I need internet (or radio) otherwise it is not possible by any stretch of the imagination. An app that makes a noise when I forget about a new SMS would't really need internet on any other OS since all it's data is stored locally, now it would have to sync up to the cloud and then have a server notify the phone of the forgotten SMS.
The SDK restricts you from having any app active when not being used as the main applicaiton, so an app that warns users of battery hogs is not possible.
I'm well aware of that. But you've mention that Apple's push technology is a bandwidth eater that you are not willing to pay for, but then go on about wanting to use internet radio. Your argument seems unfocused. That quoted sentence seems to be in reply to my question about what are you paying for, which you seem to think Apple's solution is costly, yet the data being sent is much lower than maintaining a constant connection to an IM client, not to mention P2P or internet radio.
Apple has made a choice that seems to fit in with most users' needs. Not all devices fit everyone's needs. If it is an unacceptable constraint then the iPhone is not for you or you'll need to wait until it is jailbroken to use these always-on apps. You can either eat through your battery life, reduce performance and use bandwidth; or you can reduce those three, but at the cost of running certain application types
I'm well aware of that. But you've mention that Apple's push technology is a bandwidth eater that you are not willing to pay for, but then go on about wanting to use internet radio. Your argument seems unfocused. That quoted sentence seems to be in reply to my question about what are you paying for, which you seem to think Apple's solution is costly, yet the data being sent is much lower than maintaining a constant connection to an IM client, not to mention P2P or internet radio.
Apple has made a choice that seems to fit in with most users' needs. Not all devices fit everyone's needs. If it is an unacceptable constraint then the iPhone is not for you or you'll need to wait until it is jailbroken to use these always-on apps. You can either eat through your battery life, reduce performance and use bandwidth; or you can reduce those three, but at the cost of running certain application types
An applicaiton that runs in the background isn't bound to use a lot of battery, I have no problems with my jailbroken phone with any of my apps.
Since I am not getting my point across, let me try with an analogy: On your car you pay for fuel in order for it to go, but you don't have to pay for fuel to open the sunroof or your windows.
Internet radio is like the car going to a place, by definition it needs energy, opening the sunroof (getting a notification about a forgotten SMS) doesn't really need energy in the same manner (at least not energy I have to pay for).
I don't know if that made any sense, if not, I think you should just let it go :-)
It might have been PointCast, and it seemed like several major companies tried to push it or technologies like it on computer users, but I don't know anyone that actually used it at all.
We have a winner.
PointCast was doomed, in part, by the lack of bandwidth across the general backbone, the variety of ways to connect to the backbone, a decade of network design not yet implemented and much more.
Clever idea when it's got web services and more to make it happen.
XML didn't even exist. Schemas weren't a reality and more.
You rally can't see the reason? of having a constant and static internet connection on a cellphone?
If you want to use a jailbroken device, then go ahead, but Apple makes for the majority and the majority would not understand why their phone dies in 4 hours when they haven't even been using it. Which would happen if they installed an app to try out but then forgot about it or didn't realize it was always running.
The next argument to be made is that you should be able to do whatever you want on your phone regardless of how it functions. But that pretty much screws anyone who it not technically literate and ruins the iPhone as a stable and easy to use platform. That is the main draw of the device. And then there is a parallel argument that the App Store unfairly limits developers. But that is completely bogus because without it cellphone apps would remain in the dark ages with hard to find, overly expensive choices that aren't well made or simple to install. Version 2.0 will surely be jailbroken and you can do what you like to your iPhone, but to insist that background processes and unchecked, unrefined apps should be the norm for the average user is insane.
Have you ever used a Jailbroken phone? I ask because it REALLY sounds like you are speaking from ignorance. I run a ton of apps on mine and have NEVER had a problem beyond the occasional crash in Safari, and that happens jailbroken or not. The difference in batter life is not even noticeable. On top of that, your entire second argument is a logical fallacy. What technically illiterate people do you know that go about installing applications on their phones?
Beyond that, the entire concept of protecting the lowest common denominator is unfair to anyone that is willing to take that risk. Apple isn't letting you do what you want with your phone, and that is absurd and insulting. What are you going to suggest next, that they start checking and signing applications in OS X because a few luddites don't know how to use their computers? Give me a break.