Have you considered setting your iPhone not to check your mail every five minutes, or whatever you have it set to? Checking it manually isn't exactly a chore and at least your battery will last more than four hours.
I had to set it to check email every 30 min. and disable push email from yahoo. It drains half what it used to. The only solution was to turn off wifi and only turn it on when needed.
The general license agreement certainly prevents certain types of applications from running on the iPhone. IANAL, but I am sure that an entity a big as Sun could negotiate different terms for the use of the SDK, but only for themselves, though whether Steve Jobs would be willing is another matter. The way I see it, the current license is a "non-negotiated" license, designed to suit the vast majority of developers.
Earlier, I forgot to say that IMing apps will be allowed, at least in the form of AIM. We know that already. If that turns off every time a call is made, then people won't be happy with it. I would imagine that AOL won't have that problem. There must be some way around it.
You can do whatever you want with the iPhone once you bought it. You can jailbreak it, take it apart and create a new computer, or even blend it.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN APPLE HAS TO SUPPORT YOU DOING IT.
Apple needs to provide customer and warranty support for the product it sells. If you want such support, you only use what Apple thinks will keep your iPhone stable. This is the same thing if you buy a car. If you reflash the ECU (engine controller unit computer) to make your car faster, etc., the car company isn't going to want to provide warranty support because it may make your engine unstable.
Talking about our likes and dislikes, rumors, and other Apple related news is why this site is here. Thank you very much.
yes, I totally agree.
I only said that because of some people that is talking like they are imposed to use something, when thats is not the case. There is a lot of other open platforms like Android, for exemple. I just dont understand why people is so mad about Apple platform not beeing this way too. Like some one said, world is not perfect... \
Ok I was somewhat a little radical in my other post, I admit. Sorry about that.
Well, maybe it's just me, but I do NOT want people chatting to me if I'm on the phone.
If I decide some phone call is more important than the ongoing chat, I would politely warn my chat contact and pick up the call. I can even set up an auto-polite-warning to do that if needed.
At that point the chat app can very well freeze, I don't see what the problem with that is.
On my computer, when the network link breaks up for some reason, sending a message results in a (pretty obvious) error. But when the link is established again, the conversation can resume without any problem.
So barring a few technical hickups with an iPhone chat client, which can be hammered out with time, this seems to me a non-issue.
Peyo, you could very easily set priority rules in your application (or at the system level) to say what can or cannot happen while you are on a phone call.
Where I see an issue is if you have to manually launch the instant messenging app and stay in the instant messenging app for other people to see you as being online (=> reachable). The rest of the time (if you're surfing the internet, checking weather or browsing pictures) you'd be offline and therefore unreachable by anybody.
The added value of an instant messenging app in that case is limited at best.
For a better user experience, you can check what happens when you're browsing the internet and somebody sends you a text message. It pops up a window on the iphone screen that you can dismiss if you want to continue surfing instead of switching to the SMS app.
It would be great if someone develop a VoIP app for the iphone. I think these restrictions about VoIP apps only interests to AT&T. Sure they want you to spend your money making calls over their voice network, Instead of using some cheap VoIP provider
How about instant messaging apps? A conversation will be a single session, but how would you handle maintaining a user's status (online, busy, etc...) and be able to receive incoming messages once you close the conversation to move to another app?
It seems to me that some code needs to keep running to watch out for incoming contacts.
(constant battery draw is a different story... not sure how much impact this would have...)
Move to a different app, update state to offline. Simple. Open IM app again go back online. I just don't have a hard-on for maintaining online icon uptime. Let the icon ACTUALLY report my real world status, not some ersatz status. Leaving an IM app running in the background doesn't really DO anything except leave the app running. What does a running IM app do if you aren't using it, nothing! If it does the same thing in the background as it would do while "off" what's the difference from the users perspective (other than online icon uptime)? It isn't like auto-login and configuration is particularly hard to do.
And really, how many folks will actually be able to simultaneously do IM over wireless while they are talking on a call without actually self-censoring and scheduling in essentially the same way the iPhone guidance drives? Is further killing social politeness by multi-tasked divided attention a good thing? Personally I find it rude when someone leaves their client online in the background when they aren't around or answering anyway. This fixes that.
There is a chat client right now for the iPhone. It runs in the foreground and halts if the phone rings or some other attention demand comes into play. The connection to the chat servers is cut and the user has to log in again once they want to chat again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Is further killing social politeness by multi-tasked divided attention a good thing? Personally I find it rude when someone leaves their client online in the background when they aren't around or answering anyway. This fixes that.
Amen to that. Hiro beat me to that answer.
To Hugo:
Keyword is politeness. And like I said earlier, the reverse is also true: if I'm engaged in a chat conversation, I may not feel compelled to take an incoming phone call, but if it *IS* an important call, I would politely warn my chat correspondant that I have to take it.
It will be interesting to see whether these limitations are trial balloons or not.
I hope that they are, and that Apple continues to iterate their SDK strategy until they hit the sweet spot required to decisively win the hearts and minds of the developer community.
Apple?s history with developers gives some reason for skepticism, something that I recently blogged about in, ?The Scorpion, the Frog and the iPhone SDK.?
Leaving an IM app running in the background doesn't really DO anything except leave the app running. What does a running IM app do if you aren't using it, nothing! If it does the same thing in the background as it would do while "off" what's the difference from the users perspective (other than online icon uptime)? It isn't like auto-login and configuration is particularly hard to do...
Maybe I misunderstood you, but leaving iChat running and online in the background allows you to do other things on your phone and answer a chat when it comes in. As opposed to no one chatting you when you are available because your icon said offline. Its the way it works on your computer as well.
I'm not going to lie, I've been enjoying the wild and woolly world of freeware and donationware and nagware and shareware for the Mac. When I downloaded that utility that was supposed to eliminate "duplicate" files, and it threw my Mach Kernel in the trash...well, I figured it out. Any device that's as much of a black box as the iPhone, however, really needs somebody to ride herd on what gets through and what doesn't. So add me to the column who support the way Apple proposes to deal with app distribution. If some hackers want to perform a real public service, let them come up with a way to strip everything off the iPhone except the basic telephone functions, so people can install whichever one of 10,000 Linux distros they like on it and write and download all the freeware they want, and leave the rest of us alone.
I was assuming that they'd have to phone home in order deactivate a rogue application. However, they are doing through electronic certification. The firmware looks for the certification which is placed in by apple before posting the application on the webpage. Without certification, the application will not run.
No phone home necessary. My bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby
WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where did this "phone home" idea come from? Do you have a link or something like this to support your statement? I may have missed this but you seem to have some info that others don't.
[...] Leaving an IM app running in the background doesn't really DO anything except leave the app running. What does a running IM app do if you aren't using it, nothing! [...]
And really, how many folks will actually be able to simultaneously do IM over wireless while they are talking on a call without actually self-censoring and scheduling in essentially the same way the iPhone guidance drives? Is further killing social politeness by multi-tasked divided attention a good thing? Personally I find it rude when someone leaves their client online in the background when they aren't around or answering anyway. This fixes that.
To Hiro and Peyo: I think you guys are not really getting my point.
I don't particularly have an obsession with having my online icon beat the record of the longest running online icon uptime. I am talking about the possibility to be reachable. Mind you, this is about 50% of what instant messaging is about. If your app is not running in the background, your status is offline (read: unreachable) to the rest of the world.
According to you guys, you open your IM app and great, auto-login whizbang, etc.. you are online! Except that the people you see in your contact list (the people that are online) are all on a desktop. Or maybe they are on an iPhone, and they have launched their IM app and are doing nothing else but wait for you to write to them, because somehow they friggin' knew that you would write to them at this very minute, wouldn't they?
I don't think so.
An IM app on a mobile platform that can only connect you to non-mobile users when you are logged into it, and where nobody can reach you unless you are logged into the app kinda defeats the purpose, don't you think?
Maybe I misunderstood you, but leaving iChat running and online in the background allows you to do other things on your phone and answer a chat when it comes in. As opposed to no one chatting you when you are available because your icon said offline. Its the way it works on your computer as well.
It would be great if someone develop a VoIP app for the iphone. I think these restrictions about VoIP apps only interests to AT&T. Sure they want you to spend your money making calls over their voice network, Instead of using some cheap VoIP provider
That's the only reason why they are limiting it over cell?for now.
To Hiro and Peyo: I think you guys are not really getting my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo
Thank god somebody has half a brain here.
I am getting you point. And I am saying explicitly that I think the actions your point supports are impolite and disrespectful.
As far as contact. Your PHONE also has that function thing that goes ringie-dingie and magically transports voice communications from your friends that might be trying to contact you. It also has this SMS function thingie that does work EXACTLY as you say you want contact to work, except SMS isn't implemented on the phone inside a chat client. Not to mention computer chat clients are beginning to be updated to allow the senders to tell the server to auto forward to SMS if the recipient is not online, which will also handle your issue.
Now that's three ways for you to be contacted - via different means - all better engineered solutions for a PHONE than your wished extension of a PC app to run as a PC app on a PHONE.
Starting to see a pattern here? You get your contact without having to advertise yourself as callous and self absorbed by leaving your online persona available, even when you really aren't. The expected modes of communication handle the elimination of immediate-return-of-message expectations and allow you to choose to answer on your own timescale without violating your senders expectations.
It's all about the right tool for the right job. Not trying to force a single jack of all trades tool into a social-use niche that it really doesn't belong in.
I was thinking (i'm better now) and it hit me. Why not allow background(B.G.) apps, but limit how many, or how much memory will be allocated to third party B.G. apps. If the limit is exceeded then an app would be quit. Quiting could be based on first one open, first one shut...least active, first quit. Something to that effect. THis would allow (let say) two to three small BG apps too run. Something like a IM client shouldn't use too much resource.
If the music app can stay running then I'm sure they (the developers) can work out way to implement such code and still be in good faith with Apple.
Of course Apple would have to let this happen, or help it happen.
Two of my main internet activities (particularly those I use on the go) require Java.
(1) Streaming internet radio
and
(2) My AT&T Remote monitoring (attrm.com) system to monitor my home and pets while I'm away. ATT remote monitor is available on most of their wireless phones, but alas, not the iPhone.
Two big bummers. Let's hope Sun and Apple can work something out!
Comments
Have you considered setting your iPhone not to check your mail every five minutes, or whatever you have it set to? Checking it manually isn't exactly a chore and at least your battery will last more than four hours.
I had to set it to check email every 30 min. and disable push email from yahoo. It drains half what it used to. The only solution was to turn off wifi and only turn it on when needed.
All of you not happy with these limitations, just leave. Apple is not grabing you by neck an forcing you to use their iphone/SDK.
Personally I prefer to wait until June to say anything else.
Talking about our likes and dislikes, rumors, and other Apple related news is why this site is here. Thank you very much.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN APPLE HAS TO SUPPORT YOU DOING IT.
Apple needs to provide customer and warranty support for the product it sells. If you want such support, you only use what Apple thinks will keep your iPhone stable. This is the same thing if you buy a car. If you reflash the ECU (engine controller unit computer) to make your car faster, etc., the car company isn't going to want to provide warranty support because it may make your engine unstable.
Talking about our likes and dislikes, rumors, and other Apple related news is why this site is here. Thank you very much.
yes, I totally agree.
I only said that because of some people that is talking like they are imposed to use something, when thats is not the case. There is a lot of other open platforms like Android, for exemple. I just dont understand why people is so mad about Apple platform not beeing this way too. Like some one said, world is not perfect...
Ok I was somewhat a little radical in my other post, I admit. Sorry about that.
Well, maybe it's just me, but I do NOT want people chatting to me if I'm on the phone.
If I decide some phone call is more important than the ongoing chat, I would politely warn my chat contact and pick up the call. I can even set up an auto-polite-warning to do that if needed.
At that point the chat app can very well freeze, I don't see what the problem with that is.
On my computer, when the network link breaks up for some reason, sending a message results in a (pretty obvious) error. But when the link is established again, the conversation can resume without any problem.
So barring a few technical hickups with an iPhone chat client, which can be hammered out with time, this seems to me a non-issue.
Peyo, you could very easily set priority rules in your application (or at the system level) to say what can or cannot happen while you are on a phone call.
Where I see an issue is if you have to manually launch the instant messenging app and stay in the instant messenging app for other people to see you as being online (=> reachable). The rest of the time (if you're surfing the internet, checking weather or browsing pictures) you'd be offline and therefore unreachable by anybody.
The added value of an instant messenging app in that case is limited at best.
For a better user experience, you can check what happens when you're browsing the internet and somebody sends you a text message. It pops up a window on the iphone screen that you can dismiss if you want to continue surfing instead of switching to the SMS app.
How about instant messaging apps? A conversation will be a single session, but how would you handle maintaining a user's status (online, busy, etc...) and be able to receive incoming messages once you close the conversation to move to another app?
It seems to me that some code needs to keep running to watch out for incoming contacts.
(constant battery draw is a different story... not sure how much impact this would have...)
Move to a different app, update state to offline. Simple. Open IM app again go back online. I just don't have a hard-on for maintaining online icon uptime. Let the icon ACTUALLY report my real world status, not some ersatz status. Leaving an IM app running in the background doesn't really DO anything except leave the app running. What does a running IM app do if you aren't using it, nothing! If it does the same thing in the background as it would do while "off" what's the difference from the users perspective (other than online icon uptime)? It isn't like auto-login and configuration is particularly hard to do.
And really, how many folks will actually be able to simultaneously do IM over wireless while they are talking on a call without actually self-censoring and scheduling in essentially the same way the iPhone guidance drives? Is further killing social politeness by multi-tasked divided attention a good thing? Personally I find it rude when someone leaves their client online in the background when they aren't around or answering anyway. This fixes that.
There is a chat client right now for the iPhone. It runs in the foreground and halts if the phone rings or some other attention demand comes into play. The connection to the chat servers is cut and the user has to log in again once they want to chat again.
Is further killing social politeness by multi-tasked divided attention a good thing? Personally I find it rude when someone leaves their client online in the background when they aren't around or answering anyway. This fixes that.
Amen to that. Hiro beat me to that answer.
To Hugo:
Keyword is politeness. And like I said earlier, the reverse is also true: if I'm engaged in a chat conversation, I may not feel compelled to take an incoming phone call, but if it *IS* an important call, I would politely warn my chat correspondant that I have to take it.
I hope that they are, and that Apple continues to iterate their SDK strategy until they hit the sweet spot required to decisively win the hearts and minds of the developer community.
Apple?s history with developers gives some reason for skepticism, something that I recently blogged about in, ?The Scorpion, the Frog and the iPhone SDK.?
Check it out if interested:
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...orpion-th.html
Cheers,
Mark
Leaving an IM app running in the background doesn't really DO anything except leave the app running. What does a running IM app do if you aren't using it, nothing! If it does the same thing in the background as it would do while "off" what's the difference from the users perspective (other than online icon uptime)? It isn't like auto-login and configuration is particularly hard to do...
Maybe I misunderstood you, but leaving iChat running and online in the background allows you to do other things on your phone and answer a chat when it comes in. As opposed to no one chatting you when you are available because your icon said offline. Its the way it works on your computer as well.
No phone home necessary. My bad.
WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where did this "phone home" idea come from? Do you have a link or something like this to support your statement? I may have missed this but you seem to have some info that others don't.
[...] Leaving an IM app running in the background doesn't really DO anything except leave the app running. What does a running IM app do if you aren't using it, nothing! [...]
And really, how many folks will actually be able to simultaneously do IM over wireless while they are talking on a call without actually self-censoring and scheduling in essentially the same way the iPhone guidance drives? Is further killing social politeness by multi-tasked divided attention a good thing? Personally I find it rude when someone leaves their client online in the background when they aren't around or answering anyway. This fixes that.
To Hiro and Peyo: I think you guys are not really getting my point.
I don't particularly have an obsession with having my online icon beat the record of the longest running online icon uptime. I am talking about the possibility to be reachable. Mind you, this is about 50% of what instant messaging is about. If your app is not running in the background, your status is offline (read: unreachable) to the rest of the world.
According to you guys, you open your IM app and great, auto-login whizbang, etc.. you are online! Except that the people you see in your contact list (the people that are online) are all on a desktop. Or maybe they are on an iPhone, and they have launched their IM app and are doing nothing else but wait for you to write to them, because somehow they friggin' knew that you would write to them at this very minute, wouldn't they?
I don't think so.
An IM app on a mobile platform that can only connect you to non-mobile users when you are logged into it, and where nobody can reach you unless you are logged into the app kinda defeats the purpose, don't you think?
think about it.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but leaving iChat running and online in the background allows you to do other things on your phone and answer a chat when it comes in. As opposed to no one chatting you when you are available because your icon said offline. Its the way it works on your computer as well.
Thank god somebody has half a brain here.
It would be great if someone develop a VoIP app for the iphone. I think these restrictions about VoIP apps only interests to AT&T. Sure they want you to spend your money making calls over their voice network, Instead of using some cheap VoIP provider
That's the only reason why they are limiting it over cell?for now.
To Hiro and Peyo: I think you guys are not really getting my point.
Thank god somebody has half a brain here.
I am getting you point. And I am saying explicitly that I think the actions your point supports are impolite and disrespectful.
As far as contact. Your PHONE also has that function thing that goes ringie-dingie and magically transports voice communications from your friends that might be trying to contact you. It also has this SMS function thingie that does work EXACTLY as you say you want contact to work, except SMS isn't implemented on the phone inside a chat client. Not to mention computer chat clients are beginning to be updated to allow the senders to tell the server to auto forward to SMS if the recipient is not online, which will also handle your issue.
Now that's three ways for you to be contacted - via different means - all better engineered solutions for a PHONE than your wished extension of a PC app to run as a PC app on a PHONE.
Starting to see a pattern here? You get your contact without having to advertise yourself as callous and self absorbed by leaving your online persona available, even when you really aren't. The expected modes of communication handle the elimination of immediate-return-of-message expectations and allow you to choose to answer on your own timescale without violating your senders expectations.
It's all about the right tool for the right job. Not trying to force a single jack of all trades tool into a social-use niche that it really doesn't belong in.
If the music app can stay running then I'm sure they (the developers) can work out way to implement such code and still be in good faith with Apple.
Of course Apple would have to let this happen, or help it happen.
(1) Streaming internet radio
and
(2) My AT&T Remote monitoring (attrm.com) system to monitor my home and pets while I'm away. ATT remote monitor is available on most of their wireless phones, but alas, not the iPhone.
Two big bummers. Let's hope Sun and Apple can work something out!