The people on his forums are also vastly worse than the average Apple fanboy. They support every comment he makes, as from god. Talk about reality distortion fields!
I know you're right about this. Some folks think they should suck up to wealthy people to hedge their bets. I think one should treat others with wary respect.
I read so many people complaining about the lack of background applications! But can one of you give me at least ONE SIMPLE reason, why we need it?
The simplest reason is simply this, we as customers are asking for it.
However maybe you want more examples. One good one would be sound recording. There are many good use cases where one might want to record audio in background while using foreground apps. Another would be the logging of GPS position data while moving about. Niether of these involves network access which shoots holes in Apples point.
Quote:
I (and i think many others to) could give you at least one reason for no background app: battery life!
That isn't an acceptable reason. Really it is as simple as that, it's my phone and my recharging expense, I should be able to run what I want in background. Depending on the design of the software a fully functional background app might not significantly impact battery life. Frankly I don't even see battery life as an issue close to the top, the limitations on RAM and CPU performance are bigger issues. Even here this is already a bigger variable than many seem to want to accept as the Touch has a faster processor and more available RAM.
The key here is that the Touch product line up is already broadening. As more capable devices become available in the future the lack of user background apps becomes more glaring. Which brings us to the next issue IPhone has background apps running already and thus has less RAM free than the iPod Touch. It is silly to keep a restriction in place just because one platform is a bit limited in what it can leverage.
Let's say that Apple comes out with a 4X Touch "iPod" in June. That is a machine with four times the RAM and four times the CPU performance. Would you still want to have to deal with all the current Mobile OS limitations on that device? Even the next gen iPhone should be considerably faster and hopefully fatter with respect to RAM, should this phone have the same limitations as earlier models? Apples hardware either needs to evolve or perish.
In any event all this whining about battery life is garbage. The simple reason is that each potential background app would have it's own power profile. Further reductions in power usage could come from the use of a good cron like feature that would sleep and wake back ground apps at a user selected rate.
Without background apps we mis out on a whole bunch of potential uses for iPhone. The notification system is nice for a certain subset of problems but it completely misses with respect to apps that only ever use local data.
On the keynote at about 22 minute mark they discuss background processes.
"Why dont you just do background processes, it's easier to do background processes. The answer is it's bad for the customer."
Apple may say that and they may even believe it but it is utter crap. We can turn this around and say it is very bad for Apple to not give us what we want and in some cases need.
Quote:
They did a test with an instant messaging process in background, and it dropped the battery life by 80% faster even without incoming messages. Different processes might drain battery at different rates, but all will drain more battery. All will eat up CPU cycles. All will suck up available RAM.
A background process doesn't use energy any faster when in background relative to foreground. It is up to the use to select the right app and manage the energy it uses.
In any event Apple credibility sucks here as they have choosen the example that would likely lead to the worst results. Not every background app needs to talk to the networks.
Quote:
There's simply no such thing as a background process running on a severely resource constrained device (battery, limited cpu and ram) running "quietly in the background."
This happens every single day. Even on iPhone Apple multitasks it's blessed set of apps. Before Apple got rid of some nasty bugs they would even drain the battery for you.
A background process doesn't use energy any faster when in background relative to foreground. It is up to the use to select the right app and manage the energy it uses.
In any event Apple credibility sucks here as they have choosen the example that would likely lead to the worst results. Not every background app needs to talk to the networks.
I thought their point was that general background apps can prevent the device from deep sleep? I don't recall now. Their current background apps either have an event timer (like alarm clock) or are mostly event driven (mail, phone calls, etc).
Apple may say that and they may even believe it but it is utter crap. We can turn this around and say it is very bad for Apple to not give us what we want and in some cases need.
A background process doesn't use energy any faster when in background relative to foreground. It is up to the use to select the right app and manage the energy it uses.
In any event Apple credibility sucks here as they have choosen the example that would likely lead to the worst results. Not every background app needs to talk to the networks.
This happens every single day. Even on iPhone Apple multitasks it's blessed set of apps. Before Apple got rid of some nasty bugs they would even drain the battery for you.
Dave
Background apps either use the radio, which uses the most energy, and use processor cycles that otherwise wouldn't be used, again using energy, or just the latter.
In either case, background apps are using energy that wouldn't be used. It also slows other processes down, and slows foreground apps down.
I've noticed other phones slowing down when my friends put background apps on. So have they.
Even the most powerful phone doesn't have enough RAM for the apps, or enough cpu power for this to work well. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, because obviously it does.
With notifications, most needs for background apps will disappear.
Notice I said "most". for certain business security programs to work properly, background functioning is required. I use Norton Solutions on my new Mac Pro, and it needs to work in the background, so I do "get it". So does Lil" Snitch, which I wouldn't do without.
But for most people using the iPhone/iTouch, notifications will be fine.
I assume that when the devices are more powerful, have more program RAM, and better battery life (which may be coming soon ala the new MacBook Pro battery tech), Apple will add this functionality as well.
They do listen (MMS anyone?), but they do it when they think they've got it right.
Background apps either use the radio, which uses the most energy, and use processor cycles that otherwise wouldn't be used, again using energy, or just the latter.
In either case, background apps are using energy that wouldn't be used. It also slows other processes down, and slows foreground apps down.
It doesn't really matter as it is up to the user to to determine what if any apps will run in background. Many users would run nothing in background this suffering no performance impact. Those that do run background apps should be fully aware of the impact if any.
Frankly this isn't any different than what computer users have been doing for years. That is managing the workloads on their PCs to keep them responsive.
Quote:
I've noticed other phones slowing down when my friends put background apps on. So have they.
Even the most powerful phone doesn't have enough RAM for the apps, or enough cpu power for this to work well. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, because obviously it does.
Well either it does or it doesn't do well. The thing here is that I believe everybody realizes the devices are not super computers, so I believe expectations are limited.
The other reality is that the iPhone OS runs on a number of products of varing capacity. Already the current iPod Touch is a more capable platform. Background apps will run better on this device so why should it suffer? Especially in the Touches case as it does not have to deal with cell processing.
Quote:
With notifications, most needs for background apps will disappear.
See this is nothing but garbage, notifications are a good solution for a her small set of problems. There are many sound uses for these devices that involve background processes that never have to touch a network. One good example is sound recording.
Quote:
Notice I said "most". for certain business security programs to work properly, background functioning is required. I use Norton Solutions on my new Mac Pro, and it needs to work in the background, so I do "get it". So does Lil" Snitch, which I wouldn't do without.
But for most people using the iPhone/iTouch, notifications will be fine.
Nope not at all. In fact notifications are even less useful on iPod Touch.
Quote:
I assume that when the devices are more powerful, have more program RAM, and better battery life (which may be coming soon ala the new MacBook Pro battery tech), Apple will add this functionality as well.
RAM is an issue and I do hope that is quickly dealt with. But you need to understand that even now iPod Touch has more free memory than iPhone. Already the issue of performance is changing rapidly.
As to the Mac Book Pro there is nothing special about that battery other than it is bigger. Battery performance is certainly important and is one reason why I don't see the massive performance increases in the base iPhone. There are options coming for the battery eventually.
Quote:
They do listen (MMS anyone?), but they do it when they think they've got it right.
Listen maybe or maybe they had it in the plans all along. I suspect that much of what we will see in 3.0 was intended to come. IPhone is a big project and I think many had expectations of rapid software evolution that Apple simply couldn't manage. They will realize whatever their vision of iPhone is first and then adopt the wants of the user base.
Of course Apple can't reveal what their vision is due to the OS being used on multiple devices. Long term though all of these devices will benefit from multiple user processes.
It doesn't really matter as it is up to the user to to determine what if any apps will run in background. Many users would run nothing in background this suffering no performance impact. Those that do run background apps should be fully aware of the impact if any.
Frankly this isn't any different than what computer users have been doing for years. That is managing the workloads on their PCs to keep them responsive.
Well either it does or it doesn't do well. The thing here is that I believe everybody realizes the devices are not super computers, so I believe expectations are limited.
The other reality is that the iPhone OS runs on a number of products of varing capacity. Already the current iPod Touch is a more capable platform. Background apps will run better on this device so why should it suffer? Especially in the Touches case as it does not have to deal with cell processing.
You're looking at this from a perspective of someone who understands what is going on. Most buyers do not understand what is going on, and the performance declines won't be understood for what they are. People will just complain about what is happening to their phones.
The iPhone, so far, is very different from any other phone out as to the way it's being used. No other phone is so heavily oriented to multimedia as is the iPhone. As such, it will be more heavily impacted than other phones. People will just keep loading these social programs filled with background needs until the phone crawls to a halt.
I can't wait until some of the other platforms get the number of programs that require this.
Quote:
See this is nothing but garbage, notifications are a good solution for a her small set of problems. There are many sound uses for these devices that involve background processes that never have to touch a network. One good example is sound recording.
Nope not at all. In fact notifications are even less useful on iPod Touch.
Nope. That's correct. Tell us exactly why we will need background applications more than notification. Which apps will benefit us more from that that push. Make a good case here, because it will be a difficult one!
Other than security applications, which few iPhone users will need, what apps will the large majority need that requires background running?
Quote:
RAM is an issue and I do hope that is quickly dealt with. But you need to understand that even now iPod Touch has more free memory than iPhone. Already the issue of performance is changing rapidly.
As to the Mac Book Pro there is nothing special about that battery other than it is bigger. Battery performance is certainly important and is one reason why I don't see the massive performance increases in the base iPhone. There are options coming for the battery eventually.
Not correct either. It's been noted more than a few times by writers in the industry that Application RAM is too small on either device for goos background performance.
As to the battery, that wrong as well. Not only is the battery larger, but it lasts twice as long. It also has a higher power densityl.
Quote:
Listen maybe or maybe they had it in the plans all along. I suspect that much of what we will see in 3.0 was intended to come. IPhone is a big project and I think many had expectations of rapid software evolution that Apple simply couldn't manage. They will realize whatever their vision of iPhone is first and then adopt the wants of the user base.
Of course Apple can't reveal what their vision is due to the OS being used on multiple devices. Long term though all of these devices will benefit from multiple user processes.
Dave
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I suspect they didn't.
Quick comment... Apple never knew for certain that the iPhone would be such a success, and neither did any of the carriers. If they were able to predict success with absolute certainty, they would have simply plowed ahead and offered iPhone with all wireless providers.
Comments
The people on his forums are also vastly worse than the average Apple fanboy. They support every comment he makes, as from god. Talk about reality distortion fields!
I know you're right about this. Some folks think they should suck up to wealthy people to hedge their bets. I think one should treat others with wary respect.
I read so many people complaining about the lack of background applications! But can one of you give me at least ONE SIMPLE reason, why we need it?
The simplest reason is simply this, we as customers are asking for it.
However maybe you want more examples. One good one would be sound recording. There are many good use cases where one might want to record audio in background while using foreground apps. Another would be the logging of GPS position data while moving about. Niether of these involves network access which shoots holes in Apples point.
I (and i think many others to) could give you at least one reason for no background app: battery life!
That isn't an acceptable reason. Really it is as simple as that, it's my phone and my recharging expense, I should be able to run what I want in background. Depending on the design of the software a fully functional background app might not significantly impact battery life. Frankly I don't even see battery life as an issue close to the top, the limitations on RAM and CPU performance are bigger issues. Even here this is already a bigger variable than many seem to want to accept as the Touch has a faster processor and more available RAM.
The key here is that the Touch product line up is already broadening. As more capable devices become available in the future the lack of user background apps becomes more glaring. Which brings us to the next issue IPhone has background apps running already and thus has less RAM free than the iPod Touch. It is silly to keep a restriction in place just because one platform is a bit limited in what it can leverage.
Let's say that Apple comes out with a 4X Touch "iPod" in June. That is a machine with four times the RAM and four times the CPU performance. Would you still want to have to deal with all the current Mobile OS limitations on that device? Even the next gen iPhone should be considerably faster and hopefully fatter with respect to RAM, should this phone have the same limitations as earlier models? Apples hardware either needs to evolve or perish.
In any event all this whining about battery life is garbage. The simple reason is that each potential background app would have it's own power profile. Further reductions in power usage could come from the use of a good cron like feature that would sleep and wake back ground apps at a user selected rate.
Without background apps we mis out on a whole bunch of potential uses for iPhone. The notification system is nice for a certain subset of problems but it completely misses with respect to apps that only ever use local data.
Dave
http://www.apple.com/iphone/preview-iphone-os/
On the keynote at about 22 minute mark they discuss background processes.
"Why dont you just do background processes, it's easier to do background processes. The answer is it's bad for the customer."
Apple may say that and they may even believe it but it is utter crap. We can turn this around and say it is very bad for Apple to not give us what we want and in some cases need.
They did a test with an instant messaging process in background, and it dropped the battery life by 80% faster even without incoming messages. Different processes might drain battery at different rates, but all will drain more battery. All will eat up CPU cycles. All will suck up available RAM.
A background process doesn't use energy any faster when in background relative to foreground. It is up to the use to select the right app and manage the energy it uses.
In any event Apple credibility sucks here as they have choosen the example that would likely lead to the worst results. Not every background app needs to talk to the networks.
There's simply no such thing as a background process running on a severely resource constrained device (battery, limited cpu and ram) running "quietly in the background."
This happens every single day. Even on iPhone Apple multitasks it's blessed set of apps. Before Apple got rid of some nasty bugs they would even drain the battery for you.
Dave
A background process doesn't use energy any faster when in background relative to foreground. It is up to the use to select the right app and manage the energy it uses.
In any event Apple credibility sucks here as they have choosen the example that would likely lead to the worst results. Not every background app needs to talk to the networks.
I thought their point was that general background apps can prevent the device from deep sleep? I don't recall now. Their current background apps either have an event timer (like alarm clock) or are mostly event driven (mail, phone calls, etc).
The simplest reason is simply this, we as customers are asking for it.
Dave
Dave, this is always an interesting argument.
It can be looked at two ways.
The customer is always right.
And:
The company can make a product the way it feels is right, and the customer can choose to buy it or not.
Those are the two extremes. I think that the truth is somewhere between.
Apple may say that and they may even believe it but it is utter crap. We can turn this around and say it is very bad for Apple to not give us what we want and in some cases need.
A background process doesn't use energy any faster when in background relative to foreground. It is up to the use to select the right app and manage the energy it uses.
In any event Apple credibility sucks here as they have choosen the example that would likely lead to the worst results. Not every background app needs to talk to the networks.
This happens every single day. Even on iPhone Apple multitasks it's blessed set of apps. Before Apple got rid of some nasty bugs they would even drain the battery for you.
Dave
Background apps either use the radio, which uses the most energy, and use processor cycles that otherwise wouldn't be used, again using energy, or just the latter.
In either case, background apps are using energy that wouldn't be used. It also slows other processes down, and slows foreground apps down.
I've noticed other phones slowing down when my friends put background apps on. So have they.
Even the most powerful phone doesn't have enough RAM for the apps, or enough cpu power for this to work well. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, because obviously it does.
With notifications, most needs for background apps will disappear.
Notice I said "most". for certain business security programs to work properly, background functioning is required. I use Norton Solutions on my new Mac Pro, and it needs to work in the background, so I do "get it". So does Lil" Snitch, which I wouldn't do without.
But for most people using the iPhone/iTouch, notifications will be fine.
I assume that when the devices are more powerful, have more program RAM, and better battery life (which may be coming soon ala the new MacBook Pro battery tech), Apple will add this functionality as well.
They do listen (MMS anyone?), but they do it when they think they've got it right.
Background apps either use the radio, which uses the most energy, and use processor cycles that otherwise wouldn't be used, again using energy, or just the latter.
In either case, background apps are using energy that wouldn't be used. It also slows other processes down, and slows foreground apps down.
It doesn't really matter as it is up to the user to to determine what if any apps will run in background. Many users would run nothing in background this suffering no performance impact. Those that do run background apps should be fully aware of the impact if any.
Frankly this isn't any different than what computer users have been doing for years. That is managing the workloads on their PCs to keep them responsive.
I've noticed other phones slowing down when my friends put background apps on. So have they.
Even the most powerful phone doesn't have enough RAM for the apps, or enough cpu power for this to work well. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, because obviously it does.
Well either it does or it doesn't do well. The thing here is that I believe everybody realizes the devices are not super computers, so I believe expectations are limited.
The other reality is that the iPhone OS runs on a number of products of varing capacity. Already the current iPod Touch is a more capable platform. Background apps will run better on this device so why should it suffer? Especially in the Touches case as it does not have to deal with cell processing.
With notifications, most needs for background apps will disappear.
See this is nothing but garbage, notifications are a good solution for a her small set of problems. There are many sound uses for these devices that involve background processes that never have to touch a network. One good example is sound recording.
Notice I said "most". for certain business security programs to work properly, background functioning is required. I use Norton Solutions on my new Mac Pro, and it needs to work in the background, so I do "get it". So does Lil" Snitch, which I wouldn't do without.
But for most people using the iPhone/iTouch, notifications will be fine.
Nope not at all. In fact notifications are even less useful on iPod Touch.
I assume that when the devices are more powerful, have more program RAM, and better battery life (which may be coming soon ala the new MacBook Pro battery tech), Apple will add this functionality as well.
RAM is an issue and I do hope that is quickly dealt with. But you need to understand that even now iPod Touch has more free memory than iPhone. Already the issue of performance is changing rapidly.
As to the Mac Book Pro there is nothing special about that battery other than it is bigger. Battery performance is certainly important and is one reason why I don't see the massive performance increases in the base iPhone. There are options coming for the battery eventually.
They do listen (MMS anyone?), but they do it when they think they've got it right.
Listen maybe or maybe they had it in the plans all along. I suspect that much of what we will see in 3.0 was intended to come. IPhone is a big project and I think many had expectations of rapid software evolution that Apple simply couldn't manage. They will realize whatever their vision of iPhone is first and then adopt the wants of the user base.
Of course Apple can't reveal what their vision is due to the OS being used on multiple devices. Long term though all of these devices will benefit from multiple user processes.
Dave
It doesn't really matter as it is up to the user to to determine what if any apps will run in background. Many users would run nothing in background this suffering no performance impact. Those that do run background apps should be fully aware of the impact if any.
Frankly this isn't any different than what computer users have been doing for years. That is managing the workloads on their PCs to keep them responsive.
Well either it does or it doesn't do well. The thing here is that I believe everybody realizes the devices are not super computers, so I believe expectations are limited.
The other reality is that the iPhone OS runs on a number of products of varing capacity. Already the current iPod Touch is a more capable platform. Background apps will run better on this device so why should it suffer? Especially in the Touches case as it does not have to deal with cell processing.
You're looking at this from a perspective of someone who understands what is going on. Most buyers do not understand what is going on, and the performance declines won't be understood for what they are. People will just complain about what is happening to their phones.
The iPhone, so far, is very different from any other phone out as to the way it's being used. No other phone is so heavily oriented to multimedia as is the iPhone. As such, it will be more heavily impacted than other phones. People will just keep loading these social programs filled with background needs until the phone crawls to a halt.
I can't wait until some of the other platforms get the number of programs that require this.
See this is nothing but garbage, notifications are a good solution for a her small set of problems. There are many sound uses for these devices that involve background processes that never have to touch a network. One good example is sound recording.
Nope not at all. In fact notifications are even less useful on iPod Touch.
Nope. That's correct. Tell us exactly why we will need background applications more than notification. Which apps will benefit us more from that that push. Make a good case here, because it will be a difficult one!
Other than security applications, which few iPhone users will need, what apps will the large majority need that requires background running?
RAM is an issue and I do hope that is quickly dealt with. But you need to understand that even now iPod Touch has more free memory than iPhone. Already the issue of performance is changing rapidly.
As to the Mac Book Pro there is nothing special about that battery other than it is bigger. Battery performance is certainly important and is one reason why I don't see the massive performance increases in the base iPhone. There are options coming for the battery eventually.
Not correct either. It's been noted more than a few times by writers in the industry that Application RAM is too small on either device for goos background performance.
As to the battery, that wrong as well. Not only is the battery larger, but it lasts twice as long. It also has a higher power densityl.
Listen maybe or maybe they had it in the plans all along. I suspect that much of what we will see in 3.0 was intended to come. IPhone is a big project and I think many had expectations of rapid software evolution that Apple simply couldn't manage. They will realize whatever their vision of iPhone is first and then adopt the wants of the user base.
Of course Apple can't reveal what their vision is due to the OS being used on multiple devices. Long term though all of these devices will benefit from multiple user processes.
Dave
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I suspect they didn't.