Alright let's be realistic, many are arguing just for the sake of arguing. One person says "Background apps should be there", while another one says "it kills battery life, and how many should be allowed at once".
The way I see it, why don't they allow ONE. That way it solves most of the problems people have:
-streaming music
-navigation
Doing this does allow these two important things to happen, and let's be realistic, it doesn't drop the battery life to 1 hour or something ridiculous. Also, navigation is most often used on a constant basis in a car, and I think it's safe to say that most people have a car charger for their phone.
Do you guys really think I should have to exit a game I'm playing (~1-2 seconds), open up the SMS app (another 1-2 seconds), reload the game (another few seconds) just to type up a quick reply?
I propose a solution that would be much better. Why don't we make these notification popups more interactive? Instead of "Open" and "Ignore" or whatever the two options are when you get a text, why can't "Reply" be added to this? A click of the "Reply" button brings up a text entry box WITHIN the popup with a keyboard in it's usual position. This would allow someone to reply to a text message while ingame, without having to wait for the game to quit, SMS app to open, close, and load game again.
Unrelated, but I always believed the comment regarding the video recorders terrible quality because I had only read it in blogs, but a coworker showed me it the other day and it was by no means any worse than many other cell phone videos I've seen, and that's all most people want anyways.
For either of these subjects, obviously battery life is an issue, but a quick 30 second video or something (in my experience, thats all most of these "youtube" videos are these days) doesnt bring down battery life dramatically if you're not doing it constantly. If you're going to be away from a charging source for a long period of time, dont' use these features. That's not just how we gadget-blog-readers act. I've heard plenty of my technologically-impaired friends say "Can I use your phone, I don't want to waste my battery" or will not reply to a text or be on the phone for awhile because they have a low battery.
Alright let's be realistic, many are arguing just for the sake of arguing. One person says "Background apps should be there", while another one says "it kills battery life, and how many should be allowed at once".
The way I see it, why don't they allow ONE. That way it solves most of the problems people have:
-streaming music
-navigation
Doing this does allow these two important things to happen, and let's be realistic, it doesn't drop the battery life to 1 hour or something ridiculous. Also, navigation is most often used on a constant basis in a car, and I think it's safe to say that most people have a car charger for their phone.
Do you guys really think I should have to exit a game I'm playing (~1-2 seconds), open up the SMS app (another 1-2 seconds), reload the game (another few seconds) just to type up a quick reply?
I propose a solution that would be much better. Why don't we make these notification popups more interactive? Instead of "Open" and "Ignore" or whatever the two options are when you get a text, why can't "Reply" be added to this? A click of the "Reply" button brings up a text entry box WITHIN the popup with a keyboard in it's usual position. This would allow someone to reply to a text message while ingame, without having to wait for the game to quit, SMS app to open, close, and load game again.
Unrelated, but I always believed the comment regarding the video recorders terrible quality because I had only read it in blogs, but a coworker showed me it the other day and it was by no means any worse than many other cell phone videos I've seen, and that's all most people want anyways.
For either of these subjects, obviously battery life is an issue, but a quick 30 second video or something (in my experience, thats all most of these "youtube" videos are these days) doesnt bring down battery life dramatically if you're not doing it constantly. If you're going to be away from a charging source for a long period of time, dont' use these features. That's not just how we gadget-blog-readers act. I've heard plenty of my technologically-impaired friends say "Can I use your phone, I don't want to waste my battery" or will not reply to a text or be on the phone for awhile because they have a low battery.
I agree that the notifications are limiting, but the notification server hasn't even been released yet. If we don't see an improvement in this area when v3.0 is released with full notification server support come this summer I don't think it will be too long before we get it in an update.
That said, Apple already has many processes/apps running in the background or that could run in the background, just not 3rd-party apps. If you read Addobox's post above (linked here) there is a remark by an iPhone developer who already has issues with the amount of resources available on the device for 3rd party developers (battery usage isn't the only, or most pressing issue) and he explains why Android is such a PITA to develop for when he has to consider so many fluctuating variables that can occur if a 3rd-party app is running in the background while trying to open his app with such limited resources. It's quite telling.
I agree that the notifications are limiting, but the notification server hasn't even been released yet. If we don't see an improvement in this area when v3.0 is released with full notification server support come this summer I don't think it will be too long before we get it in an update.
That said, Apple already has many processes/apps running in the background or that could run in the background, just not 3rd-party apps. If you read Addobox's post above (linked here) there is a remark by an iPhone developer who already has issues with the amount of resources available on the device for 3rd party developers (battery usage isn't the only, or most pressing issue) and he explains why Android is such a PITA to develop for when he has to consider so many fluctuating variables that can occur if a 3rd-party app is running in the background while trying to open his app with such limited resources. It's quite telling.
Yeah, I think at this point anyone arguing for third party background apps really need to acknowledge the specific experience of an actual developer (and a pretty articulate and detail oriented one, at that) instead of just keeping insisting on what Apple "ought" or "should" be able to do.
And, again, if anyone can't be bothered to read, the reason the iPhone is more constrained in this area is that Apple chose to devote a good bit of it's already limited resources to enhancing the general user experience.
So we can argue that it's "better" for the end user to have a less polished, less fluid and less intuitive UI in favor of background apps, but it actually doesn't make any sense to claim that Apple "could" enable third party background apps "if they wanted to" without understanding that there would be a substantial trade off in general user satisfaction.
Apple isn't marketing the iPhone to the kind of user who wants to manage processes on a handset. Yes, that means you have less "choice" with the iPhone. There are, apparently, a lot of people who would rather forgo that choice if it means they don't have to give the inner workings of their phone a second thought.
When the hardware is sufficiently powerful that background processes can happen invisibly then such functionality will made available to developers. At which point the usual suspects will crow that Apple was "forced" to "give in" to right thinking internet posters, and wonder what happened to all the fan boys who claimed that multitasking "wasn't necessary" or that "nobody wanted it." Because such folks are nothing if not tediously predictable.
And yes, this of course means that iPhone users are stupid and wrong to not be more interested in "managing" their handsets, since everybody on the internet knows that endlessly tweaking your hardware makes you smarter.
Do you guys really think I should have to exit a game I'm playing (~1-2 seconds), open up the SMS app (another 1-2 seconds), reload the game (another few seconds) just to type up a quick reply?
What you describe is a legitimate requirement, but what you are needing here is not background applications. It is faster and better app switching.
If you could enter the messaging app - which suspends your game - answer your text and then instantly return to the same point in the game. You'd be happy right?
I think improving app switching would address most concerns without the problem of allowing an arbitrary (or a fixed number) of applications.
Here's how it could work:
When you press the HOME key on a running application, the application does not quit, instead it is paused and remains sitting in a protected block of memory. With more RAM in the phone this could get a lot easier.
If something comes along and needs that block of memory - the app gets a chance to shut down gracefully.
If you re-select the application while the block is still intact - the app is restored instantly and resumes from where it left off.
When you press the HOME key on a running application, the application does not quit, instead it is paused and remains sitting in a protected block of memory. With more RAM in the phone this could get a lot easier.
Very good point. The lack of storage for contexts is indeed a considerable problem. Nice proposal of "super-preemptive" multitasking.
Comments
The way I see it, why don't they allow ONE. That way it solves most of the problems people have:
-streaming music
-navigation
Doing this does allow these two important things to happen, and let's be realistic, it doesn't drop the battery life to 1 hour or something ridiculous. Also, navigation is most often used on a constant basis in a car, and I think it's safe to say that most people have a car charger for their phone.
Do you guys really think I should have to exit a game I'm playing (~1-2 seconds), open up the SMS app (another 1-2 seconds), reload the game (another few seconds) just to type up a quick reply?
I propose a solution that would be much better. Why don't we make these notification popups more interactive? Instead of "Open" and "Ignore" or whatever the two options are when you get a text, why can't "Reply" be added to this? A click of the "Reply" button brings up a text entry box WITHIN the popup with a keyboard in it's usual position. This would allow someone to reply to a text message while ingame, without having to wait for the game to quit, SMS app to open, close, and load game again.
Unrelated, but I always believed the comment regarding the video recorders terrible quality because I had only read it in blogs, but a coworker showed me it the other day and it was by no means any worse than many other cell phone videos I've seen, and that's all most people want anyways.
For either of these subjects, obviously battery life is an issue, but a quick 30 second video or something (in my experience, thats all most of these "youtube" videos are these days) doesnt bring down battery life dramatically if you're not doing it constantly. If you're going to be away from a charging source for a long period of time, dont' use these features. That's not just how we gadget-blog-readers act. I've heard plenty of my technologically-impaired friends say "Can I use your phone, I don't want to waste my battery" or will not reply to a text or be on the phone for awhile because they have a low battery.
Alright let's be realistic, many are arguing just for the sake of arguing. One person says "Background apps should be there", while another one says "it kills battery life, and how many should be allowed at once".
The way I see it, why don't they allow ONE. That way it solves most of the problems people have:
-streaming music
-navigation
Doing this does allow these two important things to happen, and let's be realistic, it doesn't drop the battery life to 1 hour or something ridiculous. Also, navigation is most often used on a constant basis in a car, and I think it's safe to say that most people have a car charger for their phone.
Do you guys really think I should have to exit a game I'm playing (~1-2 seconds), open up the SMS app (another 1-2 seconds), reload the game (another few seconds) just to type up a quick reply?
I propose a solution that would be much better. Why don't we make these notification popups more interactive? Instead of "Open" and "Ignore" or whatever the two options are when you get a text, why can't "Reply" be added to this? A click of the "Reply" button brings up a text entry box WITHIN the popup with a keyboard in it's usual position. This would allow someone to reply to a text message while ingame, without having to wait for the game to quit, SMS app to open, close, and load game again.
Unrelated, but I always believed the comment regarding the video recorders terrible quality because I had only read it in blogs, but a coworker showed me it the other day and it was by no means any worse than many other cell phone videos I've seen, and that's all most people want anyways.
For either of these subjects, obviously battery life is an issue, but a quick 30 second video or something (in my experience, thats all most of these "youtube" videos are these days) doesnt bring down battery life dramatically if you're not doing it constantly. If you're going to be away from a charging source for a long period of time, dont' use these features. That's not just how we gadget-blog-readers act. I've heard plenty of my technologically-impaired friends say "Can I use your phone, I don't want to waste my battery" or will not reply to a text or be on the phone for awhile because they have a low battery.
I agree that the notifications are limiting, but the notification server hasn't even been released yet. If we don't see an improvement in this area when v3.0 is released with full notification server support come this summer I don't think it will be too long before we get it in an update.
That said, Apple already has many processes/apps running in the background or that could run in the background, just not 3rd-party apps. If you read Addobox's post above (linked here) there is a remark by an iPhone developer who already has issues with the amount of resources available on the device for 3rd party developers (battery usage isn't the only, or most pressing issue) and he explains why Android is such a PITA to develop for when he has to consider so many fluctuating variables that can occur if a 3rd-party app is running in the background while trying to open his app with such limited resources. It's quite telling.
I agree that the notifications are limiting, but the notification server hasn't even been released yet. If we don't see an improvement in this area when v3.0 is released with full notification server support come this summer I don't think it will be too long before we get it in an update.
That said, Apple already has many processes/apps running in the background or that could run in the background, just not 3rd-party apps. If you read Addobox's post above (linked here) there is a remark by an iPhone developer who already has issues with the amount of resources available on the device for 3rd party developers (battery usage isn't the only, or most pressing issue) and he explains why Android is such a PITA to develop for when he has to consider so many fluctuating variables that can occur if a 3rd-party app is running in the background while trying to open his app with such limited resources. It's quite telling.
Yeah, I think at this point anyone arguing for third party background apps really need to acknowledge the specific experience of an actual developer (and a pretty articulate and detail oriented one, at that) instead of just keeping insisting on what Apple "ought" or "should" be able to do.
And, again, if anyone can't be bothered to read, the reason the iPhone is more constrained in this area is that Apple chose to devote a good bit of it's already limited resources to enhancing the general user experience.
So we can argue that it's "better" for the end user to have a less polished, less fluid and less intuitive UI in favor of background apps, but it actually doesn't make any sense to claim that Apple "could" enable third party background apps "if they wanted to" without understanding that there would be a substantial trade off in general user satisfaction.
Apple isn't marketing the iPhone to the kind of user who wants to manage processes on a handset. Yes, that means you have less "choice" with the iPhone. There are, apparently, a lot of people who would rather forgo that choice if it means they don't have to give the inner workings of their phone a second thought.
When the hardware is sufficiently powerful that background processes can happen invisibly then such functionality will made available to developers. At which point the usual suspects will crow that Apple was "forced" to "give in" to right thinking internet posters, and wonder what happened to all the fan boys who claimed that multitasking "wasn't necessary" or that "nobody wanted it." Because such folks are nothing if not tediously predictable.
And yes, this of course means that iPhone users are stupid and wrong to not be more interested in "managing" their handsets, since everybody on the internet knows that endlessly tweaking your hardware makes you smarter.
Do you guys really think I should have to exit a game I'm playing (~1-2 seconds), open up the SMS app (another 1-2 seconds), reload the game (another few seconds) just to type up a quick reply?
What you describe is a legitimate requirement, but what you are needing here is not background applications. It is faster and better app switching.
If you could enter the messaging app - which suspends your game - answer your text and then instantly return to the same point in the game. You'd be happy right?
I think improving app switching would address most concerns without the problem of allowing an arbitrary (or a fixed number) of applications.
Here's how it could work:
When you press the HOME key on a running application, the application does not quit, instead it is paused and remains sitting in a protected block of memory. With more RAM in the phone this could get a lot easier.
If something comes along and needs that block of memory - the app gets a chance to shut down gracefully.
If you re-select the application while the block is still intact - the app is restored instantly and resumes from where it left off.
C.
When you press the HOME key on a running application, the application does not quit, instead it is paused and remains sitting in a protected block of memory. With more RAM in the phone this could get a lot easier.
Very good point. The lack of storage for contexts is indeed a considerable problem. Nice proposal of "super-preemptive" multitasking.
Very good point. The lack of storage for contexts is indeed a considerable problem. Nice proposal of "super-preemptive" multitasking.
I am not sure what you are trying to say ivan.
The iPhone already *has* preemptive multitasking.
C.
I am not sure what you are trying to say ivan.
The iPhone already *has* preemptive multitasking.
C.
Everyone knows iPhone does preemptive multitasking. I appreciated your proposal not to unload some applications upon Home button click.