.. I'm sorry, but this thing just baffles me. I felt seriously sorry for Jobs, watching the keynote and seeing all those webpages load with the missing Flashplayer icon. I see he's totally into it, and honestly seems to believe in it, but no camera? iPhone OS? It sucks on the iPhone, why wouldn't it suck more on a 9" screen? I guess i could see this thing being kinda cool in a classroom, for rented textbooks, etc.. but, how about a little OLED clamshell, real keyboard, 16:9 screen, blu-ray support or even an internal blu-ray drive (Shoot, while their at it, how about an HD-DVD/Blu-Ray drive for all us suckers who adopted HD-DVD) Did Apple actually do any customer market research on this thing? Because i know if apple asked ANY of us about it, they'd have made something very different (or at least incorporated desired/functional features). I'd pay $900 for something like that. They've mastered overseas manufacturing for pennies on the dollar, made billions in the last few years. How about giving people a price break and offering something seriously killer??? I'm optimistic they could make up the profit loss in volume??? I love Apple, don't get me wrong, i've been fully Apple from the get-go, but this thing just seems like a rich guy's toy, about 3 years behind the times.
Ugh.. my rant is over.
I find it really interesting that you and I are looking at the same thing and seeing two completely different products. This is just what I was hoping for while it appears to not be anything like what you wanted. And I'm not rich.
What comes out in June? New iPhones. What does that mean? iPhone OS 4.0. What do we know about iPhone OS 4.0. Nothing. Could it include multitasking? Most definitely. Will Apple still be selling this tablet when iPhone OS 4.0 comes out? Yes would be a good guess.
iPhone OS 3.2 is the launch OS, but I suspect we might get a preview of iPhone OS 4.0 before this tablet actually starts selling (history indicates they will have a preview in March). I'm hoping for lots of goodies in 4.0 for both my iPhone and the iPad that I will almost inevitably buy.
PS: Individual programs can be and are multi-threaded, so you don't even need to multi-task to make use of multiple cores.
I guess the only real question is why I replied to a first poster who is most likely trolling.
Not trolling.
My observations:
- I work with multi-threaded software and multi-core chips every day (Cell and GPUs). Designing multi-threaded software is not always as easy as it sounds. Unless you're working on compute-intensive applications, multi-threading is often not worth the trouble. And if the iPhone 3 SDK supports multi-threading, please show me where.
- You can do a lot of multi-tasking with a single 1GHz core. You don't need two cores to browse the web and listen to music.
The only compelling argument for dual cores that I've seen in this thread is power saving by shutting down a core when it's not needed. But then again, it's not the only solution. Throttling a single core would also work.
And, again, silicon is not free. And there's no multi-tasking that you can do on an iPhone that really requires two cores.
Somebody who claimed to be in the know clearly said before the iPad release that the CPU was not a dual-core design. But after ARM announced Cortex A9 and NVIDIA showed Tegra 2, then the iPad CPU had to be based on a dual-core Cortex A9 design. This has not been confirmed by anybody in the know. So far it's just pure speculation from one website, and wishful thinking from people who want an iPad but don't like the idea of Tegra 2-based devices having more sophisticated hardware.
Apophenia, much? While your assumptions may be true, even if technical details are true that is still not evidence for the name given to the chip. The name is simply too vague to draw any absolute conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freakboy
What? A multicore chip being used in a non multitasking environment. Talk about overkill. I suppose it helps the OS spread out its work, but still.
Did we not see the same presentation. I saw plenty of muli-tasking gong on. What we did not see are multiple user-level apps running at the same time. This is widely expected to change with v4.0 which may be a reason why they issued this as v3.2 despite it not being the successor to the iPhone and Touch OSes.
We're likely going to see a major reveal of the iPhone OS v4.0 in March (as usual) that hopefully allows for smart method for running multiple App Store apps, not the foolish method employed by WebOS, Android, WinMo, etc.
I agree, this is one thing you can't do. But you don't need full-general purpose multi-tasking to achieve this function. I would like to see the micro-app model introduced
(See Feature B in my post)
The radio App would launch and you'd select your audio stream and listen.
When you leave the app - the audio playing task is handed over to a helper micro-app which remains running in background.
Such micro apps could be forced to run in a small memory footprint, and consume a tiny amount of CPU resources.
C.
Why? if you listen to music using iPod app it consumes resources, right? The thing is if you close that UI and leave it in the background ir will use very little of available resources. The same goes for radio apps. Push notifications is a big fail in my opinion, because instead of allowing IM apps to run in the background Apple wasted a lot of resources and time for such inferior way to solve a very simple problem. If your iPhone can handle Alarm, Safari, Mail and iPod apps in the background why can't it handle other apps (not all, but as I sad for some apps.)
As I said before it's a matter of implementation. Apple could allow you to choose 3, 5 or X of apps you would like to use in the backgroud. Such feature could be inactive by default and people would activate it if needed.
You will see. iPhone OS 4 will give you multitasking and Apple will push it as a major feature the same thing happened with Copy/Paste. Instead of saying that they have to implement it the right way they said it's not needed.
Why? if you listen to music using iPod app it consumes resources, right? The thing is if you close that UI and leave it in the background ir will use very little of available resources.
But uses little resources according to who?
Perhaps the app we are talking about, is not a music player, but a videogame. It uses all the resources available and then some. It wants to continue to play music and render graphics in background. Should it be allowed to do so? Who decides?
The consequence of a resource hog in background will always be a poor performance in foreground.
Apple written apps can be validated to ensure they don't hog resources. 3rd party applications can not.
<quote>
If your iPhone can handle Alarm, Safari, Mail and iPod apps in the background why can't it handle other apps (not all, but as I sad for some apps.)
</quote>
For the reason given above. Apple apps are guaranteed to play nice within the multi-tasking environment of the iPhone. But 3rd party apps are not trusted to play nicely. They are kept in a sandbox and are unable to interfere with other applications.
There is some pretty terrible software out there. All it would take is one bad app, running in background to ruin the iPhone. And if an app cripples the phone, it will be Apple that is held accountable for the loss in performance, not the developer.
Apple could push the onus onto the USER for policing the phone. But Apple will never go down this Microsoft-like path. Instead Apple guarantees every app gets 99% of the resources which means the user is guaranteed of an optimal performance all the time.
Given the iPhone GS hardware, and a revision to the OS, I think Apple can provide all the benefits demanded for multi-tasking without handing developers the means to ruin the experience.
Why? if you listen to music using iPod app it consumes resources, right? The thing is if you close that UI and leave it in the background ir will use very little of available resources. The same goes for radio apps. Push notifications is a big fail in my opinion, because instead of allowing IM apps to run in the background Apple wasted a lot of resources and time for such inferior way to solve a very simple problem. If your iPhone can handle Alarm, Safari, Mail and iPod apps in the background why can't it handle other apps (not all, but as I sad for some apps.)
As I said before it's a matter of implementation. Apple could allow you to choose 3, 5 or X of apps you would like to use in the backgroud. Such feature could be inactive by default and people would activate it if needed.
You will see. iPhone OS 4 will give you multitasking and Apple will push it as a major feature the same thing happened with Copy/Paste. Instead of saying that they have to implement it the right way they said it's not needed.
1) They never once it's not needed.
2) I agree they will implement it "the right way".
3) Making any and all apps run in the background and require a Task Manager to shut off is not "the right way". This is fine for jailbreakers, such as myself, but this is not fine for the people that the iPhone is geared toward. There is a reason the iPhone has made the smartphone market desirable to the average person.
4) Push Notifications are brilliant. I don't need 6 apps running in the background sucking my battery down to 4 hours while in my pocket (I've tested this Backgrounder). The PNS gives us a single process that not only saves our battery, which just an effect of all those resources being spent, which will slow down your OS, UI and make the UX that much poorer.
5) If I have those 6 background apps running it takes more time to switch apps than it does to restart it from the Home Screen. Irony! How 'bout them Apple?
6) The average user really doesn't care about background apps all that much but it will nice to have once it's done intelligently. Pretty much the only argument you see for it is streaming music.
7) Android and WebOS background app capabilities are marketed as the thing the iPhone doesn't have, just like all those PMPs(Mp3 players) that had an FM tuner and other things that only a few geeks thought were important for the success of the device. My thoughts on App Store backgrounds apps will be similar to the way Push Notifications work. Apple creates an API, developers chose to add API thus putting the control into their hands, users use Settings, like PNs, to consciously enable background app(s). You get a badge on the app that it's running, hopefully something in the Menu Bar and a method for quickly jumping to all your running apps.
It does do multi-tasking. It always has and always will. There's stuff going on in the OS all the time. Checking for stuff while you are running another program.
The phone keeps running, the mail keeps running.
But Apple has prevented 3rd party applications from running in the background.
Why no background apps?
Apple do not know how much memory and CPU resources will be consumed by 3rd party application when it is in background. Not to mention 4,5 or 50 apps all running at the same time.
It could be that the application in question is a good citizen - or it could be a resource hog.
When you come to use Safari, and that hog is sitting in the background, Safari sucks.
Whose fault is the suckage? Who gets the blame?
Without performing extensive metrics on every application, Apple can not guarantee that background apps would not impact on the foreground task.
This is why Apple apps are allowed to run in the background. 3rd party apps are not.
We can't trust developers to create apps which will be good citizens. We need the system or Apple or something to prevent background apps from destroying the foreground experience.
We could shut down the hogs!
This is the solution offered by Microsoft. Launch task manager. And let the user kill-off the hogs.
Apple does not work like this. In a consumer device it's better to limit the device than have something that behaves unpredictably and requires the user to solve a performance issue.
Every app should be able to launch, and work flawlessly because its developer can assume getting 100% of the device - not a meagre 10% share of the device.
But multitasking is useful!
What do you mean by useful?
A) In a multi-tasking system, if you return to an app - it carries on immediately from where it left off.
And it's cool to have something running in background - like a music player.
But both A and B can be achieved without multitasking. Apple can introduce OS mechanisms to permit both behaviors, without ever letting 3rd party apps run in the background.
In the case of A) it can leave suspended applications in memory. Ready for instant resume.
And in the case of Apps can hand over control to tiny resource limited micro-apps which are called by the OS.
Apple's goal is to offer a flawless experience, which is not compromised by background apps consuming an unpredictable share of the resources. I am pretty confident we will see these changes in OS4 - which will offer all the benefits of multi-tasking without the ugly downside.
C.
Very good analysis and well presented! More posts should be like this one.
I like the idea of the micro apps and could really see apple do this.
- Designing multi-threaded software is not always as easy as it sounds. Unless you're working on compute-intensive applications, multi-threading is often not worth the trouble.
GCD and OpenCL should really help here. From what I have read it is amazing for the creation of concurrency without much effort, as they have managed to put in abstraction layer and you don't to worry about threads anymore, but only tasks, which is much easier.
Of course this thing multi tasks - the iPhone does, the iPod touch does - you can play music and be notified that another app needs your attention, all while running the OS - so that other application is of course running at the same time - that is the definition of multitasking. Apple restricts how apps can run in the background, this makes perfect sense. This is a 9.7" work space - you won't want two windows from different apps visible at the same time - how could that possibly work and be practical? Think it through.
If adobe want the plug in to run on this device, they have to improve the awful flash plug in. What flash can do is great - how it performs is atrocious and unacceptable. This is Adobe's fault, not Apples, Apple do not make this software, it is not their responsibility to correct a closed, proprietary technology that they did not develop. If flash were made open source, I'm sure apple would create a their own plug-in, one for which they were responsible in a heartbeat, as would many others.
So, let's stop criticising in the absence of all the facts.
This thing is $10 less than a kindle DX, which has a black and white screen, no video, no music, no web browsing, no content creation. Get it in perspective people.
2) I agree they will implement it "the right way".
3) Making any and all apps run in the background and require a Task Manager to shut off is not "the right way". This is fine for jailbreakers, such as myself, but this is not fine for the people that the iPhone is geared toward. There is a reason the iPhone has made the smartphone market desirable to the average person.
4) Push Notifications are brilliant. I don't need 6 apps running in the background sucking my battery down to 4 hours while in my pocket (I've tested this Backgrounder). The PNS gives us a single process that not only saves our battery, which just an effect of all those resources being spent, which will slow down your OS, UI and make the UX that much poorer.
5) If I have those 6 background apps running it takes more time to switch apps than it does to restart it from the Home Screen. Irony! How 'bout them Apple?
6) The average user really doesn't care about background apps all that much but it will nice to have once it's done intelligently. Pretty much the only argument you see for it is streaming music.
7) Android and WebOS background app capabilities are marketed as the thing the iPhone doesn't have, just like all those PMPs(Mp3 players) that had an FM tuner and other things that only a few geeks thought were important for the success of the device. My thoughts on App Store backgrounds apps will be similar to the way Push Notifications work. Apple creates an API, developers chose to add API thus putting the control into their hands, users use Settings, like PNs, to consciously enable background app(s). You get a badge on the app that it's running, hopefully something in the Menu Bar and a method for quickly jumping to all your running apps.
The fact is global multitasking is needed. The problem is how to implement it. That's it.
There is one fact: multitasking is not needed for most of the apps.
There is one more fact: there are apps that need it. Radio apps for one. Now you can't listen to radio and do something else. People usually do something while listening to music don't you agree? As it stands now I won't be able to work with Keynote and listen to radio. Does it make sense to you?
So this one app type should require that every 3rd-party app be backgrounded? I think there is a major flaw with that logic.
While I think we'll get background apps because a "radio app" isn't the only think that would benefit from backgrouning (though you wouldn't know it by reading arguments for it) the recent purchase of Lala could easily allow iPhone OS v4.0 to streaming music while the iPod isn't the foremost app running on your device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shubidua
Very good analysis and well presented! More posts should be like this one.
I like the idea of the micro apps and could really see apple do this.
Me too. I rally hope for micro apps to run on the lock screen. Loving LockInfo 2.0. I have a week left on my 14 days demo then I'll have to shell out $5.
Very good analysis and well presented! More posts should be like this one.
I like the idea of the micro apps and could really see apple do this.
I think the best way is the natural way. Just remember notification service. It works the same way. The app is closed and notification service steps in. The problem is it blow.
This is a first generation device. It does a lot. Given time it will do more.
Be patient.
Buy one, or don't buy one. When the camera makes it's appearance, people will be complaining about the lack of being able to run Photoshop CS4 on this thing while playing 1080 HD video and web conferencing with their friends.
It's not a laptop replacement. It does not need to be, nor will it ever be a powerful work tool, or a tool designed to replace a laptop or desktop. That would be the next evolution of those platforms, this is the first iteration of a new device. A 'dumbed down' device if you prefer to see it that way.
The platform for this device - its audience - are not a 'niche' market. Plenty of people have no interest in computers, or are too old, too busy or simply can't be bothered to learn how to use a full computer (I know plenty, including my parents). These people still recognise that email and the internet are now an integral part of life and will be able to pick one of these things up and just use it.
Even better, it can live in a drawer/bag/cupboard when not in use, as many people don't want a desktop computer in the corner of their living space, or a laptop to lug around. It could sit on the side as a digital photo frame if people so desired.
It's not there for you to play xbox quality games on, to edit photo's in 16bit CMYK @300dpi, or to create serious business output. That isn't the purpose of this device. It's a toy - not a tool.
Try and grasp that concept.
The only omission for the everyday user is a front facing camera (this thing is the wrong form factor to ever be used as a digital camera, so only a front facing camera is a sensible addition). I can see that video conferencing would be an ergonomic nightmare when this device is hand held, unless you want people to look up your nose. It will come though, probably at the same time as the front camera on the iPhone/iPod Touch, perhaps even sooner.
Be patient. There are no omissions or errors here, only potential additional features which will no doubt be added as the product continues to develop.
2) I agree they will implement it "the right way".
The interesting part is to figure what the right way is. I hope they will find something really nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
3) Making any and all apps run in the background and require a Task Manager to shut off is not "the right way". This is fine for jailbreakers, such as myself, but this is not fine for the people that the iPhone is geared toward. There is a reason the iPhone has made the smartphone market desirable to the average person.
I agree on this part, but many people seem to forget that the iPhone is not for the tech savvy geek, but the average user whose knowledge about the phone is as much as those from the people in this joke: "Q: What kind of car do you have ? A: a yellow one.".
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
6) The average user really doesn't care about background apps all that much but it will nice to have once it's done intelligently. Pretty much the only argument you see for it is streaming music.
I think there are some issues with navigation as well, as the app quits or stops when receiving a call (I can't confirm this, so please correct me if I'm wrong), which isn't very good when trying not to miss an exit on the motorway.
So this one app type should require that every 3rd-party app be backgrounded? I think there is a major flaw with that logic.
While I think we'll get background apps because a "radio app" isn't the only think that would benefit from backgrouning (though you wouldn't know it by reading arguments for it) the recent purchase of Lala could easily allow iPhone OS v4.0 to streaming music while the iPod isn't the foremost app running on your device.
Me too. I rally hope for micro apps to run on the lock screen. Loving LockInfo 2.0. I have a week left on my 14 days demo then I'll have to shell out $5.
The major flaw with you logic is that you think you know what everage user want instead of asking you make assumptions. Apple is in denial mode and that means multitasking is coming. iPad is perfect for my father and his is not tech guy, but even he said that this is BS.
I think the best way is the natural way. Just remember notification service. It works the same way. The app is closed and notification service steps in. The problem is it blow.
I don't get your point, could you please put some more information in your statement ?
What is the natural way ? Ugly task manager ?
And what is your point about PNS ? I think it is brilliant, although the notifications system might not be the best.
This thing is $10 less than a kindle DX, which has a black and white screen, no video, no music, no web browsing, no content creation. Get it in perspective people.
I agree, but I have a feeling that the KIndle prices are going to drop within the next 2 months. That's not to say the Kindle was overpriced for the market or still without merit. There wasn't much viable competition when introduced and eInk still has its benefits for a certain type of customer.
I think the iPad's biggest customer may be those forgoing a netbook of bargain basement notebook for a $500 Apple tablet with option for physical keyboard, if needed, for their basic email and Interneting needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas
The fact is global multitasking is needed. The problem is how to implement it. That's it.
How can you state that as a fact and have nothing to back it up? If it's "needed" then how has the iPhone and Touch been able to sell so well? While desirable for several reasons it's obviously not needed.
Comments
.. I'm sorry, but this thing just baffles me. I felt seriously sorry for Jobs, watching the keynote and seeing all those webpages load with the missing Flashplayer icon. I see he's totally into it, and honestly seems to believe in it, but no camera? iPhone OS? It sucks on the iPhone, why wouldn't it suck more on a 9" screen? I guess i could see this thing being kinda cool in a classroom, for rented textbooks, etc.. but, how about a little OLED clamshell, real keyboard, 16:9 screen, blu-ray support or even an internal blu-ray drive (Shoot, while their at it, how about an HD-DVD/Blu-Ray drive for all us suckers who adopted HD-DVD) Did Apple actually do any customer market research on this thing? Because i know if apple asked ANY of us about it, they'd have made something very different (or at least incorporated desired/functional features). I'd pay $900 for something like that. They've mastered overseas manufacturing for pennies on the dollar, made billions in the last few years. How about giving people a price break and offering something seriously killer??? I'm optimistic they could make up the profit loss in volume??? I love Apple, don't get me wrong, i've been fully Apple from the get-go, but this thing just seems like a rich guy's toy, about 3 years behind the times.
Ugh.. my rant is over.
I find it really interesting that you and I are looking at the same thing and seeing two completely different products. This is just what I was hoping for while it appears to not be anything like what you wanted. And I'm not rich.
Bon Scott's rolling in his grave at your pathetic use of a legendary name.
Blah, blah, blah
What comes out in June? New iPhones. What does that mean? iPhone OS 4.0. What do we know about iPhone OS 4.0. Nothing. Could it include multitasking? Most definitely. Will Apple still be selling this tablet when iPhone OS 4.0 comes out? Yes would be a good guess.
iPhone OS 3.2 is the launch OS, but I suspect we might get a preview of iPhone OS 4.0 before this tablet actually starts selling (history indicates they will have a preview in March). I'm hoping for lots of goodies in 4.0 for both my iPhone and the iPad that I will almost inevitably buy.
PS: Individual programs can be and are multi-threaded, so you don't even need to multi-task to make use of multiple cores.
I guess the only real question is why I replied to a first poster who is most likely trolling.
Not trolling.
My observations:
- I work with multi-threaded software and multi-core chips every day (Cell and GPUs). Designing multi-threaded software is not always as easy as it sounds. Unless you're working on compute-intensive applications, multi-threading is often not worth the trouble. And if the iPhone 3 SDK supports multi-threading, please show me where.
- You can do a lot of multi-tasking with a single 1GHz core. You don't need two cores to browse the web and listen to music.
The only compelling argument for dual cores that I've seen in this thread is power saving by shutting down a core when it's not needed. But then again, it's not the only solution. Throttling a single core would also work.
And, again, silicon is not free. And there's no multi-tasking that you can do on an iPhone that really requires two cores.
Somebody who claimed to be in the know clearly said before the iPad release that the CPU was not a dual-core design. But after ARM announced Cortex A9 and NVIDIA showed Tegra 2, then the iPad CPU had to be based on a dual-core Cortex A9 design. This has not been confirmed by anybody in the know. So far it's just pure speculation from one website, and wishful thinking from people who want an iPad but don't like the idea of Tegra 2-based devices having more sophisticated hardware.
And if the iPhone 3 SDK supports multi-threading, please show me where.
I won't post the text. But if you look at the iPad Programming Guide
In the section, Development Fundamentals.
Read the last bullet point in "Core Architecture"
( I am not, otherwise, disagreeing with anything you say)
C.
The A4 has 4 core, could it be more obvious ?
Apophenia, much? While your assumptions may be true, even if technical details are true that is still not evidence for the name given to the chip. The name is simply too vague to draw any absolute conclusion.
What? A multicore chip being used in a non multitasking environment. Talk about overkill. I suppose it helps the OS spread out its work, but still.
Did we not see the same presentation. I saw plenty of muli-tasking gong on. What we did not see are multiple user-level apps running at the same time. This is widely expected to change with v4.0 which may be a reason why they issued this as v3.2 despite it not being the successor to the iPhone and Touch OSes.
We're likely going to see a major reveal of the iPhone OS v4.0 in March (as usual) that hopefully allows for smart method for running multiple App Store apps, not the foolish method employed by WebOS, Android, WinMo, etc.
I agree, this is one thing you can't do. But you don't need full-general purpose multi-tasking to achieve this function. I would like to see the micro-app model introduced
(See Feature B in my post)
The radio App would launch and you'd select your audio stream and listen.
When you leave the app - the audio playing task is handed over to a helper micro-app which remains running in background.
Such micro apps could be forced to run in a small memory footprint, and consume a tiny amount of CPU resources.
C.
Why? if you listen to music using iPod app it consumes resources, right? The thing is if you close that UI and leave it in the background ir will use very little of available resources. The same goes for radio apps. Push notifications is a big fail in my opinion, because instead of allowing IM apps to run in the background Apple wasted a lot of resources and time for such inferior way to solve a very simple problem. If your iPhone can handle Alarm, Safari, Mail and iPod apps in the background why can't it handle other apps (not all, but as I sad for some apps.)
As I said before it's a matter of implementation. Apple could allow you to choose 3, 5 or X of apps you would like to use in the backgroud. Such feature could be inactive by default and people would activate it if needed.
You will see. iPhone OS 4 will give you multitasking and Apple will push it as a major feature the same thing happened with Copy/Paste. Instead of saying that they have to implement it the right way they said it's not needed.
Why? if you listen to music using iPod app it consumes resources, right? The thing is if you close that UI and leave it in the background ir will use very little of available resources.
But uses little resources according to who?
Perhaps the app we are talking about, is not a music player, but a videogame. It uses all the resources available and then some. It wants to continue to play music and render graphics in background. Should it be allowed to do so? Who decides?
The consequence of a resource hog in background will always be a poor performance in foreground.
Apple written apps can be validated to ensure they don't hog resources. 3rd party applications can not.
<quote>
If your iPhone can handle Alarm, Safari, Mail and iPod apps in the background why can't it handle other apps (not all, but as I sad for some apps.)
</quote>
For the reason given above. Apple apps are guaranteed to play nice within the multi-tasking environment of the iPhone. But 3rd party apps are not trusted to play nicely. They are kept in a sandbox and are unable to interfere with other applications.
There is some pretty terrible software out there. All it would take is one bad app, running in background to ruin the iPhone. And if an app cripples the phone, it will be Apple that is held accountable for the loss in performance, not the developer.
Apple could push the onus onto the USER for policing the phone. But Apple will never go down this Microsoft-like path. Instead Apple guarantees every app gets 99% of the resources which means the user is guaranteed of an optimal performance all the time.
Given the iPhone GS hardware, and a revision to the OS, I think Apple can provide all the benefits demanded for multi-tasking without handing developers the means to ruin the experience.
C.
Why? if you listen to music using iPod app it consumes resources, right? The thing is if you close that UI and leave it in the background ir will use very little of available resources. The same goes for radio apps. Push notifications is a big fail in my opinion, because instead of allowing IM apps to run in the background Apple wasted a lot of resources and time for such inferior way to solve a very simple problem. If your iPhone can handle Alarm, Safari, Mail and iPod apps in the background why can't it handle other apps (not all, but as I sad for some apps.)
As I said before it's a matter of implementation. Apple could allow you to choose 3, 5 or X of apps you would like to use in the backgroud. Such feature could be inactive by default and people would activate it if needed.
You will see. iPhone OS 4 will give you multitasking and Apple will push it as a major feature the same thing happened with Copy/Paste. Instead of saying that they have to implement it the right way they said it's not needed.
1) They never once it's not needed.
2) I agree they will implement it "the right way".
3) Making any and all apps run in the background and require a Task Manager to shut off is not "the right way". This is fine for jailbreakers, such as myself, but this is not fine for the people that the iPhone is geared toward. There is a reason the iPhone has made the smartphone market desirable to the average person.
4) Push Notifications are brilliant. I don't need 6 apps running in the background sucking my battery down to 4 hours while in my pocket (I've tested this Backgrounder). The PNS gives us a single process that not only saves our battery, which just an effect of all those resources being spent, which will slow down your OS, UI and make the UX that much poorer.
5) If I have those 6 background apps running it takes more time to switch apps than it does to restart it from the Home Screen. Irony! How 'bout them Apple?
6) The average user really doesn't care about background apps all that much but it will nice to have once it's done intelligently. Pretty much the only argument you see for it is streaming music.
7) Android and WebOS background app capabilities are marketed as the thing the iPhone doesn't have, just like all those PMPs(Mp3 players) that had an FM tuner and other things that only a few geeks thought were important for the success of the device. My thoughts on App Store backgrounds apps will be similar to the way Push Notifications work. Apple creates an API, developers chose to add API thus putting the control into their hands, users use Settings, like PNs, to consciously enable background app(s). You get a badge on the app that it's running, hopefully something in the Menu Bar and a method for quickly jumping to all your running apps.
The iPhone OS is Unix.
It does do multi-tasking. It always has and always will. There's stuff going on in the OS all the time. Checking for stuff while you are running another program.
The phone keeps running, the mail keeps running.
But Apple has prevented 3rd party applications from running in the background.
Why no background apps?
Apple do not know how much memory and CPU resources will be consumed by 3rd party application when it is in background. Not to mention 4,5 or 50 apps all running at the same time.
It could be that the application in question is a good citizen - or it could be a resource hog.
When you come to use Safari, and that hog is sitting in the background, Safari sucks.
Whose fault is the suckage? Who gets the blame?
Without performing extensive metrics on every application, Apple can not guarantee that background apps would not impact on the foreground task.
This is why Apple apps are allowed to run in the background. 3rd party apps are not.
We can't trust developers to create apps which will be good citizens. We need the system or Apple or something to prevent background apps from destroying the foreground experience.
We could shut down the hogs!
This is the solution offered by Microsoft. Launch task manager. And let the user kill-off the hogs.
Apple does not work like this. In a consumer device it's better to limit the device than have something that behaves unpredictably and requires the user to solve a performance issue.
Every app should be able to launch, and work flawlessly because its developer can assume getting 100% of the device - not a meagre 10% share of the device.
But multitasking is useful!
What do you mean by useful?
A) In a multi-tasking system, if you return to an app - it carries on immediately from where it left off.
But both A and B can be achieved without multitasking. Apple can introduce OS mechanisms to permit both behaviors, without ever letting 3rd party apps run in the background.
In the case of A) it can leave suspended applications in memory. Ready for instant resume.
And in the case of
Apple's goal is to offer a flawless experience, which is not compromised by background apps consuming an unpredictable share of the resources. I am pretty confident we will see these changes in OS4 - which will offer all the benefits of multi-tasking without the ugly downside.
C.
Very good analysis and well presented! More posts should be like this one.
I like the idea of the micro apps and could really see apple do this.
- Designing multi-threaded software is not always as easy as it sounds. Unless you're working on compute-intensive applications, multi-threading is often not worth the trouble.
GCD and OpenCL should really help here. From what I have read it is amazing for the creation of concurrency without much effort, as they have managed to put in abstraction layer and you don't to worry about threads anymore, but only tasks, which is much easier.
Seth Weintraub points out that the iPad displays flash running on the NY Times web site - read the article here: http://www.9to5mac.com/apple-flash-ipad-3954934055.
If adobe want the plug in to run on this device, they have to improve the awful flash plug in. What flash can do is great - how it performs is atrocious and unacceptable. This is Adobe's fault, not Apples, Apple do not make this software, it is not their responsibility to correct a closed, proprietary technology that they did not develop. If flash were made open source, I'm sure apple would create a their own plug-in, one for which they were responsible in a heartbeat, as would many others.
So, let's stop criticising in the absence of all the facts.
This thing is $10 less than a kindle DX, which has a black and white screen, no video, no music, no web browsing, no content creation. Get it in perspective people.
1) They never once it's not needed.
2) I agree they will implement it "the right way".
3) Making any and all apps run in the background and require a Task Manager to shut off is not "the right way". This is fine for jailbreakers, such as myself, but this is not fine for the people that the iPhone is geared toward. There is a reason the iPhone has made the smartphone market desirable to the average person.
4) Push Notifications are brilliant. I don't need 6 apps running in the background sucking my battery down to 4 hours while in my pocket (I've tested this Backgrounder). The PNS gives us a single process that not only saves our battery, which just an effect of all those resources being spent, which will slow down your OS, UI and make the UX that much poorer.
5) If I have those 6 background apps running it takes more time to switch apps than it does to restart it from the Home Screen. Irony! How 'bout them Apple?
6) The average user really doesn't care about background apps all that much but it will nice to have once it's done intelligently. Pretty much the only argument you see for it is streaming music.
7) Android and WebOS background app capabilities are marketed as the thing the iPhone doesn't have, just like all those PMPs(Mp3 players) that had an FM tuner and other things that only a few geeks thought were important for the success of the device. My thoughts on App Store backgrounds apps will be similar to the way Push Notifications work. Apple creates an API, developers chose to add API thus putting the control into their hands, users use Settings, like PNs, to consciously enable background app(s). You get a badge on the app that it's running, hopefully something in the Menu Bar and a method for quickly jumping to all your running apps.
The fact is global multitasking is needed. The problem is how to implement it. That's it.
There is one fact: multitasking is not needed for most of the apps.
There is one more fact: there are apps that need it. Radio apps for one. Now you can't listen to radio and do something else. People usually do something while listening to music don't you agree? As it stands now I won't be able to work with Keynote and listen to radio. Does it make sense to you?
So this one app type should require that every 3rd-party app be backgrounded? I think there is a major flaw with that logic.
While I think we'll get background apps because a "radio app" isn't the only think that would benefit from backgrouning (though you wouldn't know it by reading arguments for it) the recent purchase of Lala could easily allow iPhone OS v4.0 to streaming music while the iPod isn't the foremost app running on your device.
Very good analysis and well presented! More posts should be like this one.
I like the idea of the micro apps and could really see apple do this.
Me too. I rally hope for micro apps to run on the lock screen. Loving LockInfo 2.0. I have a week left on my 14 days demo then I'll have to shell out $5.
Very good analysis and well presented! More posts should be like this one.
I like the idea of the micro apps and could really see apple do this.
I think the best way is the natural way. Just remember notification service. It works the same way. The app is closed and notification service steps in. The problem is it blow.
Be patient.
Buy one, or don't buy one. When the camera makes it's appearance, people will be complaining about the lack of being able to run Photoshop CS4 on this thing while playing 1080 HD video and web conferencing with their friends.
It's not a laptop replacement. It does not need to be, nor will it ever be a powerful work tool, or a tool designed to replace a laptop or desktop. That would be the next evolution of those platforms, this is the first iteration of a new device. A 'dumbed down' device if you prefer to see it that way.
The platform for this device - its audience - are not a 'niche' market. Plenty of people have no interest in computers, or are too old, too busy or simply can't be bothered to learn how to use a full computer (I know plenty, including my parents). These people still recognise that email and the internet are now an integral part of life and will be able to pick one of these things up and just use it.
Even better, it can live in a drawer/bag/cupboard when not in use, as many people don't want a desktop computer in the corner of their living space, or a laptop to lug around. It could sit on the side as a digital photo frame if people so desired.
It's not there for you to play xbox quality games on, to edit photo's in 16bit CMYK @300dpi, or to create serious business output. That isn't the purpose of this device. It's a toy - not a tool.
Try and grasp that concept.
The only omission for the everyday user is a front facing camera (this thing is the wrong form factor to ever be used as a digital camera, so only a front facing camera is a sensible addition). I can see that video conferencing would be an ergonomic nightmare when this device is hand held, unless you want people to look up your nose. It will come though, probably at the same time as the front camera on the iPhone/iPod Touch, perhaps even sooner.
Be patient. There are no omissions or errors here, only potential additional features which will no doubt be added as the product continues to develop.
2) I agree they will implement it "the right way".
The interesting part is to figure what the right way is. I hope they will find something really nice.
3) Making any and all apps run in the background and require a Task Manager to shut off is not "the right way". This is fine for jailbreakers, such as myself, but this is not fine for the people that the iPhone is geared toward. There is a reason the iPhone has made the smartphone market desirable to the average person.
I agree on this part, but many people seem to forget that the iPhone is not for the tech savvy geek, but the average user whose knowledge about the phone is as much as those from the people in this joke: "Q: What kind of car do you have ? A: a yellow one.".
6) The average user really doesn't care about background apps all that much but it will nice to have once it's done intelligently. Pretty much the only argument you see for it is streaming music.
I think there are some issues with navigation as well, as the app quits or stops when receiving a call (I can't confirm this, so please correct me if I'm wrong), which isn't very good when trying not to miss an exit on the motorway.
So this one app type should require that every 3rd-party app be backgrounded? I think there is a major flaw with that logic.
While I think we'll get background apps because a "radio app" isn't the only think that would benefit from backgrouning (though you wouldn't know it by reading arguments for it) the recent purchase of Lala could easily allow iPhone OS v4.0 to streaming music while the iPod isn't the foremost app running on your device.
Me too. I rally hope for micro apps to run on the lock screen. Loving LockInfo 2.0. I have a week left on my 14 days demo then I'll have to shell out $5.
The major flaw with you logic is that you think you know what everage user want instead of asking you make assumptions. Apple is in denial mode and that means multitasking is coming. iPad is perfect for my father and his is not tech guy, but even he said that this is BS.
I think the best way is the natural way. Just remember notification service. It works the same way. The app is closed and notification service steps in. The problem is it blow.
I don't get your point, could you please put some more information in your statement ?
What is the natural way ? Ugly task manager ?
And what is your point about PNS ? I think it is brilliant, although the notifications system might not be the best.
This thing is $10 less than a kindle DX, which has a black and white screen, no video, no music, no web browsing, no content creation. Get it in perspective people.
I agree, but I have a feeling that the KIndle prices are going to drop within the next 2 months. That's not to say the Kindle was overpriced for the market or still without merit. There wasn't much viable competition when introduced and eInk still has its benefits for a certain type of customer.
I think the iPad's biggest customer may be those forgoing a netbook of bargain basement notebook for a $500 Apple tablet with option for physical keyboard, if needed, for their basic email and Interneting needs
The fact is global multitasking is needed. The problem is how to implement it. That's it.
How can you state that as a fact and have nothing to back it up? If it's "needed" then how has the iPhone and Touch been able to sell so well? While desirable for several reasons it's obviously not needed.