From here on out: Stop making excuses for why Apple has left something out. Start thinking for yourself. Artificial limitations require no excuse other than the fact that development hasn't reached that point yet.
The next time someone bitches about the ipad or iphone missing something, don't try to come up with some bogus excuse for why it's not there. You're not fooling anyone.
For me, it's always been the same three possibilities:
1) the technology (hardware and software) is not yet capable of making it work right, or
2) to Apple, the priority is low relative to implementing other things, i.e., it's just not that important to the user, or
3) the whole concept doesn't fit with Apple's vision of the future.
I guess many might think that any of the three is a bogus excuse.
I fear this could turn out to cause problems for those with lots of apps. If all the current apps that use notifications were converted to needing to run in the background then I wouldn't be able to use all the apps that I currently do now with the current notification scheme. I have over 50 apps that receive notifications. There is zero chance there would be enough memory for all 50 to run in the background so I wouldn't be able to use them all if the converted over.
I can't see Push Notifications going anywhere. I think all the modern mobile OSes have followed Apple's lead with this brilliant solution.
Now this is something that I could get behind. Basically one app calls another app, but instead of the normal transition (fading out the current app, fading in the called app), it would slide in from the right as if you are just going into another page of the current app. There would be a button with the original app's name on it, similar to a "Back" button. So when you are finished with the called app, you just hit the back button (which has the application's name on it) to go back to the original app. Or hitting the Home button would kill both apps.
It doesn't address all instances of multi-tasking, but works well for this particular instance.
Oh! I like that as a variation on the theme of the daisy-chaining of apps!
The infrastructure already exists without multitasking-- apps just need to issue a special format of a URL (naming another app on the device) and pass it a token containing info on what to do and what data is needed.
The format of the Token would need to be standardized, but Apple could do that.
Then, when multitasking is implemented, you could dance down the daisy-chain (or is that the May Pole) in real-time!
Apple's mutlitasking must now get patented. Apple's version will be far superior to anyone else's. Just look how Apple redefined cut & paste and MMS. No one does it better than Apple.
At the same time though, you don't want to break a well established convention. Every iPhone user knows that hitting Home quits. You don't want people single clicking the Home button thinking they are quitting their apps when they are just putting them in the background, right?
IMO, if there is going to be any kind of user interaction with multi-tasking, it should be a new gesture or new kind of button click. That way folks not caring about multi-tasking can go on there merry way, not knowing anything changed.
I disagree. I think if the user had to turn on backgrounding from Settings and then decide which apps would work in the background based on the allowable apps in their list, and an icon in the Menu Bar to see backgrounding is on they would be well aware of them running.
Once they are running double-tapping the Home button to bring up Exposé sounds reasonable. To then kill a backgrounding app just hold the icon for a moment ike you would on the Homescreen to get the squiggly icons with the black 'x' in a circle to kill it.
Go to Safari → Edit → Special Characters → Punctuation → Line 6 → Item 4, and tell me what you think!
Well, I guess, Apple and Wikipedia do differ on this point. Or Apple is just simplifying things by being imprecise and not writing 'Punctuation and Diacritics'.
In fact, the term 'Punctuation and diacritics' shows up quite a bit in web searches, indicating that these two are indeed separate categories.
But I am open, if you find a somewhat authorative text which explicitly includes diacritics as part of punctuation, I'd be happy to admit that there is at least some variation in the definition.
I disagree. I think if the user had to turn on backgrounding from Settings and then decide which apps would work in the background based on the allowable apps in their list, and an icon in the Menu Bar to see backgrounding is on they would be well aware of them running.
Once they are running double-tapping the Home button to bring up Exposé sounds reasonable. To then kill a backgrounding app just hold the icon for a moment ike you would on the Homescreen to get the squiggly icons with the black 'x' in a circle to kill it.
Yes I see what you mean by first having the user consciously decide to turn on some global multi-tasking setting. But then by doing this, you would still be changing the established convention of single press quitting.
We already have a setting that allows us to assign different actions to double pressing the Home button (Search, Phone Favorites, Camera, iPod). They could add another that says Quit App or something like that (if the multi-tasking setting is turned on).
Again I ask: if it will be included at the iPad's launch, then why hasn't it been detailed like the rest of the functionality?
I haven't watched all the tutorial videos, including the ones for Pages, Numbers, and Keynote. Maybe there is something in one of these videos that shows what a user is going to do with a document created there? Seems kind of silly to just create a document and say "oh well, that was fun", close the app and be able to do nothing else with it other than possibly e-mail it to someone else...
This is just terrible journalism. Mac OS X allows users to install apps from any source. Are you saying Apple should control what I can install on my MBP? If no, then how is my phone different? Anyone who advocates for a closed-ecosystem app store is either an Apple shareholder/sheep or an idiot.
I find it truly reprehensible how people will defend such gatekeeping and obstruction (the very thing Apple was against with the whole "Think Different" campaign) using company-line justifications. Apple isn't looking out for you by not letting you install/run 3rd party apps; they're looking out for their bottom line.
I hope that Apple starts an App Store for the Mac. And that they only allow me to get my software from the MaCAppStore. That way, I would know that the software is good.
Comments
From here on out: Stop making excuses for why Apple has left something out. Start thinking for yourself. Artificial limitations require no excuse other than the fact that development hasn't reached that point yet.
The next time someone bitches about the ipad or iphone missing something, don't try to come up with some bogus excuse for why it's not there. You're not fooling anyone.
For me, it's always been the same three possibilities:
1) the technology (hardware and software) is not yet capable of making it work right, or
2) to Apple, the priority is low relative to implementing other things, i.e., it's just not that important to the user, or
3) the whole concept doesn't fit with Apple's vision of the future.
I guess many might think that any of the three is a bogus excuse.
But...... will it be snappier?
I fear this could turn out to cause problems for those with lots of apps. If all the current apps that use notifications were converted to needing to run in the background then I wouldn't be able to use all the apps that I currently do now with the current notification scheme. I have over 50 apps that receive notifications. There is zero chance there would be enough memory for all 50 to run in the background so I wouldn't be able to use them all if the converted over.
I can't see Push Notifications going anywhere. I think all the modern mobile OSes have followed Apple's lead with this brilliant solution.
Considering the Pre has had multi-tasking since day one. To say the rest will be left behind when refereeing to multi-tasking is to miss the point.
The rest are left behind already, it's called iTunes.
On the other hand, MS is going back to 2007 with WP7. I think the 7 in WP7 was meant to be 2007 meaning three years late release
I can be extra pedantic and argue that Apple's Exposé is incorrect as there's no é character in the English alphabet, only e.
The word exposé is in the English dictionary, just as the word café is.
Now this is something that I could get behind. Basically one app calls another app, but instead of the normal transition (fading out the current app, fading in the called app), it would slide in from the right as if you are just going into another page of the current app. There would be a button with the original app's name on it, similar to a "Back" button. So when you are finished with the called app, you just hit the back button (which has the application's name on it) to go back to the original app. Or hitting the Home button would kill both apps.
It doesn't address all instances of multi-tasking, but works well for this particular instance.
Oh! I like that as a variation on the theme of the daisy-chaining of apps!
The infrastructure already exists without multitasking-- apps just need to issue a special format of a URL (naming another app on the device) and pass it a token containing info on what to do and what data is needed.
The format of the Token would need to be standardized, but Apple could do that.
Then, when multitasking is implemented, you could dance down the daisy-chain (or is that the May Pole) in real-time!
* Ahhh... the mental image!
*
On the other hand, MS is going back to 2007 with WP7. I think the 7 in WP7 was meant to be 2007 meaning three years late release
I think I said it best the day Win mob 7 was announced:
"Three years after the iPhone Microsoft demos a preview of what the iPhone shouldn't have been."
Apple's mutlitasking must now get patented. Apple's version will be far superior to anyone else's. Just look how Apple redefined cut & paste and MMS. No one does it better than Apple.
Your username suits you.
At the same time though, you don't want to break a well established convention. Every iPhone user knows that hitting Home quits. You don't want people single clicking the Home button thinking they are quitting their apps when they are just putting them in the background, right?
IMO, if there is going to be any kind of user interaction with multi-tasking, it should be a new gesture or new kind of button click. That way folks not caring about multi-tasking can go on there merry way, not knowing anything changed.
I disagree. I think if the user had to turn on backgrounding from Settings and then decide which apps would work in the background based on the allowable apps in their list, and an icon in the Menu Bar to see backgrounding is on they would be well aware of them running.
Once they are running double-tapping the Home button to bring up Exposé sounds reasonable. To then kill a backgrounding app just hold the icon for a moment ike you would on the Homescreen to get the squiggly icons with the black 'x' in a circle to kill it.
"On the iPhone, scaling down several screen views to fit into the relatively small display would be problematic, and apps never have multiple windows"
Apps can have multiple windows. See Safari.
They aren't scaled down to all display at once, which was the point made.
If a cable TV company prohibited customer use of DVRs, PVRs, and VCRs in their terms of service, they'd be smacked down by the FCC.
You're talking about a site with a huge amount of user made videos. Perhaps users don't want to be stored locally
We've already been through this before, please stop.
Come on now, is this really necessary?
It absolutely is not, which is why I'd prefer you to not endorse posts that tend this way.
Your username suits you.
He's Techstud playing at being iGenius who's playing at being a fatuous fanboy.
Multitasking is a nice feature, but a much improved Notification System Ã* la Android and WebOS is what I'm looking forward to.
You read my mind.
I want this and a narrower iPhone, i.e. 59 mm. Or less if the make the chrome bezel smaller.
Go to Safari → Edit → Special Characters → Punctuation → Line 6 → Item 4, and tell me what you think!
Well, I guess, Apple and Wikipedia do differ on this point. Or Apple is just simplifying things by being imprecise and not writing 'Punctuation and Diacritics'.
In fact, the term 'Punctuation and diacritics' shows up quite a bit in web searches, indicating that these two are indeed separate categories.
But I am open, if you find a somewhat authorative text which explicitly includes diacritics as part of punctuation, I'd be happy to admit that there is at least some variation in the definition.
I disagree. I think if the user had to turn on backgrounding from Settings and then decide which apps would work in the background based on the allowable apps in their list, and an icon in the Menu Bar to see backgrounding is on they would be well aware of them running.
Once they are running double-tapping the Home button to bring up Exposé sounds reasonable. To then kill a backgrounding app just hold the icon for a moment ike you would on the Homescreen to get the squiggly icons with the black 'x' in a circle to kill it.
Yes I see what you mean by first having the user consciously decide to turn on some global multi-tasking setting. But then by doing this, you would still be changing the established convention of single press quitting.
We already have a setting that allows us to assign different actions to double pressing the Home button (Search, Phone Favorites, Camera, iPod). They could add another that says Quit App or something like that (if the multi-tasking setting is turned on).
Again I ask: if it will be included at the iPad's launch, then why hasn't it been detailed like the rest of the functionality?
I haven't watched all the tutorial videos, including the ones for Pages, Numbers, and Keynote. Maybe there is something in one of these videos that shows what a user is going to do with a document created there? Seems kind of silly to just create a document and say "oh well, that was fun", close the app and be able to do nothing else with it other than possibly e-mail it to someone else...
FTA:
I
This is just terrible journalism. Mac OS X allows users to install apps from any source. Are you saying Apple should control what I can install on my MBP? If no, then how is my phone different? Anyone who advocates for a closed-ecosystem app store is either an Apple shareholder/sheep or an idiot.
I find it truly reprehensible how people will defend such gatekeeping and obstruction (the very thing Apple was against with the whole "Think Different" campaign) using company-line justifications. Apple isn't looking out for you by not letting you install/run 3rd party apps; they're looking out for their bottom line.
I hope that Apple starts an App Store for the Mac. And that they only allow me to get my software from the MaCAppStore. That way, I would know that the software is good.
# Notification:
# Background State Updates:
# Inter-application Communication:
# Quick Task Switching with Saved State:
# Simultaneous Execution, Background Apps:
# Simultaneous Execution: Side-by-Side Apps (iPad only):
see the post for details:
http://db.tidbits.com/article/10989