backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by textkills.. on Mar 24 at 3:44 AM


Multitasking in Symbian OS 5.0 (on the S60)  (Source: Maximum PC)

Both the Palm Pre (shown here) and the Symbian OS 5.0 (above) support full multi-tasking. The iPhone does not. That offers some gaming and security benefits for the iPhone, but prevents some useful apps. Full multi-tasking is rumored to be coming with iPhone OS 4.0 this summer.  (Source: TechSource)
Might Apple be cooking up a counter to its competitors by at last bring multi-tasking to its smartphone?

If it can't sue its rival smartphone makers out of existence, it appears that Apple plans to at least catch up to them.

According to 
AppleInsider, Apple will finally be bringing a "full-on solution" to multi-tasking with iPhone OS 4.0 which is set to debut this summer.  Presumably that means that third-party apps will finally be allowed to run in the background on the phone.  The sources were scant on details about how it would remedy performance, battery life, and security issues, but they did say that the multi-tasking would use an interface similar to that in the Mac versions of OS X.

Apple's iPhone is among the best-selling smartphones and is second in market volume only to the incredible successful Blackberries from Research in Motion.  Apple's massive developer community and gigantic collection of apps make a phone that would otherwise be seen as just beneath top hardware offerings seem like the top of the pack.

However, Apple has slipped behind the bleeding edge of the competition, even as its app offerings have flourished.  Its competitors -- Palm, Symbian, Research in Motion, and Google (makers of Android OS) – all support multi-tasking in their smartphone operating systems.  Apple's OS X distribution on the iPhone artificially prevents third-party application backgrounding (multi-tasking), only allowing push notifications as of iPhone OS 3.0.

There have been a few major exceptions.  Currently, the iPhone's phone, SMS, email, iPod, voice recorder, Nike+ apps and a handful of others can run in the background.  This means, for example, that you can use apps and play music at the same time (but only using Apple's built in music player).

Apple has previously stated that backgrounding apps represents a security risk.  The iPhone's OS kills apps when you accept calls or return to the home screen, rather than sending them to the background.  That makes it harder for spyware, adware, or viruses to run on the phone without the user's knowledge.

The security comes at a cost though -- third-party apps that are available at all times (run in the background) like instant messaging, location-aware apps, internet radio, etc. are not able to be supported unless you "jailbreak" your iPhone, running software to hack the OS and remove Apple's restrictions.

One of the big problems is that multi-tasking could hurt gaming on the iPhone if resource management isn't implemented perfectly.  Currently the iPhone rivals the PSP Go and Nintendo DSi as a mobile gaming platform.  Its smartphone rivals though have been unable to muster much gaming success -- titles tend to be limited by either inefficient multi-tasking and/or by requiring the apps to be run by abstraction layers, such as Adobe Flash/Flash Lite, Microsoft Silverlight, or Sun Java/Android Dalvik runtimes.

Despite these shortcomings, many iPhone users have demanded multi-tasking.  Multi-tasking was rumored to be coming both in iPhone OS 2.0 and iPhone OS 3.0, but never came in full form.  Thus its reasonable to be wary about whether iPhone OS 4.0 will truly bring multi-tasking to the table at last.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/11/2010 11:46:16 AM , Rating: -1
There's a huge principal difference between Big Brother and Apple's App Store policy. While Big Brother watched you and decided what you should or should not do depending on what HE, the Big Brother, deemed necessary, Apple only deals with customer or client complaints. Apple is not the Big Brother in sense that they don't care what people run UNLESS people start complaining about some app. Then Apple may remove it. See the difference?


RE: for iPad as well?
By nvalhalla on 3/11/2010 12:30:17 PM , Rating: 5
Really, so Apple will let any program onto the app store? They don't control what people can have based on what Apple thinks is best? Are you sure about that?


RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: for iPad as well?
By axias41 on 3/11/2010 2:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
So Opera on iPhone is not user friendly?


RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: for iPad as well?
By dark matter on 3/12/2010 2:25:06 AM , Rating: 2
You pompous little toerag Pirks. Are you saying the average Joe gets confused at the supermarket as there is just too much choice and too many alternatives for them to handle?

And there was me thinking the success of the iPhone stems from all the choice and alternatives in the app store. You might want to tell Jobs that you know all about average Joe as currently one of Apples advert strapline is "there is an app for pretty much anything".

Why not make your own App pirks that tailors to the average Joe so that it restricts choice and freedom of alternatives from their lives so they can all live in your nirvanic utopia of being told what is good for them.


RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: for iPad as well?
By themaster08 on 3/12/2010 4:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Probably not user friendly enough, otherwise why would they prohibit it?

Have you ever even used the Opera Mobile browser? It is extremely user friendly, looks fantastic and is a joy to use. Even on my lowly Nokia 5800XM, it just feels like a quality product.

quote:
One simple open standard/open source based browser like Safari is more than enough and it makes platform more simple and hence more user friendly.

The whole Internet Explorer debacle just springs to mind here. So by your logic Internet Explorer is also more than enough as it makes Windows more simple hence more user friendly?

quote:
Opera is probably not worth the trouble because its pros do not outweigh its cons as an iPhone browser.

So what you're basically saying is that Apple doesn't see the need for another broswer so they're saying "we've decided you're not having it". What was all of this about then?
quote:
There's a huge principal difference between Big Brother and Apple's App Store policy. While Big Brother watched you and decided what you should or should not do depending on what HE, the Big Brother, deemed necessary, Apple only deals with customer or client complaints. Apple is not the Big Brother in sense that they don't care what people run UNLESS people start complaining about some app. Then Apple may remove it. See the difference?

I'm sorry but your arguments conflict. Apple IS big brother when it comes to the App Store. You implied it yourself in your contradicting, somewhat laughable arguments.

Stop trying to support Apple when you don't have a leg to stand on.


RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: for iPad as well?
By sbtech on 3/12/2010 8:44:52 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
s IE open source? No?

Neither is Safari. It is based on an Open Source engine. Rather than me putting links, you can google yourself.

Pirks, I get pissed off by Apple, not because it is following a type of customer lock-in(also known as vendor lock-in) strategy. Nor is it because it makes fancy hardware and asks for a premium on them. Hey, they are just product life cycle and pricing strategies. Many companies do it. For example, even with cloud computing technology, the lack of interoperability standardization means customers will get locked in - kind of a step backwards towards the old mainframe style business models. Apple indeed has an admirable relationship marketing model in place, it is something to even learn from.

What pisses me off is, that Apple claims to be a freedom loving company, and still following this business model. This tarnishes Apple's brand image, to me, because of the inherent duplicity.

Do not get me wrong, I don't think there is anything wrong with the lock-in model - from a marketing perspective. It sometimes proves even beneficial to the customer. Just because one has choices does not mean one can always setup a heterogeneous environment using components from different sources and make it perform better all together. This model is not even something innovative - a classical marketing technique followed in many industries. A business opting for IBM lock-in is aware, but sees the advantages over the disadvantages before doing that.

But Apple's marketing communication is misleading, and you and I, as customers, should realize that, see through the veil, and realize the model you will be getting into. Once realized, one may still opt for Apple, and it may even serve your needs better than anything else.

A lot of post from Apple lovers seems to point out the opposite. They don't seem to realize the business model of their vendor i.e., Apple. They seem to be even mislead by the said vendor's marketing communication.

Just the way I perceive this, but it could be wrong.


RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/12/2010 11:50:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It is based on an Open Source engine
And IE isn't, that was my point.
quote:
Apple claims to be a freedom loving company
Where did they claim this?


RE: for iPad as well?
By aj28 on 3/14/2010 4:28:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Neither is Safari. It is based on an Open Source engine. Rather than me putting links, you can google yourself.


I wasn't going to jump into this mess, but I do think it's fair to say that Safari is open source, not just based on an open source engine. Below is a link to the WebKit homepage, and if you download the nightly builds you will see that it is not just the engine that is distributed open source, but the entire browser.

http://webkit.org/


RE: for iPad as well?
By djc208 on 3/11/2010 3:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot anything that competes with services they offer on the phone itself (media players, google voice, other app stores). Anything they don't see the point in, anything that seems to offend the sensabilities of the guy or girl who's reviewing it. Hell, last week it was wi-fi finder apps. Certain "adult" apps were removed, but not all of them based on some twisted logic they made up based on dice rolls or bribes.

So I guess it's not really Big Brother in that we don't know that they're actively watching everything you do, but the only other place I know of that practices that kind of subjective sensorship is China, so I guess Apple isn't Big Brother, it's Communist China.

Nope, still doesn't make me want an iPhone.

And while I'm in rant mode, if the iPhone OS is based on OSX, which is SO secure, how come Apple's excuse for not allowing background apps is that it's a security issue. I thought there were no security issues in OS X? If the phone can't safely handle background tasks how safe is the mother desktop OS?

I can't wait for the Toyota moment to come for Apple. The day when the rest of the users realizes that Apple is just a flasher version of every other tech company out there.

Ok, I'm done, rant over


RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: for iPad as well?
By djc208 on 3/11/2010 8:50:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As long as Apple's strict app submission policy stays in place iPhone will keep its momentum.


I think that's an oxymoron. Why would any developer want to spend time and energy developing for a platform that might decide, with no good cause or justification, it doesn't want your software on it's product.

I imagine you'll find that just like with their bigger siblings, the more open and free OSs like Android and Windows will quickly outstrip Apple because they don't need permission from Google, or anyone else, to develop an app. Add in the much larger selection of phones and devices that are turning to it and it will be no different than with Windows vs. OS X.

quote:
YOU on the other hand are pretty well served by more niche more geeky phone like Android or WinMo.


No, I just like products that treat me like I'm smart enough to decide what is and isn't appropriate for me to look at or do with a device I'm paying large sums of money to own. Keep playing at the kiddie table, the rest of us are going to do adult stuff.


RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: for iPad as well?
By dark matter on 3/12/2010 2:34:00 AM , Rating: 2
Because the average Joe is confused easily (your words) and sooner or later someone else is going to come along at doing a better job than Apple in fleecing them.


RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/12/2010 11:58:55 AM , Rating: 1
Agreed, Apple can't be eternal leader. Even pyramids crumble eventually.


RE: for iPad as well?
By themaster08 on 3/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/12/2010 12:04:52 PM , Rating: 1
It was not about his opinion being worthless in general, it was more from the point of view of Apple. I meant "who cares from Apple or any other big business?"

His opinion is just like mine, both are worthless for Apple or MS, the only thing that matters are opinions of a large mass of consumers, and they have already spoke with their wallets.


RE: for iPad as well?
By themaster08 on 3/13/2010 4:45:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
His opinion is just like mine, both are worthless for Apple or MS

Well my opinion to MS wasn't worthless, because Windows 7 was my idea!


RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/13/2010 7:08:04 AM , Rating: 1
great now get back to work sinofsky :)))


RE: for iPad as well?
By Bateluer on 3/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: for iPad as well?
By Keeir on 3/11/2010 8:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
arbitrary rules


Probably not arbitrary.

Maybe

Rules that best serve Apple's current corporate goals rather than rules designed to be consisent, best for the customer or best for the particular product.


RE: for iPad as well?
By SpinCircle on 3/11/2010 12:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you want to install something that Apple hasn't approved for the app store or don't want you to use because it might compete with something they have in the app store, whether it is better than their app or not. And, don't even think about trying to install something they don't approve of unless you jailbreak your phone... which they don't approve of either.


RE: for iPad as well?
By 91TTZ on 3/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: for iPad as well?
By dark matter on 3/12/2010 2:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't you notice all the -1 reps your posts have?


RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/12/2010 1:08:40 PM , Rating: 1
RE: for iPad as well?
By Smilin on 3/12/2010 4:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
LOL poor priks you try so very hard. That one you linked also has this gem under it:

quote:
That was the first time I ever uprated Pirks. Kudos.


Lets cut to the chase though shall we. Click on your own hyperlinked name and you'll find something like this:

Pirks has posted a total of 3882 comments at DailyTech, the average comment rating was 0.81.


RE: for iPad as well?
By crystal clear on 3/13/2010 2:06:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pirks has posted a total of 3882 comments at DailyTech, the average comment rating was 0.81.


Ratings dont earn anybody here a living, rather we should be rating ARTICLES here on DT.

Its not the contents of your post rather "whose side you are on".

With Pirks the user experience on DT is unique ! only found in the iPhone & ofcourse the mighty iPad.....

The love hate relationship that apple bashers have for Pirks is a unique experience similar to the iphone & the mighty iPad.

Pirks may one day claim he reinvented entertainment on DT

A day without Pirks is boredoom...call him Priks or what you like, the fact is "they cannot do without him".

its really works !

An apple a day & Pirks keeps the boredoom away !


RE: for iPad as well?
By crystal clear on 3/13/2010 2:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
In fact I posted a special comment exclusively on Pirks,here is the link below-

Who is/are Reader1 & Pirks ?
By crystal clear on 3/5/10, Rating: 2
By crystal clear on 3/5/2010 11:23:56 AM , Rating: 2

Conclusions & Analysis-

Apple,Jobs,Pirks,Reader1 are like trigering devices that sets off an explosion.

When Pirks comments,he appears to be like a hybrid of Steve Ballmer & Steve Jobs both trigering devices that set off explosions on D.T.

My guess... they are D.T. employees paid to lite the fire !



RE: for iPad as well?
By BZDTemp on 3/11/2010 5:25:39 PM , Rating: 1
LOL

Obviously you have not been following this very closely. For example Apple is not allowing Flash just as they do not allow all sorts of emulators. There is more to this issue than just Apple taking away erotic content or their double standards shown when doing so.

Why should any company be allowed to mandate what it's customers do with their products. Imagine a car company demanding no one has sex in their cars because someone complains about such activities. Sounds stupid for sure but in principle that is no different from what Apple is doing.


RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: for iPad as well?
By dark matter on 3/12/2010 2:43:28 AM , Rating: 2
"User experience is number one priority", until of course something goes wrong with your product and then they make you sign disclaimers to keep your mouth shut to get your money back or just plain deny the problem exists.

The reason they don't have flash is because it would ruin their app store model. Perfect business strategy if you ask me. But don't believe the hyperbole about it being in the interest of the consumer.


RE: for iPad as well?
By Pirks on 3/12/2010 1:12:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
don't believe the hyperbole about it being in the interest of the consumer
I still think consumers benefit from it since native code/native games are faster and eat less battery than Flash crap.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki