7 ms·

Well, not everyone agrees on the definition of multi-tasking. As a consumer, interleaving of processes seems quite adequate to me (i.e. no apps running in the b

Well, not everyone agrees on the definition of multi-tasking. As a consumer, interleaving of processes seems quite adequate to me (i.e. no apps running in the background; apps are suspended on minimize), but an app developer may not agree. I suspect that multitasking support, if introduced will be of the interleaved type- Apple's stance on true background apps being battery killers seems sensible to me. But then, you never know: with the newer iPad style batteries, they might even pull it off! (I still doubt it, though, since that sort of OS update won't work on older iPhones)

coderdude 17y ago
What's to agree on? You either have multiple, concurrent tasks or you do not.
- ugh 17y ago
  I guess the disagreement is about whether multiple, concurrent tasks are necessary or not.
  - coderdude 17y ago
    I think most people are used to their computers being able to play music and browse the Web at the same time. If Apple wants to push the iPad as a computing device, they might hit a snag with consumers. Edit: Whoops. I'll leave the comment but I do realize this isn't an iPad thread.
    - stcredzero 17y ago
      In any case, you can browse and use the iPod app at the same time.
- kulkarnic 17y ago
  To a consumer, having interleaved tasks might appear like multi-tasking while it technically isn't (which you point out).
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  False dichotomy. You clearly have the ability to receive phonecalls at all times, so the phone is running so you have multiple concurrent tasks so there's no argument. Except there is an argument, so that isn't what's really being discussed even if the discussion is framed by that term.
  - coderdude 17y ago
    I'm sorry but there isn't a false dichotomy between multi- vs. single-tasking, or did you mean to imply something else? I know the operating system is a multitasking environment, but that aspect of it is not exposed in any kind of useful way outside of Apple's pre-chosen features.
    - jodrellblank 17y ago
      As a technical description maybe there isn't, but at user level there is; one or the other or somewhere in between. This is what people are arguing about that you unhelpfully dismissed.
travisp 17y ago
I think many non-developers would agree that if you can't leave Pandora playing music while you go check your email, you don't have multi-tasking.
- kulkarnic 17y ago
  Yeah, you're right. Streams are tricky- music and network too. I think Android solves it using services; would be interesting if Apple comes up with something different (I don't like daemons on my phone personally; but maybe it doesn't matter to most people.)
- budu3 17y ago
  Sorry I accidentally downvoted you. I agree with you. From a consumer point of view not being able to play music in the background makes the iPhone OS seem incomplete.
  - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
    To be clear, you can have music playing in the background, but only from Apple's iPod app, not from 3rd-party apps like Pandora.
    - ryanpetrich 17y ago
      I think it's also possible to play a background stream in Safari.
- gojomo 17y ago
  Even more significant to me (and some large competing industries): can you receive a VOIP call while using another app? Skype on the iPhone/iPad is great, except for the need to pre-arrange simultaneous launch.
  - blasdel 17y ago
    Skype could use push notifications for incoming calls just fine.
gcheong 17y ago
I just released an app that uses a timer for a main feature of the application. The first (and so far only) user e-mail I received was this: "Is there a way to shut off the iPod Touch while the countdown timer is working and the iPod Touch will wake up when the alarm goes off"
rcoder 17y ago
I wonder if some sort of hybrid of the current push notifications and GCD might prove a workable stopgap? I.e., apps can register asynchronous event listeners while running, and push notifications can trigger those to give the appearance of multitasking. If the background listeners/workers are heavily resource-constrained and subjected to limited API access, you might be able to maintain most of the battery life and performance advantages of the current single-task model, while still allowing apps to perform some amount of background processing. Any "heavy lifting" involving a full app UI, the GPU, or outbound network access could still require user confirmation and a task swtich.
- KirinDave 17y ago
  It's funny, because when I heard the original description of the iPhone push notifications at WWDC, that's exactly how I thought it worked. That'd be a fairly good compromise.
- theBobMcCormick 17y ago
  Sounds a lot like how background workers are handled in Android. http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/fundamentals.html#servlife http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/fundamentals.html#...

coderdude 17y ago

What's to agree on? You either have multiple, concurrent tasks or you do not.

ugh 17y ago
I guess the disagreement is about whether multiple, concurrent tasks are necessary or not.
- coderdude 17y ago
  I think most people are used to their computers being able to play music and browse the Web at the same time. If Apple wants to push the iPad as a computing device, they might hit a snag with consumers. Edit: Whoops. I'll leave the comment but I do realize this isn't an iPad thread.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    In any case, you can browse and use the iPod app at the same time.
kulkarnic 17y ago
To a consumer, having interleaved tasks might appear like multi-tasking while it technically isn't (which you point out).
jodrellblank 17y ago
False dichotomy. You clearly have the ability to receive phonecalls at all times, so the phone is running so you have multiple concurrent tasks so there's no argument. Except there is an argument, so that isn't what's really being discussed even if the discussion is framed by that term.
- coderdude 17y ago
  I'm sorry but there isn't a false dichotomy between multi- vs. single-tasking, or did you mean to imply something else? I know the operating system is a multitasking environment, but that aspect of it is not exposed in any kind of useful way outside of Apple's pre-chosen features.
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    As a technical description maybe there isn't, but at user level there is; one or the other or somewhere in between. This is what people are arguing about that you unhelpfully dismissed.

travisp 17y ago

I think many non-developers would agree that if you can't leave Pandora playing music while you go check your email, you don't have multi-tasking.

kulkarnic 17y ago
Yeah, you're right. Streams are tricky- music and network too. I think Android solves it using services; would be interesting if Apple comes up with something different (I don't like daemons on my phone personally; but maybe it doesn't matter to most people.)
budu3 17y ago
Sorry I accidentally downvoted you. I agree with you. From a consumer point of view not being able to play music in the background makes the iPhone OS seem incomplete.
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  To be clear, you can have music playing in the background, but only from Apple's iPod app, not from 3rd-party apps like Pandora.
  - ryanpetrich 17y ago
    I think it's also possible to play a background stream in Safari.
gojomo 17y ago
Even more significant to me (and some large competing industries): can you receive a VOIP call while using another app? Skype on the iPhone/iPad is great, except for the need to pre-arrange simultaneous launch.
- blasdel 17y ago
  Skype could use push notifications for incoming calls just fine.

gcheong 17y ago

I just released an app that uses a timer for a main feature of the application. The first (and so far only) user e-mail I received was this: "Is there a way to shut off the iPod Touch while the countdown timer is working and the iPod Touch will wake up when the alarm goes off"

rcoder 17y ago

I wonder if some sort of hybrid of the current push notifications and GCD might prove a workable stopgap? I.e., apps can register asynchronous event listeners while running, and push notifications can trigger those to give the appearance of multitasking. If the background listeners/workers are heavily resource-constrained and subjected to limited API access, you might be able to maintain most of the battery life and performance advantages of the current single-task model, while still allowing apps to perform some amount of background processing. Any "heavy lifting" involving a full app UI, the GPU, or outbound network access could still require user confirmation and a task swtich.

KirinDave 17y ago
It's funny, because when I heard the original description of the iPhone push notifications at WWDC, that's exactly how I thought it worked. That'd be a fairly good compromise.
theBobMcCormick 17y ago
Sounds a lot like how background workers are handled in Android. http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/fundamentals.html#servlife http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/fundamentals.html#...