4 ms·

There is "defending" and there is "understanding the limitations". Apple found a way around those limitations: to offer seven background services which iPhone c

There is "defending" and there is "understanding the limitations". Apple found a way around those limitations: to offer seven background services which iPhone can offer to your Apps. That kind of gives you multitasking and still leaves resources control to Apple's code in iPhone OS. Update — services offered: Background audio VOIP Background location Push notifications Local notifications (don't require the server) Task completion (e.g. Flickr's upload can continue in the background) Fast app switching (storing/restoring app's state)

jasonlotito 17y ago
"There is "defending" and there is "understanding the limitations"." I agree. I'm referring to the defenders. The people that were actively pointing to reasons why multitasking for the iPhone/iPad were bad for non-technical reasons (screen size, the UI, they didn't need it, etc.) There were lots. Every time multitasking was brought up, they would offer countless reasons why multitasking was bad. Which was all just a cheap way to defend it's lack of multitasking. Multitasking was never a bad idea. It was always a missing feature. Regardless of the reasons for it, it's clear that they've finally overcome the problems. Their inability to do so until now shouldn't have shielded them from criticism early on.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Strong disagree. Apple's implementation of background services looks more like a vindication of the defenders. They didn't simply get their act together and make apps run in the background; they set the bar significantly higher than that.
  - jasonlotito 17y ago
    "Strong disagree. Apple's implementation of background services looks more like a vindication of the defenders." But it's not. And you can disagree, but you are wrong. The defenders I'm referring to were supporting not having multitasking; or, better said, were touting lack of multitasking as a feature. Their were other defenders who were for multitasking, but against doing it poorly. I'm referring to the former, not the later.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      I'm sorry but I don't agree with you that I'm wrong. The lack of jailbreak/Android-style multitasking is still a feature. The fact that they took the time to implement it as carefully-designed background services means I don't have to deal with process killers and don't lose my battery to moronic apps that busypoll on GPS. Or, as they said: "In multitasking, if you see a task manager, they blew it. Users shouldn’t have to ever, ever, ever think about that stuff."
      - jasonlotito 17y ago
        "The lack of jailbreak/Android-style multitasking is still a feature." "The lack of multitasking is still a feature." You added qualifications for a reason. Because they say completely different things. You seem to want to suggest I'm arguing against the first. I'm not. I'm arguing against the second.
        tptacek 17y ago
        You are getting tangled up because there are two features we are talking about here. The first feature is an app ecosystem that doesn't require me to babysit processes. The second feature is the ability to do things in the background (or, more precisely, do things with more than one application at a time). I don't care what you call them, but that the iPhone has always had the first feature, and talking it up isn't crazy. I don't think that it makes up for not having the second feature, but I still recognize it as something that makes my iPhone experience better.
        jasonlotito 17y ago
        The problem is, you equated multitasking to being done one way, and no other way. Other people did this. No multitasking was a feature. It cannot work. It's bad. I equate it to the result, not the implementation. I don't care how it gets done, as long as it gets done without ruining the rest of the experience. Not too long ago, we were reading iPad reviews disregarding the lack of multitasking as unneeded. Comments would fill up with mac-addicts defending the lack of multitasking suggesting things like "How can you see two windows on an iPhone" and other crazy things like that. People questioning the needed for multitasking, as well as suggesting that no multitasking was a feature, not a missing feature. So now everyone is looking at Apple's MT and saying "WoW! It's so amazing!" and the rest of us are saying "It's MT done for the iPhone, okay." It's what we've been asking for, and what so many people were saying to us "It's bad" or "It will hurt the experience" or "MT on the iPhone is a waste." Maybe you weren't one of those people, but I had enough respond to me saying these very things. And it's just nice to know that Apple, in the end, agreed with me and people like me.
- mbreese 17y ago
  There were really only two things that made multitasking a problem (IMHO). One: battery. They solved that pretty well by not doing true preemptive multitasking (I assume that it isn't preemptive, except maybe for background music). This is likely the right call too. Give apps access to the services they need to do what they want in the background, and keep them suspended the rest of the time. The second is user interface. I thnk that their task switching solution is probably good too. It looks a lot like palm's, but with an apple flair. You're right though... any previous defenders who gave other reasons were just deluding themselves. I think that battery life was the main factor. Once they figured that out, the rest became how to make it easy.
  - jasonlotito 17y ago
    I just found too many people promoting the lack of multitasking as a feature. Even with the iPad reviews, lack of multitasking was a bullet point, rather than a flaw. And it was/is a flaw. Yes, they had good reasons for not having it, but that doesn't mean it's less of a flaw. People don't excuse Microsoft for having security problems when those security problems exist because of BC issues. People shouldn't. A flaw, or lack of a feature is simply that.
    - glhaynes 17y ago
      Lack of bad multitasking is a feature.
      - jasonlotito 17y ago
        No. It doesn't/shouldn't work that way. A bad feature is bad. A bad implementation is bad. But you're getting caught up with the implementation. Those arguing for multitasking wanted multitasking done right. They didn't care how it got done, as long as it worked without degrading the rest of the experience. There were, however, people arguing against multitasking as if their was only one way to implement it.
        glhaynes 17y ago
- illumin8 17y ago
  The only defense I ever gave for lack of multitasking was a CPU/battery/memory issues, which are valid. UI problems can be solved in software. It looks like Apple did the right thing by implementing limited multitasking APIs, rather than giving apps full reign over the CPU/memory as some have requested.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  The people that were actively pointing to reasons why multitasking for the iPhone/iPad were bad for non-technical reasons (screen size, the UI, they didn't need it, etc.) I guess you'd say I was one of them, but I'm still going to say I was right: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1243742 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1243742 There are both technical and UI reasons why multitasking as we've known it is hard to do on a mobile phone; those issues constrain what you can do when implementing it, and it certainly looks like Apple's done the best it can within those constraints (which looks pretty good at first glance, by the way).
  - jasonlotito 17y ago
    "I guess you'd say I was one of them" Do you think the lack of multitasking is a feature? Apples introduction of multitasking... harms the platform? "but I'm still going to say I was right." Apple disagrees. Multitasking is a feature. The lack of multitasking wasn't. You seem to be caught up on the implementation, not the results.
- elblanco 17y ago
  I agree 100%. We've even been having this exact discussion here on HN in the last 5 days! It's basically been the instant litmus test to identify a rabid fanboy from the rest of the population. The "discussions", if I can be generous and call them that, have been ridiculous and transparent and usually runs like this: Normal Person: The i<product> has no multitasking, this is a sorely missing feature Rabid Fanboy: This omission is actually a "feature". Since Apple never does anything wrong, it's clear that this is actually just better for us. Besides nobody uses multitasking anyways, what could you possibly want to use it for?! Only crazy people want a computing platform that can run more than one thing. Besides Apple needs to keep the user experience perfect like it is (oh it's so orgasmic). And double besides, it already does do multitasking, Apple just uses it for their own things and keeps outside developers (who don't know what they are doing anyways, those idiots) from mucking up the precious user experience and draining the whole battery down in 5 minutes. Normal Person: That actually doesn't even make any sense. There are plenty of examples of mobile platforms with multitasking that don't have any of the feared problems you are talking about, Palm, Android,... Rabid Fanboy: THOSE SUCK! SUCK! <hits own head with closed fist over and over> <pause and takes a deep breath as if trying to explain some critical thing to a 5 year old> None of those platforms are the iPhone. NONE OF THEM. Normal Person: Again, that makes no sense. By all appearances, the fact that this feature is supported just fine elsewhere, and not on the iPhone actually makes Apple look a little inept. Rabid Fanoy: <head explodes>
  - wtallis 17y ago
    Those characters would be more accurately called "Strawman 1" and "Strawman 2", or perhaps just "Strawman" and "elblanco". None of the "rabid fanboys" have been claiming that multitasking will reduce battery life down to 5 minutes. Most haven't claimed that nobody uses multitasking; they just say that most normal people can get along without it. The "normal people"/people who love to troll Apple users/you like to claim that Palm, Android, etc. have great multitasking systems, while ignoring the fact that those platforms do have noticeable UI lag, and generally worse battery life or performance. If you're trying to make a sound argument against Apple's stance of offering limited or no multitasking, you need to acknowledge the tradeoffs and then show that the stuttering, longer page loading times, or lower battery life are worth the overall productivity increase of multitasking. You can't just claim the downsides don't exist.
ashirusnw 17y ago
"Local notifications (don't require the server)" Does anyone know if this means any O/S object that broadcasts notifications via NSDistributedNotificationCenter (http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Classes/NSDistributedNotificationCenter_Class/Reference/Reference.html#//apple_ref/occ/cl/NSDistributedNotificationCenter http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/documentation/Coco...) will now work? Previously there was no way to receive notifications from any other app or O/S process.

jasonlotito 17y ago

"There is "defending" and there is "understanding the limitations"." I agree. I'm referring to the defenders. The people that were actively pointing to reasons why multitasking for the iPhone/iPad were bad for non-technical reasons (screen size, the UI, they didn't need it, etc.) There were lots. Every time multitasking was brought up, they would offer countless reasons why multitasking was bad. Which was all just a cheap way to defend it's lack of multitasking. Multitasking was never a bad idea. It was always a missing feature. Regardless of the reasons for it, it's clear that they've finally overcome the problems. Their inability to do so until now shouldn't have shielded them from criticism early on.

tptacek 17y ago
Strong disagree. Apple's implementation of background services looks more like a vindication of the defenders. They didn't simply get their act together and make apps run in the background; they set the bar significantly higher than that.
- jasonlotito 17y ago
  "Strong disagree. Apple's implementation of background services looks more like a vindication of the defenders." But it's not. And you can disagree, but you are wrong. The defenders I'm referring to were supporting not having multitasking; or, better said, were touting lack of multitasking as a feature. Their were other defenders who were for multitasking, but against doing it poorly. I'm referring to the former, not the later.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    I'm sorry but I don't agree with you that I'm wrong. The lack of jailbreak/Android-style multitasking is still a feature. The fact that they took the time to implement it as carefully-designed background services means I don't have to deal with process killers and don't lose my battery to moronic apps that busypoll on GPS. Or, as they said: "In multitasking, if you see a task manager, they blew it. Users shouldn’t have to ever, ever, ever think about that stuff."
    - jasonlotito 17y ago
      "The lack of jailbreak/Android-style multitasking is still a feature." "The lack of multitasking is still a feature." You added qualifications for a reason. Because they say completely different things. You seem to want to suggest I'm arguing against the first. I'm not. I'm arguing against the second.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        You are getting tangled up because there are two features we are talking about here. The first feature is an app ecosystem that doesn't require me to babysit processes. The second feature is the ability to do things in the background (or, more precisely, do things with more than one application at a time). I don't care what you call them, but that the iPhone has always had the first feature, and talking it up isn't crazy. I don't think that it makes up for not having the second feature, but I still recognize it as something that makes my iPhone experience better.
        jasonlotito 17y ago
        The problem is, you equated multitasking to being done one way, and no other way. Other people did this. No multitasking was a feature. It cannot work. It's bad. I equate it to the result, not the implementation. I don't care how it gets done, as long as it gets done without ruining the rest of the experience. Not too long ago, we were reading iPad reviews disregarding the lack of multitasking as unneeded. Comments would fill up with mac-addicts defending the lack of multitasking suggesting things like "How can you see two windows on an iPhone" and other crazy things like that. People questioning the needed for multitasking, as well as suggesting that no multitasking was a feature, not a missing feature. So now everyone is looking at Apple's MT and saying "WoW! It's so amazing!" and the rest of us are saying "It's MT done for the iPhone, okay." It's what we've been asking for, and what so many people were saying to us "It's bad" or "It will hurt the experience" or "MT on the iPhone is a waste." Maybe you weren't one of those people, but I had enough respond to me saying these very things. And it's just nice to know that Apple, in the end, agreed with me and people like me.
mbreese 17y ago
There were really only two things that made multitasking a problem (IMHO). One: battery. They solved that pretty well by not doing true preemptive multitasking (I assume that it isn't preemptive, except maybe for background music). This is likely the right call too. Give apps access to the services they need to do what they want in the background, and keep them suspended the rest of the time. The second is user interface. I thnk that their task switching solution is probably good too. It looks a lot like palm's, but with an apple flair. You're right though... any previous defenders who gave other reasons were just deluding themselves. I think that battery life was the main factor. Once they figured that out, the rest became how to make it easy.
- jasonlotito 17y ago
  I just found too many people promoting the lack of multitasking as a feature. Even with the iPad reviews, lack of multitasking was a bullet point, rather than a flaw. And it was/is a flaw. Yes, they had good reasons for not having it, but that doesn't mean it's less of a flaw. People don't excuse Microsoft for having security problems when those security problems exist because of BC issues. People shouldn't. A flaw, or lack of a feature is simply that.
  - glhaynes 17y ago
    Lack of bad multitasking is a feature.
    - jasonlotito 17y ago
      No. It doesn't/shouldn't work that way. A bad feature is bad. A bad implementation is bad. But you're getting caught up with the implementation. Those arguing for multitasking wanted multitasking done right. They didn't care how it got done, as long as it worked without degrading the rest of the experience. There were, however, people arguing against multitasking as if their was only one way to implement it.
      - glhaynes 17y ago
illumin8 17y ago
The only defense I ever gave for lack of multitasking was a CPU/battery/memory issues, which are valid. UI problems can be solved in software. It looks like Apple did the right thing by implementing limited multitasking APIs, rather than giving apps full reign over the CPU/memory as some have requested.
ubernostrum 17y ago
The people that were actively pointing to reasons why multitasking for the iPhone/iPad were bad for non-technical reasons (screen size, the UI, they didn't need it, etc.) I guess you'd say I was one of them, but I'm still going to say I was right: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1243742 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1243742 There are both technical and UI reasons why multitasking as we've known it is hard to do on a mobile phone; those issues constrain what you can do when implementing it, and it certainly looks like Apple's done the best it can within those constraints (which looks pretty good at first glance, by the way).
- jasonlotito 17y ago
  "I guess you'd say I was one of them" Do you think the lack of multitasking is a feature? Apples introduction of multitasking... harms the platform? "but I'm still going to say I was right." Apple disagrees. Multitasking is a feature. The lack of multitasking wasn't. You seem to be caught up on the implementation, not the results.
elblanco 17y ago
I agree 100%. We've even been having this exact discussion here on HN in the last 5 days! It's basically been the instant litmus test to identify a rabid fanboy from the rest of the population. The "discussions", if I can be generous and call them that, have been ridiculous and transparent and usually runs like this: Normal Person: The i<product> has no multitasking, this is a sorely missing feature Rabid Fanboy: This omission is actually a "feature". Since Apple never does anything wrong, it's clear that this is actually just better for us. Besides nobody uses multitasking anyways, what could you possibly want to use it for?! Only crazy people want a computing platform that can run more than one thing. Besides Apple needs to keep the user experience perfect like it is (oh it's so orgasmic). And double besides, it already does do multitasking, Apple just uses it for their own things and keeps outside developers (who don't know what they are doing anyways, those idiots) from mucking up the precious user experience and draining the whole battery down in 5 minutes. Normal Person: That actually doesn't even make any sense. There are plenty of examples of mobile platforms with multitasking that don't have any of the feared problems you are talking about, Palm, Android,... Rabid Fanboy: THOSE SUCK! SUCK! <hits own head with closed fist over and over> <pause and takes a deep breath as if trying to explain some critical thing to a 5 year old> None of those platforms are the iPhone. NONE OF THEM. Normal Person: Again, that makes no sense. By all appearances, the fact that this feature is supported just fine elsewhere, and not on the iPhone actually makes Apple look a little inept. Rabid Fanoy: <head explodes>
- wtallis 17y ago
  Those characters would be more accurately called "Strawman 1" and "Strawman 2", or perhaps just "Strawman" and "elblanco". None of the "rabid fanboys" have been claiming that multitasking will reduce battery life down to 5 minutes. Most haven't claimed that nobody uses multitasking; they just say that most normal people can get along without it. The "normal people"/people who love to troll Apple users/you like to claim that Palm, Android, etc. have great multitasking systems, while ignoring the fact that those platforms do have noticeable UI lag, and generally worse battery life or performance. If you're trying to make a sound argument against Apple's stance of offering limited or no multitasking, you need to acknowledge the tradeoffs and then show that the stuttering, longer page loading times, or lower battery life are worth the overall productivity increase of multitasking. You can't just claim the downsides don't exist.

ashirusnw 17y ago

"Local notifications (don't require the server)" Does anyone know if this means any O/S object that broadcasts notifications via NSDistributedNotificationCenter (http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Classes/NSDistributedNotificationCenter_Class/Reference/Reference.html#//apple_ref/occ/cl/NSDistributedNotificationCenter http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/documentation/Coco...) will now work? Previously there was no way to receive notifications from any other app or O/S process.