4 ms·

Personally, I am not particularly excited about the potential that a corporation might be permitting the hardware owners use such a mundane concept as 'backgrou

Personally, I am not particularly excited about the potential that a corporation might be permitting the hardware owners use such a mundane concept as 'background tasks'. I think the far bigger story here is that the hardware owners still cannot control their device, that they have purchased, as they see fit. I find it incredible that people put up with this.

dmix 17y ago
There are plenty of other phones where you can hack around with background processes, why should one company be forced to do what everyone else is doing? Apple, one of the few smartphone innovators, has decided not to as a design decision in the interest of its customers (battery life). In the future releases background process will be added on as the hardware gets better - why not buy the other brands until then?
- windsurfer 17y ago
  I didn't say anything about forced! It's up to them to do what they want. I just find it strange that they haven't, and I think it's ridiculous that it's news that they "might be considering" doing what everyone else is doing.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    Apple thinks they know what people want. Their customers seem to agree. Shrug. This is nothing new. They think most people would rather have no background processes than badly done background processes. They will allow it when they make it "just work". Maybe they are right, maybe wrong, but it's not an in-principle bad approach.
zimbabwe 17y ago
I own the hardware of my iPod touch. I have the right to jailbreak it, and in doing so forsake Apple's promise to help me when things to wrong. Of course I have control. I just don't have control if I use both Apple's hardware and their software as Apple originally designed it. That's perfectly within Apple's jurisdiction as a company. I understand why you might think that their stance is ridiculous, but think of it like this: Apple's design strategy is to make products that are foolproof. That means blocking something like a background application that might ruin my experience, even if that means taking away some of my control. It limits what I can do, but within those limits I'm relatively safer. When I download an application, there's no threat of it running in the background without my knowing and sapping my battery. Is it incredible that I put up with my iPod? I know full well that I have control of who to purchase from. If I didn't want a closed system, I could go somewhere else. Nobody forced me to use Apple products. Their monopoly is not forced upon users; we accept it voluntarily. As a result, I get a music player/video player/miniature computer that does many things very effortlessly. When I buy an application, all I need to know is that it appears as a little button I can click to run it. When I want to add music to my iPod, all I do is make sure it's in iTunes, and then my player syncs. It's simple, and it means that I don't waste any of my time whatsoever with my iPod. It does everything I want and nothing I don't want. I don't see why people find it hard to accept that some people want freedom at the cost of effortlessness, and others want effortlessness at the cost of freedom. It's not incredible or ridiculous. It's simply different philosophy.
- windsurfer 17y ago
  May I ask why it is that every time there's an update, the jailbreakers have to find yet another way in? Do you think maybe Apple doesn't want you getting into your hardware?
  - zimbabwe 17y ago
    If you don't choose to get the update, you don't need to jailbreak. It means that you don't get the advantage of Apple's own work, but that's part of the deal. Either you can get Apple's updates or you can have absolute freedom of your system. I view it as similar to the way that each new version of OS X requires a new version of Shapeshifter for skinning, because Apple keeps changing their UI inner workings. Apple's not beholden to the third parties trying to change their system.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
GHFigs 17y ago
You're conflating hardware and software. It is Apple's software--which they own, not you--that has a restriction on background tasks. Owners of the hardware can do what they like with it.

dmix 17y ago

There are plenty of other phones where you can hack around with background processes, why should one company be forced to do what everyone else is doing? Apple, one of the few smartphone innovators, has decided not to as a design decision in the interest of its customers (battery life). In the future releases background process will be added on as the hardware gets better - why not buy the other brands until then?

windsurfer 17y ago
I didn't say anything about forced! It's up to them to do what they want. I just find it strange that they haven't, and I think it's ridiculous that it's news that they "might be considering" doing what everyone else is doing.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  Apple thinks they know what people want. Their customers seem to agree. Shrug. This is nothing new. They think most people would rather have no background processes than badly done background processes. They will allow it when they make it "just work". Maybe they are right, maybe wrong, but it's not an in-principle bad approach.

zimbabwe 17y ago

I own the hardware of my iPod touch. I have the right to jailbreak it, and in doing so forsake Apple's promise to help me when things to wrong. Of course I have control. I just don't have control if I use both Apple's hardware and their software as Apple originally designed it. That's perfectly within Apple's jurisdiction as a company. I understand why you might think that their stance is ridiculous, but think of it like this: Apple's design strategy is to make products that are foolproof. That means blocking something like a background application that might ruin my experience, even if that means taking away some of my control. It limits what I can do, but within those limits I'm relatively safer. When I download an application, there's no threat of it running in the background without my knowing and sapping my battery. Is it incredible that I put up with my iPod? I know full well that I have control of who to purchase from. If I didn't want a closed system, I could go somewhere else. Nobody forced me to use Apple products. Their monopoly is not forced upon users; we accept it voluntarily. As a result, I get a music player/video player/miniature computer that does many things very effortlessly. When I buy an application, all I need to know is that it appears as a little button I can click to run it. When I want to add music to my iPod, all I do is make sure it's in iTunes, and then my player syncs. It's simple, and it means that I don't waste any of my time whatsoever with my iPod. It does everything I want and nothing I don't want. I don't see why people find it hard to accept that some people want freedom at the cost of effortlessness, and others want effortlessness at the cost of freedom. It's not incredible or ridiculous. It's simply different philosophy.

windsurfer 17y ago
May I ask why it is that every time there's an update, the jailbreakers have to find yet another way in? Do you think maybe Apple doesn't want you getting into your hardware?
- zimbabwe 17y ago
  If you don't choose to get the update, you don't need to jailbreak. It means that you don't get the advantage of Apple's own work, but that's part of the deal. Either you can get Apple's updates or you can have absolute freedom of your system. I view it as similar to the way that each new version of OS X requires a new version of Shapeshifter for skinning, because Apple keeps changing their UI inner workings. Apple's not beholden to the third parties trying to change their system.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

GHFigs 17y ago

You're conflating hardware and software. It is Apple's software--which they own, not you--that has a restriction on background tasks. Owners of the hardware can do what they like with it.