10 ms·

That's the thing. It will be in the background. You won't even notice.

untog 13y ago
But we've been told for years that Android is fundamentally broken because it allows this. I guess everyone changed their mind?
- uptown 13y ago
  Maybe stop worrying what "everyone" is saying, and form your own thoughts about things?
  - untog 13y ago
    I wasn't particularly worried about it. More noting the usual pattern of "<x> is wrong until Apple does it". Background apps, flat design...
    - nsxwolf 13y ago
      <x> is wrong until Apple does it correctly.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- glhaynes 13y ago
  As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it's not exactly the same: iOS is still much more strict about what runs and when. Apps get woken up only when the system decides to wake them up, and it decides based on current battery life/power state, other system activity level, and the user's usage patterns of the app. Then, once woken up, apps get a limited time to run.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Android does this as well, so I guess like the guy you are responding to, i don't see a real difference.
    - glhaynes 13y ago
      To my understanding, Android offers something similar and also allows apps to wake up arbitrarily in the background. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the latter ought to be an option or not (or, perhaps even more reasonably, can be happy that both types of devices exist so people can choose which they'd prefer). But the complaint regarding Android was that it let poorly-behaved apps drain significant amounts of battery in the background and it's not true that Apple has now added that possibility.
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        So you know all the technical implementation details of both? Or are you comparing random API doc material and actual technical details? Apple says a lot of things, not all of them turn out to be technically accurate. For example, do you know it actually will not allow poorly behaved apps to drain battery, or is this just an assumption based on what apple says will happen? What always happens in these discussions is people say "apple's docs say x, so it must be like x". Quite often, when people actually go and look at how it operates, it isn't like x at all.
        glhaynes 13y ago
        The discussion was around architecture. Of course it may not behave as intended when actually implemented because of bugs. Or because of Apple outright lying in their communications. Sure, those are possibilities, but they're irrelevant to architectural criticism.
        DannyBee 13y ago
        But you have no real architecture details, only a small number of bullet points on how it's supposed to behave and a simple but not horribly descriptive API. That isn't an architecture, that's just marketing materials. They are completely irrelevant to anything. Given only that, you cannot possibly make informed commentary on how it will behave in practice, you are just parroting a story. In particular, you said "it let poorly-behaved apps drain significant amounts of battery in the background and it's not true that Apple has now added that possibility." You cannot possibly assert this with any real details to back it up, because you do not know how this architecture operates past "apple says they won't be woken up enough or run long enough to drain battery". If you have the actual details necessary to back this statement up, please add them. Unless you are talking at such an abstract level where everything that matters is an implementation detail, in which case it's very easy to design perfect architectures that have no problems! We don't believe people when they make crazy claims about crypto, without seeing the actual details and implementations. We should not trust Apple or Google's marketing points about their architectures when trying to make "architectural criticism". In the end, if you really believe "architectural criticism" is possible without actual detailed design info, carry on. But to me, that's a worthless discussion based on what are essentially talking points. In any case, all that matters in the end is performance in the field, so this entire discussion is mostly technical masturbation until real users have phones in hands.
- glasshead969 13y ago
  iOS still doesn't allow apps to run in background as they wish. OS decides when to wake up an app and how long based on usage patterns. Also OS gives user capability to disable specific apps from ever using this system and also turn it off system wide. I don't think they changed their mind, they made it less restrictive probably because newer processors can complete tasks faster and go to sleep faster which preserves battery life.
- jrochkind1 13y ago
  Nice passive voice, 'been told'. Who told you that? Do you have an example of an actual person telling you that 'for years', and that same person is now telling you different? If so, then, clearly, they changed their mind, sure. I doubt that 'everyone' did though.
Angostura 13y ago
My concern is the ability of apps to eat all the data in my data plan without me knowing.
- kamjam 13y ago
  This would be my biggest concern too. Due to the huge cost + tax of data plans here in Canada, I'm only on a 1GB per month plan :( I would need the ability to completely turn this off - which according to another comment here it will be.
  - Domenic_S 13y ago
    Don't take this flippantly: have you checked to see how much data you're actually using? I did when switching carriers and was shocked at how little non-wifi data I was really using. I use plenty of apps, get they typical corporate load of emails, upload photos, read stuff on the internet... and my cellular usage was in the low hundreds. Which made sense thinking about it, wifi at home, wifi at work.
    - kamjam 13y ago
      Yes, I actually do keep an eye on it, and have the limiter set on it. My phone (from the UK) doesn't play well with the networks here so I am restricted to EDGE :( Just about to buy a new phone so with LTE will get much faster speeds. I used up over 400mb this month on EDGE, with very restricted usage. Once I get full speed I know for sure I will use it more. My wifi usage is pretty high, 3-4GB per month. I would regularly use up 2-3GB month in UK due to YouTube and streaming music.
- threeseed 13y ago
  Last time I checked WWDC slides it only does this when connected to Wi-Fi.

untog 13y ago

But we've been told for years that Android is fundamentally broken because it allows this. I guess everyone changed their mind?

uptown 13y ago
Maybe stop worrying what "everyone" is saying, and form your own thoughts about things?
- untog 13y ago
  I wasn't particularly worried about it. More noting the usual pattern of "<x> is wrong until Apple does it". Background apps, flat design...
  - nsxwolf 13y ago
    <x> is wrong until Apple does it correctly.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
glhaynes 13y ago
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it's not exactly the same: iOS is still much more strict about what runs and when. Apps get woken up only when the system decides to wake them up, and it decides based on current battery life/power state, other system activity level, and the user's usage patterns of the app. Then, once woken up, apps get a limited time to run.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Android does this as well, so I guess like the guy you are responding to, i don't see a real difference.
  - glhaynes 13y ago
    To my understanding, Android offers something similar and also allows apps to wake up arbitrarily in the background. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the latter ought to be an option or not (or, perhaps even more reasonably, can be happy that both types of devices exist so people can choose which they'd prefer). But the complaint regarding Android was that it let poorly-behaved apps drain significant amounts of battery in the background and it's not true that Apple has now added that possibility.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      So you know all the technical implementation details of both? Or are you comparing random API doc material and actual technical details? Apple says a lot of things, not all of them turn out to be technically accurate. For example, do you know it actually will not allow poorly behaved apps to drain battery, or is this just an assumption based on what apple says will happen? What always happens in these discussions is people say "apple's docs say x, so it must be like x". Quite often, when people actually go and look at how it operates, it isn't like x at all.
      - glhaynes 13y ago
        The discussion was around architecture. Of course it may not behave as intended when actually implemented because of bugs. Or because of Apple outright lying in their communications. Sure, those are possibilities, but they're irrelevant to architectural criticism.
        DannyBee 13y ago
        But you have no real architecture details, only a small number of bullet points on how it's supposed to behave and a simple but not horribly descriptive API. That isn't an architecture, that's just marketing materials. They are completely irrelevant to anything. Given only that, you cannot possibly make informed commentary on how it will behave in practice, you are just parroting a story. In particular, you said "it let poorly-behaved apps drain significant amounts of battery in the background and it's not true that Apple has now added that possibility." You cannot possibly assert this with any real details to back it up, because you do not know how this architecture operates past "apple says they won't be woken up enough or run long enough to drain battery". If you have the actual details necessary to back this statement up, please add them. Unless you are talking at such an abstract level where everything that matters is an implementation detail, in which case it's very easy to design perfect architectures that have no problems! We don't believe people when they make crazy claims about crypto, without seeing the actual details and implementations. We should not trust Apple or Google's marketing points about their architectures when trying to make "architectural criticism". In the end, if you really believe "architectural criticism" is possible without actual detailed design info, carry on. But to me, that's a worthless discussion based on what are essentially talking points. In any case, all that matters in the end is performance in the field, so this entire discussion is mostly technical masturbation until real users have phones in hands.
glasshead969 13y ago
iOS still doesn't allow apps to run in background as they wish. OS decides when to wake up an app and how long based on usage patterns. Also OS gives user capability to disable specific apps from ever using this system and also turn it off system wide. I don't think they changed their mind, they made it less restrictive probably because newer processors can complete tasks faster and go to sleep faster which preserves battery life.
jrochkind1 13y ago
Nice passive voice, 'been told'. Who told you that? Do you have an example of an actual person telling you that 'for years', and that same person is now telling you different? If so, then, clearly, they changed their mind, sure. I doubt that 'everyone' did though.

Angostura 13y ago

My concern is the ability of apps to eat all the data in my data plan without me knowing.

kamjam 13y ago
This would be my biggest concern too. Due to the huge cost + tax of data plans here in Canada, I'm only on a 1GB per month plan :( I would need the ability to completely turn this off - which according to another comment here it will be.
- Domenic_S 13y ago
  Don't take this flippantly: have you checked to see how much data you're actually using? I did when switching carriers and was shocked at how little non-wifi data I was really using. I use plenty of apps, get they typical corporate load of emails, upload photos, read stuff on the internet... and my cellular usage was in the low hundreds. Which made sense thinking about it, wifi at home, wifi at work.
  - kamjam 13y ago
    Yes, I actually do keep an eye on it, and have the limiter set on it. My phone (from the UK) doesn't play well with the networks here so I am restricted to EDGE :( Just about to buy a new phone so with LTE will get much faster speeds. I used up over 400mb this month on EDGE, with very restricted usage. Once I get full speed I know for sure I will use it more. My wifi usage is pretty high, 3-4GB per month. I would regularly use up 2-3GB month in UK due to YouTube and streaming music.
threeseed 13y ago
Last time I checked WWDC slides it only does this when connected to Wi-Fi.