4 ms·

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

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.
        rimantas 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. And WWDC presentation.

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.
      - rimantas 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. And WWDC presentation.