3 ms·

I'm not sure why you think I have no real architectural details. What do you know about what I know? Regardless, I think your pedantry is based on a statement

I'm not sure why you think I have no real architectural details. What do you know about what I know? Regardless, I think your pedantry is based on a statement I intended to be read in a less formal fashion than you're choosing to read it. When I said that it was not a possibility for poorly-behaved apps to drain significant amounts of battery under iOS 7, I didn't mean that it was absolutely impossible under any and all circumstances including system bugs, unforeseen architectural weaknesses, or gamma ray induced bitflips. People say "Linux uses memory protection to keep processes from corrupting the memory of other processes" and we all understand that they don't mean that it's literally impossible for memory problems to ever happen. Likewise, my point was that it is generally true that iOS 7 doesn't allow apps to wake up as often as they want. That is a design goal behind its architecture. Doubtlessly, neither its architecture nor its implementation are perfect — I'd be surprised if it were utterly impossible for an app to end up running whenever it wants in the background. But it'd be boorish to belabor that point. The original post that has led to this discussion was saying that Android has been criticized for being designed to allow apps to run in the background arbitrarily and now iOS has been redesigned to allow that too. That's not true. And the conclusion of hypocriticalness that was drawn from this faulty premise was untrue.

DannyBee 13y ago
"I'm not sure why you think I have no real architectural details. What do you know about what I know? " They do not appear as supporting details of your argument, so ... Again, you are trying to make it seem like pedantry and that i am addressing only extreme cases or bugs , and my point is you have offered no details to support any part of your argument. "Likewise, my point was that it is generally true that iOS 7 doesn't allow apps to wake up as often as they want. " I quoted your statement about battery life, and said you have offered no details to show this to be the case. Rather than offer details to refute that, you have now instead said "I said something different". I'd appreciate it if you would stick on point and address my contention that you have not offered details about this statement:"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." Please offer details to back this up. IE what architectural details you know that you believe make it the case that apple has not added the possibility of apps using large amounts of battery in the background. If the details are "apps can't arbitrarily wake themselves up", then your statement about the possibility of background apps draining battery life is easily shown to be wrong, and i'll be happy to refute it for you. If it is something else, i'd love to hear it, so i know exactly what argument i am addressing. Let's stay with this one part of the argument, please.
Domenic_S 13y ago
Don't worry about the trolls, your points made sense to me. The crazies have come out in this thread.

DannyBee 13y ago

"I'm not sure why you think I have no real architectural details. What do you know about what I know? " They do not appear as supporting details of your argument, so ... Again, you are trying to make it seem like pedantry and that i am addressing only extreme cases or bugs , and my point is you have offered no details to support any part of your argument. "Likewise, my point was that it is generally true that iOS 7 doesn't allow apps to wake up as often as they want. " I quoted your statement about battery life, and said you have offered no details to show this to be the case. Rather than offer details to refute that, you have now instead said "I said something different". I'd appreciate it if you would stick on point and address my contention that you have not offered details about this statement:"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." Please offer details to back this up. IE what architectural details you know that you believe make it the case that apple has not added the possibility of apps using large amounts of battery in the background. If the details are "apps can't arbitrarily wake themselves up", then your statement about the possibility of background apps draining battery life is easily shown to be wrong, and i'll be happy to refute it for you. If it is something else, i'd love to hear it, so i know exactly what argument i am addressing. Let's stay with this one part of the argument, please.

Domenic_S 13y ago

Don't worry about the trolls, your points made sense to me. The crazies have come out in this thread.