Comments on: Background Apps: They’re Not Just for Push

By: johnnyc

johnnyc — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:12:44 +0000

I have a question for you folks as well:

What is the difference between the “new” wifi auto-connect, and the auto-connect that’s been built in since Day 1? I have multiple fav wifi networks that “connect when I arrive and disconnect when I leave” to paraphrase the “new” featured ability.

What am I missing here?

By: johnnyc

johnnyc — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:06:51 +0000

I think it’s amazing that despite all of the improvements (to a device and platform still in it’s infancy compared to the competition) there are people focusing on gripes.

I do understand the *wish* for BG processes, but I think it’s unrealistic considering the power needs of the iPhone. You have a large, bright high-res multi-touch display, with a fairly powerful processor, location services, 3G, Edge & Wifi, push, server refreshes, a telephone, and an iPod potentially all drawing power…

Additional backgroud processes are still too premature to be rolled out widely. I your adamant, then jailbrake and deal with the potential hiccups. The iPhone is much better served by being a stable, reliable device.

That said, backgrounding WILL COME. Who knows, maybe as soon as this summer with the hardware refresh, but definitely not on the current hardware.

By: DWes

DWes — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:32:44 +0000

That could be handled by a wake-and-execute model, where the app requests a wake-up call from the OS.

Are data transfers and voice not mutually exclusive? I know they are on my (oldish) BB.

By: Chad

Chad — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:20:03 +0000

Even though the push service is great, it still only serves HALF the push problem. It’s great for server to client push, but what about when I want a client app to push data to the server while I’m on the phone or checking my email. For example, maybe I am going on a hike and I want my wife to be able to find me if I don’t come home… I could tell my app to run in the background (like blackberry) and it could then push my GPS location to a hosted service.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:29:03 +0000

That drives me crazy too. Especially when I’m browsing digg, or playing a game.

By: DWes

DWes — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:46:43 +0000

Like mentioned, NNW could save its state. Some apps do this, and sometimes I don’t want it. I’d rather Mail open with the inbox every time then have it go back to the last mail I read.

As far as just switching in/out vs. quitting, they’re not really that different. The iPhone has very little RAM, so if you switched out, it’d probably have to unload some stuff out of RAM and then bring it back in when you switch back. This would only split the lag between the switches instead of piling it up on a restart. Less intrusive, but probably not an overall gain.

As far as apps putting up alerts themselves, I’m sure Apple could (if they haven’t already) add an API that allows an alert to be fired on a designated event, so the OS watches for the event and triggers the alert, asks if the user wants to switch to the app, and then does so. I think Apple is afraid of apps pushing them back to the front whenever they want. That’s one of my biggest peeves with Windows – IE pushes itself in my face whenever it feels like, as if I have no say in what gets my attention at that moment. Think about what that’d be like – 100 apps constantly throwing up alerts, it becomes unusable.

I’m surprised there aren’t more complaints about the lack of spam filtering. I’d forgotten spam existed until I got a Touch.

By: Brad Sterling

Brad Sterling — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:10:04 +0000

A little followup on my previous comment. Android allows an app to wait on a notification. The app is not running thus uses no resources. If Apple can increment the number of notifications, it certainly doesn’t require anymore battery usage for the app to sit in limbo and be activated when the notification is received. I love Apple, but the 80% battery drainage is pure BS.

By: Brad Sterling

Brad Sterling — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:58:01 +0000

Surprised nobody mentioned that the push notification service is a developer’s nightmare. It requires any application using it to rollout a website which posts partial notification to the apple website which in turn posts to the device. Once the application is activated, the website must post the entire notification to the application.

All of this is required, as opposed to simply running a background app which receives the entire notification from anywhere. As an example, suppose you want to play a game with another user. With background notification the devices can simply talk to one another (perhaps a lookup of the device would be necessary).

This difference is huge.

By: Initial Thoughts On iPhone OS 3.0 - TheAppleBlog

Initial Thoughts On iPhone OS 3.0 - TheAppleBlog — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:21:00 +0000

[...] There’s also the push mechanism, which I think is great for background notification, though lacking elsewhere. I wrote about that here. [...]

By: GM

GM — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:18:27 +0000

Why does it have to be this way? My point is that I don’t always want an app in the background for notification purposes. Sometimes I want it in the background because I’ll be switching right back to it. I’m only leaving for a few minutes; I’ll be right back. Why do I have to quit the freakin’ thing?

Jailbreak, install Backgrounder. Allows you to run an app in the background and then return to it instantly from the springboard. It’s really neat.