 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / March 20084Phun- You missed this "news" item...
From http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/07/iphone-sdk-some-of-the-details-arent-great/ "But the single biggest issue we've found is in the 100 page iPhone Human Interface Guidelines. It's a public document, but you must be a registered iPhone developer to see it. We've embedded it below via docstoc... "Users can only run one application at a time, and if they leave an application it quits. That doesn't seem like a big deal, but it means that you can't switch away from an application and have it continue to do things. That's a big issue with the current support for websites on the iPhone - as soon as you leave the browser the connection is broken. With the iPhone, the hope was that an installed application could continue to run in the background and, most usefully, gather and send information from and to the web... 'Only one iPhone application can run at a time, and third-party applications never run in the background. This means that when users switch to another application, answer the phone, or check their email, the application they were using quits. (p. 16)' "This will be a serious problem for some developers. For example, say a developer wanted to take location information from the iPhone (created via the iPhones cellular triangulation feature) and dump it into FireEagle to keep track of where you've been. Well, that won't work unless you keep the application open at all times, and don't use the iPhone for anything other than that. Another example: instant messaging applications (we saw a demo of an AIM version at the event today), can't run in the background and collect messages while you are doing something else. Leave the application to take a phone call, and it shows you offline. The bottom line is - any application that wants to periodically interact with the web to do stuff, won't be able to on a continual basis." > 'Only one iPhone application can run at a time, False, as it is written. The iPhone of course runs multiple applications at once. Open the Mail app, then open Safari. The mail app will still be checking for new mail while Safari, or any other app, continues to run--and I don't mean schedule email reception. You can hear the new mail sound within any app, several seconds into the new app. Ditto for iPod app, RSS (third party). Ferchrist's sakes it's 'nix, it's born to multitask. Safari will run in the background too, unless its resources are needed. In fact the only way to terminate an app for sure is to hold down the Home button for 10 seconds. Users don't really need to be concerned with that though, as the model just works. Apple is apparently attempting to avoid the crappy Winmob model where new users had no idea they were loading up on running app--apps that didn't even need to be running--because MS was too stubborn to allow a real close button. Only MS would have X mean one thing on the desktop and something different on a mobile device. I have no doubt that iPhone apps that need to run in the background will be able to (AIM, which is coming, for instance). Those that don't will save state, and the user will not notice a thing. Just a red herring IMO. And of course third-party apps via jailbreaking can do anything they want. There have already been reports that iPhone 2.0 is already jailbroken, allowing Apple "sanctioned" apps and non-sanctioned apps to be loaded at the same time.  SignatureMike >> 'Only one iPhone application can run at a time, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Just a red herring IMO. More like devlopment for sheep. It doesn't say a whole lot for Apple's target audience. It slao proves that all of the application development in the world is futile- Apple is showing that the phone is designed for idiots. > Apple is showing that the phone > is designed for idiots. Only if you bought one. I'm guessing you suck at poker too. Transparent. SignatureMike >> Apple is showing that the phone >> is designed for idiots. > > Only if you bought one. Never happen- I need more than it offers. > I'm guessing you suck at poker too. Transparent. I'm guessing that you suck at realizing that I have no need to bluff here. I have no need to be anything but transparent here. >>> Apple is showing that the phone >>> is designed for idiots. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'm guessing that you suck at realizing that I have no need to bluff > here. I have no need to be anything but transparent here. <whoosh> Right over your head. Expected though. SignatureMike >>>> Apple is showing that the phone >>>> is designed for idiots. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Right over your head. Expected though. the only <whoosh> here is the sound echoing from between your ears. And for the record- I could probably take your house from you in less than an hour playing poker, as I don't appear to be the transparent one in this discussion. >>>>> Apple is showing that the phone >>>>> is designed for idiots. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > the only <whoosh> here is the sound echoing from between your ears. That's all you've got? I've heard better when I was 12. > And for the record- I could probably take your house from you in less > than an hour playing poker, as I don't appear to be the transparent > one in this discussion. While you might think your double-wide counts as a house, the fact is you couldn't even afford to pay the taxes on my vacation home. And you still don't get it. Now run along and catch this little red ball... SignatureMike >>>>>> Apple is showing that the phone >>>>>> is designed for idiots. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > That's all you've got? I've heard better when I was 12. That's far from all I've got. You get the maximum effort from you required. >> And for the record- I could probably take your house from you in less >> than an hour playing poker, as I don't appear to be the transparent >> one in this discussion. > > While you might think your double-wide counts as a house, the fact is > you couldn't even afford to pay the taxes on my vacation home. Sorry- that tarpaper shack has no value to me. I'd rather have the cabins in Georgetown and Aspen. The wife is particulalrly fond of them. > And you still don't get it. I'm not trying real hard. You bore me. > Now run along and catch this little red ball... Sorry- your wife would be much better at playing the game. >> Now run along and catch this little red ball... > > Sorry- your wife would be much better at playing the game. Zzzzzzzzzz.... SignatureMike > > 'Only one iPhone application can run at a time, > > False, as it is written. So let's write it correctly: only one third party iPhone application can run at a time. Serious deficiency. Your pathetic attempts at excusing Apple on this one are beneath you. >>> 'Only one iPhone application can run at a time, >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Serious deficiency. Your pathetic attempts at excusing Apple on this > one are beneath you. Yer a complete idiot if that's what you got out of it. I merely gave an example. I am not here to disprove whatever it is about the iPhone that makes you feel so inadequate. SignatureMike >>>> 'Only one iPhone application can run at a time, >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I am not here to disprove whatever it is about the iPhone that makes you > feel so inadequate. Then why are you here? >>>>> 'Only one iPhone application can run at a time, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Then why are you here? "Here?" <chuckle> Let's just say I love laughing at you fools who hold a grudge over a device. It would be pathetic if it weren't so damned funny. SignatureMike >>>>>> 'Only one iPhone application can run at a time, >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Let's just say I love laughing at you fools who hold a grudge over a > device. It would be pathetic if it weren't so damned funny. Wow- I love laughing at you fools who have such a blinding passion over a device. It is pathetic and not even damned funny. > "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wow- I love laughing at you fools who have such a blinding passion > over a device. It is pathetic and not even damned funny. You gotta work on yer on material. It's not very original. Parroting others, while flattering in a short bus kinda way, is still kinda lame. SignatureMike >> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > others, while flattering in a short bus kinda way, is still kinda > lame. And coming from you, an explanation of lame is so appropriate. >>> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And coming from you, an explanation of lame is so appropriate. Zzzzzzzzzzz..... SignatureMike > >>> 'Only one iPhone application can run at a time, > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yer a complete idiot if that's what you got out of it. Are you saying that it's not true that only one third party iPhone application can run at a time? >>>>> 'Only one iPhone application can run at a time, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Are you saying that it's not true that only one third party iPhone > application can run at a time? I can run as many apps as I like, at the same time. As I write this I have three SSH sessions open into my iPhone, and it's also running an FTP server, as well as Apache. It's running several other server-side processes but I doubt anyone here would understand what they are, let alone do. Meanwhile the iPhone itself is downloading and installing, via Installer, updates to 5 other apps. All at the same time. This is not "amazing" or unbelievable. It's a BSD-based 'nix OS that is married to hardware that can do the job. Nothing special. And for the record I have the SDK, as well as the non-SDK toolchains. Despite the idiots here who cry "fanboi" at the drop of a hat, I don't own a Mac yet (I've read the SDK docs, and framework docs, extensively). But since I'm about to replace a laptop I'm going to replace it with a Macbook or Macbook pro. While this will primarily run Windows, I intend to get up to speed on iPhone development ASAP, hence the Mac. So the naive comments in this thread are indeed laughable, mainly because nearly everyone but me is posting bullshit they know nothing about. I guess that is the state of Usenet nowadays. SignatureMike > > Are you saying that it's not true that only one third party iPhone > > application can run at a time? > > I can run as many apps as I like, at the same time. Are you saying that Apple is wrong when Apple says that only one third party application can run at a time? >>> Are you saying that it's not true that only one third party iPhone >>> application can run at a time? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Are you saying that Apple is wrong when Apple says that only one third > party application can run at a time? Are you saying you have no knowledge of the subject, other than what you read on Usenet? SignatureMike > >> I can run as many apps as I like, at the same time. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Are you saying you have no knowledge of the subject, other than what you > read on Usenet? I'm asking you a specific question. I've noticed that you are doing everything you can to avoid it. >>>> I can run as many apps as I like, at the same time. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I've noticed that you are doing everything you can to avoid it. The comment I responded to in this thread was this: "'Only one iPhone application can run at a time," For the reading impaired I'll state it again: false, as written. As for what will happen in 3 months, I'll let you do the speculating. Personally, I don't think that will be the case, if an app has a legitimate reason to run in the background. For sure even the limited frameworks available via the SDK support background operation. Either way I know I won't be restricted to running one app at a time. Not that I think it will be a negative to most users anyway--just the opposite. They innocents only have Web apps now, so they have zero third-party apps available to them. SignatureMike > >> Are you saying you have no knowledge of the subject, other than what > >> you read on Usenet? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The comment I responded to in this thread was this: > "'Only one iPhone application can run at a time," You haven't responded to that at all. I asked you specifically: are you saying that isn't true? You've danced everywhere around that question, avoiding it while accusing others of who knows what in order to distract people from realizing that you're not answering a simple and direct question. > >>>> I can run as many apps as I like, at the same time. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > available via the SDK support background operation. Either way I know I > won't be restricted to running one app at a time. Despite documentation to the otherwise, you THINK such a restriction won't come about? > Not that I think it will > be a negative to most users anyway Ah, I see that you're hedging. Tinman: "It'd never happen! And besides, it's not a big deal anyway." You are such a fanboi loser. > You are such a fanboi loser. Predictable. What are you going to fixate on when the iPhone isn't hot anymore? Must suck to be you. SignatureMike > > You are such a fanboi loser. > > Predictable. Yes, you are absolutely a predictable fanboi. >>> You are such a fanboi loser. >> >> Predictable. > > Yes, you are absolutely a predictable fanboi. Zzzzzzzz.... SignatureMike > What are you going to fixate on when the iPhone isn't hot anymore? Must suck > to be you. By then the 3G iPhone will be out... ;-) > By then the 3G iPhone will be out... ;-) I am sure the iPhone haters will find a reason to rant that. The haters will be at it for years to come since the iPhone is only at it's start. It is pretty evident that it is a major new platform that is going to be around for years to come. SignatureCharles > > By then the 3G iPhone will be out... ;-) > > I am sure the iPhone haters will find a reason to rant that. The haters > will be at it for years to come since the iPhone is only at it's start. > It is pretty evident that it is a major new platform that is going to > be around for years to come. Nobody hates an inanimate object. But the iPhone is the Bose of phones, which makes the buyer the Bose buyer of phone buyers. You do the math. >>>By then the 3G iPhone will be out... ;-) >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But the iPhone is the Bose of phones More like the Popeil Pocket Fisherman of phones... > > Nobody hates an inanimate object. > > > > But the iPhone is the Bose of phones > > More like the Popeil Pocket Fisherman of phones... nah. The Pocket Fisherman didn't sell for huge amounts of money as a fashion statement to people who have lots of money for a fashion statement. >>>Nobody hates an inanimate object. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fashion statement to people who have lots of money for a fashion > statement. Silver-plated, designer Popeil Pocket Fisherman, then. > >>>By then the 3G iPhone will be out... ;-) > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > More like the Popeil Pocket Fisherman of phones... Better than the pocket pool up here. LIke it or not, Apple shook up the whole industry. It's all good because it made the complacent companies rethink/revise. More choice of better phones for the iPhone haters, better iPhones and features for those who like theirs. SignatureTo reply by email, remove the word "space" >>>>>By then the 3G iPhone will be out... ;-) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > it made the complacent companies rethink/revise. > More choice of better phones for the iPhone haters You don't get it. We've had better phones for years. Years! And still do. > You don't get it. > > We've had better phones for years. Years! And still do. If this were true, you would not be wasting yours and everyone else's time with your jealous rants in Usenet newsgroups. How's that WiFi on your "better" phone? ;-) >>You don't get it. >> >>We've had better phones for years. Years! And still do. > > If this were true, you would not be wasting yours and everyone else's > time with your jealous rants in Usenet newsgroups. To set the record straight in response to fanboi posts like yours, skippy. > How's that WiFi on your "better" phone? ;-) 5x5, out of the box. As is the AGPS. And yours, troll? > To set the record straight in response to fanboi posts like yours, skippy. Yea, your making real progress in setting the record straight. To say your troll posts are anything other than jealous rants is an insult to the rest of the group. You are obviously not satisfied with your phone so you feel the need to knock those of us on the cutting edge of the future of cell phone technology. Save your money, get an iPhone and then come back. Lead, follow or get out of the way!!! >>To set the record straight in response to fanboi posts like yours, skippy. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > future of cell phone technology. Save your money, get an iPhone and then > come back. Lead, follow or get out of the way!!! Spoken like a true fanboi troll. > Spoken like a true fanboi. Good comeback. You really showed me. >>Spoken like a true fanboi. > > Good comeback. You really showed me. You and 4phun; idiots both, or perhaps the same. > >>>>>By then the 3G iPhone will be out... ;-) > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > We've had better phones for years. Years! And still do. Enjoy your world's best phone. Really. SignatureTo reply by email, remove the word "space" >>>>>>>By then the 3G iPhone will be out... ;-) >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Enjoy your world's best phone. > Really. "Better". Always room for "more better". "Best" is fleeting. > "Best" is fleeting. So isn't iPhone.....(c; >>"Best" is fleeting. > > So isn't iPhone.....(c; Tell that to wounded retail buyers of iTrash... > >>"Best" is fleeting. > > > > So isn't iPhone.....(c; > > Tell that to wounded retail buyers of iTrash... You? SignatureTo reply by email, remove the word "space" >>>>"Best" is fleeting. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You? Nope. Content and productive PcoketPC/Phone/A-GPS user. > >>>>"Best" is fleeting. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Nope. Content and productive PcoketPC/Phone/A-GPS user. Good for you. SignatureTo reply by email, remove the word "space" >> You are such a fanboi loser. > > Predictable. > > What are you going to fixate on when the iPhone isn't hot anymore? You mean like....... now? > The comment I responded to in this thread was this: > "'Only one iPhone application can run at a time," > > For the reading impaired I'll state it again: false, as written. > > As for what will happen in 3 months, I'll let you do the speculating. Mike, there is no need to try and a"debate" these two idiots. They are notorious iPhone haters and usually, as in this case, dead wrong. Your points have been taken and they both now look foolish. Let's all update our killfiles and carry on ;) > Are you saying that Apple is wrong when Apple says that only one third > party application can run at a time? Boy, am I ever sorry I started this thread! If you re-read my original post, the (very small) part in single quotes from the "Human Interface Guidelines" is the portion the blog quoted (in the double quotes) took offense at. I'm not a developer, therefore I haven't downloaded the SDK, or read the docs, so I can't even tell you if the guidelines are simply instructions for making an "approved" app, or are forced upon the developer by the programming environment. (For example, in the WinMo world I'm more familiar with, Microsoft lists a bunch of guidelines that apps SHOULD adhere to to be proper WinMo apps. Until fairly recently, one of the stupider ones (and widely ignored by developers) was that apps should NOT have an "exit" command. (WinMo's clumsy attempt at memory management was discussed earier in the thread!) Nothing in the WinMo SDK _prevents_ a developer from adding an exit function- it was just a guideline. This "no background running" "rule" of Apple's might be just that- a "guideline" or even some sort of requirement for getting your app listed on iTunes, butit might not be a limitation of the programmer's tools. Again, sorry- I just latched onto the first mildly negative iPhone "news" item I Googled to give a little poke at 4phun's "streaming iPhone news service" he continually inundates this NG with. Lighten up, kids! >> Are you saying that Apple is wrong when Apple says that only one >> third party application can run at a time? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > instructions for making an "approved" app, or are forced upon the > developer by the programming environment. Everything I've read shows it to be a guideline. Meanwhile right in the same SDK are tools to do just that. Not that it will matter to the nutcases posting here--and I don't mean you, Todd. They are entertaining though... fanboi, lol. SignatureMike > > 'Only one iPhone application can run at a time, > > False, as it is written. The iPhone of course runs multiple applications at > once. Understood. The article I referenced claims that the SDK doesn't allow 3rd- party apps to multitask or run in the background. Obviously the include Apple apps will. > Apple is apparently attempting to avoid the crappy Winmob model where new > users had no idea they were loading up on running app--apps that didn't even > need to be running--because MS was too stubborn to allow a real close > button. Those are different issues- tasks _designed_ to run in the background have nothing to do with MS' silly "automatic" memory management (which was desiged to make oft-used apps appear to "load" more quickly back in days of 80 MHz processors.) > Only MS would have X mean one thing on the desktop and something > different on a mobile device. True, but if their memory management scheme actually had worked as designed no one would've complained. The OS was (is) supposed to automatically close "low priority" apps to reclaim memory when needed. > I have no doubt that iPhone apps that need to > run in the background will be able to (AIM, which is coming, for instance). Perhaps, but will the potentially otherwise superior "Joe's IM program" written by a skilled, but independent programmer using the SDK he's offered? > Those that don't will save state, and the user will not notice a thing. True, assuming it's an app that doesn't require constant running- VoIP apps, GPS, dataloggers, etc. > Just a red herring IMO. Perhaps, but I interpret it to mean that developers will not have a level playing field- "partners" like Google will have access to the entire phone, while the small-fry and amateurs will be playing in a (relatively large) "sandbox" that protects the OS from errant apps. > And of course third-party apps via jailbreaking can do anything they want. > There have already been reports that iPhone 2.0 is already jailbroken, > allowing Apple "sanctioned" apps and non-sanctioned apps to be loaded at the > same time. That sounds like the way to go. > > 'Only one iPhone application can run at a time, > > False, as it is written. OK, it's false--as it is written. We know it can run more than one Apple application at a time. So let me ask this question: are you saying that the iPhone will be able to run more than one third party application at a time? We see you dancing around, not answering the question, and saying things like "false, as it is written" without actually explaining yourself. Your feet must hurt from all that dancing. "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:F1ZBj.199$N82.5 @fe107.usenetserver.com: > Users can only run one application at a time, and if they leave an > application it quits. Wow! Thanks, Todd. I didn't know it was that stupid! That would have been a kicker, today, coming back from the boondocks in the stepvan. I had Navicore guiding the way home on some backroads it correctly picked...while listening to KSEY's classic country and texas swing music plugged into the DJ stereo monster in the truck. Email notified me of an incoming message from one of my suppliers by adding its noise to the audio....all simultaneously. Navicore's simply mapping isn't necessary to watch with it talking to me over the big speaker system with the music, so I leave Maemo Mapper running simultaneously connected through the Sellphone data from Alltel downloading satellite mosaics overlaid with streets on-the-go, so to speak. NONE of that would work on an iPhone, even if Stevie let you run software on it! I figured every computer was multitasking since DoubleDOS got installed on my PC-XT! Looks like Apple went backwards! Even a Mac can run a few programs simultaneously! Oops, forgot one! Skype was booted and running on the N800 as well! I have to put KSEY on standby, manually, if Skype gets a call. The tablet is fine with multitasking audio....I'M NOT! > > Users can only run one application at a time, and if they leave an > > application it quits. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > listening to KSEY's classic country and texas swing music plugged into the > DJ stereo monster in the truck. Don't misinterpret what I quoted- the iPhone is perfectly capable of multitasking, and currently does with it's built-in apps- it's the allegedly watered-down SDK that prevents developers from writing apps that can multitask. >> > Users can only run one application at a time, and if they leave an >> > application it quits. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > allegedly watered-down SDK that prevents developers from writing apps > that can multitask. Which would render it just as useless. Any ideas what his point is hobbling it up like this? I think they're doing a LOT to hobble the use of BANDWIDTH, especially ATT bandwidth. If it cannot play streams while it's navigating...that saves bandwidth. See my point? > > - it's the > > allegedly watered-down SDK that prevents developers from writing apps > > that can multitask. > > Which would render it just as useless. Any ideas what his point is > hobbling it up like this? My guess is that a less-open SDK was released to the "public" and the "real" one is in the hands of Apples trusted partners, like Google and the major software companies. Like it or not, if true, this makes a lot of sense. Unfettered access to the device's guts makes it too easy to render the device unstable, and the iPhone is all about "User Experience" above all else. You and I might like (or at least not mind) hacking and tweaking our devices, but the iPhone is aimed at a different market. Now, of course, it wouldn't be Apple's fault if 3rd-party apps crashed the unit, but that would be the perception, and we know how well that perception works for WinMo. As easy as it is to pick on WinMo's instability, I stand by my belief that the vast majority of it's problems are the direct result of 3rd-party apps. The "out of box" product is very stable. Something had bothered me (from a business perspective) about the whole "it all comes from iTunes" distribution model: the certification process. How was Apple going to be able to insure every freeware "guitar" app downloadable via iTunes wouldn't crash the device due to some deeply hidden bug that didn't surface unless you played Donovan's "Sunshine Superman" backwards? The $99 fee wasn't going to begin to cover the cost of certifying thousands of cheesy little apps. Now it makes more sense- the SDK itself insulates the device from "harm" by locking out access to the phone's guts except via pre-approved calls much like a Java VM protects a dumbphone OS. > I think they're doing a LOT to hobble the use of BANDWIDTH, especially > ATT bandwidth. If it cannot play streams while it's navigating...that saves > bandwidth. See my point? Yes, but again, "real" Apple or 'Apple partner' apps won't have those limitations. Just the small-fry/amateur stuff. Again, my post wasn't suposed o be an indictment of the iPhone- I was just slapping 4phun and his idiotic dozen-a-day iPhone "news" posts around, wondering aloud why an alleged shortcoming of the SDK didn't qualify as "iPhone news" but a port of Ms. Pac Man that used the accelerometor to move would be. > wondering aloud why an alleged shortcoming of the SDK didn't qualify > as "iPhone news" but a port of Ms. Pac Man that used the accelerometor > to move would be. The seat warmers would never point out a shortcoming. Vic is the head seat warmer...(c; I've stolen this phrase from the Comcast internet group where Comcast was caught loading up the public forum the FCC was holding about its violation of the open internet rules by throttling and forbidding access to bit torrent. There's pictures of the Comcast seat warmers sleeping during the hearing. They kept out hundreds of public members to testify against them. The seat warmers weren't interested, just paid to occupy the seat. The Comcrap newsgroup has a substantial group of seat warmers, like our buddy, here....(c; |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.