...sensible management. Moreover, with thin-client design methodologies, you can cram a very great deal of use into very tiny code stubs. You write code that works within the restrictions.
Perhaps the best arguments against Apple allowing background tasks are that they take up too much airtime, draining the battery, and that there's no way for them to communicate to the user when they need attention. If either of these two things were a given for background tasks, then Apple would have a point. But they're not, and it doesn't.
If the design of the iPhone precludes proper always-on connectivity — which wouldn't be the first time the company has gone for form over function — then have a decent scheduler, which understands the metrics of wireless access and makes intelligent decisions about when to allow what to connect. This does put the onus on application designers to understand the limitations and capabilities of such a channel and to create software accordingly, but then that is their job. Likewise, if there is a limited user interface, then create a common alert mechanism which mediates requests and interactions. There are good ways to do this; it takes cleverness, a feel for usability and a good understanding of design principles. Last time I looked, Apple had some form here.
To some extent, all these arguments are otiose. Background tasks clearly run well on the iPhone; Apple's own software uses them, as do the products of some of its closest friends. OS X is a modern operating system with all the capabilities needed, even in a restricted, real-time environment. Even the most rabid "fanboys" won't argue that background processing will never come. Instead, they say, we must trust Apple and let it deliver what it likes when it likes.
I don't know why Apple hasn't let anyone else have the keys to that particular kingdom. Perhaps it really can't make the technology work properly. Perhaps it wants to limit the amount of work it has to do to approve applications for distribution — after all, if you can't run any background tasks, you never have to worry about unforeseen interactions — and that 30 percent of retail price just won't pay for enough testing. Perhaps it doesn't trust application designers or users very much. Perhaps it wants the best software for itself, where it can limit what it can do in order not to upset its telco friends.
Whatever the reason, it reflects badly on Apple. It's either not as clever as it makes out, greedier than it likes to admit, more hemmed in by its design decisions than it wishes to make apparent or just determined to force its vision on the world regardless of what the world wants. Think different?
But it leaves the company vulnerable to the competition and to a loss of lustre. The iPhone is not an iPod; it's a smartphone connecting to a universe of fast-changing data on behalf of innovation-hungry users. The sooner it stops pretending to be a 1981 IBM PC, the better it will be for everyone.
Talkback
All the experts have pointed out that nothing in the iPhone is revolutionary, and there are no hardware or software features that didn't already exist on other smartphones. The only thing new with the iPhone is a flashy touchy interface and a sexy design.
That said, the real conspiracy is why Nokia, RIMM, Palm and all the more experienced cellphone manufacturers and the carriers with their faster networks haven't offered us the author's desired multitasking background applications all running constantly and harmoniously together.
While the iPhone is lamentably slow at adding these features, it is obvious that they have a plan and are making progress, even if guarding their overall experience too tightly.
So...why are are Nokia and the others withholding these advancements from us? Nokia and their fellow iPhone competitors are either not as clever as they claim, greedier than they like to admit, more hemmed in by their design decisions than they wish to make apparent or just determined to force their vision on the world regardless of what the world wants? Perhaps they don't trust application designers or users very much. Perhaps they want the best software for themselves, where it can limit what it can do in order not to upset their telco friends.
I'd say it's not a smartphone at all, but the first truly mobile computer.
In time, with enough smart decisions about how apps work on this new type of device, it will be the only computer much of the world's population will ever own. It will never replace a desktop for some of us, but it will be all the vast majority of people will ever need.
It takes time to get things right. That's something most businesses, developers, and shareholders forget.
I'd rather see developers stop and really think about how to make this first wave of limited apps as good as they can be. Eventually the training wheels come off, slowly, and we'll see more sophisticated apps using what's been learned in these early stages.
This platform will be around for 20 years. they need to get it right.
Good points here. In the long run, the iPhone SDK shortcomings may hurt it in comparison to Android, which does allow background processing.
iPhone's lack of (3rd party) background processing will hamstring whole classes of new apps. The best summation of iPhone SDK problems I've seen is here:
<b><a href="http://whydoeseverythingsuck.com/2008/03/apples-iphone-sdk-prohibits-real-mobile.html"> Apple's iPhone SDK Prohibits Real Mobile Innovation </a></b>
Interesting premise - releasing a limited SDK for a limited device somehow will make it even harder for Apple to sell all those iPhones.
I guess I had better ditch my iPhone and go back to my Windows Mobile phone. After all, what's the use in continuing to use my iPhone when I know that no one will ever be able to write a multitasking app? Sigh....
After 20 years in IT and spending most of my time wrestling with an XP laptop and all its clunky software (Just so I can access my more reliable Unix variants !!) I just want a quite life now and if stability of the iPhone means that Apple have to limit access then good for Apple.
Its a little annoying when people think they have a right to hack into Apples code - You would'nt get upset if Zanussi stopped you taking the back off your washing machine.
"...determined to force its vision on the world ..."
If you like Apple's vision, and legions of iPod and iPhone customers clearly do, buy their products.
If you don't like Apple's vision, buy something else.
Buy some brick that runs Windows mobile, allows third party apps to run in the background, is available in a rainbow of colours and you'll be in seventh heaven!
Indeed Openmoko offers a quite different approach: Libre Software, full access to the Linux OS (rootfs, kernel), free development environment (cross compiler, SDK, OpenEmbedded).
Openmoko currently runs on the Neo 1973 smartphone, (prototype released in July 2007).
The new Neo FreeRunner is expected in Spring 2008.
http://openmoko.com
http://openmoko.org
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,39362121,00.htm
The iPhone was obviously rushed to market before Apple had a chance to do any longterm thinking about third party apps, security, etc. You can watch Apple wing it, each time Jobs changes his mind about how much control to keep... from no apps, to web apps, to limited native apps. I think the hackers forced his hand. With perhaps half of all users jailbreaking their phones, Apple was losing the abilty to guide the phone's future.
Apple Wing you watch this, every time to control how much Jobs can change his mind about ... From an Apps, native apps limited to Web Apps to. I think hackers have forced their hand. Jailbreaking the phone with probably half of all users, Apple was losing abilty called Future Guide.