4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

From
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/07...s-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."

---

› See More: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> '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.


--
Mike

"Tinman" <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
news:[email protected]:

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>> '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.
>
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.

The Bob wrote:
> Apple is showing that the phone
> is designed for idiots.

Only if you bought one.

I'm guessing you suck at poker too. Transparent.



--
Mike

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> 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!

At 12 Mar 2008 16:09:10 -0700 Tinman wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
> >
> > '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.

At 13 Mar 2008 00:30:17 +0000 Larry wrote:

> > 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.

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.

"Tinman" <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
news:[email protected]:

> The Bob wrote:
>> 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.

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> At 13 Mar 2008 00:30:17 +0000 Larry wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>

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?

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Tinman" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> '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.

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.



--
Mike

"Tinman" <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
news:[email protected]:

> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Tinman" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> '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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>

Then why are you here?

"Tinman" <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
news:[email protected]:

> The Bob wrote:
>> "Tinman" <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> The Bob wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
> <whoosh>
>
> 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.

The Bob wrote:
> "Tinman" <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Tinman"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> '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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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.



--
Mike

"Tinman" <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
news:[email protected]:

> The Bob wrote:
>> "Tinman" <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Tinman"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> '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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>

Wow- I love laughing at you fools who have such a blinding passion over a
device. It is pathetic and not even damned funny.

The Bob wrote:
> "Tinman" <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The Bob wrote:
>>> "Tinman" <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> The Bob wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> <whoosh>
>>
>> Right over your head. Expected though.
>>
>>
>>
>
> 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...



--
Mike