I think the iPhone is a dictatorship, and most people don't give a damn about democracy and freedom unless the dictatorship is affecting them directly.
Which is why developers prattle on about the closed nature of the device and the general public keep rocking along to Miley Cyrus on their iPhones. On Jan 31, 4:12 pm, Christian Catchpole <[email protected]> wrote: > As we all know, Apple don't let us write iPhone apps which run > background tasks. Now some of obvious reasons are that you can't > write competing media streaming applications. But I think the main > reason is to maintain the quality of the iPhone product. Agree with > it or not, allowing background tasks can have a dramatic effect on the > performance of the phone. As it stands, there are thousands of apps > in the store, mostly shite. Some of them crash, most of the them > suck. But you can only run one at a time, so you can happily quit > that shite app and move on. But if apps could have background > processes, there would be a range of issues. In a perfect world, apps > would only use the resources they needed and have few side effects. > In practice, launching even a few iPhone apps could grind your phone > to a halt as each "obviously more important" app consumes CPU, memory > and bandwidth. And now apps are throwing up notifications and > competing for attention and confusing the user. So I understand the > thinking, but I do think its a shame we lose so much obvious > functionality in the process. I'm not an expert on phone > architectures, so this is just me perspective on it. I understand > that Android encourages you to intercept the message flow, so I'm > curious how that works in practice. > > I wonder, if there was no App store, you could install what you want. > Would people be throwing their iPhones down in disgust as they grind > to a halt, not because anything Apple has done but because people try > to use them beyond their ability. > > And this leads me onto the iPad. Now I understand the complaints that > the iPad is just a big iPod Touch. That's what I was thinking too.. > But as I think about it, I'm taking a new perspective. We all think > that "in the future" we will have simpler, cleaner easier to use, > "Minority Report" devices. But until that happens, we all *need* unix > shells and root access to get anything done. Progress in computing is > limited by our attachment to the past. I believe Apple are trying to > get us closer to the future. Obviously, the geekier of us who are > used to total control over a system will revolt against it. > > We shouldn't though confuse two district issues here. The working > paradigm of the device and how the apps arrive via the App store. > > http://twitter.com/catchpolenet -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
