I know what Steve Jobs is doing to me, but he has very warm hands. On Feb 1, 9:45 am, Steven Herod <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
