* Fabio Colella <[email protected]> wrote: > The advantages of not allowing background services are mainly > longer battery life and better overall performances. > ... > I think we should find a compromise that allow the user to use > apps that need background services but also makes him/her free > to stop/resume them. > ... > My consideration is that the user should always end up being > able to decide what he/she want's to use and when. We put > conventions (like stop on low battery) over user configuration, > but the user should still be free to change > it.
On Android, it seems to be a cultural norm that there is no difference between having an app installed and having it running all the time. It seems like practically every app has a background service, even when completely unnecessary or unwanted. Because almost every app developer views their app as the single most important thing on the phone, and it needs to be running all the time. On Ubuntu Touch though, we can actually close apps... and they stay closed! This is a major selling point, an awesome feature compared to the competition. On my Android phone, the battery lasts about 4 to 6 times as long when I can prevent the zillions of unnecessary background apps from running. And when I run an app, it starts and responds much faster without all that other junk taking up RAM and CPU time. I'd very much like it if we put control over this in the end user's hands, and give them the ability to override obnoxious decisions made by the app developers. I really don't want Facebook running in the background, pinging the server every few minutes... I just want it available on demand for the rare times I need to use it on the go. And the same goes for pretty much everything else on the phone. -- Selene -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
