Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > Cellular Communications > US Networks > alt.cellular.cingular
Register FAQ Forum Rules Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Advertise Mark Forums Read

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2008, 10:44 PM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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."












Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2008, 11:09 PM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 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



Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2008, 11:17 PM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

"Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
news:63r64qF28e1maU1@mid.individual.net:

> 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.

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2008, 11:39 PM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

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




Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 12:30 AM
Larry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> 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!


Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 02:21 AM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

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.



Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 02:26 AM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

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.



Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 02:31 AM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

"Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
news:63r7srF290hk6U1@mid.individual.net:

> 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.

Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 03:18 AM
Larry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:fra3cl$k4c$2@aioe.org:

> 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?


Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 03:38 AM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <63r64qF28e1maU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
> 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



Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 03:39 AM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

"Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
news:63rlsgF262quiU1@mid.individual.net:

> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <63r64qF28e1maU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
>> 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?

Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 03:40 AM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

The Bob wrote:
> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
> news:63r7srF290hk6U1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> 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.



--
Mike



Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 03:42 AM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

"Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
news:63rm10F28dsf7U1@mid.individual.net:

> The Bob wrote:
>> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
>> news:63r7srF290hk6U1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> 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.

Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 03:43 AM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

The Bob wrote:
> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
> news:63rlsgF262quiU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article <63r64qF28e1maU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman"
>>> <ask@for.it> 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





Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 03:47 AM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

"Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
news:63rm6vF28c9maU1@mid.individual.net:

> The Bob wrote:
>> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
>> news:63rlsgF262quiU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> In article <63r64qF28e1maU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman"
>>>> <ask@for.it> 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.

Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 03:47 AM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

The Bob wrote:
> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
> news:63rm10F28dsf7U1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> The Bob wrote:
>>> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
>>> news:63r7srF290hk6U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> 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




Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 03:49 AM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

The Bob wrote:
> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
>>
>> 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.


You gotta work on yer on material. It's not very original. Parroting others,
while flattering in a short bus kinda way, is still kinda lame.



--
Mike





Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 03:51 AM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

"Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
news:63rmhrF285bmqU1@mid.individual.net:

> The Bob wrote:
>> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
>>>
>>> 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.

>
> You gotta work on yer on material. It's not very original. Parroting
> others, while flattering in a short bus kinda way, is still kinda
> lame.
>
>
>


And coming from you, an explanation of lame is so appropriate.

Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 03:53 AM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

The Bob wrote:
> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
> news:63rmhrF285bmqU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> The Bob wrote:
>>> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
>>>>
>>>> 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.

>>
>> You gotta work on yer on material. It's not very original. Parroting
>> others, while flattering in a short bus kinda way, is still kinda
>> lame.
>>
>>
>>

>
> And coming from you, an explanation of lame is so appropriate.



Zzzzzzzzzzz.....



--
Mike



Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 03:53 AM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

"Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
news:63rmesF297eedU1@mid.individual.net:

> The Bob wrote:
>> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
>> news:63rm10F28dsf7U1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> The Bob wrote:
>>>> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> amazed us all with the following in
>>>> news:63r7srF290hk6U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>


That's far from all I've got. You get the maximum effort from you
required.

>
>>
>> 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.


Sorry- that tarpaper shack has no value to me. I'd rather have the
cabins in Georgetown and Aspen. The wife is particulalrly fond of them.

>
> And you still don't get it.


I'm not trying real hard. You bore me.

>
> Now run along and catch this little red ball...


Sorry- your wife would be much better at playing the game.

>
>
>



Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 04:10 AM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

The Bob wrote:
>>
>> Now run along and catch this little red ball...

>
> Sorry- your wife would be much better at playing the game.


Zzzzzzzzzz....



--
Mike




Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 06:56 AM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

At 13 Mar 2008 03:18:25 +0000 Larry wrote:
> > - 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?


My guess is that a less-open SDK was released to the "public" and the
"real" one is in the hands of Apples trusted partners, like Google and the
major software companies.

Like it or not, if true, this makes a lot of sense. Unfettered access to
the device's guts makes it too easy to render the device unstable, and the
iPhone is all about "User Experience" above all else. You and I might like
(or at least not mind) hacking and tweaking our devices, but the iPhone is
aimed at a different market.

Now, of course, it wouldn't be Apple's fault if 3rd-party apps crashed the
unit, but that would be the perception, and we know how well that
perception works for WinMo. As easy as it is to pick on WinMo's instability,

I stand by my belief that the vast majority of it's problems are the direct
result of 3rd-party apps. The "out of box" product is very stable.

Something had bothered me (from a business perspective) about the whole "it
all comes from iTunes" distribution model: the certification process. How
was Apple going to be able to insure every freeware "guitar" app
downloadable via iTunes wouldn't crash the device due to some deeply hidden
bug that didn't surface unless you played Donovan's "Sunshine Superman"
backwards? The $99 fee wasn't going to begin to cover the cost
of certifying thousands of cheesy little apps.

Now it makes more sense- the SDK itself insulates the device from "harm" by
locking out access to the phone's guts except via pre-approved calls much
like a Java VM protects a dumbphone OS.


> 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?


Yes, but again, "real" Apple or 'Apple partner' apps won't have those
limitations. Just the small-fry/amateur stuff.


Again, my post wasn't suposed o be an indictment of the iPhone- I was just
slapping 4phun and his idiotic dozen-a-day iPhone "news" posts around,
wondering aloud why an alleged shortcoming of the SDK didn't qualify as
"iPhone news" but a port of Ms. Pac Man that used the accelerometor to move
would be.


Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 12:48 PM
Larry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:fraj8q$u6e$2@aioe.org:

> wondering aloud why an alleged shortcoming of the SDK didn't qualify
> as "iPhone news" but a port of Ms. Pac Man that used the accelerometor
> to move would be.
>
>


The seat warmers would never point out a shortcoming. Vic is the head seat
warmer...(c;

I've stolen this phrase from the Comcast internet group where Comcast was
caught loading up the public forum the FCC was holding about its violation
of the open internet rules by throttling and forbidding access to bit
torrent. There's pictures of the Comcast seat warmers sleeping during the
hearing. They kept out hundreds of public members to testify against them.
The seat warmers weren't interested, just paid to occupy the seat.

The Comcrap newsgroup has a substantial group of seat warmers, like our
buddy, here....(c;


Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 02:11 PM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <63rlsgF262quiU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
> 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.

>
> Are you saying that it's not true that only one third party iPhone
> application can run at a time?


I can run as many apps as I like, at the same time. As I write this I have
three SSH sessions open into my iPhone, and it's also running an FTP server,
as well as Apache. It's running several other server-side processes but I
doubt anyone here would understand what they are, let alone do. Meanwhile
the iPhone itself is downloading and installing, via Installer, updates to 5
other apps. All at the same time.

This is not "amazing" or unbelievable. It's a BSD-based 'nix OS that is
married to hardware that can do the job. Nothing special.

And for the record I have the SDK, as well as the non-SDK toolchains.
Despite the idiots here who cry "fanboi" at the drop of a hat, I don't own a
Mac yet (I've read the SDK docs, and framework docs, extensively). But since
I'm about to replace a laptop I'm going to replace it with a Macbook or
Macbook pro. While this will primarily run Windows, I intend to get up to
speed on iPhone development ASAP, hence the Mac.

So the naive comments in this thread are indeed laughable, mainly because
nearly everyone but me is posting ******** they know nothing about. I guess
that is the state of Usenet nowadays.



--
Mike



Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 02:49 PM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <63sqtkF28paieU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
> wrote:
>
>>> Are you saying that it's not true that only one third party iPhone
>>> application can run at a time?

>>
>> I can run as many apps as I like, at the same time.

>
> Are you saying that Apple is wrong when Apple says that only one third
> party application can run at a time?


Are you saying you have no knowledge of the subject, other than what you
read on Usenet?



--
Mike



Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 03:31 PM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <63st4cF26v5plU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
> wrote:
>
>>>> I can run as many apps as I like, at the same time.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that Apple is wrong when Apple says that only one
>>> third party application can run at a time?

>>
>> Are you saying you have no knowledge of the subject, other than what
>> you read on Usenet?

>
> I'm asking you a specific question.
>
> I've noticed that you are doing everything you can to avoid it.


The comment I responded to in this thread was this:
"'Only one iPhone application can run at a time,"

For the reading impaired I'll state it again: false, as written.

As for what will happen in 3 months, I'll let you do the speculating.
Personally, I don't think that will be the case, if an app has a legitimate
reason to run in the background. For sure even the limited frameworks
available via the SDK support background operation. Either way I know I
won't be restricted to running one app at a time. Not that I think it will
be a negative to most users anyway--just the opposite. They innocents only
have Web apps now, so they have zero third-party apps available to them.




--
Mike



Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2008, 04:48 PM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

At 13 Mar 2008 10:35:15 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> Are you saying that Apple is wrong when Apple says that only one third
> party application can run at a time?


Boy, am I ever sorry I started this thread!

If you re-read my original post, the (very small) part in single quotes
from the "Human Interface Guidelines" is the portion the blog quoted (in
the double quotes) took offense at.

I'm not a developer, therefore I haven't downloaded the SDK, or read the
docs, so I can't even tell you if the guidelines are simply instructions
for making an "approved" app, or are forced upon the developer by the
programming environment.

(For example, in the WinMo world I'm more familiar with, Microsoft lists a
bunch of guidelines that apps SHOULD adhere to to be proper WinMo apps.
Until fairly recently, one of the stupider ones (and widely ignored by
developers) was that apps should NOT have an "exit" command. (WinMo's
clumsy attempt at memory management was discussed earier in the thread!)

Nothing in the WinMo SDK _prevents_ a developer from adding an exit
function-
it was just a guideline. This "no background running" "rule" of Apple's
might be just that- a "guideline" or even some sort of requirement for
getting your app listed on iTunes, butit might not be a limitation of the
programmer's tools.

Again, sorry- I just latched onto the first mildly negative iPhone "news"
item I Googled to give a little poke at 4phun's "streaming iPhone news
service" he continually inundates this NG with.

Lighten up, kids!



Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2008, 04:14 AM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> You are such a fanboi loser.


Predictable.

What are you going to fixate on when the iPhone isn't hot anymore? Must suck
to be you.



--
Mike




Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2008, 04:19 AM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 13 Mar 2008 10:35:15 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that Apple is wrong when Apple says that only one
>> third party application can run at a time?

>
> Boy, am I ever sorry I started this thread!
>
> If you re-read my original post, the (very small) part in single
> quotes from the "Human Interface Guidelines" is the portion the blog
> quoted (in the double quotes) took offense at.
>
> I'm not a developer, therefore I haven't downloaded the SDK, or read
> the docs, so I can't even tell you if the guidelines are simply
> instructions for making an "approved" app, or are forced upon the
> developer by the programming environment.
>


Everything I've read shows it to be a guideline. Meanwhile right in the same
SDK are tools to do just that.

Not that it will matter to the nutcases posting here--and I don't mean you,
Todd. They are entertaining though... fanboi, lol.


--
Mike



Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2008, 09:59 AM
Tinman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 4Phun- You missed this "news" item...

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <63ucd9F28eoc1U1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
> wrote:
>
>>> You are such a fanboi loser.

>>
>> Predictable.

>
> Yes, you are absolutely a predictable fanboi.


Zzzzzzzz....



--
Mike



Reply With Quote
Reply


« Lost p[hone | Another article that 4phun/Oxford will conveniently miss »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Missed calls from premium rate numbers Nick Castle uk.telecom.mobile 4 02-14-2008 02:51 PM
W385 - missed call reminder? zwerl1@yahoo.com alt.cellular.verizon 7 09-22-2007 04:33 PM
blackberry missed calls not dissappearing?! Paul uk.telecom.mobile 2 02-22-2007 08:24 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:38 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45