Sign In
Register
Help
Ok, that was weird. I referred to my other post (#7) in my latest post and now the original post has been replaced with the latest.
* I was able to fix this by using a cached version of the page and editing number 7, however, someone should probably look into why it happened in the first place.
iPhone SDK: One at a time?
MultiQuote
#44
Lonestar1 
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 07-March 08
Posted 13 March 2008 - 04:05 PM
" Several people here are claiming it's impossible to write an instant messenger without background apps, but AOL has already ported their instant messenger to the iPhone. "
" I never made such a claim, in case you're lumping me in the "several people" group. However, what I'd love for you to point out is where I missed the demo of the AIM client running in the background, alerting the user to a request for a new conversation, or of a new message in an existing conversation? The only time the AIM client was shown was when it was the running app."
I can't say because I've only seen parts of the presentation. I was going on allegations that AOL had a secret deal with Apple that allowed them to run in the background. I could only assume that was based on something they saw in the demo.
If AIM doesn't run in the background, then I don't know what that's all about.
"And without a background process of some sort, there's simply no way a real time program like Chat, Twitter, or IRC can work: if it's not running, it's not running. You can talk about workarounds all you want, but unless you're somehow running a process in the background (which Apple states they will not allow), then you can't update your app unless it's frontmost. Game over."
Iconfactory has already announced that they're developing a Twitter client for the iPhone. So, obviously, there are developers who think it can work. Maybe they're mistaken, but maybe they know something you've overlooked, or maybe there really are "secret deals" between Apple and select developers.
Even if that's true, I don't think such deals would necessarily be a bad thing. You've just named three or four programs that might have legitimate need to run in the background, but by next summer there might be a thousand iPhone apps, most of which do not have any legitimate need to remain running in the background. But if they have that option, many of them will (especially if they're written by inexperienced programmers). Permitting everyone to do something because of the 5% case who actually need to do it is not always the smartest approach.
Also, remember this is not even a 1.0 SDK yet. It's only a beta. Just because something is not permitted now does not mean it will never be permitted.
"As for asking Apple, I did. We're still waiting for a clarification on exactly what "only one app at a time and no background processes" means relative to net-connection-required apps."
I don't think that's surprising. Given the 100,000 developers who have downloaded the SDK, you can hardly expect instant response times from Apple. Apple does not have infinite resources. It's also possible that they haven't decided yet., or that background processes will use part of the SDK that isn't ready yet. It might even be that they've decided to punt the issue until some future release. You might think that instant messaging is the killer app that will make or break the iPhone but every developer feels the same way about his own app. If kids have to wait a few months before they can cheat on exams and pass notes in study hall using their iPhones, they'll probably survive. (In my day, they had to use pieces of paper. :-)
" I never made such a claim, in case you're lumping me in the "several people" group. However, what I'd love for you to point out is where I missed the demo of the AIM client running in the background, alerting the user to a request for a new conversation, or of a new message in an existing conversation? The only time the AIM client was shown was when it was the running app."
I can't say because I've only seen parts of the presentation. I was going on allegations that AOL had a secret deal with Apple that allowed them to run in the background. I could only assume that was based on something they saw in the demo.
If AIM doesn't run in the background, then I don't know what that's all about.
"And without a background process of some sort, there's simply no way a real time program like Chat, Twitter, or IRC can work: if it's not running, it's not running. You can talk about workarounds all you want, but unless you're somehow running a process in the background (which Apple states they will not allow), then you can't update your app unless it's frontmost. Game over."
Iconfactory has already announced that they're developing a Twitter client for the iPhone. So, obviously, there are developers who think it can work. Maybe they're mistaken, but maybe they know something you've overlooked, or maybe there really are "secret deals" between Apple and select developers.
Even if that's true, I don't think such deals would necessarily be a bad thing. You've just named three or four programs that might have legitimate need to run in the background, but by next summer there might be a thousand iPhone apps, most of which do not have any legitimate need to remain running in the background. But if they have that option, many of them will (especially if they're written by inexperienced programmers). Permitting everyone to do something because of the 5% case who actually need to do it is not always the smartest approach.
Also, remember this is not even a 1.0 SDK yet. It's only a beta. Just because something is not permitted now does not mean it will never be permitted.
"As for asking Apple, I did. We're still waiting for a clarification on exactly what "only one app at a time and no background processes" means relative to net-connection-required apps."
I don't think that's surprising. Given the 100,000 developers who have downloaded the SDK, you can hardly expect instant response times from Apple. Apple does not have infinite resources. It's also possible that they haven't decided yet., or that background processes will use part of the SDK that isn't ready yet. It might even be that they've decided to punt the issue until some future release. You might think that instant messaging is the killer app that will make or break the iPhone but every developer feels the same way about his own app. If kids have to wait a few months before they can cheat on exams and pass notes in study hall using their iPhones, they'll probably survive. (In my day, they had to use pieces of paper. :-)
#46
zaphod5
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 10-March 08
Posted 14 March 2008 - 01:31 PM
JoeC wrote:Why don't you wait for that clarification from Apple before you spread panic about it? I know Apple can be a pain in the butt about clarifying such things...
Apple is more than a pain on these types of things; it often refuses to clarify things. Appl€ makes Micro$oft look like a fount of information. Remember the disappearing external iSight cameras? Heck, they didn't tell even tell Apple store employees what was going on. Apple's press office bears more resemblance to Orwell's Ministry of Information than the press office at almost any other computer co.
The problem with many of the iPhone limits is that Apple is positioning the iPhone as the leading smart-phone with "the internet in your pocket." The latter may be true, but the trouble is that you can't see the internet when it's in your pocket. Flash, which is necessary for many websites, is not yet supported for circumstances that remain murky. And the ability to load documents -- PDFs, RTFs, etc. -- outside of email is either non-existent (if you're, say, on a plane) or requires awkward hacks. Heck, you can't even get a note off the machine unless you entered it in iCal. And that didn't synch properly half the time. Apple created a brilliant screen that is essentially wasted whenever you can't get a WiFi or Edge signal.
I remember the early days of U.S. Robotics and the Palm platform -- 3rd party developers were all over the place with innovative products. It was clean and elegant OS and it provided excellent connectivity and synching for the tech available.
Apple is more than a pain on these types of things; it often refuses to clarify things. Appl€ makes Micro$oft look like a fount of information. Remember the disappearing external iSight cameras? Heck, they didn't tell even tell Apple store employees what was going on. Apple's press office bears more resemblance to Orwell's Ministry of Information than the press office at almost any other computer co.
The problem with many of the iPhone limits is that Apple is positioning the iPhone as the leading smart-phone with "the internet in your pocket." The latter may be true, but the trouble is that you can't see the internet when it's in your pocket. Flash, which is necessary for many websites, is not yet supported for circumstances that remain murky. And the ability to load documents -- PDFs, RTFs, etc. -- outside of email is either non-existent (if you're, say, on a plane) or requires awkward hacks. Heck, you can't even get a note off the machine unless you entered it in iCal. And that didn't synch properly half the time. Apple created a brilliant screen that is essentially wasted whenever you can't get a WiFi or Edge signal.
I remember the early days of U.S. Robotics and the Palm platform -- 3rd party developers were all over the place with innovative products. It was clean and elegant OS and it provided excellent connectivity and synching for the tech available.
