Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Handhelds Iphone Java Operating Systems Programming Apple

iPhone OS 4.0 Brings Multitasking, Ad Framework For Apps 983

Posted by timothy
from the define-myself-as-outside-the-fence dept.
Low Ranked Craig writes "Apple had an event today to show off the next major update to the iPhone OS. iPhone OS 4.0 should arrive this summer (presumably with a new iPhone) for iPhone and iPod Touch, and in the fall for the iPad. According to Apple the update has more than 1,500 new APIs and 100 new features including the sorely missed multitasking. Other highlights include unified inbox, improved security, support for multiple Exchange accounts, application folders, iBooks, and iAd, an advertising framework for developers to put ads in their applications. The official word from Steve on Flash and Java remains a simple 'No.'" Updated 20100408 22:09 GMT by timothy: Read on for more information, including some bad news if you want to program for the iPhone in C# or Flash CS5.
alphadogg points out some what he calls surprise capabilities targeted at enterprise users and IT departments, including e-mail encryption and "mobile device management."

And CWmike adds more infomation at MacWorld about iAd, which he considers the biggest news in today’s announcement, writing that one way to look at the new advertising hooks "is that Apple can now leverage the App Store/iTunes ‘ecosystem’ lock-in in effect, and deliver to advertisers a huge captive audience."

Finally, binarylarry writes with a look from Daring Fireball at the new user agreement that goes along with 4.0: "Looks like Adobe's release of CS5 with the Flash-to-native compiler has been nixed by Apple's new user agreement: '3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iPhone OS 4.0 Brings Multitasking, Ad Framework For Apps

Comments Filter:
  • No ads please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Matt Perry (793115) <perry.matt54@yah3.14159oo.com minus pi> on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:49PM (#31782308)

    Ads on mobile phone? DO NOT WANT. Unless I get a free phone and free service, but even then I'm not sure if I could tolerate it.

  • by Kenja (541830) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:50PM (#31782316)
    Good to know Apple has their priorities right.
  • Re:No ads please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:51PM (#31782338)

    The ads are for the apps that choose to use them, not for the phone service.

    Like them or hate them, the more money Apple funnels towards the developers, the better software support it will have. If it's successful expect Android to follow suit.

  • Whoa, whoa (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bluesman (104513) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:53PM (#31782364) Homepage

    Wait a second here. Wasn't the lack of multitasking a feature that made the iPad and iPhone so great? It allowed you to relax and compute!

    What are they doing? Why is Apple taking all of the zen [wirelessweek.com] out?

  • Apple "Innovation" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Microlith (54737) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:55PM (#31782400)

    Couple things:

    The multitasking method described is essentially identical to the one MS is using, with the process being halted in the background and the potential for it to be freed from memory at any time. The new addition is a background daemon or two that a program can contact to leave bits running while the rest is halted. Sort of a "low power multitasking." This is actually quite clever, and makes me wonder if it isn't using Grand Central closures to keep those bits spinning while the main process is halted.

    The task switching method has apparently been cited as looking extremely similar to the way S60 switches. I wouldn't know, but that's pretty funny if true.

    All in all, the critical juncture remains for me: The platform has been and will remain extremely closed. That alone is enough to ensure that I will stick with my N900 for the time being, and likely well into the future. I'll put my OS and developer interests behind MeeGo, and encourage openness.

  • by cdrudge (68377) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:55PM (#31782408) Homepage

    It's their store. If you don't like it, don't buy their device. Or jailbreak it.

  • NO thanks (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:55PM (#31782420)
    I was considering getting an ***LOW INTEREST MORTAGES*** Iphone, but this new ad framework might ***ALL-NATURAL COLONIC CLEANSE*** force me to reconsider. Will ads only be shown when ad-supported apps are running, or ***HOT SLASHDOTTERS WANT TO TALK TO YOU!!!*** will you be interrupted with ads no matter where you are?
  • Re:No ads please (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:56PM (#31782434)

    Its a unified ad service to give Apple 40% of the pie.

    Expect apps using home rolled ad solutions to be bounced

  • Re:No ads please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beakerMeep (716990) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:57PM (#31782454)
    You're right, but expect that line to get blurred over time. Look at PBS and NPR: they dont have ads, but they do. Google is starting to do this now with Google maps on Android. They put sponsored links in the search results. While fine and noninvasive in it's present form, over time I would fully expect them to get more invasive until it is as saturated as Television. No corporation can resist a new avenue for advertising revenue. Hell, even nonprofits like NPR/PBS can't.
  • by EzInKy (115248) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:57PM (#31782458)

    Now if only iPhone owners could do what they want with the hardware they purchased.

  • Re:No ads please (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:01PM (#31782496)

    Devs are going to follow the money. It doesn't matter if you're locked into the Android Marketplace or not.

  • by vijayiyer (728590) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:02PM (#31782516)

    Tell me about it. iPhone owners want to run Sendmail on the iphone they purchased and ssh into it from their laptop.

    Oh wait, maybe it actually does do what they want, just not what _you_ want. Is it possible that the N900 is right for you and the iPhone right for others?

  • by dingen (958134) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:02PM (#31782518)
    Because you want to be able to look something up (through your browser, in your mailbox, whatever) while having a conversation on Skype.
  • by czmax (939486) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:04PM (#31782542)

    A good reason for the OS to support multitasking: Assume you hit 'upload' in your favorite application and now want to do something else while the data is slowly streaming out to the server. This allows you to move on to do something else.

    You aren't the one multitasking though because, from your perspective, you're done with that previous task. This lets the application/OS do the multitasking that allows you to move on and do something else. Apple would argue this "good" vs making you think about it as a new task: "I want this upload to complete so I'll run this application in the background while I do something else then I'll come back and close this application when it is done". In the latter case you truly are doing the multitasking.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:06PM (#31782592)

    So now you have iPhone developers having to worry about which hardware they are running on:

    * Older OSes that can't multi-task versus newer iPhone hardware

    * Larger screen sizes on the piece of junk iPad versus the tiny iPhone screen rez

    Isn't 'fragmentation' the latest talking point for Apple and Apple fans in the media after the 'teh most apps' failed to have any effect on slowing down the massive Android surge?

  • Re:NO thanks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:07PM (#31782600)

    Will ads only be shown when ad-supported apps are running...

    Yes.

    or ***HOT SLASHDOTTERS WANT TO TALK TO YOU!!!*** will you be interrupted with ads no matter where you are?

    I'm sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously when you're happily posting on an ad-supported site about how you say 'no-thanks' to ad-supported apps.

  • Re:Fantastic news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuantumRiff (120817) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:11PM (#31782630)

    I can't wait to see how many annoying (but non-flash) ads full of animation and video can do to get me right up to my 5GB data limit every month.

  • Re:No ads please (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:11PM (#31782642)

    Or its easy to have adfree and ad supported versions of the same program. Adfree is a driving force for people paying for a "Pro" version of many apps.

  • by VZ (143926) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:15PM (#31782666)

    Interestingly enough nobody seems to have mentioned this gem [daringfireball.net] yet. To summarize, Apple has decided to forbid

    Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool

    While this is clearly aimed squarely at Adobe and their Flash compiler I can't help wondering what does it mean even for C++ libraries such as Qt or wxWidgets (that I'm personally most interested in) as, with a bit of bad faith (that Apple doesn't seem to luck), they could be construed to be "intermediary compatibility layers" too. And this definitely seems to exclude using Perl, Python, Ruby or anything else.

    If anybody had any doubts about Apple openness, this should hopefully be enough to dispel them (although whom am I kidding... there will surely be people able to justify this as well).

  • Re:No ads please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:15PM (#31782674) Homepage Journal

    iAd

    People are laughing at me when I suggest that future iMacs will have app store lockdowns and now will be "ad-supported" to boot. It's iPhone 4.0 today and OSX 11 tomorrow. And it will still be irresistibly shiny.

    You slashdotters out there: did you first get into computing and technology in order to consume more advertising and to have someone else tell you which software to run? Or did you turn to technology and computing in rejection of advertising and lockdowns (aka "command and control")? When you first got into computing and technology did you learn more from the gear that you had to fiddle with or the gear that "just worked"?

    I swear to you by all that is holy, by the time this is over, we're going to regret having been in such an all-consuming hurry to suck the iDick.

    Watch and See.

  • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:18PM (#31782718)

    True multi-tasking isn't coming to the iPhone. The multi-tasking will be limited. If it falls under 7 different categories [appleinsider.com] it will be supported.

    Apple has always been against mult-tasking because they claim it hampers performance and drains the battery. As a Window Mobile user, I can't count the number of times my phone was freaking sluggish only to find that certain apps were running in the background that didn't kill themselves properly. With this Apple will allow certain types of behavior. Most of the multi-tasking that most consumers have wanted falls under one of these categories. Now if you're trying to sequence a genome while twittering your friends, that's probably not supported.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:22PM (#31782760)

    Mac OS 9 and earlier only had "co operative" multitasking and Mac zealots of the day used to proclaim it was better than "true" multitasking and came up with all sorts of rationales for it, until OS X came along of course. So history is repeating itself and Apple is bringing back their "it's better because it's worse" philosophy of the 90's. LOL.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:22PM (#31782762)

    I shouldn't have to literally break the law to make my phone run and work how I, the USER, want it to.

    You, the USER, didn't buy an open source phone. You bought a phone with a specified platform and method of operation. Maybe you should back the bus up and ask why you, the USER, bought a phone you didn't like.

  • by NotQuiteReal (608241) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:22PM (#31782770) Journal
    Good to know Apple has their priorities right.

    They do. Have you seen their profit margin? You do know they are a for-profit company, right?
  • Oh! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jbb999 (758019) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:23PM (#31782788)
    Will it let you install your own applications on it however you like? No? Well it's still an essentially useless toy then.
  • Re:No ads please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clang_jangle (975789) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:24PM (#31782798) Journal

    People are laughing at me when I suggest that future iMacs will have app store lockdowns and now will be "ad-supported" to boot.

    Yes, they're laughing because you're woefully misinformed (or maybe just a troll). Apple has a very good thing going with developers and OS X -- and it's a completely different from their consumer electronic business because it's a completely different market. Many devs love OS X but wouldn't be caught dead with an iPhone or iPad. Many iPad or iPhone users are looking forward to the day they can replace their computer with an iPpliance -- totally different markets.

  • by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:29PM (#31782846)

    Not everybody wants a SSH console on their mobile phone.

    .. and that's the only thing multi-tasking is useful for, right?

    Sorry, what was your point?

  • by iluvcapra (782887) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:30PM (#31782852)

    look at how Palm WebOS does it.

    The three-hour battery life part or the going bankrupt by catering to whims of tech forum trolls part?

  • Re:Whoa, whoa (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ShecoDu (447850) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:33PM (#31782890) Homepage

    "In multitasking, if you see a task manager, they blew it. Users shouldn’t have to ever, ever, ever think about that stuff."

    Fast forward a year

    "In this new iPhone OS 5.0, we've working on a new revolutionary feature, a real task manager, this is going to greatly improve your experience with the devices, it's so great, even we are amazed!"

  • by Microlith (54737) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:35PM (#31782916)

    Or how about the simple ability to pick an app that was denied entry into the App Store? Say, Opera Mobile if Apple denies it again.

  • by Kethinov (636034) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:36PM (#31782926) Homepage Journal

    I'm with you. I bought a 2G iPhone years ago because it was the only smartphone with a user experience I considered to be acceptable. When they launched the app store, I expected openness, but was sorely disappointed. I've been waiting ever since for Android to catch up and in my opinion it finally has. I'm going to switch to Android some time this summer. Currently exploring my options. The HTC Desire looks like the best so far.

  • by MBGMorden (803437) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:36PM (#31782928)

    Because only great devs can write flashlight and fart apps?

    The reality is you can write good or bad code in any language. Their closed system is all about them keeping control. It does NOTHING to keep out "crap" developers (as completely shown by the amount of complete and utter "crap" already on the App Store).

  • by vadim_t (324782) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:36PM (#31782932) Homepage

    The thing is "what I want" is different for different people.

    On the n900, if you want to run sendmail on it, sure, you can. If you don't want to, you don't have to. It doesn't have to be something as geeky as running sendmail on it, though. Maybe what I want is porn or tethering, or scanning for wifi networks.

    On the iPhone what you can do is limited to what Apple thinks users should be doing, and that list keeps shrinking.

  • Re:No ads please (Score:2, Insightful)

    by The End Of Days (1243248) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:37PM (#31782944)

    Since nothing is holy, your swearing is pure theatre.

    In any case, it's not like Apple owns the entire PC market, phone market, or consumer electronics market. They simply don't have the power to dictate the sorts of things you are warning about. They can provide it as a choice, but that's not really an issue unless you are one of those people who believes that everyone should only have the choices you've blessed. If that is indeed the case, you're fucked and always have been. Sorry if I am the one to break it to you.

  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:37PM (#31782948) Homepage Journal

    Android has already had this since the G1

    AS well as a bunch of features the iPhone is just now getting, and a bunch it doesn't have.

  • Re:No ads please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AresTheImpaler (570208) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:38PM (#31782958)
    People are laughing at me when I suggest that future iMacs will have app store lockdowns and now will be "ad-supported" to boot. It's iPhone 4.0 today and OSX 11 tomorrow.

    the ads are for those applications that want to make money thru ads. If developers dont want them, even on their free application, they dont have to include them. The whole thing is so that if you want to include ads, they have some hooks on the SDK so that it's easy for the developer.
    also, about app store lockdown, I seriously doubt it. In fact, when steam announced that they were releasing a mac client, appleinsider interviewed them (link here [appleinsider.com]). John Cook from Valve was asked if Apple was helping them. He replied:
    "Cook: Yes, we've been working with them a bunch as we get more acquainted with their platform. They've been a great partner so far and we look forward to growing our relationship with them over time."
    So yeah, even tho some slashdot trolls and some slashdot haters do not like apple and make up stuff, what you said, it's not going to happen.

    Watch and See

  • by Obyron (615547) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:42PM (#31783022)
    As opposed to the iPhone, where you have your choice of fart apps, or clones of crayon physics games.
  • by gmuslera (3436) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:43PM (#31783040) Homepage Journal
    Why i could not play music while reading a web page/book or taking a photo? Or playing music, updating my gps, and running a pedometer while walking? Or being able to receive skype calls while doing anything else?

    Some of the most obvious uses of multitasking were covered by this apple update (mostly around voip, audiostreaming, and gps), but a few is not the same as everything to the core. Maybe the average iphone owner dont want to ssh to their phones, but you always ends finding a situation where you would want that your smartphone do more than a thing at once.
  • by melted (227442) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:45PM (#31783068) Homepage

    Currently, developers use the in-application ads to monetize free applications. This means that the only people who will see those apps are freeloaders who don't want to pay $0.99 for the full version of the app. Those folks won't tap on the ads, and even if they do, they won't buy stuff. Epic fail.

  • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:46PM (#31783090)

    The multitasking method described is essentially identical to the one MS is using, with the process being halted in the background and the potential for it to be freed from memory at any time.

    God, I hope not. I hope Apple does a better job of not letting background processes suck up all the processing power and battery that some apps on my Windows Mobile phone did.

  • Re:RAM, ipad (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:51PM (#31783152)

    The older iphones and ipod touches don't get multitasking likely because they only have 128 MB of RAM.

    Damn, that's only 500 times as much RAM as an Amiga 1000. No way anyone can multitask in that!

  • Re:No ads please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:51PM (#31783156)

    Following the money means devs will focus their energies on where it's profitable. Make it dirt simple to do and the iPhone becomes a more attractive platform. Sway enough dev-work their way, Google responds with their own. Thus not being able to get away from it.

  • Re:No ads please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DJRumpy (1345787) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:51PM (#31783162)

    Of course iPhone users have a choice. The ratings for apps are right there on the app page, along with user comments. If they get abusive with ads (and there are already some apps that tried this), the users complain, and the app gets a low rating. Since there are more apps than you can throw a phone at, it's rarely difficult to find one you like, even among the free offerings.

    "Lack of lock-in means I can find and use an alternative without ads. Or better yet, use an open source alternative if one exists. iPhone users have no such choice."

  • Re:No ads please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Karlt1 (231423) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:52PM (#31783172)

    You slashdotters out there: did you first get into computing and technology in order to consume more advertising and to have someone else tell you which software to run?

    So do you really think that Google is supporting Android for any other reason than to supply advertising? Their whole business strategy is based on ads. Microsoft is even placing ads in their bundled apps for the Zune.

  • by thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:52PM (#31783182) Journal
    Let's not get too cynical. I watch hulu for a few hours on a dual core desktop computer and the video becomes sluggish. Imaging flash hugging the cpu during a 911 call.
  • Re:RAM, ipad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by proxima (165692) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:53PM (#31783190)

    I think that's a bit of a stretch. For example, the older Nokia tablets (770, n800) had 64 and 128MB of RAM, respectively, and they had full blown multitasking. Not to mention slower processor than the iPhone. (770 and N800 had a 250 and 400MHz ARM, respectively).

    Sure, lots of older computers had far less than 128 MB of RAM and did real multitasking. The issue is whether iphone OS and its apps on the earlier generations of hardware work well enough. You can bet they tested its performance. I suspect they found it quite lacking due to RAM and decided to disable multitasking rather than allow it and have it run poorly. More cynical people would say they're doing it to encourage upgrades.

  • Re:No ads please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clang_jangle (975789) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:55PM (#31783206) Journal
    For one thing OS X is a *nix, with full shell/root access. Tricky to lock that down, not to mention all the people who use it because of that would quickly switch to Linux.
  • Re:Whoa, whoa (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:55PM (#31783210)
    Very well put. All the Apple apologists out there were lauding the lack of multitasking as a feature, not a bug, saying it enhanced the usability of the device and made it much better than its competitors. Now that King Jobs has announced multitasking support they are falling over themselves to applaud his decision, even though it goes against everything he was saying up until now. Got to love the way Jobs announces Apple will do multitasking better, "Just like we did with copy and paste". That's just hilariously grandiose.
  • Re:No ads please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer (890720) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:56PM (#31783222) Journal

    did you first get into computing and technology in order to consume more advertising and to have someone else tell you which software to run? Or did you turn to technology and computing in rejection of advertising and lockdowns

    Neither.

    I got into computing and technology because it was fricking fun to write and play 3000-line adventure games with my friends in BASIC on a PET2001 -- which, by the way, just worked.

    I personally don't care about advertising. It doesn't bother me one bit in the grand scheme of things, since I'm capable of tuning them out. If the ads in a particular context bother me, then I avoid that context.

    When you first got into computing and technology did you learn more from the gear that you had to fiddle with or the gear that "just worked"?

    Seems to me like your core issue is the idea of a computer as an appliance.

    Why not use computer appliances for what they're designed for, and scratch your tinkering itch somewhere else? It's not like Apple is the alpha and omega of computing.

    There's plenty of room for tech consumers and tech tinkerers alike in this world. Do Apple's offerings really limit your ability to tinker and learn?

  • Re:Oh! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by k2enemy (555744) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:59PM (#31783264)

    Will it let you install your own applications on it however you like?
    No?
    Well it's still an essentially useless toy then.

    Care to elaborate? I find my iPhone very useful.

  • by mcsqueak (1043736) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:59PM (#31783282)

    I'll be dumping iPhone as soon as my current jailbroken 3GS is considered obsolete. I shouldn't have to literally break the law to make my phone run and work how I, the USER, want it to.

    No, clearly you purchased the wrong phone for what you need, and have some serious buyers remorse. Sort of like buying a minivan then wondering why it can't go fast enough to win any street races, if car analogies are your thing.

    I bought a 3GS last summer after it was released as well. It does everything that it advertised it was supposed to do, nothing more, nothing less. Since I bought it wanting those features, I am very happy with my purchase.

    No one is forcing you to break the law to make the phone run the way you think it should, rather you have to break the law because you failed to read the standard set of features/benefits that they 3GS had at the time of release. It's not like they kept what it could and couldn't do a secret.

  • by jo_ham (604554) <joham999@@@gmail...com> on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:14PM (#31783466)

    So it basically implements multitasking like Android does it, with state saving and helper processes.

  • Re:No ads please (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:14PM (#31783470)

    Very well put. I've been preaching this message for years. Microsoft got such a lot of flack for anti-competitive behavior in the past. The time is past-due for Apple to be investigated for the same. Everyone is in search of a quick buck and rolls over for the promise of quick riches - developers, content providers, etc. This has to stop, and stop soon.

  • by Kostya (1146) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:17PM (#31783506) Homepage Journal

    I just downloaded some of the release notes (the beta is slowly coming over my pipe), but yes, it is using Grand Central to do the multi-tasking. It is listed as one of the key foundational technologies added.

    There's also quite a bit of documentation on how to use "blocks" (closures and lambdas to you unwashed, non-Apple people).

    I agree, it is clever to use GCD. But I'm also very surprised--I didn't think GCD was light-weight enough for something like the iPhone. Pretty cool!

    P.S. I'd link or copy and paste, but *technically* that would violate the NDA you sign as an iPhone developer. Hey wait, does talking about it ... [Apple gestapo busts down door] :-)

  • Re:No ads please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by timeOday (582209) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:27PM (#31783622)

    Apple has a very good thing going with developers and OS X

    Does apple even care about personal computers any more?

    The last noteworthy computer they announced was the Air (which in retrospect seems like a super-advanced iPad that was largely ignored).

  • Re:No ads please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arb phd slp (1144717) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:48PM (#31783794) Homepage Journal

    Final Cut Studio is a great example of how the two markets are different. The iGadgets are for the consumption of media content. Macintoshes are for the creation of media. What could possibly be gained by locking down the latter like is done on the former?

  • Re:No ads please (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer (890720) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:55PM (#31783848) Journal

    I wonder if you're aware that you're making excuses. The real objection is not about whether you like to see ads or don't like to see ads. No. The objection is that the moment you see a single ad you did not wish to see, you have lost control over the device. That's completely unacceptable when you are already paying. That's why personal preferences towards advertising are completely irrelevant.

    False. That's your objection, not mine. My objection would have nothing to do with control. It has to do with functionality. If the appliance does what I want from it, I have no problem. There are no excuses involved, since there is nothing to excuse.

    That makes it a fair exchange. However, when you are paying for a phone, phone service, and the application, and still see ads, this is no longer justifiable. It's a form of double-dipping. Thus, it's an adversarial way of relating to your customers because it amounts to taking advantage of them.

    And yet millions of people pay for cable television, or for magazines, which still have ads in them. I fail to see the problem. When people have the choice of services or appliances to use, then the problem solves itself. Content servers find a way to operate profitably with some kind of split revenue from customer billing and from ad revenues. Why shouldn't ad serving subsidize subscription cost?

    It has nothing to do with whether anyone likes ads. It has to do with the fact that a company is making money from ad revenue without earning that money by providing something of value in return.

    I don't understand. You can freely choose not to accept the services of that company, and not have to see any ads from them. Bully for you -- stand by your principles and don't do business with that company. Meanwhile, the fact that the company has two separate revenue streams doesn't bother me -- our CHOICE is to evaluate whether the service provided is worth the cost, where the cost includes the inconvenience or annoyance of ads, and the cash we lay out to the company.

    Do you ever wonder why there are so many companies that take advantage, exploit, and find ways to screw people over? It's because we reward them with our business.

    And that's our individual choice to make. You place a high value on maintaining "control" of your devices, or on not needing to see ads. I don't. So when presented with the same choice, you and I may choose differently. The market sorts out what business model is successful, not your personal value system.

    It's foolish to reward this behavior because it's parasitic in nature.

    That's silly. All profit-seeking enterprise is parasitic in nature if you look at it that way.

    The only time this would be acceptable would be for free apps that would otherwise cost money. Please read this quote from the summary and tell me whether you believe Apple is going to restrict these ad functions to free apps only

    No need to re-read, since I disagree with your premise. Why should we not have a choice between apps that are free and ad-laden, expensive and ad-free, or some other combination? Why does it have to be black-and-white? Why can't I choose an app that gives me what I believe to be the best service, but costs me some cash and also serves ads? Why not let the market decide which model (or even likely multiple models) is out there for me to choose from?

    And for that matter, so what if this were to go to the ridiculous extreme and Apple requires all apps to serve ads, or they won't get approved? So what? Then you can simply not use an Apple appliance. Nothing is forcing you to do business with them.

    Seriously, I don't understand where you're coming from. Because of a set of values YOU hold, that are far from universal, you want to limit the choices available to me as a consumer, and to developers also?

  • Re:Multitasking (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LynnwoodRooster (966895) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:56PM (#31783862) Journal

    It's not that we hate multitasking. It's that we hate excessive chrome and we hate having our batteries die because some useless crap is running in the background and we forgot about it.

    So rather than replace the offending app, or tell the developer to fix a bug in that rogue app, we'll just eliminate an entire, basic category of OS functionality for everyone. Makes sense in a SteveJobsian sort of way...

  • Re:No ads please (Score:2, Insightful)

    by node 3 (115640) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:58PM (#31783884)

    People are laughing at me when I suggest that future iMacs will have app store lockdowns and now will be "ad-supported" to boot. It's iPhone 4.0 today and OSX 11 tomorrow. And it will still be irresistibly shiny.

    And we're still laughing at you, because it's an imbecilic notion. Apple is *not* going to lock down OS X any time soon. To think they are is to follow the same brain-damaged logic that the teabaggers follow when they say that government healthcare will lead to "death panels" and forced euthanasia.

  • Re:No ads please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wovel (964431) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:00PM (#31783898) Homepage

    I have no evidence other than my own anecdotal experience, but MACs tend to be used by the two extremes of the user community, the power-users and the newbies. I would imagine the percentage of the mac community that could be objectively called "power-users" is significantly higher for OSX than Windows.

  • by auLucifer (1371577) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:01PM (#31783914)
    You're exactly right, if the engine isn't written in C/C++/Objective-C. Wait a minute, I think they typically are! Fancy that, I think they'll be fine.
  • Re:No ads please (Score:2, Insightful)

    by node 3 (115640) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:02PM (#31783930)

    We might just find that in the middle-distance future, MacBooks and iMacs will have iPhone OS instead of Mac OS

    iPhone OS is a multitouch OS designed for limited devices. It does *NOT* support a mouse *AT ALL*. There is absolutely *ZERO* chance that Apple will replace Mac OS X with iPhone OS on their notebooks or their desktop computers.

    This line of thought that is so prevalent amongst Slashdotters shows just how abysmally stupid far too many geeks are these days.

  • Re:No ads please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wovel (964431) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:06PM (#31783970) Homepage

    You used a lot of words to say "I don't understand what this discussion is about"

    The ads are in APPS, not in the general use of the phone. The developers have a choice to include ads or not in their apps and you have the choice to buy or not buy APPS with ADS in them. It is actually acceptable for any app developers who wants to include ads in their app. You are always free to purchase the app or not purchase the app.

  • by arndawg (1468629) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:12PM (#31784036)
    He's talking about WP7 not windows mobile. WM has true multi-tasking
  • by parallel_prankster (1455313) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:16PM (#31784076)
    Seriously, Apple is beginning to suffocate us developers. Instead of providing a way allow parallel user apps to either exit cleanly or kill them to avoid hogging CPU, Apple comes up with a way to tell you that Apple will provide for parallelism, you just have to hook into one of our services. Seriously, as a developer, that is very frustrating. We know the app that we are making and know where opportunities for parallelization lie. We dont want apple to tell us that. To avoid a few apps that misbehave, apple now thinks that it should not allow multitasking at user level at all!
  • Re:No ads please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jo_ham (604554) <joham999@@@gmail...com> on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:30PM (#31784188)

    So wait, because they a lacking a sub $1000 gaming laptop, they have no variety? Despite selling laptops, a small PC, an all in one and a tower?

    The new Macbook is reasonable with a 9400M - there's a video of someone putting it through its paces on youtube with Oblivion and TF2 on high settings. Hardly cutting edge, but then why are you looking at Apple if you want a dedicated mobile gaming rig? Laptops with hefty GPUs are available from other suppliers.

    My point was that their computer market is different from their commodity handset/tablet market, and that a business model in one does not automatically mean that business model is used in the other. They can sell two different business models without having to homogenise.

  • Re:No ads please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:42PM (#31784286) Homepage

    Dude I dont call pop-up ad's a desierable feature.... you windows fanbois are incredibly strange.

  • Re:RAM, ipad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by proxima (165692) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:51PM (#31784384)

    The iPad's A4 processor has the RAM inside the A4 package using package-on-package technology. Perhaps the RAM inside the A4 could have been a higher density, but space inside the iPad is not relevant.

    Sure, but that's the route Apple decided to go. Yes, it probably saves cost and battery life to some extent (especially if that design is easily carried over into the next iphone). The ipad is basically a very fast cell phone with a great screen and huge battery.

    The ipad is fast for most things now, but my early web-browsing and PDF-viewing experience suggests that RAM is at a premium on this device. Adding any kind of multitasking only makes that worse.

  • Fairly idiotic. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aussersterne (212916) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:59PM (#31784454) Homepage

    You prove the parent's point nicely. You're so attached to multitasking that you're willing to sacrifice battery life. Of course battery life has something to do with the topic, IT'S A PHONE. And you can say "Welcome to fast smartphones" all you want, but for most people these features:

    - Has a reasonable battery life
    - Doesn't require me to swap batteries
    - Lets me listen to music in the background

    Are more important than this feature:

    - Lets me run sendmail in the background

    iPhone has the first three and has since the beginning. You running around saying "Yay! Multitasking!" isn't saving Palm, and I say this as a Palm customer of over a decade that has gone iPhone.

  • by Wovel (964431) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @09:00PM (#31784466) Homepage

    Actually the battery life part is key to doing proper (which is better than true) multi-tasking on mobile device. The GP is actually 100% correct.

    What really matters is functionality. What useful background process can you do on the Pre that can not be done on the iPhone. (I already know the answer, so you can just slip back into fantasyland where there are people in the world that are interested in WebOS devices).

  • by LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @09:09PM (#31784546)
    iPhones will now be on par with the multitasking ability of Task Swapping in MS-DOS 4.0!
  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @09:24PM (#31784650) Journal

    "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited)."

    Wow, just... wow. Apple has historically been not friendly to third-party developers since iPhone release, but this sinks it down to an entirely new level.

    So, let me see. First, this obviously kills off any attempt to use any language other than C, C++ and ObjC for iPhone app development. We're not just talking about Flash here - compiling to C has historically been a popular cheap way to bootstrap a language, and many stick with it after getting it running - e.g. ISE Eiffel is a mature development tool that "compiles" to C.

    The whole bit about "translation or compatibility layer" is also very broad. From the sound of it, this would definitely prohibit any attempt to develop a cross-platform framework that'd let you build an application for iPhone as well as other platforms from a single codebase (like e.g. Qt lets you do on the desktop today), whether third-party or developed in-house.

    In fact, it sounds like it could also stretch far enough to prohibit any framework that wraps iPhone APIs, period - say, if someone came up with a C++ wrapper for ObjC classes for those of us who dislike square brackets - this might just restrict that kind of thing.

    Between that, and the underwhelming WP7 announcement, I'm very glad that I've bought a Nexus One.

  • Re:No ads please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dingen (958134) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @09:29PM (#31784708)

    For one thing OS X is a *nix, with full shell/root access. Tricky to lock that down

    Well they seem to have locked up the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad pretty good though. Same OS X kernel, same Unix, just a different userland.

  • Re:No ads please (Score:4, Insightful)

    by feepness (543479) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @09:42PM (#31784776) Homepage

    "Cook: Yes, we've been working with them a bunch as we get more acquainted with their platform. They've been a great partner so far and we look forward to growing our relationship with them over time."

    Ah, the embrace phase of embrace, extend, extinguish.

  • Re:No ads please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by medcalf (68293) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @10:04PM (#31784940) Homepage
    Markets are wonderful. Apple won't have to restrict this to pay ads, because the market will refuse to accept for-pay applications with ads. It has in fact already done exactly that. When people started putting ads in for-pay apps (because of Apple's earlier limited ways for developers to earn money from existing users for future app versions), they faced a user revolt, and some never recovered even after they removed the ads.
  • by dakameleon (1126377) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @10:20PM (#31785038)

    "Sales rate"? Are you projecting from the first month of sales for the Nexus One to a uniform total sales for the year? By that logic the iPad alone has a "sales rate" of roughly 109 million.

  • Depressing... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ekuryua (940558) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @10:22PM (#31785046) Homepage
    Between apple and sony, the world seems to be going towards lawyer locking of everything as fast as possible.
    I'm not sure about other people, but that sanitized future world is kind of really depressing.
    Next step is you'll have to spend all your digital money to the 4 big corporations that control and enforce each of their platforms integrity in totalitarian ways.

    News... that only come from a couple big media agencies.
    Games... that check permanently online they're unmodified, and require trusted platforms banning any form of liberty/homebrew.
    Videos&Music... that only come out in DRM form with you-are-only-renting-from-us terms.
    Internet connections... where you can only do what the isp deems safe.
    etc...
  • by mr100percent (57156) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @11:40PM (#31785496) Homepage Journal

    Watching the developers on Stage, I didn't get that impression. The Pandora devs said it only took a day to modify the app to run in background. Not bad.

  • by Mana Mana (16072) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @11:56PM (#31785586) Homepage

    ``If you don't want to see the ads, don't buy ad-supported apps. There is almost always a more expensive ad-free version.''

    Gad! Stop kidding yourself with statements like these: you paid full price so ads wont appear for the now fully fed. Fallacious: see cinemas with 30 minutes of boring-obnoxious ads & trailers!

    See paid! cable television "broadcasts" riddled with ads. See PBS shows larded with 5 minutes of introductory wheat fields, granaries, mines, wind fields ads. See XM/Sirius radio with ... ^.^

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Friday April 09, 2010 @12:48AM (#31785930) Journal

    Apple has always been against mult-tasking because they claim it hampers performance and drains the battery. As a Window Mobile user, I can't count the number of times my phone was freaking sluggish only to find that certain apps were running in the background that didn't kill themselves properly.

    As an Android user, I have IM and IRC running in background all the time, and my battery life is just fine. And, no, I don't use any "task killer" applications.

    I understand that it's very convenient to point fingers at poor WinMo while explaining why Apple can't do something right, but that's about as meaningful as saying that KDE4 is awesome because it's better than Vista. Let's compare apples and apples - i.e. modern mobile OS to modern mobile OS.

  • by RightSaidFred99 (874576) on Friday April 09, 2010 @01:54AM (#31786236)

    Ahh, the typical Apple approach to things.

    "What, that??! That's not a feature!". "Multitasking? That just drains your battery, nobody wants that!".

    Android will bury Apple for the same reason the PC buried the Mac. There will be a dozen companies coming out with fancy new hardware at a breakneck pace that Apple cannot keep up with.

    It's already happening - the HTC Evo is to the iPhone what the iPhone was to an el-cheap Windows Mobile phone. Sure, the next iPhone will bridge the gap but Jesus, what's coming out later this year in the Android camp? I can't imagine.

  • by virgilp (1774784) on Friday April 09, 2010 @02:38AM (#31786438)
    Oh yes, can't wait the moment when all the flash haters/html5 lovers will get to have obnoxious ads written in HTML5. And probably harder to block by something as simple as "click to flash". I see Steve is really pushing for that. Yay for standards-compliant advertising !
  • Re:NO thanks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Werrismys (764601) on Friday April 09, 2010 @02:44AM (#31786472)

    I'm sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously when you're happily posting on an ad-supported site about how you say 'no-thanks' to ad-supported apps.

    Slashdot has ads? (checks it out with safari...) OMG :-) I was unaware. Thank you, adblock.

  • Re:No ads please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by indiechild (541156) on Friday April 09, 2010 @03:18AM (#31786586)

    If some developer starts putting ads into paid apps, then vote with your feet and don't buy these apps. Better yet, don't buy an iPhone/iPod.

    It's fucking called freedom of choice.

  • by oji-sama (1151023) on Friday April 09, 2010 @03:20AM (#31786604)

    That excludes a lot of iPhone frameworks out there (Unity, Corona, you name it). I'm sure that can't be what Apple means by that statement.

    I'm sure that depend whether or not Apple likes the application in question...

  • by vadim_t (324782) on Friday April 09, 2010 @03:27AM (#31786626) Homepage

    Unless you jailbreak.
    So basically technical users can do all the technical things they want, while non-technical users get an easier to use platform.

    I do not like this kind of solution. Why would I want to give money to a company that doesn't want me to do what I want with a device I paid for? It's stupid to pay somebody who is acting against your interests.

    I consider this to be a very temporary solution at best. I might be willing to do it, but only if no alternative is available. Since the N900 exists, I have no reason to consider buying an iPhone.

    But hey, I can understand you N900 users not wanting users to have a choice of something they can easily understand how to use, so that you can continue to feel superior to everyone.

    Heh, that's a funny thing to say.

    It's not that I don't want you to have a choice. I'm just giving some friendly advice, based on past experiences. Buy it all you want if you like, but don't complain if you end up running into the limitations one day.

  • by vadim_t (324782) on Friday April 09, 2010 @03:40AM (#31786708) Homepage

    Yes, I know. Every lack of anything in an Apple product is an user friendly feature. If it can't do it, then you didn't need it anyway. If it's added later, then it's a sign of Apple's awesomeness.

    If you don't believe me, just search the past apple discussions on slashdot, back when there was no store, and look at all the people talking about how it's not needed anyway, and how web apps will fulfill everybody's needs.

    I'd bet that the people currently talking about how there's no need for multitasking will forget they ever said that the moment Apple releases a phone that can. I remember quite well that back in the OS 9 days it also was intuitive as heck, and things like the need to manually set the amount of memory an application could use was something that made perfect sense. The 1 button mice were also an user friendly feature, right until they started shipping normal ones.

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. -- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928

Working...