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This discussion has been archived.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&yahoo,com> 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.
        • 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.

          • 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.

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Flipao (903929)
              They came first for the iPhones but I didn't speak up for I was too hip for an iPhone And then they came for the iPads, And I didn’t speak up because they are completely different markets. And then . . . they came for Mac OS. . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Nick Ives (317)

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

              And an even better thing going with the iPad and the iPhone.

              If Apple decides that it's more profitable to have a locked down desktop that can only install apps from the app store then they'll do it. It wouldn't surprise me if they locked down iMac and left the Mac Pro for people who want to use professional applications.

              Having said that, why wouldn't Apple put Final Cut on the app store if that's how they wanted their desktops to be run? If Apple decided to lock down, who's to say Adobe wouldn't just go wit

            • 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, Informative)

            by jo_ham (604554) <joham999&gmail,com> on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:31PM (#31782870)

            This already exists in the App Store, but the feature has to be coded specifically per-app. This adds an API to make it easier to implement. It will not be universal, but will likely be used for "lite" apps that exist on the store (as they do now, for free) that have a more fully featured paid version. This makes it easier to add an ad-supported stream to your free app, and not have to source the ad providers yourself.

            OS X will continue as it always has.

          • 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

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Karlt1 (231423)

            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 BitHive (578094) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:54PM (#31783846) Homepage

            People are laughing because you sound like the Glenn Beck of computing trends.

      • 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, Informative)

      by _xeno_ (155264) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:54PM (#31782382) Homepage Journal

      It's for apps that already have ads, such as the NPR app. ("NPR is brought to you commercial free by the partner whose banner ad is covering half the screen.")

      Basically it's a unified ad service for smaller developers who don't have the resources to roll their own. You won't suddenly see ads on your iPhone unless you download ad-supported apps.

    • by Kenja (541830) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:55PM (#31782406)
      On the plus side, with multi-tasking you'll be able to get several ads at once! Just image the fun times you'll have searching through your running apps trying to find the one that has the "congratulations! you're a winner!" sound file on constant loop.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by tgibbs (83782)

      If you don't want apps with ads, don't download them. As with computer software, it is likely that many apps will be available in free versions without ads and also in paid, add-free versions.

  • by amliebsch (724858) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:50PM (#31782328) Journal

    Every time I use an iPhone, I can't help thinking, "if only this had more *ads*." I mean, really, what good is a smart phone without pop-over advertisements?

    • 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:Fantastic news (Score:5, Informative)

        by bonch (38532) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:04PM (#31783348)

        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. iAd is just so every developer doesn't have to implement their own ad system every time.

        God, the uninformed, reactionary Apple-haters are out in full force today.

        • 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 ... ^.^

    • Re:Fantastic news (Score:4, Informative)

      by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:39PM (#31782976)

      I don't know if you've ever used any free Apps but most of them are ad-supported. Normally they use some sort of construct to show you an ad. Apple is making a framework for ads so developers no longer have to kluge them in.

      "Developers [who create free apps] need to find a way to start making their money," Jobs said. "A lot of developers turn to advertising - and we think these current advertisements really suck."

      During its presentation of the new ad network, chief executive Steve Jobs noted that when you click on existing iPhone mobile ads, it yanks you out of the application you're running and launches a web ad. This prevents people from clicking on ads more often.

      Also they are developing a ecosystem so that ad-content revenue is handled differently. Normally a developer would have to negotiate with the ad generator. Instead Apple can handle all that for you. App developers can still use the old system if they wish but it probably will not be as advanced.

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

      by bonch (38532) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:02PM (#31783328)

      Okay, since Slashdotters are clearly going to be completely reactionary and assume this means ads are going to be popping-over all your apps (did you even watch the media event to see it in action?), let's get this out of the way:

      1.) This is for apps that are already ad-supported, like all those free and .99 versions that complement the more expensive, ad-free versions.
      2.) The point is so that every app developer doesn't have to roll their own ad systems like they do now.
      2.) The ads are just little HTML5 banners.

      That's all it is, Slashdot.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:51PM (#31782330)

    Read the article:

    Apple looked at thousands of apps to determine what services apps would most need to keep running while in the background. "In iPhone OS 4, we're providing those services as APIs to developers,"

    In other words, the iPhone still isn't capable of doing true multitasking, something that other smartphones - well, never lacked.

    Instead you're still stuck with only being able to do the things that Apple has decided to allow their sheep the ability to do on Apple's phone - not what the lowly sheep that bought it wishes they could do.

  • 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?

    • Re:Whoa, whoa (Score:5, Informative)

      by tgibbs (83782) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:23PM (#31782782)

      Wasn't the lack of multitasking a feature that made the iPad and iPhone so great?

      Not particularly. In fact, they've always had multitasking, just not for 3rd party apps. What made them great was having a consistently fast, responsive user interface and reliable essential functions that did not bog down because of apps hogging the processor. But everybody figured that Apple would eventually work out a way to offer background processing to 3rd party developers while maintaining those strengths.

    • 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 magsol (1406749) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:53PM (#31782372) Journal
    (or the presumed new iPhone to accompany OS 4.0)

    ...then yeah, no multitasking for you. Sorry about that.
  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by UnknowingFool (672806)

      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.

    • 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] :-)

  • 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.

    • 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 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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by frdmfghtr (603968)

        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?

        Of course not...what *I* want is what everybody wants, they just don't know it!

      • 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 Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:03PM (#31782520)

    Cry a little louder and harder, bitches! We can't hear you from way up here on awesome mountain! What's that? You're mad and are going to form an open committee to discuss ways to retort in a GPL-based, socially pluralistic manner? In three years time, you'll have a shoddily constructed riposte AND a donated-by-Cory handkerchief with which to wipe away your salty tears? Keep debating, pansies! I'll be figuring out a way to put some TRUCK NUTS on my iPad.

    • by crazyjimmy (927974) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:22PM (#31782764)

      Cry a little louder and harder, bitches! We can't hear you from way up here on awesome mountain! What's that? You're mad and are going to form an open committee to discuss ways to retort in a GPL-based, socially pluralistic manner? In three years time, you'll have a shoddily constructed riposte AND a donated-by-Cory handkerchief with which to wipe away your salty tears? Keep debating, pansies! I'll be figuring out a way to put some TRUCK NUTS on my iPad.

      I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the Awesome of my Android.

  • by markdavis (642305) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:11PM (#31782626)

    Sorry, but it is NOT true multitasking. Applications will have to be re-written to act like a service, then they will be "suspended" and enable quick application switching: http://www.precentral.net/apple-plays-its-multitasking-card-its-no-ace [precentral.net]

    "What Apple is doing instead of 'true' multitasking is offering seven different OS-level services that apps can take advantage of in lieu of actually running in the background: audio, VOIP, location, push notifications, local notifications, task finishing, and fast app switching. To switch to a recently opened app, you double-tap the home button and a dock of your recent apps pops up"

    If you want to see real phone multitasking in action, and with a wonderful UI to go along with it/manage it, look at how Palm WebOS does it.

  • by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH (182037) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:13PM (#31782652) Homepage Journal

    In revised iPhone SDK License 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. 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).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jo_ham (604554)

      Maybe if Adobe pulled its thumb out of its ass and made a decent implementation of flash for OS X then Apple would be more willing to throw them a bone on the iPhone OS.

  • RAM, ipad (Score:5, Informative)

    by proxima (165692) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:14PM (#31782664)

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

    I was disappointed to find out the ipad only has 256 (same as the 3GS). RAM is cheap, and there's no lack of space inside the ipad for an extra chip. With the way Safari currently works, it starts dumping web page caches as memory fills up. That means going to another "tab" (through an expose-like interface) can often mean re-loading the page from scratch, in practice. Word is the iphone 3GS does this a lot less, so it's definitely something they need to address for the ipad. Because the expose is two taps instead of the one required for tabs, and because of this reloading, I find myself using substantially fewer open browser windows on the ipad than on a desktop.

    I'm starting to think they need to use part of the flash memory to cache things, especially with multitasking (that's what the "fast app switching" I presume does - save the full state of app memory on flash). The biggest downside to this is it wears down the flash.

    I was a little disappointed to find out that the ipad release will be "fall". So far, though, the only time I've really wanted multitasking (or some pseudo-multitasking) is to play audio from Pandora or Magnatune while doing other tasks (and you can use the Magnatune website to stream since Safari's media player multitasks). Most of the other features are really for iphone users (ibook app, improved mail - though unified inbox will be nice).

    By the way, anyone looking for an extremely thorough review of the ipad should look here [daringfireball.net]. I have no relation to the author, but I found he covered things extremely well.

    • Re:RAM, ipad (Score:5, Informative)

      by my_breath_smells (762618) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:24PM (#31783588)

      RAM is cheap, and there's no lack of space inside the ipad for an extra chip.

      The iPad's A4 processor has the RAM inside the A4 package [ifixit.com] 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.

      Integrating the RAM minimizes the pinout of the A4 and may have allowed them to avoid a difficult-to-breakout BGA pitch. (Changing from a 0.5mm to 0.4mm pitch allows more pins but complicates PCB routing and PCB expense.) I can't tell from this shot of the A4 [ifixit.com] what pitch is used, but the pin count is pretty high. Note: You need the blank areas in order to breakout traces and place vias.

  • 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).

  • by daffmeister (602502) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:22PM (#31782758) Homepage

    "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.'"

    That's the old agreement. The new agreement adds:

    "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)."

    That's the bit that nixes Flash.

    • by dingen (958134) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:33PM (#31782896)
      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.
    • 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.

  • Flash (Score:4, Informative)

    by codepunk (167897) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:34PM (#31782904)

    "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript"

    Looks like the flash cross compiler just had a stake driven in it's heart.

  • 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 dbc (135354) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @06:46PM (#31783078)

    The article is unclear if e-mail has been expanded to support multiple user logins. This to me is the deal-breaker with an iPad -- I'd have one sitting on the coffee table today if it had support for multiple user logins to keep e-mail sorted and private. But I'm not going to get an iPad for each member of the household just to keep e-mail private. So is that fixed or not? When they fix it, instant sale. Until then, nope.

  • 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!
  • 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...

"It takes all sorts of in & out-door schooling to get adapted to my kind of fooling" - R. Frost

Working...