Apple may (or may not) be mulling background apps for the iPhone
by Chris Ziegler 
posted May 16th 2009 at 8:01PM
A number of sources this week are reporting that Apple is now investigating ways to make background processes work, though it's apparently early in development and the company is still investigating options; one would be to limit background apps to a total of two, another would require that background-capable apps meet certain criteria (presumably to limit processor utilization) before getting App Store approval. The company has invested a lot of time -- way too much time, actually -- crafting its push notification infrastructure designed specifically to get around the need for background processes in many common cases, which makes it seem terribly unlikely that they'd reverse so quickly. While it's true that every other modern smartphone platform supports them, Apple has all but perfected the art and science of ignoring its competitors' game plans.
Any way you slice it, it's a near certainty that the next-gen iPhone will bump processor and memory specs, which makes background processing a more palatable concept -- thing is, battery technology has barely evolved in over a decade, and that's ultimately the roadblock to letting an iPhone (or any other cordless device) run wild. What's more, requiring the user to choose their own two background apps seems totally counter to the "it just works" mantra that rules the iPhone's dumbed-down interface.
Hell has a tendency to freeze over in Cupertino, though, so we can't rule it out.
[Via Daring Fireball]
Filed under: Cellphones, Handhelds
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Nikoss @ May 16th 2009 8:06PM
Pre competition.
Good for everyone.
DarkXane @ May 16th 2009 8:07PM
Yes, It fixes global warming =]
Cheddar @ May 16th 2009 8:36PM
Hard to have competition from something that doesn't really exist in anything other than a prototype...
Palm and others will realize once they get their product in the mainstream there are problems they haven't even begun to contemplate yet (I am sure Apple was taken by surprise with some of the issues that popped up). It is how they deal with those issues that sets the bar higher. Apple has done a fantastic job of advancing the iPhone with each and every update to the phone rather than putting out small nits/nats.
Palm is desperate to have the pre be successful, if it does not take off like wildfire they are TOAST! Have been bleeding money for years and really need something the scale of an iPhone to turn things around...they have their work cut out for them. So far the pre looks pretty cool but we shall see if it is able to steal customers from Verizon or AT&T because it is a "must have" device like the iPhone has proven to be...time will tell the tale.
chefgon_ign @ May 16th 2009 8:46PM
"Hard to have competition from something that doesn't really exist in anything other than a prototype..."
Background apps on iPhone only exist in prototype form, too. The difference with the Pre is that the general public has already seen how it works and it has met with mass approval, at least in theory. iPhone's solution is still unknown, it could be better or worse, but really I doubt that anybody's going to come up with a more intuitive solution than Palm has any time soon.
Schweppes @ May 16th 2009 8:47PM
Perhaps these MOFO's should start putting in bigger batteries in these devices... What a rechargeable Duracell AA has 2650 Mah... WTF why does my phone only have 950 mah? why?
OR perhaps Apple should oh I dont know make a REMOVABLE BATTERY?
GoGoGadget @ May 16th 2009 9:15PM
Yeah, at least enabling 3-4 apps to run at the same time will prove iPhone to be useful. An orchestra of 4 iFart apps simultaneously will be extravaganza.
Seriously, Palm Pre is also trash. Plus it's kinda new platform compared to the more mature rival OSes, and the money is on the tried-and-true platform. So for multitasking stuff and performance, look no further than Windows Mobile. The function is already there since day one, and the platform itself has already matured with developers all around the world embracing it.
GO WINMO. APPLESUX!!!
jeesusfreek @ May 16th 2009 9:19PM
because a duracell AA is 2650 mah @ 1.2V, cell phone batteries are 1000mah @ 3.7V (typically)
Bender Bending Rodriguez @ May 16th 2009 9:49PM
@ chefgon_ign,
Palm's solution for the Pre isn't intuitive, it's simplistic. They are using Apple's supported and open source WebKit browser engine for their apps. The newer WebKit builds utilize HTML5 which allows for a localization of the webcode in local DB. This allows web designers to you to run webpages locally, something Google is very interested in, but it allows Palm to make very lightweight apps on their mobile device. They use HTML. CSS and JS. Because of this, they aren't nearly as powerful as other mobile platform apps and their SDK is much more limited in what it can do, but this is actually a good thing for Palm—at this point—as it can possibly give them the leg up they need to salvage their company. But to be fooled by their marketing on this, these are not the robust apps of other platforms, even from other, aging mobile OSes.
As for background apps on the iPhone, as a developer for the iPhone OS X, WinMo and Android, Apple is doing the right thing by not allowing background apps at this time. For starters, there is a power consumption issue with such apps when battery life is very important. Secondly, the iPhone currently doesn't have the resources, especially in RAM, for allowing background apps. Finally, writing apps for WinMo and Android is a nightmare because you have to take into account these sliding resources that your app suffers greatly because of it. On top of that, if a 3rd -party app is running in the background and using too many resources it can hurt your apps performance which makes your active app look poor by most users.
The Notification Server is brilliant idea that will likely be adopted by other mobile OSes just like the centralized App Store has, but it has its limitations as not every app can work with a simple notification. Streaming internet music app are an ideal example, something which the Pre's HTML-based apps will do well with. As I mentioned earlier, the iPhone doesn't have the resources, right now there is not enough RAM for running many apps at once. yes, many apps are running on the iPhone, but just one 3rd-party app. For this to work well on the iPhone Apple will have at at least 50% more CPU, double the RAM, have a limit as to the number of 3rd-party background apps and have an additional evaluation process to make sure the app works within the required system parameters. This will greatly help developers who will be assured that their app will work as expected, even when 3rd-party apps are running in the background. This is good for both consumers and developers.
iphonerulez @ May 16th 2009 9:52PM
The iPhone will get background processing eventually when iPhone hardware and OS is up to dealing with it. I doubt if there's any rush. Lack of background processing isn't going to make or break the iPhone as long as the user experience stays good. Most of the earlier smartphone OSs have background processing and it's not turning them into industry-leading mobile powerhouses.
I doubt if the average user even knows what's going on under things they're working on. I asked some friends if they thought their handsets should have apps running in the background and they didn't even know what the hell I was talking about. I guess they're not as sophisticated as most of the Engadget geeks. They just like their cellphones to make calls, keep a few schedules, shoot a few pictures and listen to some music. They don't even relate their handsets as to being tiny desktop computers and most of them are glad they aren't.
Rgonzalez @ May 16th 2009 10:28PM
@gogogadget
did you just say that Palm's OS is a new platform because everything else is mature? Did you forget how long Palm has been making smartphone OS's?
Although, the shear fact that you are waving your WinMo flag high let's me know a ton about your taste in OS's...
You, sir, are a fail.
GoGoGadget @ May 16th 2009 10:47PM
@Rgonzales,
1. Pre sucks
2. this is not even a Pre related topic
kthnxby.
CleverEndeavor @ May 16th 2009 11:19PM
I used to have a sidekick 2, it ran background apps. so...
The real problem here is that apple is so stupid to not even put in a bigger battery so the charge lasts longer than one day, but with the more beefy processor and RAM, the new iphone will suck power; even more than its predecessor. So, Apple has a dilemma, sacrifice a few millimeters in thickness to allow a bigger battery which will give longer battery life and background apps. Or they could screw background apps altogether.
Bender Bending Rodriguez @ May 16th 2009 11:58PM
@ Clever Endeavor,
I would like the battery to be bigger, too, but the battery isn't small and the device is not nearly as power hungry as other smartphones. Take a look that the linked images below to compare. The only smartphone that bested the iPhone in any category (not listed) is a CDMA-based Blackberry when making voice calls with "3G" enabled. The reason for this is the more advanced nature of CDMA over GSM. Even when EV-DO is on calls are still made via the lower power CDMA radios, but when UMTS/HSDPA is on calls are made through those 3G radios utilizing more power. That is a nature of the technology, not a fault of the iPhone. Outside of that the iPhone was champion. Still, I'd like a larger battery because I use the crap out of my 3G with mail and Safari and 3rd-party apps are running, usually while the iPod is also running in the background.
• http://www.muratdikici.com/wp-content/iphone-comparison-chart-1.jpg
• http://images.appleinsider.com/iphone-battery-080716-2.gif
• http://www.iphonealley.com/images/storyimages/july08/batterylifecart.jpg
PS: These comparisons range from the release of the original iPhone to the release of the iPhone 3G. We'll surely have to wait for the release of the next iPhone before any of the new smartphones from other vendors get compared.
blahblah @ May 17th 2009 4:16AM
As an Ubuntu user and Android developer I have never been an Apple fan. Yet if they reverse course and allow background apps I shall find it necessary to reconsider the value of their ware. In the long run, all phone OS's will have background apps - accept it or perish.
r3loaded @ May 17th 2009 4:39AM
I'm running Backgrounder on my jailbroken iPod Touch - it copes fine with 2-3 processes running at the same time, and battery doesn't take the massive hit that they make out it takes. What's the problem?
badweasel @ May 17th 2009 5:47AM
Apple could be adding background apps to iPhone OS for a DIFFERENT hardware platform... http://www.tomorrowland.com/2009/05/14/wwdc-t-minus-4-weeks/
Aaron @ May 17th 2009 6:42AM
@Bender Bending Rodriguez
Those are some very biased and factually inaccurate graphs you linked to there.
jimmy @ May 17th 2009 2:54PM
@Barky: Apple does assume people don't know what they are doing, because the majority of users DON'T KNOW WHT THEY ARE DOING. On the Mac or PC side, very few people understand it. My mom still thinks going to the Comcast page in Internet Explorer is "opening her e-mail program". People who believe the Mac vs. PC ads don't know what they are doing. The people who believe that someone who "cuts video" on a $2000 HP from Frys in the new Laptop Hunters ads don't know what they are doing. And of the 13 million users of iPhones around the world, most don't know what they are doing. Apple fanboys always say "it just works", because it does. It may not have the options of other phones, but it works.
I used to use WinMo, and always had memory issues, and I know what I'm doing. I don't think I should have to remember to shut down my calendar so I have enough memory to open Tetris. I haven't had that issue since I started on the iPhone.
@Look_Around_You: Internet Explorer also puts it in writing that clicking on unknown links put you at risk to download malware, viruses and trojans, but people still do it. People don't follow directions.
Lundmark @ May 17th 2009 3:27PM
@Mark Anderson:
Lol, you fucking Nokia fanboi. Symbian is one hell of a mess and while it can multitask, it also gets really slow. It's sligthly less sucky on the high-end devices like N96 and the like, but then you really have a battery life problem.
Mark Anderson @ May 18th 2009 2:43AM
@Lundmark
Sorry, I'll come back to you once Shozu has finished uploading my photos to PicasaWeb, the latest AC/DC album has finished playing, my calendar reminders have activated and my e-mail been retrieved. All at the same time.
You can, uh, press buttons and stuff.
skyblaze @ May 16th 2009 8:07PM
still dont get why apple didnt get with the program ages ago. doesnt make a lick of sense when android came with multitasking out the box...
Steveorevo @ May 16th 2009 8:18PM
Android's battery life is nothing compare to iPhone, and when you load it up with the few apps that are available it goes to ziltch, as in less then nothing!
iPhone DOES multitask, it just doesn't multitask poorly written third party apps that crash the phone. The important this is that it multitask's your critical Apple written apps LIKE A PHONE! Music, so you can surf the web while in Safari, or using remote desktop, all while checking email in the background. Want more do you want?
By reserving multitasking for the Apple designed applications limits abuse by third party developers. Its true that multitasking is a battery hog so Apple had to be very strict with the development guidelines, unlike the unsavory (and unstable) apps for other platforms. But where iPhone *does* multitask it really shines:
* email - checks flawlessly in the background
* phone - yes, your phone doesn't just go away, you'll still get calls
* contacts - get your phone list in other apps, or while on a call
* SMS - text messages appear where ever you are
* iPod - Play your tunes while surfing the web on a multi-touch display, its sweet
The short comings are that its harder for hackers, err 'developers' to write a virus, err 'less-then-perfect' application. On WinMo, the quality of apps is less then par. Stuck in the background, crashing your phone is a-typical. Just look at Skype on WinMo... its a joke. The plus side for WinMo is that its easier and faster to develop apps then for iPhone (albeit not as well thought out apps). But yet Apple seems to have no problem in the sheer number of available apps for their platform.
With 3.0 coming out next month, Apple is delivering a background messaging layer that developers can utilize in lieu of true multitasking to answer some of the missing functionality alot of app. developers want to include but couldn't w/out multitasking. Apps can now receive focus and 'become active' in response to a 'server push' event. This gives the benefits of 'running in the background' like features without sucking up CPU and putting the critical multitasking Apple developed apps at risk (Phone, iTunes, eMail, SMS). So now Skype can tell you that a call is coming in w/out a large portion of it running in the background, games can notify you of users that want to play without sucking up memory, etc. etc.
The Apple premium you pay for goes into the intellectual forward thinking, optimization, and developer guidelines that are simply missing on other platforms. But a lot of hackers can't justify paying for or respecting intellectual property. Hackers are akin to the "more hardware for the money in their pocket" mentality... even if it does run like shit. And sadly, some software companies just envision throwing more hardware at a problem rather then do it right the first time (some might actually be in cahoots with those hardware suppliers). That is why Apple hardware, even grossly dated, tends to last longer and hold its value longer. Its all about design and the software.
Look_Around_You @ May 16th 2009 8:24PM
"By reserving multitasking for the Apple designed applications limits abuse by third party developers. Its true that multitasking is a battery hog so Apple had to be very strict with the development guidelines, unlike the unsavory (and unstable) apps for other platforms. But where iPhone *does* multitask it really shines:"
Wow. Very good, Apple fan parrot.
first you clowns like to shove the number of iPhone apps down everyone's throats, then you say those apps makers should be denied the ability to run with other apps at the same time because they cant really be trusted. All for out protection of course.
Then you take a swipe at app makers on other platforms.
Jobs is pleased.
loosely_coupled @ May 16th 2009 8:26PM
Actually, it does when you consider that background processing keeps the ARM11 from going into sleep while you are not using the phone and can dramatically shorten the battery life.
See, what a lot of people don't recognize is that unlike Android and some others, Apple primarily caters to non-geeks that don't understand any of the technical aspects of the iPhone. If Apple allowed unrestricted background processing, you would have a mess as millions of people install dozens of applications. Once they have 5+ background applications running and their iPhone slows down and runs out of battery in 1/2 of the usual time, they will be bitching and complaining to Apple, not realizing the problem lies with their own mismanagement of application settings and installation. Apple doesn't have the luxury of having solely enthusiasts as its customers, not to mention the many (the majority?) of Apple customers are very demanding and will create a media storm at the slightest problem they have whether or not it actually has anything to do with Apple or not.
Barky @ May 16th 2009 8:29PM
Steveorino, your comment is exactly what I dislike about Apple. The assumption that the user and the developer don't know what they want and can't be trusted.
Look_Around_You @ May 16th 2009 8:36PM
@loosely_coupled
Well, these aren't children. It shouldn't be such a deal to just put it in print:
"running a large amount of applications simultaneously will cause a greater strain on resources and will degrade battery performance."
If the user is sane and rational, they will just make sure they don't run everything all the time.
Newone @ May 16th 2009 8:38PM
It is because of OSX. By cramming a operating system made for desktop computers to pocket sized devices they've run out of resources. The biggest headache is limited memory without harddisk -> no virtual memory.
It's mutch easier to adapt operating system from limited to desktop than other way around. It's easier to build new services with more resources than to cut corners to cram something big into small space. Usually when you cut OS corner many parts need changing. Thats why linux works with phones better than OSX, it's originally made for limited resources on whitch new resources are build upon, as opposed to OSX thats been build for big resources and crammed to tiny machine. Symbian also works well with limited resources as its build for it.
Now that apple might release next iphone there might be enough mem for limited multitasking, but what are they going to do with old devices? It's going to be a pr headache if they allow multitasking only with new devices that can handle it. I think they will keep multitasking on the shelf for about 9-12 months to soften the blow for old device holders.
Walt @ May 16th 2009 9:12PM
@Steveorevo:
Your post looked familliar... when I clicked on it I saw that you have posted the exact same body of text on prior messages.
Isn't cut-and-paste great?
Steveorevo @ May 16th 2009 9:26PM
@Newone
OSX is built upon a slim UNIX core, not unlike Linux. Contrary to belief I'm a WinMo developer. But I just know the facts about iPhone. But I understand everyone's argument that users and developers shouldn't be treated like children and should have the right to run background app, yada yada yada.
@Barky, Look Around You, etc.
But if you look at the demographic, as 'loosely' pointed out, the users of iPhone are not nec. geeks and hackers. They are very demanding and want something that works great, not 'ok'. If you want to hack it your way like a tripped out Honda with neon lights then choose another platform like WinMo. The average exec. or non-dork wouldn't be caught dead with a modified, tacked on, hacked device. They'd rather spend the money to drive a BMW then a aftermarket turbo charged Hyundai with LEDS on the plates. You just need to ask yourself, do you identify with a fat, overweight, Zune tattooed guy or a fit, professional and/or artist?
So the 'it just works' mantra holds true. Apple will stick to there guns for a snappy interface and succesful, useful product. Being annoyed about reading about it is a choice you can always choose to ignore. The numbers don't lie. There is a reason why iPhone and all its applications are as successful as it is. And its not because the users are dumb or can't be trusted.
Me4u2 @ May 16th 2009 9:35PM
@Steveorevo
See how desperately foolish and brainwashed you are... Since when has receiving calls been referred to as multi-tasking... even dumb phones, recieve calls, play music, etc all in the background. Simply face the fact that OSx was poorly designed... I suggest apple starts afresh, change the platform architecture, make it light weight, bloat free and stable. Only then would Osx be considered a smartphone's Os.
Shunnabunich @ May 16th 2009 9:55PM
@Steveorevo: The only way I can fathom your comments is to assume that you're being paid by Microsoft to make anyone who dares to buy an Apple product look like a complete and utter douche. Congratulations, you're earning your pay.
skyblaze @ May 16th 2009 10:10PM
JEEEEEEEZ i forgot to untick the "email me when someone replies" ticker!!! now my inbox is flooded with weblog shizzle and i cant getit to stop. balls, man!!
its all good tho. nice to see my comment triggered up some healthy debating. keep it up ppl. just keep it civil and prevent the flaming and stupidity, ya digg :)
Eh? @ May 16th 2009 11:22PM
Too late.
BTW....more email for youuuuu.....
Steveorevo @ May 16th 2009 11:29PM
@Me4u2
How is OSX overweight? Its got a UNIX BSD/Linux based core, dead simple IPC, security and file system. Compare that with the very defunct NTFS, horribly slow IPC (DDE, DCOM, pleease!) in Windows. Why do you think the majority of ISPs use UNIX BSD and/or Linux cores with Apache and MySQL. Same as what comes with OSX. From a graphics perspective, everything is accelerated, the Window manager down to the core. Keep in mind that before Vista, Windows had Win-G, and then DirectX that 'tacked on' the much needed acceleration in a poor after thought.
Its proven, its stable, its solid. All Apple did was add a hell of alot of Usability to that very optimized power.
CleverEndeavor @ May 16th 2009 11:37PM
@ steveoreveo
Windows has a much better file management system than OSX when i save something in OSX, it is impossible to find it without spotlight. In windows all you have to do is just look in the appropriate *clearly labeled and easily disparte* categories. this is the main "deal-breaker" for me, i hate apple's file management, if their file management was better, i would probably have bought one, but...
wako @ May 17th 2009 1:38AM
@CleverEndeavor
You might be an idiot if you lose what you saved. It is EXACTLY like Windows when you save something. It goes to the predetermined folder in your settings or something pops up asking where you would like to save it. You simply arent paying attention when you save something.
ill trooper @ May 17th 2009 3:15AM
"Apple primarily caters to non-geeks"
Untrue.
Newone @ May 17th 2009 4:30AM
@Steveorevo
I know that OSX based on unix, but here's the but, and it is a big but, since it's birth it hasn't been developed to be used in portable devices. This means when programmers decide which road to take performance wise they had no need to keep in mind shrinkability. There's at least seven years of code and memorybloat history on osx.
What's even worse, OSX is based on mach microkernel which was abandoned by industry for performance issues. In fact, osx is the only operating system still using mach kernel, even if highly modified. The mach kernel is notoriously powerhungry for memory speed, which isn't high on portable device developers list. In fact, when selectinc a operating system for portable system you can hardly select a worse base for it than a microkernel, especially if its a multitasking system.
Now that i've looked into osx kernel and recollected it's weaknesses the decision to buy a processor developing firm becomes more clear. The weaknesses of osx are too large for portable devices to be addressed simply by programming. Any weakness in kernel philosophy means a big rewrite on codebase, and microkernel has huge weaknesses. This gives perspective to apples purchase of processorhouse as they are have no choice but to giive this problem a hack with a custom processor for iphone if they are going to keep using osx and do multitaking.
Btw, the name microkernel doesnt mean the operating system as a whole will be smaller than monokernel, it means just the division between privileged and usermode is smaller.
Steveorevo @ May 17th 2009 7:43AM
If you haven't been paying attention, you'd realize that OSX on iPhone is greatly reduced to not include all the overhead not needed in a portable device. Same reason why you are not going to find NTFS but rather FAT from 20+ years ago on a WinMo device. All the hooks for multitasking are their, you just don't have the rights to use them unless your an Apple developer. Its just a matter of quality control and its the number one reason why iPhone doesn't do background processing for just any app. Not because it 'can't'... thats bunk.
Newone @ May 17th 2009 9:08AM
I have been paying attention, but you haven't read my points. The underlying problems with microkernels is exactly the reason why apple cant allow multitasking on iphone.
The microkernel philosophy is basicly that there's only a little supervisor kernel, and everything else is a multitasked process, even device drivers. This means that there's a lot more context switching as even device drivers are considered separate process. Then comes the overhead from IPC etc. There isnt enough resources to go around to allow nonapple programs to multitask.
I suggest you read wikipedia article about mach kernel, especially the part about performance problems. The performance increase in processor output has taken care of the problems partly, but when they go back in performance the unerlying problem surface. The selected remedy was to criple userprogram multitasking.
If symbian and linux dont have problems with multitasking why is apple having a hard time. As you are aware apple demands to hand over source code so they could allow it for selected programs. Microkerenels are good for portability and multiprocessor usage, but not good for multitaking enviroment with sparce resources. Even if you cut down OSX features etc it is still a mickrokernel operating system.
Mark Anderson @ May 17th 2009 2:51PM
Essentially Apple have made a poor job of the OS conversion. Symbian has been running background applications for years with no real issues.
wako @ May 17th 2009 3:31PM
@Mark Anderson
I doubt your ownership of a Symbian phone. My Nokia N85 battery drains pretty quickly when apps are running. Quite a bit of memory leak (probably a third party problem though) and worst of all you would think by now the damn OS can support USB 2.0 speeds. It makes me cry when I try to load music onto my phone.
wako @ May 16th 2009 8:08PM
They are finally rethinking it? Psh, I been running background apps since I got my iPhone, jailbreak ftw =P
SOOPERGOOMAN @ May 16th 2009 8:34PM
You tell em.
pika2000 @ May 16th 2009 8:09PM
I like the Pre's "ribbon" where you can invoke other apps without going to the main screen first like the iPhone. I wish Apple would do something like this for the iPhone/Touch (a hiding dock?).
Look_Around_You @ May 16th 2009 8:19PM
Yeah that would be called "stealing". Something Apple just doesn't do. Remember?
Cheddar @ May 16th 2009 8:29PM
@look...why don't you piss off TROLL....
burningspirithc @ May 16th 2009 8:33PM
Yea, It's innovation when Apple does it.
Look_Around_You @ May 16th 2009 8:33PM
Yeah, so what exactly did I say did you disagree with?
Company A adopts feature from Apple? Apple fans accuse that company of ripping off Apple and not being "innovative" or coming up with their own idea. Better known as stealing, as they like to say.
Apple user wants Apple to adopt feature from Company A? Totally ok.
Brian @ May 16th 2009 8:38PM
@Look_Around_You
"stealing"? are you kidding?