Alright – I’ll admit it. When I saw the news that the SDK docs were saying only 1 iPhone app at a time, my initial thought was … that’s crappy.
But the more I thought about it the more it started to make sense. One of the reasons I think many of us love our iPhone(s) is that it is a ROCK solid device. Most of us rarely reboot the thing and if we do chances are good its because we wanted to or had to for an update. I think this is the reason Apple made the decision they did. Running multiple applications – while definitely nice – could have some very negative side effects, including system stability and ultimately would have a negative impact on end user satisfaction. Face it. If you’ve owned a Windows Mobile device, you know all too well what happens when an application goes rogue warrior and decides to hold the CPU/Memory hostage. (Yeah … you press the little recessed button and reset).
Again, while I initially was surprised by the SDK news, I then started to personally think that they might be making a good choice, and for me these recent thoughts all got confirmed in this article at Roughly Drafted. It’s a brilliant read and will definitely get you thinking. I’d love to see what you folks think about the 1 app at a time limit placed on SDK applications… just do me a favor and check out the linked article first.
Certain pundits have developed a rash of malignant concerns about iPhone 2.0’s SDK. The first issue they’re scratching at is the iPhone’s apparent inability to run multiple applications at once. The suggestion is that the iPhone is a multitasking impaired appliance just like the original Mac or the Palm Pilot, and unlike the supposed multitasking powerhouse that is Windows CE, which powers Windows Mobile devices. That’s wrong, here’s why.
iPhone 2.0 SDK: The No Multitasking Myth — RoughlyDrafted Magazine
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Good article for sure. I think a lot of the system architecture and general approach points make good sense. One place I would disagree is in the section where IM apps are mentioned. The author seems to suggest that if the app just remembers its last state on exit, most IM users will be happy (I think, if I’ve read it right) – but my impression is that most heavy IM users (I’m not one) really want an app that can stay running in the background and alert them when they have a new message while in the background. Just being able to go back and re-launch the app frequently will not have the same effect …
Please, please, PLEASE learn the difference between yea and yeah.
You used yea improperly in the article.
Things like that remove any hint of real journalism, if things like that matter to you at all.
@ nacho – sorry. You’re right. I’ll fix that shortly. For future reference though, I’m a systems administrator, not a journalist or an english major, so while I do my best to catch stuff like that… If I miss a couple here or there I don’t lose much sleep over it. =)
The problem is what about apps that need to be able to run in the background? Instant Messaging, IRC, really anything that is interactive but that you don’t want to stare at constantly.
You must log in to post a comment.