iPhone OS 4 - Multitasking and more

[Irock]

On Apple's Website

Arrives for iPod Touch and iPhone this Summer
Arrives for iPad this Fall

Works 100% with iPhone 3Gs and iPod Touch 3rd gen
iPhone 3G and iPod Touch 2nd gen won't run multi-tasking


Multitasking
Push home button twice to bring up dock
Pandora was shown playing music in the background
Skype works without being in the application
Background location - Applications can pull your location from the background
Local Notifications
Task completion
Fast app switching
Applications can run in background

Homescreen
App Folders
Change Homescreen Wallpaper

Enhanced Email
Unified Email
Multiple exchange accounts
Fast inbox switching
Threaded messages
Open attachments with apps

iBooks on iPhone
iBooks synced between iPad and iPhone

Game Center
Social Gaming Network
Invite Friends
Matchmaking
Leaderboards
Achievements

iAd - Mobile Advertising
Jobs: "We have a lot of free or reasonably priced apps... we like that, but our devs have to find ways to make money. So our
devs are putting ads into apps, and for lack of a better way to say it, we think most of this kind of advertising sucks."

Emotion + Interactivity
Ads keep you in apps
Built into iPhone OS
Apple sells & hosts ads
60% revenues for devs
Ads look and feel like native applications

[spoiler]







[/spoiler]

[Holkeye]

I'm not updating. I'm still waiting for redsn0w for 3G 3.1.3, so I'll be damned if I'm going to update and have to wait all over again.

[Irock]

Overall, that was huge. Biggest iPhone software release aside from the release of the App Store. Period.

Multitasking, I'm going to get some use out of it. I could live without it easily, but I'll probably end up using it.

App folders, holy cow. I've wanted this for a long time, but I never considered folders. No longer will I need to have one page for each type of application.

Game center, I'll need to hear more on this. No idea what it will be like, but it appears to be Apple's answer to console online services.

iAd, it's about time ads didn't suck.

Won't work on iPod Touch 1st gen, I'll need to buy a new iPod Touch.

I think this completely knocked out a lot of the things people were bitching about being wrong with the iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch. Except Flash. Flash sucks.

[SirJackRex]

Oh wow, this is very cool. I was going to get a refurb 2nd Gen, but I think I'll go with the 3rd gen now. Also, the multitasking is great; I can settle for the 8GB, save some money, and use Pandora for extra music. Actually I was going to do that anyhow, but now I can multitask and use Pandora, which is even better.

I probably would have never seen this otherwise, so thanks man.

[Roph]

I'm not impressed, simply because this should have been in the very first OS.

I do however, understand the marketing tactic of severely artificially limiting a device, and then slowly enabling "normal" features (that other similar devices have, or have had for years). This lets you keep users coming back, possibly charging them again for something they already paid for, and you get to be "revolutionary" and "breakthrough" all over again.

I find the fact you'll see ads hilarious too. You already paid out the ass for it, now look at some ads.

[Irock]

I'm not impressed, simply because this should have been in the very first OS.

I do however, understand the marketing tactic of severely artificially limiting a device, and then slowly enabling "normal" features (that other similar devices have, or have had for years). This lets you keep users coming back, possibly charging them again for something they already paid for, and you get to be "revolutionary" and "breakthrough" all over again.

Jobs: "It's easy to do this in a way that drains battery life, and a way that reduces performance of the foreground app. If you don't do it right, your phone will feel sluggish. We figured out how to implement multitasking for third party apps and avoid those things. So that's what took so long."

They obviously are the first, but that doesn't matter. They may very well be the best, but only time can tell. I'd rather have something that works well than something that *sort of* works.

I find the fact you'll see ads hilarious too. You already paid out the ass for it, now look at some ads.

Developers have every right to put ads in the applications, just as you have the right to put ads on RMRK. I only see ads on free applications, for obvious reasons. Developers want a revenue source, and if they're not charging for the application, they may put ads in them. Apple's simply offering better ads -- something that benefits developers, users, and advertisers. They're trying to move away from annoying/boring banners that link to websites that open in Safari.

[tSwitch]

I would update for the extra features, just so that I wouldn't have a crippled device that can't run apps because they aren't backwards compatible, but I have the 2nd gen touch not the 3rd so it doesn't matter anyway.

Don't care about Apple not putting it in there to start, doesn't matter, it's there now.  Yeah kinda dumb that they charge for an update to the OS but it's not even $10, no big deal imo.

Except Flash. Flash sucks.

lol.
What would you use in place of it then?

[Irock]

Except Flash. Flash sucks.

lol.
What would you use in place of it then?

For videos and flashy shit on websites, HTML5. Or on the iPad, Quicktime for video. (a lot of websites seem to be optimizing theirselves to work without Flash, which is great)

[Holkeye]

Quicktime sucks ass.

[Irock]

Mobile Quicktime is flawless.

[&&&&&&&&&&&&&]

Can it play Starcraft?

[tSwitch]

For videos and flashy shit on websites, HTML5. Or on the iPad, Quicktime for video. (a lot of websites seem to be optimizing theirselves to work without Flash, which is great)

LOL HTML5
HTML5 is going to reduce dependency on a lot of external things to the net (javascript, Flash, etc...) so for things like video embedding perhaps HTML5 will push Flash out, but it won't be replaceing anything at all.  You'll never get the same level of dynamic interactivity from HTML until they turn it into a REAL programming language instead of just a somewhat ugly way of telling your browser how to display a webpage.

Flash interactive website and games won't go away, nor will the sideshows made in Flash and Javascript.  Also the only reason people are optimizing things for use without Flash is because Internet Exploder also happens to be going on a vendetta against Flash because Adobe refused to conform to IE standards, so in order to have the site reach as wide an audience as possible they lowered their dependency on Flash.  People aren't doing it for the iPad or the iPhone, they've been doing it for years because Microsoft is just as bad as Apple when it comes to DO IT OUR WAY OR ELSE.

I really don't get why everyone has a stick up their ass about Flash, it's simple to learn, relatively powerful for net-based applications, and you can make some awesome stuff with it.  WHY it's somehow BAD is beyond me entirely.

[:)]

If you think apple couldn't have had this in os 1 you're an idiot.

[SirJackRex]

Flash can be annoying because it can slow you down or be fudgy, but I think flash has its place and can really do some terrific things. Do yourself a favor and check this out: www.pixelcase.com.au/vr/2009/newyork/

[Irock]

For videos and flashy shit on websites, HTML5. Or on the iPad, Quicktime for video. (a lot of websites seem to be optimizing theirselves to work without Flash, which is great)

LOL HTML5
HTML5 is going to reduce dependency on a lot of external things to the net (javascript, Flash, etc...) so for things like video embedding perhaps HTML5 will push Flash out, but it won't be replaceing anything at all.  You'll never get the same level of dynamic interactivity from HTML until they turn it into a REAL programming language instead of just a somewhat ugly way of telling your browser how to display a webpage.

Flash interactive website and games won't go away, nor will the sideshows made in Flash and Javascript.  Also the only reason people are optimizing things for use without Flash is because Internet Exploder also happens to be going on a vendetta against Flash because Adobe refused to conform to IE standards, so in order to have the site reach as wide an audience as possible they lowered their dependency on Flash.  People aren't doing it for the iPad or the iPhone, they've been doing it for years because Microsoft is just as bad as Apple when it comes to DO IT OUR WAY OR ELSE.

I really don't get why everyone has a stick up their ass about Flash, it's simple to learn, relatively powerful for net-based applications, and you can make some awesome stuff with it.  WHY it's somehow BAD is beyond me entirely.

I never said it would replace anything. You asked me what I'd use in place of it. Are you illiterate, or just stupid?

About interactivity on websites, HTML5 can do some pretty neat stuff.

I didn't address slideshows or games at all, but you don't need flash to make a slideshow. And it's great some people know that. ;]

To say that the iMobiledevices have no effect on any website using Flash is stupid. There's no way to prove that at all. Besides, it doesn't matter; websites are optimizing their selves to run without Flash, which I love.

The reason Apple isn't allowing Flash on their devices is obvious. Flash would bog down their device, it's exploitable, and it would lessen the web experience since a lot of Flash on websites wouldn't work right since it's designed to work with a keyboard and mouse. (not counting ads, the majority of Flash content)

Somebody has a hard on for Flash. ;]

[tSwitch]

About interactivity on websites, HTML5 can do some pretty neat stuff.

Javascript can do the same, it's just clunky and dumb.

I didn't address slideshows or games at all, but you don't need flash to make a slideshow. And it's great some people know that. ;]

Flash interactive website and games won't go away, nor will the sideshows made in Flash and Javascript.

To say that the iMobiledevices have no effect on any website using Flash is stupid. There's no way to prove that at all. Besides, it doesn't matter; websites are optimizing their selves to run without Flash, which I love.

There's nothing wrong with flash unless the programmer is a retard who doesn't know how to make things efficient.  And I know that I for one am not designing sites with cell phones in mind, because the resolution is so stupidly small that there'd be no way to design for them effectively without making a specific page -just for them-.  Too much work, not enough reason to bother.

The reason Apple isn't allowing Flash on their devices is obvious. Flash would bog down their device, it's exploitable, and it would lessen the web experience since a lot of Flash on websites wouldn't work right since it's designed to work with a keyboard and mouse. (not counting ads, the majority of Flash content)

I agree that not having Flash on a mobile device is a design decision to increase performance on the device, and because the control scheme is different, I'm not arguing that, I just think that HTML5 isn't going to be the holy grail that everyone on the bandwagon seems to think it will be.  It might eliminate javascript (I'd love for it to, javascript sucks so much) but I doubt that as well.

Somebody has a hard on for Flash. ;]

I love Flash.

[Irock]

I didn't address slideshows or games at all, but you don't need flash to make a slideshow. And it's great some people know that. ;]

Flash interactive website and games won't go away, nor will the sideshows made in Flash and Javascript.

That doesn't use Flash and Javascript. That uses just Javascript, which is supported by the iMobiledevices.

There's nothing wrong with flash unless the programmer is a retard who doesn't know how to make things efficient.  And I know that I for one am not designing sites with cell phones in mind, because the resolution is so stupidly small that there'd be no way to design for them effectively without making a specific page -just for them-.  Too much work, not enough reason to bother.

It doesn't matter if you're not optimizing your websites for use without Flash; most major websites are. Mobile browsing is increasing.

I agree that not having Flash on a mobile device is a design decision to increase performance on the device, and because the control scheme is different, I'm not arguing that, I just think that HTML5 isn't going to be the holy grail that everyone on the bandwagon seems to think it will be.  It might eliminate javascript (I'd love for it to, javascript sucks so much) but I doubt that as well.

I never said it would eliminate Flash. You asked me what I'd replace it with and I answered.

[Japur]

Sometimes I hate those bastards. Why the hell won't they let it work on the iPod Touch 2nd Gen? Why in ****'s name?

Looks really nice for those who can use it, though.

[Moss.]

I tried to learn flash, once. It was the most over-complicated, convoluted, and irritating thing I've ever tried to learn.

[Irock]

Sometimes I hate those bastards. Why the hell won't they let it work on the iPod Touch 2nd Gen? Why in ****'s name?

Looks really nice for those who can use it, though.

Many features will work on the iPod Touch 2nd gen. But, multi-tasking won't since the hardware just can't do it well.

[tSwitch]

I didn't address slideshows or games at all, but you don't need flash to make a slideshow. And it's great some people know that. ;]

Flash interactive website and games won't go away, nor will the sideshows made in Flash and Javascript.

That doesn't use Flash and Javascript. That uses just Javascript, which is supported by the iMobiledevices.

I was pointing out that javascript can be used for them too, way to read wrong.

iMobileDevices are stupid for web browsing, I'm not going to lower the resolution of my website so they can be browsed more effectively on that screen.  I don't care about functionality because most websites that are super-interactive are stupid confusing anyway.

[Irock]

I didn't address slideshows or games at all, but you don't need flash to make a slideshow. And it's great some people know that. ;]

Flash interactive website and games won't go away, nor will the sideshows made in Flash and Javascript.

That doesn't use Flash and Javascript. That uses just Javascript, which is supported by the iMobiledevices.

I was pointing out that javascript can be used for them too, way to read wrong.

iMobileDevices are stupid for web browsing, I'm not going to lower the resolution of my website so they can be browsed more effectively on that screen.  I don't care about functionality because most websites that are super-interactive are stupid confusing anyway.

I didn't read anything wrong. You worded it in a way that can be interpreted differently.

iPhone and iPod touch are great for web browsing, for being mobile phone-size devices. You don't really have to lower your resolution at all, as you can zoom in and out. Nobody expects a mobile version of a small website owned by a random 20 year old.

From what I hear, you rarely have to zoom in on any pages on the iPad, and that it's great for web browsing.

Why are we talking about screen resolutions?

[tSwitch]

I didn't read anything wrong. You worded it in a way that can be interpreted differently.

No, you totally read it wrong.

iPhone and iPod touch are great for web browsing, for being mobile phone-size devices. You don't really have to lower your resolution at all, as you can zoom in and out. Nobody expects a mobile version of a small website owned by a random 20 year old.

From what I hear, you rarely have to zoom in on any pages on the iPad, and that it's great for web browsing.

Why are we talking about screen resolutions?

The screen size is tiny on the iPhone/Touch meaning that the resolution is tiny, therefore making it a clunky web-viewing solution as you have to zoom in and constantly scroll around to be able to view something properly and read it.

I brought up resolutions because you said people were starting to adopt design standards for the idevices in their web design, and my argument to the contrary was that if they felt they shoudl conform to a standard for portable browsing that the sites should be smaller which is a stupid design as the screens are too small.  The reason flash isn't widely used for interactive elements is because people don't like to update their flash player so the computer it'll run on cannot be assumed to have it, therefore making it an unpredictable option.  You could force a download, but then people would probably leave.  Flash, therefore, is usually not used and Java is substituted in its place as it provides baseline special effects albiet being a very ugly and annoying language to work around.

Compared to other mobiles, sure maybe they're better, but I maintain that phone web surfing is clunky and stupid.

[Roph]

http://gamehaxe.com/2010/04/10/bravo-apple/

Also, http://rmrk.net/?topic=38074.0;wap2

[Irock]

I didn't read anything wrong. You worded it in a way that can be interpreted differently.

No, you totally read it wrong.

No, you worded it in a way that can be interpreted differently.

The screen size is tiny on the iPhone/Touch meaning that the resolution is tiny, therefore making it a clunky web-viewing solution as you have to zoom in and constantly scroll around to be able to view something properly and read it.

Yes, the screen resolution is tiny, because it's a handheld mobile device. I didn't say the iPod Touch and iPhone were the gods of web browsing. I said the browsing on them is great for being cell phone sized devices. You are clearly unable to read.

I brought up resolutions because you said people were starting to adopt design standards for the idevices in their web design,

No, I said websites were starting to optimize themselves for use without Flash. You are clearly unable to read.

Compared to other mobiles, sure maybe they're better, but I maintain that phone web surfing is clunky and stupid.

I never said it isn't clunky and stupid. But the fact is, people browse the web on their handheld mobile devices at an ever increasing rate.

I personally browse on my iPod when away from my computer due to lack of a better alternative, like the iPad.