Slashdot Mirror
Google Latitude Arrives For the iPhone — As a Web App
An anonymous reader writes "After months of waiting, the Google Latitude social maps service finally arrived for the iPhone ... but thanks to an Apple rejection of the natively developed app, it's a web app. Says Google on their blog, 'We worked closely with Apple to bring Latitude to the iPhone in a way Apple thought would be best for iPhone users. After we developed a Latitude application for the iPhone, Apple requested we release Latitude as a web application in order to avoid confusion with Maps on the iPhone.' But it gets worse for iPhone users: 'Unfortunately, since there is no mechanism for applications to run in the background on iPhone (which applies to browser-based web apps as well), we're not able to provide continuous background location updates in the same way that we can for Latitude users on Android, BlackBerry, Symbian and Windows Mobile.' Latitude has been sprouting new features lately and is an interesting take on social networking, but it looks like Apple is determined to ensure its users only get a seriously crippled implementation compared to the Android and WinMo versions. PC World put it less politely than Google did, saying, 'Google's new Latitude Web app for iPhone is so hamstrung that Apple customers may be wishing they had a BlackBerry or Android handset instead.'"
Exactly! Google Latitude is just an inferior (and potentially confusing) version of the maps app. Sure the maps app might actually use Google Maps but it's the Apple extensions that really put the shine on it. It's absolutely right that this be limited to a web-app. Furthermore, who would want to allow an application to continuously run in the background? It opens up all sorts of angles of attack, it's dangerous, resource intensive, and Apple is right to disallow it. Apple know what's best for it's customers. They shound't, and they won't allow the likes of Google to undermine their customers' experience with the iPhone using shoddy, poorly designed applications.
Happy iPhone user here.
Although I couldn't give less of a crap about this particular application (it's pretty worthless overall, in my opinion). They do need to open up the API a bit or they are going to be passed by.
Frankly, I think they will. Steve Jobs isn't one to be outdone by competition.
Gone!
Yet another iPhone discussion that includes "apple will not allow [X]"... They are starting to bore and depress me as they are rather futile. The Apple fans will always blindly support and back the Apple position. People who disagree with the Apple position will always see things as they do as well. Neither side will win the other over. And if it did, Apple would just kill the iPhone project completely.
I have to wonder if there is ever anything "apple fans" ever complain or disagree with Apple about? I'd like to hear from Apple fans to know if they are actually independent or completely sold into the Apple view. I remember some faint complaints about the change to OSX but those didn't last long. The "classic" mode also raised a bit of ire and frustration as I recall. But is Apple "simply perfect?" Can Apple do no wrong?
And this relates to Apple limiting their own customers from being able to do things that the other 'big' phones can do how? Sounds like the one a step behind is Apple. This IS about features that are being rolled out for other phones that Apple refuses to allow on the iPhone, the only one playing catchup is Apple here and from the article it's less catchup and more sit on your ass and take a nap.
Right, which is why Apple can't run apps in the background. Someone at Apple was asleep at the switch with that decision.
Google Latitude is an immature service. It's not as interesting or useful as Brightkite or even Loopt. However, the web app is brilliant. The responsiveness of the app is not very different from the iPhone Maps app. The directions tool is in some ways better. The fact that it's not a "real" app isn't important to me. In fact, it shows that most of the apps out there are unnecessary... they could be web apps instead.
Yup. Can't see any legal ramifications there.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
This must be a tiny bit embarrassing for Google. They're staking their reputation on Chrome OS, an OS based on the principle that native apps have had their day, and that everything we want to do can be done perfectly well through web apps.
Yet everyone's describing Google's web app as "crippled" on the iPhone, solely because Apple wouldn't allow them to release the native version of it. Why did they even deem it necessary to write a native version in the first place?
Incidentally, is there something in the Slashdot terms and conditions which means the site has to get worse every day? I can't even interact with the comment box with my mouse any more, it just ignores all clicks as if there's another HTML element overlaying it. This is truly pathetic.
You are absolutely correct. There are absolutely no legal ramifications there. Feels great to live in a FREE country :)
Breaking iTunes compatibility on Linux and Blackberry and now they're crippling a Google app. What up? I'm sure there's a strategy here, I just can't see it.
I don't think trying to Balkanize their services and regulate iPhone users is going to ultimately be good for them or their user base. The iPhone user demographic may not have the same brand loyalty as the Apple faithful.
Beyond that I've always been impressed with Apple's execution...until recently. Instead of their usual suave and polish, always being ahead of the curve in packaging and style, lately they seem to be heavy handed and bumbling around a bit. Reactive instead of their usual proactive. Being reactive and heavy handed reminds me of Microsoft and even though I'm not a Mac fan myself I really appreciate what Apple did well.
I hope they right themselves and implement a service strategy with the same quality they've shown in other areas. If they start trying to make iPhones the AOL of cellular services, then Google and other providers are going to out-maneuver them with superior service offerings on a wider range of devices.
Maybe it's some flashback to the OS wars. Instead of a big market share and being the dominant player in the field, Apple is setting themselves up for a smaller but more loyal market share. Which could be either good or bad depending on how you feel about them tying their OS to their hardware.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The iphone's OS has no mechanism for running applications in the background??? That's stunning! Is it based on Windows 3.1 or something?
...that the ultimate narcissist application (everyone needs to know exactly where I am every second!)... ...doesn't work on the ultimate narcissists cell phone.
This space available.
This is the first thing that's really made me want to get a non-iPhone. Latitude really introduces a lot of option for apps, and not being able to do this in the background really hamstrings the device. Hope Apple fixes this soon...
AT&T wants to sell their 'AT&T FamilyMap' plan to its users. Subscribers are charged $9.99 for the ability to locate up to 2 other people with AT&T phones $14.99 to locate up to 5 people. Google latitude will do this for free only better because users can locate as many people as they want and it can locate non-AT&T users.
I think that Apple would be happy to allow this but the problem is that wireless providers abuse their oligopoly status to cripple cell phone features so that users are forced to give the wireless carriers money for things that they otherwise would have been free and better.
For example Verizon forces smart phone manufacturers to rip out WiFi so users are forced to pay Verizon to access the internet. MP3 players are ripped out of cellphones and replaced by silly paid services such as VCast.
Banning Latitude is almost certainly just another mundane example of carrier oligopoly abuse. The federal government needs to legislate to stop cell phone carriers from crippling phones.
Apple know what's best for it's customers. They shound't, and they won't allow the likes of Google to undermine their customers' experience with the iPhone using shoddy, poorly designed applications.
You, sir, are the biggest idiot I have ever met online.
Satire.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Have you met yourself yet? Also, WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH.
"Apple requested we release Latitude as a web application in order to avoid confusion with Maps on the iPhone."
How does Apple get away with that as an excuse when Microsoft gets sued billions of dollars for simply including a web browser or media player with Windows? At least in Windows you can install a different browser!
How do Windows Mobile and Android manage running background apps perfectly fine? Does Apple have some inferiour programmers who cannot implement a proper scheduler?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
The iPhone is just a Darwin machine, which all of us here should know is based on FreeBSD. It, therefore, has a very good scheduler (one of FreeBSD's best features is that the system stays usable and responsive, seemingly no matter how high the load on the CPU is).
Apple's own software multitasks just fine, where it is useful to do so. They just don't let third-party apps run in the background.
My jailbroke iPod Touch (same hardware, more or less) works just fine as a multiuser Unix box, background apps and all. There's no compelling reason why I couldn't install Apache, Postfix, and BIND on it, and make a silly little Internet-facing WiFi-connected server (with a built-in UPS!) out of it, except for the fact that I'd rather do that on real hardware if I had a need to do so.
Kid-proof tablet..
Running an active TCP session for an IM client constantly would light up much more of the iPhone's hardware, and drain the battery that much faster.
Well, not exactly....
An active TCP session is EXACTLY what Apple's Push Notification Service uses.
Its an extended version of ActivSync, Licensed from Microsoft.
It works like this:
You open a TCP connection with an Apple Notification server, and shutdown the radio, leaving the connection open, by never explicitly closing it. With the radio down, the phone is Saving power.
Periodically, you wake up the radio, check if the TCP socket is readable. If so, you read it, and notify the user, and optionally launch that application that the notification was destined for.
If the socket failed, (timed out, network dropped, etc) you reestablish the socket.
Since TCP timeout is usually on the order of 12 minutes or longer, this happens only about 5 times an hour.
Checking socket readability takes just a tiny bit of power for a very very short time. So your radio is on for a few seconds every hour. (Which it is anyway, listening for incoming calls).
Apple's push notification leverages this single socket connection to an unlimited number of applications in the iPhone, by having a single daemon watching the socket, signaling the target app, and notifying the user.
It operates similar to InetD in Linux, other than instead of waiting for new connections, it is watching existing ones. In fact, there is some discussion as to whether ActiveSync is even patentable because it is so obvious.
And to be perfectly pedantic, Antennas do not consume any power when receiving.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
or, Google could release the source code to the app. This would give a great example for other developers to create other apps for Latitude: open social networks always work well (see Twitter). It would also prevent any legal issues with Apple, as there are many open-source apps out there right now, and Google has a good history with open source. If someone wants it, they can compile it themselves or (more likely) get it from someone else who has already compiled it.
As an added bonus, a non-jailed application can do background updates.
Some call it catchup and others don't care. That is that most iPhone users are willing to accept some measure of freedom loss in order to gain a consistently high level of user experience. It gets so old to hear people whine about what Apple won't give them. It's obvious by now that what they give you is sufficient for a really significant number of people. We get it, it's not for you. I could sit here and complain about how GM doesn't make any cars I want, but if GM has happy customers and is doing well then I'm just being a troll.
More importantly stop and consider the large number of apple purchasers who are relatively ignorant about technology and rely on Apple to control things for them. These people need someone to limit them and Apple is VERY VERY concerned with not providing them enough rope to hang themselves with. The reason is that these people hold Apple liable for even the most minor of problems. Not only do they exercise this through future purchases but also through Apple support. Just go into an Apple store and look at the sorts of support issues that a large percentage of people are in there...essentially they're there for things that you and I (and all of slashdot) already know about. The last thing that Apple needs is for even more people to show up going "I tried to find XXX on google maps and all I found was some YYYY (strange content)" because they think the new google app is something that it's not.
Simply put do not underestimate the ignorance of a lot of Apple's customers, and the level of support (time, money) that Apple puts into supporting these people. THAT is the reason they can charge so much and why they're bastards about user experience. Yes it's slightly nefarious, but more importantly it's good business as it makes them profitable and it makes most of their customers really happy, happy enough to keep buying lots of stuff. Fortunately they manage to provide for all of those people and to a lesser extent for the rest of us, enough to satisfy a significant number of non-ignorant people.
Personally I'd prefer if they catered more towards people like myself, but oh well.
I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
The iPhone is just a Darwin machine, which all of us here should know is based on FreeBSD. It, therefore, has a very good scheduler.
The iPhone is a Darwin machine, which all of us here should know is not based on FreeBSD, but Mach with a bunch of modifications and a BSD runtime layer on top. In fact, MacOS X has a pretty poor scheduler, as Anand et al have benchmarked and anybody's personal experience should corroborate.
Which has little to do with Apple's decision to forbid third-party background processes.
Have a nice time.
Then the scheduler on the iPhone is does suck because I extensively use multitasking on my Windows Mobile device (HTC Touch HD) and the battery life is descent.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I believe the Maps app on the iPhone is made by Google, so if there was an update around the corner that added this functionality I would think that Google would be aware of it