iPhone OS 4.0 Brings Multitasking, Ad Framework For Apps

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.'"

Comments

No ads please

[Matt Perry]

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

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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

[PopeRatzo]

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

[clang_jangle]

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:No ads please

[AresTheImpaler]

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). 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:No ads please

[timeOday]

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

[Red Flayer]

I wonder if you're aware that you're making excuses. The real objection is not about whether you like to see ads or don't like to see ads. No. The objection is that the moment you see a single ad you did not wish to see, you have lost control over the device. That's completely unacceptable when you are already paying. That's why personal preferences towards advertising are completely irrelevant.

False. That's your objection, not mine. My objection would have nothing to do with control. It has to do with functionality. If the appliance does what I want from it, I have no problem. There are no excuses involved, since there is nothing to excuse.

That makes it a fair exchange. However, when you are paying for a phone, phone service, and the application, and still see ads, this is no longer justifiable. It's a form of double-dipping. Thus, it's an adversarial way of relating to your customers because it amounts to taking advantage of them.

And yet millions of people pay for cable television, or for magazines, which still have ads in them. I fail to see the problem. When people have the choice of services or appliances to use, then the problem solves itself. Content servers find a way to operate profitably with some kind of split revenue from customer billing and from ad revenues. Why shouldn't ad serving subsidize subscription cost?

It has nothing to do with whether anyone likes ads. It has to do with the fact that a company is making money from ad revenue without earning that money by providing something of value in return.

I don't understand. You can freely choose not to accept the services of that company, and not have to see any ads from them. Bully for you -- stand by your principles and don't do business with that company. Meanwhile, the fact that the company has two separate revenue streams doesn't bother me -- our CHOICE is to evaluate whether the service provided is worth the cost, where the cost includes the inconvenience or annoyance of ads, and the cash we lay out to the company.

Do you ever wonder why there are so many companies that take advantage, exploit, and find ways to screw people over? It's because we reward them with our business.

And that's our individual choice to make. You place a high value on maintaining "control" of your devices, or on not needing to see ads. I don't. So when presented with the same choice, you and I may choose differently. The market sorts out what business model is successful, not your personal value system.

It's foolish to reward this behavior because it's parasitic in nature.

That's silly. All profit-seeking enterprise is parasitic in nature if you look at it that way.

The only time this would be acceptable would be for free apps that would otherwise cost money. Please read this quote from the summary and tell me whether you believe Apple is going to restrict these ad functions to free apps only

No need to re-read, since I disagree with your premise. Why should we not have a choice between apps that are free and ad-laden, expensive and ad-free, or some other combination? Why does it have to be black-and-white? Why can't I choose an app that gives me what I believe to be the best service, but costs me some cash and also serves ads? Why not let the market decide which model (or even likely multiple models) is out there for me to choose from?

And for that matter, so what if this were to go to the ridiculous extreme and Apple requires all apps to serve ads, or they won't get approved? So what? Then you can simply not use an Apple appliance. Nothing is forcing you to do business with them.

Seriously, I don't understand where you're coming from. Because of a set of values YOU hold, that are far from universal, you want to limit the choices available to me as a consumer, and to developers also?

Whoa, whoa

[Bluesman]

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 out?

Apple "Innovation"

[Microlith]

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:Fantastic news

[QuantumRiff]

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.

Most important: restriction on app development

[VZ]

Interestingly enough nobody seems to have mentioned this gem 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).

Re:Most important: restriction on app development

[MBGMorden]

Because only great devs can write flashlight and fart apps?

The reality is you can write good or bad code in any language. Their closed system is all about them keeping control. It does NOTHING to keep out "crap" developers (as completely shown by the amount of complete and utter "crap" already on the App Store).

Re:Multitasking NOT coming to iPhone

[UnknowingFool]

True multi-tasking isn't coming to the iPhone. The multi-tasking will be limited. If it falls under 7 different categories it will be supported.

Apple has always been against mult-tasking because they claim it hampers performance and drains the battery. As a Window Mobile user, I can't count the number of times my phone was freaking sluggish only to find that certain apps were running in the background that didn't kill themselves properly. With this Apple will allow certain types of behavior. Most of the multi-tasking that most consumers have wanted falls under one of these categories. Now if you're trying to sequence a genome while twittering your friends, that's probably not supported.

Re:Not true multitasking

[iluvcapra]

look at how Palm WebOS does it.

The three-hour battery life part or the going bankrupt by catering to whims of tech forum trolls part?