Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

iPhone OS 4.0 Brings Multitasking, Ad Framework For Apps

Posted by timothy on from the define-myself-as-outside-the-fence dept.

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.'"

27 of 983 comments (clear)

  1. No ads please by Matt+Perry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    1. Re:No ads please by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:No ads please by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

      On the plus side, with multi-tasking you'll be able to get several ads at once! Just image the fun times you'll have searching through your running apps trying to find the one that has the "congratulations! you're a winner!" sound file on constant loop.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:No ads please by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:No ads please by clang_jangle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    5. Re:No ads please by AresTheImpaler · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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

    6. Re:No ads please by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 5, Funny

      But I deserve free apps with no ads! I'm not sure why I deserve it, or how I can force people to provide what I desire, but I'm gonna whine while I'm not getting my way.

    7. Re:No ads please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Expect apps using home rolled ad solutions to be bounced

      Except that Steve Jobs specifically said during the Q&A developers were free to use other ad services. But don't let facts get in the way of a good troll.

    8. Re:No ads please by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmmm, I wonder who left this lying around here.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    9. Re:No ads please by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

    10. Re:No ads please by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  2. Fantastic news by amliebsch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Every time I use an iPhone, I can't help thinking, "if only this had more *ads*." I mean, really, what good is a smart phone without pop-over advertisements?

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    1. Re:Fantastic news by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    2. Re:Fantastic news by bonch · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you don't want to see the ads, don't buy ad-supported apps. There is almost always a more expensive ad-free version. iAd is just so every developer doesn't have to implement their own ad system every time.

      God, the uninformed, reactionary Apple-haters are out in full force today.

  3. Whoa, whoa by Bluesman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
  4. Apple "Innovation" by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:So no flash or java, but we get ads! by lolwhat · · Score: 5, Funny

    But they will use HTML5 for the ads! Progress! /s

  6. :'( poor open source babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cry a little louder and harder, bitches! We can't hear you from way up here on awesome mountain! What's that? You're mad and are going to form an open committee to discuss ways to retort in a GPL-based, socially pluralistic manner? In three years time, you'll have a shoddily constructed riposte AND a donated-by-Cory handkerchief with which to wipe away your salty tears? Keep debating, pansies! I'll be figuring out a way to put some TRUCK NUTS on my iPad.

  7. Re:And if you have anything except an iPhone 3GS.. by WilyCoder · · Score: 5, Informative

    Go ahead and jailbreak an iPhone 3g and try to run more than 2 apps at the same time. It slows to a CRAWL.

  8. LOL! Apple Hipster Douchebag Fanboys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Apple Hipster Douchebag Multitasking Roadmap

    > Multitasking sucks and is unneeded. I don't want stupid multitasking I just want to focus on one app at a time.

    > OMG!!! We are finally getting multitasking!!!

    > Apple's half-assed multitasking is 'pretty slick' Apple 'invented' multitasking

  9. RAM, ipad by proxima · · Score: 5, Informative

    The older iphones and ipod touches don't get multitasking likely because they only have 128 MB of RAM.

    I was disappointed to find out the ipad only has 256 (same as the 3GS). RAM is cheap, and there's no lack of space inside the ipad for an extra chip. With the way Safari currently works, it starts dumping web page caches as memory fills up. That means going to another "tab" (through an expose-like interface) can often mean re-loading the page from scratch, in practice. Word is the iphone 3GS does this a lot less, so it's definitely something they need to address for the ipad. Because the expose is two taps instead of the one required for tabs, and because of this reloading, I find myself using substantially fewer open browser windows on the ipad than on a desktop.

    I'm starting to think they need to use part of the flash memory to cache things, especially with multitasking (that's what the "fast app switching" I presume does - save the full state of app memory on flash). The biggest downside to this is it wears down the flash.

    I was a little disappointed to find out that the ipad release will be "fall". So far, though, the only time I've really wanted multitasking (or some pseudo-multitasking) is to play audio from Pandora or Magnatune while doing other tasks (and you can use the Magnatune website to stream since Safari's media player multitasks). Most of the other features are really for iphone users (ibook app, improved mail - though unified inbox will be nice).

    By the way, anyone looking for an extremely thorough review of the ipad should look here. I have no relation to the author, but I found he covered things extremely well.

    --
    "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
    1. Re:RAM, ipad by my_breath_smells · · Score: 5, Informative

      RAM is cheap, and there's no lack of space inside the ipad for an extra chip.

      The iPad's A4 processor has the RAM inside the A4 package using package-on-package technology. Perhaps the RAM inside the A4 could have been a higher density, but space inside the iPad is not relevant.

      Integrating the RAM minimizes the pinout of the A4 and may have allowed them to avoid a difficult-to-breakout BGA pitch. (Changing from a 0.5mm to 0.4mm pitch allows more pins but complicates PCB routing and PCB expense.) I can't tell from this shot of the A4 what pitch is used, but the pin count is pretty high. Note: You need the blank areas in order to breakout traces and place vias.

  10. Most important: restriction on app development by VZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:Most important: restriction on app development by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  11. Re:Multitasking NOT coming to iPhone by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  12. Re:Not true multitasking by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  13. But... multiple e-mail users? by dbc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article is unclear if e-mail has been expanded to support multiple user logins. This to me is the deal-breaker with an iPad -- I'd have one sitting on the coffee table today if it had support for multiple user logins to keep e-mail sorted and private. But I'm not going to get an iPad for each member of the household just to keep e-mail private. So is that fixed or not? When they fix it, instant sale. Until then, nope.