iOS 10 Quietly Deprecated A Crucial API For VoIP and Communication Apps (apple.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

iOS 10 Quietly Deprecated A Crucial API For VoIP and Communication Apps (apple.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday August 12, 2017 @07:34AM from the network-affect dept.

neutrino38 warns that iOS 10 includes a significant change "overlooked by the general public": It deprecates an API that is crucial for VoIP and other instant messaging applications that enable keeping one socket active despite the fact that the application would run in the background. As a replacement, developers need to use PushKit: when an incoming call is to be forwarded to an iOS VoIP client, the VoIP infrastructure needs to:

- withold the call
- contact Apple push infrastructure using a proprietary protocol to wake up the client app remotely
- wait for the application to reconnect to the infrastructure and release the call when it is ready

This "I know better than you" approach is meant to further optimize battery life on iOS devices by avoiding the use of resources by apps running in background. It has also the positive effect of forcing developers to switch to a push model and remove all periodic pollings that ultimately use mobile data and clog the Internet. However, the decision to use an Apple infrastructure has many consequences for VoIP providers:

- the reliability of serving incoming calls is directly bound to Apple service
- Apple may revoke the PushKit certificate. It thus has life and death decision power over third-party communication infrastructures
- organizations wanting to setup IPBX and use iOS client have no option but to open access for the push services of Apple in their firewall
- It is not possible to have iOS VoIP or communication clients in network disconnected from the Internet - Pure standard SIP clients are now broken on iOS
The original submission argues that Apple is creating "the perfect walled garden," adding that "Ironically, the only VoIP 'app' that is not affected is the (future?) VoLTE client that will be added to iOS one day."

122 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Tronald Dump doesn't care about VOIP by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 07:42 · Score: -1

He doesn't even WIPE!
Meh by NettiWelho · 2017-08-12 07:42 · Score: 1, Troll

I think the real joke here is that for a price of one of their phones you could instead have 2 kilos of pure silver.
1. Re: Meh by Zone-MR · 2017-08-12 08:55 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  What an amazing world we live in, that a state of the art device featuring communication radios, cameras, a display, and phonomenal processing power is available for the same price as a chunk of metal.
2. Re: Meh by NettiWelho · 2017-08-12 09:11 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  What an amazing world we live in, that a state of the art device featuring communication radios, cameras, a display, and phonomenal processing power is available for the same price as a chunk of metal.
  Yet the the people who make these things need suicide nets around the buildings because.. reasons?
3. Re: Meh by Rockoon · 2017-08-12 09:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yet the the people who make these things need suicide nets around the buildings because..
  ...because they are considered to be worth more than a college student in America, that have significantly higher suicide rates.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
4. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 10:01 · Score: 0
  Two things of relevance here that you might not be aware of:
  The Foxconn suicide rate is lower than the national average. They just employ so many people that suicides are common enough that it seems otherwise.
  Foxconn doesn't just make stuff for Apple, they make stuff for Amazon, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Google, Intel, Dell, and many more. You've probably spent money on something manufactured by them and you probably will do so again in the future.
5. Re: Meh by NettiWelho · 2017-08-12 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I am aware my computer or phone don't contain any components made by foxconn
6. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  Then your awareness is seriously limited, keep in mind that they manufacture components down to simple connectors used on mainboards of other vendors.
7. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 13:02 · Score: 0
  
  Check your keyboard, mouse and mobo/gpu/whatever components. Those bastards make anything.
8. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 15:21 · Score: 0
  
  Anything ever no matter how useful or expensive has a comparatively valued hunk of sufficiently precious metal.
9. Re: Meh by that+this+is+not+und · 2017-08-12 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  I have old 486 motherboards where the ISA slot board edge connectors are branded Foxconn.
10. Re: Meh by that+this+is+not+und · 2017-08-12 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  The silver will retain it's worth. Five years later what is the Iphone worth?
11. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-13 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  What an amazing world we live in, that a state of the art device featuring communication radios, cameras, a display, and phonomenal processing power is available for the same price as a chunk of metal.
  Yet the the people who make these things need suicide nets around the buildings because.. reasons?
  Because they also make shitty products for Microsoft, Sony, HP, Cisco, etc. They usually kill themselves when they stop making Apple products and get demoted to the lesser ones.
12. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-13 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  I have old 486 motherboards where the ISA slot board edge connectors are branded Foxconn.
  You have any Intel branded Mobo from the last 15 years? Made by Foxconn.
13. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-13 00:37 · Score: 0
  
  The silver will retain it's worth. Five years later what is the Iphone worth?
  So, what use did you get out of the silver in those 5 years? Make a single phone call with it? So apart from its rather arbitrary value as a "shiny" it doesn't actually have value.
14. Re: Meh by epine · 2017-08-13 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  ...because they are considered to be worth more than a college student in America, that have significantly higher suicide rates.
  I hate to break your bitter pill, but once American colleges fully implement the mandatory age-parity quotas, your beloved suicide rate will no longer thrive in this equation.
15. Re: Meh by LinuxIsGarbage · 2017-08-13 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  I have old 486 motherboards where the ISA slot board edge connectors are branded Foxconn.
  You have any Intel branded Mobo from the last 15 years? Made by Foxconn.
  Apparently not. that this is not und only uses 25 year old 486 computers.
16. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  I have old 486 motherboards where the ISA slot board edge connectors are branded Foxconn.
  You have any Intel branded Mobo from the last 15 years? Made by Foxconn.
  Apparently not. that this is not und only uses 25 year old 486 computers.
  Wow, you must be an Apple hater - because you are dumb as shit and can't read
17. Re: Meh by syntotic · 2017-08-15 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  How many companies between you and her (... ?) phone?
It's needed to preserve the battery by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 07:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

It provides defense against lazy app writers. And it's courageous.
1. Re:It's needed to preserve the battery by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  It's needed to secure the revenue of the carriers (and apple). So fuck off.
2. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Lazy app writers are the reason so much shit is on the Android platform and Steam platform. Lazy writers use middleware libraries without understanding the consequences of their use.
3. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 08:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It just shows you who Apple thinks itâ(TM)s customer is. Theyâ(TM)re choosing to favour their user experience over their app developers wish to be lazy and to potentially do neferious things tracking the user constantly.
  Not that surprising considering which of those pays Apple to buy a price of hardware. And not the kind of move google would do given that the app developer is their true customer.
4. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  Yet said lazy environments don't tax the entire process. But to be clear this one reason I.E "lazy writers" is not a good enough reason to stifle innovation. Which is the ability to leave sockets open for other purposes that will now suffer.
  Look at Progressive Web Apps a far more efficient and safer way of deploying apps. But Apple wont fully implement PWAPP features. Why? No reason other than the $US100 developer tax gets taken off the table. With PWAPP you can safely access parts of the phone that are needed for apps likes twitter (look up twitters pwapp) or tripadvisor or even facebook (minus the messenger). Yet if Apple supported PWAPP they would be out of pocket by about 30% (maybe more) of the app store in a few years.
  As for other areas Apple has done this you only have to look at Apple Pay/NFC and also WebRTC. In fact just those two alone has meant abandoning several projects which under Android is really "no biggy" to create.
  Remember Apple pulled this crap 15 years ago and that's why they had to get Jobs back because it nearly put them broke. In today's market that's probably not going to happen but you never know. Depends how much of a jerk they want to be vs what competing platforms will start to offer.
5. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by msauve · 2017-08-12 09:29 · Score: 2
  
  "It just shows you who Apple thinks itÃ(TM)s customer is. TheyÃ(TM)re choosing to favour their user experience over their app developers wish to be lazy "
  
  Exactly the opposite of /., which favors their lazy developers over the improved user experience which would come with Unicode support.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
6. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by Carewolf · 2017-08-12 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  They favor their own pockets and draconic tendencies and nothing else. You are nothing but cow for them to be regularly milked.
7. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  How is apple out of money when the apps you show as examples are all free?
8. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  Youâ(TM)re a moron. You think Apple cares about a developer subscription? They use to charge for each platform annually and itâ(TM)s now one program.
  The company cares about security, battery life, and customer satisfaction.
  This API change is better for everyone. You need to open up APNS anyways.
9. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 17:30 · Score: 0
  
  So, let's see...
  Apple released the iPhone with no App Store and said that web apps were the way of the future. You people screamed bloody murder, stomped your feet, and demanded native apps because forcing people to use web apps is somehow evil. Apple actually listened to you, and eventually released dev kits to produce native apps, and opened the App Store. Now, native apps are intolerable, Apple should have gone the web app route, and are just utterly horrible people for giving you the native app environment you wanted and threw a hissy fit when you didn't get it.
  Seriously, do you people think that no one remembers anything? Hell, I remember when you lot were screeching that only idiots incapable of comprehending a command line would ever use a mouse. And now, MacOS is a legit Unix that ships with full-up bash, and windows still ships with that crippled relic command line of theirs. You're just making up random arbitrary and irrational reasons to hate Apple, like you've been doing since the '70s. They could invent a way to transmute cancer tumors into gold, and you'd concoct some reason to complain.
10. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by ls671 · 2017-08-12 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  Who needs fricking Unicode support to type an apostrophe? It is ASCII code 39, that should be compatible enough with anything. But, no, people use fancy Unicode apostrophes, sometimes OS specific. Why?
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
11. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by msauve · 2017-08-12 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  Ahhh. Your problem is you don't know the difference between an apostrophe and single or curly quotes.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
12. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by ls671 · 2017-08-12 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  On the contrary, it makes me think that every time something is working fine, somebody comes along to change it. Typewriter apostrophe has been around, well, since typewriters!
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  MS-WORD doesn't even use the same quotation marks for English and French because of those printing inspired people that say that a symbol looks nicer than another depending on the language, establish trends etc. when the used symbol adds no value at all and everybody understands what the symbol means anyway.
  MS-Word had problems implementing that functionality first and many people still have problems, it goes from language analyzer to syntax validation software. Here are a few examples after a very quick search:
  https://tedclancy.wordpress.co...
  http://www.fileformat.info/inf...
  https://www.quora.com/Punctuat...
  http://snowball.tartarus.org/t...
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
13. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 23:27 · Score: 0
  
  it was 20 years ago that Steve returned. They "pulled this crap" much longer ago than that, then, so you're older than you think.
14. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by msauve · 2017-08-12 23:44 · Score: 1
  
  Curly quotes have been around and working fine since, well, before Gutenberg. It's typewriters which made the change.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
15. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by ls671 · 2017-08-13 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Nice find; printing is older than typewriters!
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
16. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by Plus1Entropy · 2017-08-13 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  The company cares about security, battery life, and customer satisfaction.
  Yeah, that doesn't sound like it was copy-pasted from Apple's Marketing Dept.
  
  --
  Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
17. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-13 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly, how could anyone that love real tech hate apple. The company that tried to price fix ebook; and steals other companies patented tech, and steals their own developers programs and then bans the programs from their store. No reasons to hate apple at all
18. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by chihowa · 2017-08-13 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Ahhh. Your problem is you don't know the difference between an apostrophe and single or curly quotes.
  Neither do you. The appropriate punctuation symbol for it's and they're is an apostrophe.
  It looks like the AC got some of the quotation marks correct, but wanted to use a righthand single curly quotation mark in place of an apostrophe (and clicked through the preview without looking at it).
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
19. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-13 21:19 · Score: 0
  
  Tell all you to have a good nite,and sweet dreams,xoxo
20. Re: It's needed to preserve the battery by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  No not at all AC. Native apps are very important or better to say native apps are crucial any computing platform. Further the AppStore process is a good one, E.G in the case of hybrid web apps Apple critiques the UI and forces quality before it publishes the app. What you're saying is totally off base.
  In the case of web apps on the otherhand. This is no user downfall here which is my point. If a webapp sucks or so on then who cares because very little data is needed as it it's only a service container and an icon. PWAPP can be used to push annoying crap apps like TripAdvisor down the list and proper apps that rely on things like Unity and so on so fourth get the native focus. What PWAPP does do is threaten PhoneGap, React (in my view a good thing) and even Xamaian to a degree. It doesnt however, threaten projects like Ionic it just adds another (lesser) dimension to Ionic.
  Here is an interesting fact iOS's support for PWAPPs rendering is more efficient than Android and they already support the service container. Give developers the access to create icons (authorised by a user prompt accepting such) and push notications and that's it. I think it's so much better. I don't need to know your GPS coordinates or have network access on your device. As for the likes of TripAdvisor native apps just give more lead way to exploit this data, which again points me back to why PWAPP may actually be a really good thing.
Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 07:45 · Score: -1

The answer to all these questions.
Their REAL customers by bferrell · 2017-08-12 07:52 · Score: 0

the carrier don't like what was disabled. Now you can't use an iPhone handset to bypass the carrier using VOIP
1. Re:Their REAL customers by gnasher719 · 2017-08-12 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  the carrier don't like what was disabled. Now you can't use an iPhone handset to bypass the carrier using VOIP
  Please explain this, since your comment means that one of us doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.
2. Re:Their REAL customers by jeff4747 · 2017-08-12 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Because data miraculously teleports to the iPhone.
  (If you want to claim you only ever use your phone with WiFi, first I don't believe you and second you are moot to carriers since you were already unwilling to be a customer.)
3. Re: Their REAL customers by Miamicanes · 2017-08-12 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Why would the carrier even CARE anymore? Actual voice calls are NOW almost more trouble & taxes than they're worth.
  Data, on the other hand, is their new big-ticket billable item... they LOVE apps that constantly poll for data, because a single-byte payload in a TCP/IP request generates a few hundred billable bytes of data transfer. Carriers would abandon voice & MAKE you find your own VoIP service if they thought they could get away with it. Voice calls are now just a loss-leader to sell data.
  With someone like AT&T, T-mobile, Verizon, or Sprint (where voice calls are free), they LOSE money (in state & federal taxes) every time someone makes a voice call. If you use some other VoIP service, it's win-win for the telco.
4. Re: Their REAL customers by PopeRatzo · 2017-08-12 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  With someone like AT&T, T-mobile, Verizon, or Sprint (where voice calls are free),
  Unlimited and free are not the same thing.
  
  they LOSE money (in state & federal taxes) every time someone makes a voice call.
  I'm not doubting you, but do you have any sort of citation for that statement?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
5. Re: Their REAL customers by Midnight+Thunder · 2017-08-12 09:03 · Score: 2
  
  In many ways carriers are becoming a dumb pipe and the evolution of their plans suggest that they are realising this. In many ways charging for data is of more value than charging for voice, if everyone is moving to third party apps.
  The value of keeping a phone number with your carrier is that it is still the closest to an universal contact ID, working across carriers. The same can't be said for solutions such as WhatsApp, Skype, Facebook and Google Hangouts.
  
  --
  Jumpstart the tartan drive.
6. Re:Their REAL customers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  Generally the cost of data for a VoIP call is tiny compared to the rates they'd charge for the same voice call.
7. Re: Their REAL customers by Miamicanes · 2017-08-12 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  I can't quote a URL, but I used to work for a major telco & had a role in writing our billing software. Circa 2009, it cost *us* (in taxes and Tariff-mandated fees) more to terminate a landline call from Fort Lauderdale to Boca Raton than it cost for us to terminate a call from a landline phone in Fort Lauderdale to a landline phone in BRITAIN --
  because intra-LATA calls (a/k/a "local long-distance" calls) were among the most expensive ones you could make, while international calls actually had the least taxes.
8. Re: Their REAL customers by MachineShedFred · 2017-08-12 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that would make sense if practically every single mobile plan sold today didn't include unlimited call minutes, but limited data. The carriers would much rather the call be VoIP - they stand to make more money from packetized data than voice.
  What is the weather like 10 years ago?
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
9. Re: Their REAL customers by joemck · 2017-08-12 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  When so many plans are "unlimited calls and texts, some GB of data and if you go over you pay", calls are effectively free once you've paid your monthly base rate. You could spend the entire month on the phone 24/7 and not pay a cent more than if you never make a voice call. But for the carrier, each call consumes resources on their network, and if too many people make calls they have to upgrade their network or quickly gain a reputation for dropped calls. Therefore, a carrier would prefer if you pay for unlimited calls and then not make any.
  Data also consumes resources on the carrier's network, and I would guess it's more of a strain on the network than voice. Voice gets routed once at the start of a call and again if you handoff to another tower, and is a constant rate throughout the call. Data is routed per packet, and is very bursty. But it counts against a limit set in your plan, so your carrier would like you to use a lot of it because then they can charge you more.
  Then again, some carriers are starting to offer truly unlimited plans where you never pay extra and they just put you in a lower priority bracket if you use excessive amounts of data.
10. Re:Their REAL customers by TheRaven64 · 2017-08-12 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  And, perhaps more importantly, most SIP providers have endpoints in many countries and so the call costs are fairly uniform. It costs me about the same amount to call the UK or USA from my SIP client, but a lot more to call the US as a telephone call from the same phone. I mostly use SIP for international calls - it's a lot cheaper than using POTS.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
11. Re:Their REAL customers by jeff4747 · 2017-08-13 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  "Free", which is what my carrier charges for voice calls, is pretty damn cheap.
  Carriers want you to use your expensive data plan. This change reduces how much data you use. So it's actually bad for the cellular providers, since you're making more free calls and using less metered data.
Not exactly the truth... by gnasher719 · 2017-08-12 07:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apple deprecated the old VoIP interface one year ago. Absolutely obvious for anyone interested. But one year warning will obviously come as a surprise to some people.

VoIP required that your phone was turned on, your app was running, and regularly pulled requests. An absolute battery eater. The new feature allows your phone to be asleep, use no energy, and wake up immediately when a call arrives.
1. Re:Not exactly the truth... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 08:17 · Score: -1
  
  The new feature allows your phone to be asleep, use no energy, and wake up immediately when a call arrives.
  "allows"? You mean like Trump bombing North Korea "allows" The Great Leader to redecorate...?
2. Re:Not exactly the truth... by Zaphon · 2017-08-12 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Cool, guess I don't need to worry about getting calls remotely from my office's SIP phone system anymore. Sweet!
3. Re:Not exactly the truth... by bill_mcgonigle · 2017-08-12 09:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  VoIP required that your phone was turned on, your app was running, and regularly pulled requests. An absolute battery eater.
  That's silly. Android systems can sleep for days while have VoIP solutions, like Signal, installed and ready to receive a call (via its own listener).
  Unless you're saying iOS is somehow worse than Android in this regard.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
4. Re: Not exactly the truth... by Carewolf · 2017-08-12 09:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  That is because nothing about voip requires regular pings. If that was needed on iOS that was defect of the lazy Apple developers and not app develpers.
5. Re:Not exactly the truth... by HiThere · 2017-08-12 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's potentially significant to me. It's new information because as I currently don't use an IOS device, I didn't either need to know this or follow deprecation warnings. It's significant in case I was contemplating getting such a device in the near future. (In the further future this will be rolled into "current features" that I'd evaluate when selecting the device.)
  So this is valuable news, at least potentially. (As it happens, I hadn't been seriously thinking of getting a new phone...and my current desires tend more towards the Jitterbug, i.e. purely a phone. But I have been contemplating a tablet.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
6. Re: Not exactly the truth... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 13:43 · Score: 0
  
  ios is a hot mess of crappy code.
7. Re: Not exactly the truth... by corychristison · 2017-08-12 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  I agree.
  My Moto X Play (2 year old phone) still gets 2 days battery without issue.
  In addition to regular voice & text communications, I have two VOIP lines using Grandstream's GS Wave app. Works fantastic over both Wifi and 3G/4G/LTE.
8. Re:Not exactly the truth... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 14:28 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong on the immediate.
  There's a few extra steps.
  Standard VOIP App:
  - Declares a listening port. (0 ms)
  - OS will wake the app on server message (incoming call / message). (ping time)
  - App remains in memory, but is suspended. Reactivating takes just a millisecond.
  = 1 * ping time + 1 or 2 ms
  iVoip App:
  - VOIP server talks to Push Server. (ping time)
  - Push Server talks to Phone (ping time)
  - App has to open, initialize all software (seconds, if not 10s of seconds if it's not JUST a voip app)
  - App processes Push Notification.
  = 2 * ping time + 1 to 10+ seconds.
  So no, not immediate. =)
9. Re:Not exactly the truth... by Pinky's+Brain · 2017-08-12 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  I don't really see the problem with Apple (and Google too) forcing developers to use their push framework to be able to wake up on demand from network traffic.
  That said, if they simply use a blocking call on a socket the OS can go to sleep just as deeply as it can when it's all routed through the single push service.
10. Re:Not exactly the truth... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 23:06 · Score: 0
  
  I'm so confused. Did I travel back in time or something? iOS 10 has been out for over a year (including beta). The feature became a no-op in iOS 10, so there's been no VoIP socket for a year now and people just noticed?
  Furthermore, they officially deprecated it with iOS 9 (over 2 years ago since the beta) but still kept it working for another year.
  Did slashdot just barf up a 1 year old article? Or if it did take a year for people to notice and get outraged, was this even a problem in the first place?
  [And it's not like the api worked well before. It was hard/impossible to keep the socket alive in some network conditions, due to strict 10 second timeouts imposed.]
  What android is doing with doze is just as "bad", except their GCM service is way less reliable (not to mention non-existent on some cheap phones) so you now get apps on android that just stop delivering messages to you on time.
11. Re:Not exactly the truth... by TheRaven64 · 2017-08-12 23:23 · Score: 1
  I'd actually prefer an intermediate between these:
  
  App opens socket.
  
  App sends file descriptor to launchd.
  
  App saves all unsaved state and enters sudden termination mode.
  
  App is killed when there's memory pressure (kill -9).
  
  Launchd receives a wake-up event because there's available data on the socket.
  
  Launchd relaunches the app and passes it back a file descriptor to the socket.
  
  No need to bounce data via Apple, but the app can still quit when there's no data waiting for it.
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
12. Re:Not exactly the truth... by GNious · 2017-08-12 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'm thinking my turn-of-the-millenium cellphone's VoIP/SIP app had to be running, but don't recall any issues like regularly pinging a network or incurring a lot of data-traffic.
  Of course, I mostly used my phone to listen to MP3s while biking, so might just have been lack of usage.
13. Re:Not exactly the truth... by Entrope · 2017-08-13 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  VoIP required that your phone was turned on, your app was running, and regularly pulled requests.
  Got a citation for that? SIP requires a UDP and/or TCP socket to be up and listening. It does not require that any IP data be transferred between calls. It *does* require the phone to communicate with the mobile network frequently enough for incoming calls or data sessions to be routed to the right place, but that is true for voice calls and push notifications as well...
  
  The new feature allows your phone to be asleep, use no energy, and wake up immediately
  ... so this part is also wrong, unless Apple has implemented their OS in an incompetent way, in which case you should clarify that only iPhones suffer from significantly higher battery use when an app keeps open a listening socket.
14. Re:Not exactly the truth... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-13 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Apple deprecated the old VoIP interface one year ago.
  
  Actually, they deprecated the old VoIP interface two year ago. And released iOS 10 without it to the public about a year ago. Yes, this a non-story when it was new a year ago. The fucking article is over one year old. For Christ sake, editors on dope again?
15. Re:Not exactly the truth... by gnasher719 · 2017-08-13 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you're saying iOS is somehow worse than Android in this regard.
  That's exactly the point of this change. Using PushKit, your phone can sleep for days and will be woken up by a VoIP phone call. The old method that is deprecated doesn't allow that.
16. Re:Not exactly the truth... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-13 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  it means push notifications stop working when Apple wants them to. DO NOT WANT!
17. Re: Not exactly the truth... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-13 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  Simply by having that listening port youâ(TM)ve caused the phones radio to continuously power up, causing battery drain.
18. Re:Not exactly the truth... by UnknowingFool · 2017-08-13 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  True, the API wasn't "quietly deprecated" in iOS 10 as the poster claims; it was removed in iOS10. The API in question was deprecated in iOS 9 which was released Sept 2015. With the iOS 9 SDK released in June 2015, that's more than 2 years of warnings. The response to the question even says as much :"In iOS 10, you should be using PushKit for handling push notifications for incoming VoIP calls . . once you move to iOS 10 our recommendation is to update your minimum deployment target to iOS 9 . . . " So it seems the poster hasn't paid attention to their apps in 2+ years.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Oh man by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 07:59 · Score: 0

If rms weren't still alive, he'd be spinning in his grave in a display of told-you-so!
Trump Treason Team by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 08:02 · Score: -1

The Trump Treason Team (TTT) is wiping blood off their car, having used it for their treasonous attack, in support of their treasonous "president"
KKK = TTT = Trump Treason Team
Who was abusing the old API (FB?) by EmperorOfCanada · 2017-08-12 08:03 · Score: 2

I'm looking at you facebook; what are the chances they were abusing the old API. It sounds like a right pain in the ass from a development point of view. Maybe though with this there could be a way from phone calls interrupting my skype calls. That would be a huge win.
1. Re: Who was abusing the old API (FB?) by Miamicanes · 2017-08-12 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  The new inability to poll in the background has at least two drawbacks:
  1. increased latency. This is why, with devices like a 'Ring' doorbell, your most likely view -- after the visitor presses the button, the doorbell notifies their server, their server sends a push notification, your phone gets the notification & notifies you, you react to it, unlock the phone, and launch their app -- is (...drumroll...) streaming video of the visitor WALKING AWAY (because they pressed the button 30 seconds ago).
  2. Small independent developers might not be able to publish free apps that are only ABLE to be legally free of licensing & service fees because they're directly polling third-party servers for themselves. There are quite a few commercial services that are free of charge to individuals to use, but cost real money for commercial use. If you're using their service as a middleman on behalf of your app's users & redistributing the data to them, it's considered 'commercial' & costs money... potentially, more money than you could realistically make by throwing AdMob banner ads at the bottom of the screen.
  If I give away a free app that depends upon data from NOAA's servers & NOAA has an outage, I can shrug & say, "Tough. Go bitch at NOAA. It's out of my hands." And I can abandon it tomorrow if I get bored of maintaining it.
  If I'm SELLING an app that depends upon having ME run a server, and MY server goes down, I could be sued, even if I'm losing money on it. And I can't just walk away from the app or its required web service, because charging money implies a commitment to *keeping* the app working for at least a few years.
  The personal computers of the 80s weren't disruptive because they were powerful, they were disruptive because the took away the power of centralized servers to act as gatekeepers & chaperones. This is a lesson too many people have forgotten. Does *anyone* thing we'd have stuff like the nearly-infinite variety of streaming porn we have today if we'd gone straight from 16mm film to streaming by large corporations like Netflix, without VHS & DVD along the way? An entire INDUSTRY emerged in the 80s and 90s PRECISELY BECAUSE nobody was in a position of control to say, "No, you can't do that. Our legal dept. won't approve it because it might violate the law somewhere in the Bible Belt, and senior management would veto it anyway due to the risk of bad press". Ditto for Bulletin Board systems back in the 80s & 90s, that anyone could self-host with a spare computer & a phone line.
  Decentralization is a feature, not a bug.
2. Re: Who was abusing the old API (FB?) by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 17:08 · Score: 0
  
  Good luck suing over a $0.99, $1.99, or even $29.99 app. Were you high when you wrote that comment? Again, "commitment to keep the app working for a few years" for an app that costs a few dollars is a noble goal, but not based in reality.
  It doesn't sound like you have ever published anything in the App Store. The best customers can hope for is that Apple issues a refund because the app is defective (i.e., continuously crashes, does not match the app description or screenshots).
Bad battery. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 08:10 · Score: -1

iPhone must have a shitty battery to resort to such tactics...
1. Re: Bad battery. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  Nah, including a battery powerful enough to give more than 30 minutes of battery life would mean making the phone 1mm thicker, and that is not the Apple way.
2. Re:Bad battery. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 13:45 · Score: 0
  
  Ya a few years ago apple allowed semi-function multi-tasking. They has to cripple something else to the that power back.
3. Re: Bad battery. by that+this+is+not+und · 2017-08-12 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  Apple phones are safer than Galaxy Notes because even if the battery does catch fire, it will be a tiny fire that rapidly fizzles out.
Is Anyone Really Surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 08:13 · Score: -1

Yes, there were some valid, even good, reasons for doing this, but given how closely Apple likes to scrutinize apps going into the app store, they could have just refused to allow apps that use excessive battery because of sloppy coding or whatever. Instead, they decide to basically kneecap everyone and force them to using Apple's solution. Just like you can use any web browser you like on iOS, as long as it's WebKit.
This really shouldn't surprise anyone at this juncture.
1. Re:Is Anyone Really Surprised by guruevi · 2017-08-12 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  Pushing people to do things 'the right way' is preventing iPhone to turn into Android. This is ONLY targeting lazy developers that haven't updated their app in YEARS (this way of doing it has been possible since 2009 and PushKit as an alternative to polling announced and available since mid-2014).
  I'm very glad that VoIP apps don't eat all my battery because they have to poll a service every 5s. Many VoIP apps were simply garbage before iOS 3 and still are on Android, we complain about charging an iPhone once every 2 or 3 days, I had to charge twice a day when I had a particular IM app on an old iDevice, even a current Android I own, doesn't last more than a day when some VoIP/IM apps are open.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
2. Re: Is Anyone Really Surprised by Carewolf · 2017-08-12 09:44 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  They ARE doing the right thing on Android. The only ones doing something wrong is Apple.
3. Re: Is Anyone Really Surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  They ARE doing the right thing on iOS. The only ones doing something wrong is google.
  Fixed that for you. Update your fucking apps deadbeat.
4. Re:Is Anyone Really Surprised by tepples · 2017-08-12 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  So how can the operator of a local area network disconnected from the Internet run a private PushKit server?
5. Re:Is Anyone Really Surprised by guruevi · 2017-08-12 11:56 · Score: 2
  
  You could proxy it. It uses HTTP/2 so it can be proxied without requiring any SSL-shenanigans but otherwise that is the simplest method.
  Alternatively, the push notification protocol is open, well documented and very simple (JSON back and forth), people have made some reference implementations although most simply rely on the Apple infrastructure. Various commercial MDM have the feature although it's too bothersome for most people to set up so it's generally poorly documented since it's only useful for apps you can import and sign certificates for which would only be available in your own company 'app store'. But it boils down to including the various certificates for your custom implementation, importing them into the phone using a profile (which the user would have to accept). Then your app (and your app only) can talk to 'your' servers instead of Apple's.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
6. Re:Is Anyone Really Surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  Android began enforcing very similar rules for real-time things like VoIP in N, O ratchets them down further.
  This is apparently the consumer architecture of the moment.
7. Re:Is Anyone Really Surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 14:17 · Score: 0
  
  Android has never needed to this.
  The app can sleep and activity on the listening port would trigger a listen intent, waking it up.
  If your voip app is taking too much battery, then leave a comment and uninstall and find a different solution. People say they do this with whole platforms, so why not an app?
8. Re: Is Anyone Really Surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  I know you just meant this as a troll but you picked the wrong topic.
  If you've been following android, you would know that Android N and O added much the same restrictions as iOS (with regard to apps running in the background or while the phone is dozing)
9. Re:Is Anyone Really Surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 23:23 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is it's an adversarial market, from multiple angles: the cell carriers, the OS, and the other apps on the system competing for resources.
  In the past, google gave too much freedom and provided a bunch of apis that were broken for one reason or another. The end result is every messaging app had to keep their own connection open. Some carriers had broken NAT boxes that kept losing connections so apps ultimately had to ping faster to stay connected.
  The end result was all apps hammering the network to keep connections alive so that they could deliver messages faster than their competition, because nobody had the right incentives (and google couldn't make a proper working Android api for the life of them--GCM/C2DM was at the time very unreliable)
  So now they took everything away and everyone has to use GCM (even if you are on a network that blocks GCM ports, too bad). This is why we can't have nice things.
  This maybe could have ended differently if Google had started by asking what applications needed and building features *for* developers, instead of throwing together half assed apis that weren't documented properly and expecting that developers would somehow come up with something that worked.
10. Re: Is Anyone Really Surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-13 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  They ARE doing the right thing on Android.
  
  Yeah, they are using Google Cloud Messaging to receive VoIP calls while in Doze mode. Totally different to what you are forced to do on crapple.
This is great! by Gravis+Zero · 2017-08-12 08:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Now the next iPhone can be even thinner! I can't wait to call 911 and tell them I accidently cut myself with my new razor thin iPhone 12! -_-

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:This is great! by PopeRatzo · 2017-08-12 08:51 · Score: 2
  
  Now the next iPhone can be even thinner! I can't wait to call 911 and tell them I accidently cut myself with my new razor thin iPhone 12!
  I hear they're going to call the next model the iPhone RAZR.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
Apple Has Planned This For A While by alancronin · 2017-08-12 08:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple has let developers know that this change was coming for about a year and a half now. We develop a VoIP application and have been making changes well in advance of Apple fully deprecating the older socket mechanism. It does have the downside of giving Apple more control but Apple already has full control over whether you can publish to the App Store, how your UI should look (within reason based on guidelines), not duplicating system functionality, etc. However if this improves battery life and creates applications that are designed in a better fashion then it is positive change.
1. Re:Apple Has Planned This For A While by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  They did, and it really does leave a certain amount of LAN-only applications like my startup's in a lurch.
  I had the fortune of having an app server on premise and have written a push bridge, but lots of other developers don't have so much control over their backend (many SIP implementations, etc) and this change fundamentally ends their product viability.
  It really hurt us, and required we change strategies. That has been the Apple dance...
2. Re:Apple Has Planned This For A While by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 14:13 · Score: 0
  
  If the free market / evolution worked, the newer class of battery efficient apps would dominate, without the need to do any deprecating.
3. Re:Apple Has Planned This For A While by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  The crazy thing about this is that it makes it completely impossible to write a non-SaaS client program for ... anything that runs on an iPhone. You can't write a SIP client. You can't write a Jabber client. You can't write an IRC client. The *only* way that it is possible for those kinds of communication programs to work now is if they are man-in-the-middled *twice* by Apple and some proxy server somewhere, rather than speaking those protocols directly. Moreover, that proxy server has to be under the control of the program's developer, not the program's user, so this change eliminates any possibility of truly private communication on iOS devices.
4. Re: Apple Has Planned This For A While by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 15:54 · Score: 0
  
  That is the point. Everything else is window dressing.
5. Re:Apple Has Planned This For A While by shutdown+-p+now · 2017-08-13 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  The concern that overrides all this, is that the change makes it impossible to support existing protocols, that do not require Apple-specific cloud infrastructure, on iOS.
6. Re:Apple Has Planned This For A While by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  You can't write a SIP client. You can't write a Jabber client. You can't write an IRC client.
  
  You are absolutely right - you can't write that software for iPhone. It actually takes someone with an IQ above 80 to do that.
Design philosophy by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 08:48 · Score: 1

Apple maintains full control over iPhones. It's not meant to be a computer-like device. Background apps have always been kept on a very short leash. An iPhone is a limited device that only does what Apple allows you to do. If you want a phone that is more like a computer, get an Android.
Important question that needs to be asked by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 09:09 · Score: 1

will this allow Apple, and as is always the case, any U.S. government agencies to get more insight or even subvert the use of secure communication apps?
1. Re:Important question that needs to be asked by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  It centralizes the data collection, which is more efficient for Apple. Now they get to stop your phone calls before they get to you.
2. Re:Important question that needs to be asked by gnasher719 · 2017-08-13 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  will this allow Apple, and as is always the case, any U.S. government agencies to get more insight or even subvert the use of secure communication apps?
  1. You are paranoid. 2. From personal knowledge, no.
Forcing VoIP traffic onto internet by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 09:16 · Score: 0

That is what this about.
This stops off-net VoIP from working.
This is about collecting metadata.
1. Re:Forcing VoIP traffic onto internet by Pinky's+Brain · 2017-08-12 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  That is actually a valid concern, a company which handles their internal communications through VOIP and a PBX are now reliant on Apple. I trust in avarice though, the risk of harming their brand represents far more money than the peanuts they could pick up with fucking around with the metadata. They make their money selling hardware, not their customers.
  By getting all the push messages into the same paging cycle of the mobile data network you can save a bit of energy and they can track apps which are programmed by morons and push too much shit. That's almost certainly the reason they are doing it.
When does iOS 10 come out? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 09:30 · Score: 0

The date on the story is 24 June 2016. Why are you suddenly making a fuss now?
Maybe iOS 11 removes the deprecated API? But I'm sure XCode has been issuing s warning about deprecation all this time.
A Technical Question by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 09:41 · Score: 0

How much more troublesome would an implementation not relying on constant access to Apple's servers be?
Not battery by gjh · 2017-08-12 10:05 · Score: 1

There is no reason that listening on a socket needs to use ANY battery at all. It WOULD be wise to have a model for checking whether a packet is DoS/dealing with heartbearts before causing it to fire up the real app process, but given that, there is no reason why SIP can't be efficient. If the reasoning for this has anything to do with battery, then it's lazy.
1. Re:Not battery by tlhIngan · 2017-08-12 21:12 · Score: 1
  
  There is no reason that listening on a socket needs to use ANY battery at all. It WOULD be wise to have a model for checking whether a packet is DoS/dealing with heartbearts before causing it to fire up the real app process, but given that, there is no reason why SIP can't be efficient. If the reasoning for this has anything to do with battery, then it's lazy.
  No, it's not just a listening socket, because that wouldn't work on most networks (think NAT or firewalls).
  You need a constant connection, which means you can't shut down the cell modem to the lowest power state (a network connection must be maintained, which means the modem must be awake and doing handoffs because that data connection must remain, whereas if it didn't have to keep a connection, it could simply sign off the old tower and sign onto the new tower at a relaxed pace, instead of having to go through handoff procedures and getting the data context from the new tower).
  Or if it's WiFI, same, the WiFI radio must be kept active to respond to packets.
  And if you think Apple has to do the same, well, at the cellular level, there are dozens of ways to wake up a phone remotely as long as it's attached to the network in a low power standby state. These were devised way back when phones were just phones - to get those 14 day standby required the entire system consume no more than about... 3-5mA or so. You cannot transmit (takes lots of power), and powering the receiver takes a lot of power as well, so the network was designed to ensure a handset can go into a very low power quiescent state and still get notified and on the network.
  Maintaining a TCP connection already breaks all the power saving mechanisms built into cellular telephony. It's why Android and iOS both have out of band signalling mechanisms ("push notifications') so your VoIP and IM apps can get notified to fetch new messages. Good apps already use this, though there can often be a delay because the app has to get the notification, then request the system wake up, create a network connection, connect to the server, get the data, shut down the network connection and push a user notification, then go back to sleep.
  I'd say most apps are probably already compliant, especially ones based on mobile usage and already use the iOS/Android mechanism for this because it saves power.
VOIP API on iOS by unixisc · 2017-08-12 10:56 · Score: 1

Apple deprecated the old VoIP interface one year ago. Absolutely obvious for anyone interested. But one year warning will obviously come as a surprise to some people. VoIP required that your phone was turned on, your app was running, and regularly pulled requests. An absolute battery eater. The new feature allows your phone to be asleep, use no energy, and wake up immediately when a call arrives.
Thanks for explaining this. I was curious about how that would affect Vonage Extensions, a VOIP app that I use. If the app still uses the old API, whether it would stop working. Same question for WhatsApp. I know that FaceTime audio is an option, but wouldn't work w/ non iPhones.
whoop dee dooo... by yodleboy · 2017-08-12 12:08 · Score: 1

Make the damn phone 1mm thicker and put a bigger battery in it. Apple are determined to offer the smallest battery capacity they can get away with. Courage?
I guess my Fortune 50 company will ban iPhone now by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 12:20 · Score: 0

As we can't use the corporate mandated SIP app. Or maybe the iPhonies will just be more of a "special class" and not have to heed to the corporate master.
Indo-Chimp "Engineering" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 19:36 · Score: 0

Some dumb and dirt Indo-Chimp temple monkey thought this one up. Now how 'bout this chimp-boy: get a shovel and a bucket and start cleaning the shit off the street outside you're front door.
1. Re:Indo-Chimp "Engineering" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-14 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to have an obsession with shit. Do you eat a lot of it?
Perfect walled garden? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-12 23:56 · Score: 0

Hasn't Apple always been thought of in terms of a walled garden? Nothing new here.
At least Trump's bullshit isn't a year old by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-13 01:02 · Score: 0

https://developer.apple.com/li...

Technical Q&A QA1938
iOS 10 and the Legacy VoIP Architecture
Q: My VoIP app still uses the legacy VoIP architecture (NSStreamNetworkServiceTypeVoIP and so on). Why, when I build it with Xcode 8 and run it on iOS 10, does it no longer receive calls when in the background?
A: The legacy VoIP architecture was replaced by a new PushKit-based architecture in iOS 8. It was then formally deprecated with the iOS 9 SDK. In iOS 10 it is only available as a compatibility measure; it continues to work (as well as it ever did) if your app is linked with an old SDK, but is disabled if you link with the iOS 10 SDK.
For the moment you can work around this by building your app with Xcode 7. However, this is not a good long-term solution because:
Our experience is that PushKit-based VoIP apps are more reliable and more power efficient than those using the legacy VoIP architecture.
Apple always recommends that you use the latest version of Xcode because it combines the best features and the best compatibility.
Specifically, we encourage VoIP apps to take advantage of CallKit, a new framework in the iOS 10 SDK that radically improves the user experience for VoIP apps. Xcode 8 is the only supported way to use CallKit. Also, be aware that Xcode 7 is not supported on macOS 10.12 Sierra.
At some point support for the legacy VoIP architecture will be removed, whereupon all VoIP apps will have to move to the new PushKit-based VoIP architecture. It’s better to start this work sooner rather than later. Important: This move away from the legacy VoIP architecture is motivated by specific technical concerns. Our experience is that the legacy architecture is unreliable and, when it does work, has a strong negative effect on standby battery life. The new PushKit-based architecture addresses both of these concerns. Some VoIP apps are specifically designed to work in special networks, ones that don’t provide access to the wider Internet. To use PushKit in such an environment you must configure the network to allow iOS devices to access the Apple Push Notification Service. See TCP and UDP ports used by Apple software products for information on how to do this.
For more information about PushKit, see:
PushKit API reference WWDC 2014 Session 712 Writing Energy Efficient Code, Part 2
Document Revision History
Date Notes 2016-10-20 New document that describes limitations of the legacy VoIP architecture on iOS 10.
asked 2 years, 2 months ago by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-13 02:19 · Score: 0

https://stackoverflow.com/ques...

The current API changes for iOS9 state that -setKeepAliveTimeout:handler: is deprecated.
Up to now, this was the only way that a VoIP SIP app on iOS could maintain its registration with the SIP-server.
This technique is used by various apps like LinPhone and others.
Does anybody have a view on the proposed alternatives by Apple ? Or will SIP be crippled starting from (post-)iOS9 ?
...thank goodness!.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-13 03:32 · Score: 0

...my iphone typically runs 5-7 days from fully charged, and my ipad about a day and a half of continuous use between charges, until i had to install skype and groupme this summre to communicate with my wife while she researching beyond mobile coverage; once those power hogs were running, battery life dropped to barely a day for my iphone and 4-6 hours for my ipad...
I hate this the apps you use by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-13 07:41 · Score: 0

Will no longer be under active development, Got married no time.
Then I have to figure out how to rewrite in myself.
Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-13 16:55 · Score: 0

I work on Cisco Call Manager and they have been talking about this with customers for the last year. As long as your fairly up to date and have the correct settings Jabber will have no issues and will work with the APN. I would expect all other voip vendors have done the same.