@Ben, I agree about battery life. I can understand Apple doing what they can to preserve that. However, when my coworker tested Backgrounder, and ran that many apps, they were responsive. The iPhone OS is just a better OS than Apple gives it credit for even on the mobile processor in the phone. RAM on the other hand could be an issue of course so I concede the point on RAM and battery.
Keep in mind what I'm getting at here is that most people wouldn't run more than probably 8-10 apps at any given time. However this does put a large burden on the user to make sure they close out the apps when they're truly done. It's easy on a Mac/PC, but on a phone it can be cumbersome.
I definitely understand a lot of the intention from Apple and I love my iPhone and every OS version they've put out. I hope they reconsider the clause in the Terms.
@ViRGE, I think it's a very appropriate comparison as I've also said it in my comment to usingpond above. It was plainly obvious that Backgrounder could run many (as stated 50+) for quite a long time without the phone having any issues. While the UI could be better, and I agree I like Apple's UI for the "recently opened apps" (since it's not necessarily apps still loaded in memory), Backgrounder easily showed us what the iPhone 3GS, in particular, is capable of.
@Ben, I find the developers at Adobe rather brilliant. Ely Greenfield, for example, is an amazing developer and engineer. Please talk with and learn about these people before you summarily dismiss them as being poor programmers.
@usingpond, Agreed. A jailbroken iPhone running Backgrounder could run 50+ applications simultaneously on a 3GS for at least an hour, and possibly longer (a coworker of mine tested this, but didn't let it go longer than an hour or so). Multitasking, which isn't really what's going on in the first place, is just a sorry excuse for the clause in the 4.0 SDK terms which is obviously aimed at thwarting these other development capabilities. Simply, Apple is hurting developers and users, not at all helping them, and doing so intentionally.
Coincidentally, I bought my first 2G iPhone at the Apple Store at Kenwood Towne Center Mall in Cincinnati when visiting back in summer, 2007. Very nice store, but after reading this, next time I'm back, I'll pay with a credit card instead of $600 cash :)
Agreed, but the point is still the same. It's Apple's AppStore, not the public's. And let's be honest, if they were truly playing God with determining App superiority, we certainly wouldn't be seeing multiple apps that do nothing but display a white (or other color) screen and claim it's a flashlight which some charge money for it. (And to be fair here, I'm pretty sure Erica's flashlight was first, why all the clones?)
I feel Apple has probably been too lenient with what they're allowing to clutter the AppStore. We need functional apps, not $1000 waste of scrolling time or $0.99 monochrome-filled screens. (And yes, I get it that if I don't like it I don't have to buy it/download it, but I shouldn't be forced to wade through what many would consider are useless apps...but then, it's Apple's AppStore, not mine :) ).
Agreed, but the point is still the same. It's Apple's AppStore, not the public's. And let's be honest, if they were truly playing God with determining App superiority, we certainly wouldn't be seeing multiple apps that do nothing but display a white (or other color) screen and claim it's a flashlight which some charge money for it. (And to be fair here, I'm pretty sure Erica's flashlight was first, why all the clones?)
I feel Apple has probably been too lenient with what they're allowing to clutter the AppStore. We need functional apps, not $1000 waste of scrolling time or $0.99 monochrome-filled screens. (And yes, I get it that if I don't like it I don't have to buy it/download it, but I shouldn't be forced to wade through what many would consider are useless apps...but then, it's Apple's AppStore, not mine :) ).
Well, I see both sides of this coin and understand both quite plainly. On one hand, here's Apple, which we will compare to Walmart. Walmart can pick and choose, through a rigorous process from what I understand, what products they will put on the shelves. There's no "free market" decision-making to my knowledge. Apple has just as much right to be as objective or as subjective as they wish.
However, on the other hand, there is a sense of responsibility on Apple's part to provide a fair, well-balanced AppStore since it's technically a service they provide to iPhone customers. And there in lies the problem. "Fair" and "well-balanced" mean very different things to many different people. Objectivity would be ideal, but Apple is made up of human beings, not automatons.
To put it into perspective, does anyone honestly expect Apple to allow an app that touts satan worshiping or sex or anything else found offensive to some people even if it passes objective criteria? Now, granted, some of the objective criteria could say "If the app displays anything of paganistic, discriminatory, or sexual connotation, it is not allowed." But then someone could come back and state that that is subjective, and not objective.
Hopefully Apple has some sort of oversight committee which is designed to help weed out applications of a certain kind, though I don't know how "I am Rich" would've gotten through such a committee.
While I believe in the software maker's right to create a $1000 "I am Rich" app, I do not condone the attitude that it's their right for the AppStore to distribute it. If they would like to find a way to distribute the app themselves, so be it.
How can anyone even remotely complain about the timing of GH3 from these videos when the videos are second-hand, and it's quite possible the audio/video sync could very well be off.
You will simply have to wait until the game comes out, play it on your HDTV and test it yourself (or be one of those who seem to lack a life and spend all their time showing off in a Best Buy :) ).
As for the graphics, if you don't like it, what exactly would you change? To me, it's not all that bad, but I'm not a graphic artist by any means. It also makes sense that they will want to capitalize on the success of GH2. People don't like drastic change; familiarity is good in this type of business.
Also keep in mind that these videos are not of the release version. They obviously weren't intended for mass consumption, hence pulling them quickly from the original posting.
We need to give the developers some breathing room and not be so quick to judge until the final release is out and we spend our hard-earned money on the game/guitar(s).
Apple blocking Flash-built apps because of multitasking?
Apr 10th 2010 9:17AM (TUAW.com)Keep in mind what I'm getting at here is that most people wouldn't run more than probably 8-10 apps at any given time. However this does put a large burden on the user to make sure they close out the apps when they're truly done. It's easy on a Mac/PC, but on a phone it can be cumbersome.
I definitely understand a lot of the intention from Apple and I love my iPhone and every OS version they've put out. I hope they reconsider the clause in the Terms.
Apple blocking Flash-built apps because of multitasking?
Apr 9th 2010 9:51PM (TUAW.com)Apple blocking Flash-built apps because of multitasking?
Apr 9th 2010 9:46PM (TUAW.com)@usingpond, Agreed. A jailbroken iPhone running Backgrounder could run 50+ applications simultaneously on a 3GS for at least an hour, and possibly longer (a coworker of mine tested this, but didn't let it go longer than an hour or so). Multitasking, which isn't really what's going on in the first place, is just a sorry excuse for the clause in the 4.0 SDK terms which is obviously aimed at thwarting these other development capabilities. Simply, Apple is hurting developers and users, not at all helping them, and doing so intentionally.
Man threatens to shoot iPhone at Genius bar
Oct 2nd 2009 5:46PM (TUAW.com)Thoughts on the iPhone App Store review process
Aug 8th 2008 9:33AM (TUAW.com)I feel Apple has probably been too lenient with what they're allowing to clutter the AppStore. We need functional apps, not $1000 waste of scrolling time or $0.99 monochrome-filled screens. (And yes, I get it that if I don't like it I don't have to buy it/download it, but I shouldn't be forced to wade through what many would consider are useless apps...but then, it's Apple's AppStore, not mine :) ).
Thoughts on the iPhone App Store review process
Aug 8th 2008 9:33AM (TUAW.com)I feel Apple has probably been too lenient with what they're allowing to clutter the AppStore. We need functional apps, not $1000 waste of scrolling time or $0.99 monochrome-filled screens. (And yes, I get it that if I don't like it I don't have to buy it/download it, but I shouldn't be forced to wade through what many would consider are useless apps...but then, it's Apple's AppStore, not mine :) ).
Thoughts on the iPhone App Store review process
Aug 7th 2008 4:14PM (TUAW.com)However, on the other hand, there is a sense of responsibility on Apple's part to provide a fair, well-balanced AppStore since it's technically a service they provide to iPhone customers. And there in lies the problem. "Fair" and "well-balanced" mean very different things to many different people. Objectivity would be ideal, but Apple is made up of human beings, not automatons.
To put it into perspective, does anyone honestly expect Apple to allow an app that touts satan worshiping or sex or anything else found offensive to some people even if it passes objective criteria? Now, granted, some of the objective criteria could say "If the app displays anything of paganistic, discriminatory, or sexual connotation, it is not allowed." But then someone could come back and state that that is subjective, and not objective.
Hopefully Apple has some sort of oversight committee which is designed to help weed out applications of a certain kind, though I don't know how "I am Rich" would've gotten through such a committee.
While I believe in the software maker's right to create a $1000 "I am Rich" app, I do not condone the attitude that it's their right for the AppStore to distribute it. If they would like to find a way to distribute the app themselves, so be it.
First Guitar Hero III videos are ... different
May 31st 2007 10:20AM (Joystiq)You will simply have to wait until the game comes out, play it on your HDTV and test it yourself (or be one of those who seem to lack a life and spend all their time showing off in a Best Buy :) ).
As for the graphics, if you don't like it, what exactly would you change? To me, it's not all that bad, but I'm not a graphic artist by any means. It also makes sense that they will want to capitalize on the success of GH2. People don't like drastic change; familiarity is good in this type of business.
Also keep in mind that these videos are not of the release version. They obviously weren't intended for mass consumption, hence pulling them quickly from the original posting.
We need to give the developers some breathing room and not be so quick to judge until the final release is out and we spend our hard-earned money on the game/guitar(s).