TAG | Apple’s iPhone SDK: one more thing, or one more sting? |
|
| by Alex Zaharov-Reutt | |
| Monday, 17 March 2008 | |
|
Page 1 of 3 This particular restriction means that an instant messaging program, for example, can only display one’s status and be ready to send and receive messages when actually in that program. Should a call come through, or should the user wish to make use of a different program, be it email, a phone call, web browsing or otherwise, that instant messaging program would effectively be turned off, even though its state might be saved, effectively rendering users ‘offline’ and removing some of the convenience of having a portable device that can do instant messaging. Other devices such as the Nokia N95 place no such restrictions on users, with the well known Fring instant messaging and VoIP application able to stay on in the background, ready to receive messages and calls at any time, although at the cost of additional battery usage. That extra battery drain is offset somewhat by the fact the N95 has had improved memory management and battery life through the v.20 firmware, and the fact the N95 has a user-removable and replaceable battery, coupled with relatively fast charge times. Other programs that could easily be affected include RSS readers, Internet radio players, VoIP Internet phones that can receive calls when you're doing something else and not in the VoIP app, and any kind of program that wants to deliver live updates or other content from the Internet in the background. Excuses for the iPhone’s lack of standard multitasking capabilities have been put down to the iPhone’s not-so powerful processor and limited memory (not including the storage), which make the iPhone ideal for running everything as smoothly as it does now, in an effective ‘one at a time’ program situation, but likely prone to slow downs and crashes were the iPhone officially able to run many programs at the same time. Naturally, an updated iPhone with a faster processor and more memory could overcome these limitations, but at the cost of higher battery usage and the risk that a greater battery would see a thicker device being created – something we know Apple is loathe to do, given its love of ‘thinnovation’. Apple has also had problems with actually securing the iPhone SDK, with the iPhone Dev Team claiming ‘pwnership’ of the iPhone and iPod Touch, set to allow users to install ‘unsigned’ code onto their iPhones – without Apple’s approval, of course. What has the iPhone Dev Team promised, and is Apple's developer 'rejection' letter an outright rejection, or just a developer status delay? Continued on page 2. |
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|
