Inside Apple's iPad: Multitasking

[aristobrat]

Reverting to a less robust web app is not an acceptable solution for the iPHone's missing feature.

Be interesting to see how less "robust" Pandora is on the new Windows Phone 7. They said their default media player will stream it, which essentially means they're not allowing a 3rd-party Pandora app to run in the background. Wonder if WinPho7 default media player gives you the full Pandora control?

Well then how hard would it be for them to also do a pop up that explained multi-finger gestures?

I guess they could do a 10-minute tutorial to get people up and running on iPhones, like Blackberries do.

What about IMing and having a document open to work on?

You can do that now. Work on your document, and when you get IMed, you get a popup showing your IM. Not much different than running Adium minimized on your Mac. You can choose to reply back, or click CANCEL and keep working your doc. As long as the app you're using to read the document retains its state when you switch over to your IM client, in this example, I don't see where it actually being able to run in the background gains you anything.

IMO, in your example, it's the iPhone's notification system that's the biggest PITA (i.e. you can't ignore the IM notification and come back to it later), not the fact that the full IM client isn't really running in the background.

 

[samcraig]

I guess they could do a 10-minute tutorial to get people up and running on iPhones, like Blackberries do.


IMO, it's the iPhone's notification system that needs updated (i.e. you can't ignore the IM notification and come back to it later), not the fact that the full IM client isn't really running in the background.

With the iPad's real estate - there's no reason not to be able to have both on the screen at the same time. That's my opinion clearly.

As for a tutorial - I agree - however it's done. Which is better - educate your customer and provide added functionality to your device or continue to let the customer be ignorant and hope they don't notice what your device is lacking.

You know the old expression - give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can eat for a lifetime.

Which is why I have maintained that Apple and some posters on this forum need to stop making assumptions that Joe User is an idiot or can't quickly learn how to use their device. If it's really that much of an issue - they shouldn't have it to begin with.

 

[dave1812dave]

I think a limited approach to multitasking is the way to go. I wouldn't mind if it was just limited to running only one app in the background. The main ones I think people would want would be music apps, email apps, IMimg apps, and Safari. Apple could make it an option to run one program in the background that you could switch back and forth with the program you have currently running. I'm sure the people at Apple could design a simple and intuitive way to implement this.

So you could be surfing the web on Safari and also have your AIM app running and you could keep IMing someone at the same time. Or you could be surfing the web and listening to Pandora radio say.

This seems simple enough and I think limiting it to only one background app would negate the fear that it would tax the system too much and crash your ipad.

Rather than "fearing...a crash", I think the user should be the final arbiter of how many apps they want to use simultaneously. Why should Jobs & Co. be deciding how we use our devices? If I want to run 6 apps on my computer, I can. I don't really do that often, but the point is that I CAN run 6 or even more. In practical terms, I suppose we could agree that 2,3,4,5 apps being open on a computer is a reasonable way to effectively (efficiently) use a computer. I dislike manufacturers that limit the usefulness of their products. That's a major factor in my dislike of Apple.

 

[BaldiMac]

What about IMing and having a document open to work on?

That has more to do with app switching then multitasking. IF Apple chooses not to implement 3rd party background apps, a decent compromise would be to allow a more direct way of switching between selected apps without going through the home screen.

 

[dave1812dave]

That has more to do with app switching then multitasking. IF Apple chooses not to implement 3rd party background apps, a decent compromise would be to allow a more direct way of switching between selected apps without going through the home screen.

why do we keep entertaining the idea of "compromise"? why can't we simply have unfettered multitasking? Let the user decide if "too many apps" open is causing any slowdown or instability. if the system bogs down, CLOSE AN APP OR TWO! let the user decide. Not Cupertino.

 

[BaldiMac]

why do we keep entertaining the idea of "compromise"? why can't we simply have unfettered multitasking? Let the user decide if "too many apps" open is causing any slowdown or instability. if the system bogs down, CLOSE AN APP OR TWO! let the user decide. Not Cupertino.

There are plenty of mobile OS's that give you that option. The iPhone OS is an alternative.

 

[G4R2]

How are Macs "successful"? They have a TINY slice of the world's computer sales!! Roughly 10 percent or less. gimmie a break. Maybe they make money for Apple, but they haven't ever ever cornered the market for computers. MP3 players--that's another story and the only product I've ever purchased from Apple (10 of them for me and the wife, aamof)

Mac's are more successful then many pundits realize with the oft quoted and nearly meaningless OS percentage. This is a misleading metric that fails to describe Apple's significance as a computer manufacturer. The functional comparison for Apple isn't the difference between Mac's and all PC's in existence. Instead, it's the comparison between Apple and other PC makers that manufacture the same category of PC's that Apple does. Of course Apple vs. Lenovo and HP and Dell and Toshiba and Asus and the countless other PC manufacturers will represent a relatively small percentage. The same is true of all these other makers who actually compete not only against Apple but also with each other.

For instance, the question might be how does Apple stand up against Sony or Toshiba when it comes to selling PC's. Apple certainly cares about competing with Dell, but not with all of Dell. Dell sells a great number of what are essentially dumbed down terminals to businesses that are really products that supplanted the old Wyse terminals, a category Apple has shown little interest in.

So even though Apple may have only a relatively small percentage of the OS market, it is a significant player in the markets it actually cares about. For instance, it was recently reported that Apple has a 91% of the $1000 or higher PC market (until relatively recently most computers were in this range). Additionally, Apple has been increasing its sales in double digits even as other computer manufacturers decline. Apple also owns roughly 20% of the laptop market and dominates the smartphone category.

 

[aristobrat]

Let the user decide if "too many apps" open is causing any slowdown or instability. if the system bogs down, CLOSE AN APP OR TWO!

To play the devils advocate, that's "business as usual". That's the approach used over the last decade by hundreds of Windows Mobile, BlackBerry, and Symbian devices.

Why shouldn't Cupertino be allowed to deliver devices based on an entirely different approach?

As a consumer, you've never had a larger choice of mobile devices that work the way you want them to. Windows Mobile, BlackBerry, Symbian, WebOS, and now Android.

 

[dave1812dave]

There are plenty of mobile OS's that give you that option. The iPhone OS is an alternative.

which is why I had hoped an apple tablet would have OSX on it.

To play the devils advocate, that's "business as usual". That's the approach used over the last decade by hundreds of Windows Mobile, BlackBerry, and Symbian devices.

Why shouldn't Cupertino be allowed to deliver devices based on an entirely different approach?

As a consumer, you've never had a larger choice of mobile devices that work the way you want them to. Windows Mobile, BlackBerry, Symbian, WebOS, and now Android.

i have a BB. I can open plenty of apps without issues.

 

[BaldiMac]

So even though Apple may have only a relatively small percentage of the OS market, it is a significant player in the markets it actually cares about. For instance, it was recently reported that Apple has a 91% of the $1000 or higher PC market (until relatively recently most computers were in this range). Additionally, Apple has been increasing its sales in double digits even as other computer manufacturers decline. Apple also owns roughly 20% of the laptop market and dominates the smartphone category.

None of these statistics are accurate without significant qualifications other than Apple's double digit increases in Mac sales.

 

[aristobrat]

i have a BB. I can open plenty of apps without issues.

That's great. I'm glad you a chose a device that more matches your philosophy for how a mobile OS should work.

I run the BES where I work, supporting 249 users. We used to be fairly inundated with users calling to complain their BB was running slow, so we implemented a rule that the user "yank the battery" and only call us if the BB was slow after the reboot. We rarely get "my BB is slow" calls now, but the last time I looked, the average uptime of our BBs was only about 5 days. IMO, I think it's *that* experience Apple is aiming to get around.

 

[Carouser]

which is why I had hoped an apple tablet would have OSX on it.

How much do you think this would cost? Do you think it would do anything better than a comparably-priced Apple laptop?

 

[EssentialParado]

You know the old expression - give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can eat for a lifetime.

…Teach my mom how to use a computer's operating system and she'll continue to call me for help for the foreseeable future.

I really, really can't see Apple making a device that requires a 10 minute tutorial before using it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you merely don't seem to "get" Apple's design philosophy.

 

[samcraig]

…Teach my mom how to use a computer's operating system and she'll continue to call me for help for the foreseeable future.

I really, really can't see Apple making a device that requires a 10 minute tutorial before using it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you simply don't "get" Apple's design philosophy.

I get it fine. And it wouldn't take 10 minutes to explain a 2 or 3 finger gesture. It's a simple pop up or 2 or 3.

We can discuss the ways to communicate all day and all night. It's an impasse. You accept and/or think it's ok to limit functionality on a device because you don't think the end user can "handle" it. I disagree.

To suggest or imply I don't get Apple's design philosophy is just flat out wrong. I understand it VERY well.

 

[Night Spring]

…Teach my mom how to use a computer's operating system and she'll continue to call me for help for the foreseeable future.

Exactly. There are people like my mom, who, if you teach them how to do something once, tend to remember it, and is also able to build on that knowledge. Then, there are people like my aunt, who keeps calling and asking for help on something you've explained ten times over. By aiming a device at my aunt rather than my mom, you get something both my aunt and mom can use. Sounds like a valid business strategy to me, even if somewhat frustrating for the tecchies and power users who tend to frequent forums like this one.

 

[dave1812dave]

How much do you think this would cost? Do you think it would do anything better than a comparably-priced Apple laptop?

Don't know how much it would have cost. Did anyone expect the $500 price point on the current low end iPad?? Apple laptops are too pricey for me--I'm far too practical, and besides I LIKE Windows 7.

I get it fine. And it wouldn't take 10 minutes to explain a 2 or 3 finger gesture. It's a simple pop up or 2 or 3.

We can discuss the ways to communicate all day and all night. It's an impasse. You accept and/or think it's ok to limit functionality on a device because you don't think the end user can "handle" it. I disagree.

To suggest or imply I don't get Apple's design philosophy is just flat out wrong. I understand it VERY well.

+1

That's great. I'm glad you a chose a device that more matches your philosophy for how a mobile OS should work.

I run the BES where I work, supporting 249 users. We used to be fairly inundated with users calling to complain their BB was running slow, so we implemented a rule that the user "yank the battery" and only call us if the BB was slow after the reboot. We rarely get "my BB is slow" calls now, but the last time I looked, the average uptime of our BBs was only about 5 days. IMO, I think it's *that* experience Apple is aiming to get around.

battery pulls are a BB user's best friend.

 

[Bodhi395]

Rather than "fearing...a crash", I think the user should be the final arbiter of how many apps they want to use simultaneously. Why should Jobs & Co. be deciding how we use our devices? If I want to run 6 apps on my computer, I can. I don't really do that often, but the point is that I CAN run 6 or even more. In practical terms, I suppose we could agree that 2,3,4,5 apps being open on a computer is a reasonable way to effectively (efficiently) use a computer. I dislike manufacturers that limit the usefulness of their products. That's a major factor in my dislike of Apple.

I agree, but I think Apple should have the default setting to 1 background app at a time. Then, it could have something in the settings that would let more advanced users set it to open as many apps as they would want.

The reason I think 1 should be the default is Apple is probably going to be selling upwards of tens of millions of ipads, and the majority of users will not understand about managing multitasking and that the reason their system is slow or keeps crashing is they have too many apps open. This would cause problems for Apple as lots of people will start complaining,bad press, and troubleshooting and all kinds of things. Limiting it to 1 as a default would eliminate alot of that.

Having a more closed system on an ipad makes for a faster and less buggy user experience. But, I agree that for advanced users Apple should include ways to get around the closed system, knowing the average user will never do that.

 

[Carouser]

I get it fine. And it wouldn't take 10 minutes to explain a 2 or 3 finger gesture. It's a simple pop up or 2 or 3. . . . To suggest or imply I don't get Apple's design philosophy is just flat out wrong. I understand it VERY well.

Then you would know that their philosophy is that
- non-intuitive gestures (why do 2 fingers do X? why do 3 fingers do Y?) impair functionality, because people will forget them or not learn them in the first place, whether there is a tutorial or not (and if they forget them, they have to find the tutorial somehow!)
- just because someone can learn gestures, doesn't mean they should have to, and it is better for them to not have to
- intuitive interactions serve all people, non-intuitive interactions serve only those who are able to, and do, learn them

 

[EssentialParado]

I get it fine.

Yes, but you're not the majority, samcraig. You can't seem to grasp this strange idea that there is a massive market of people out there who want their computer to be as simple to use as a microwave's [on/off] button.

To suggest or imply I don't get Apple's design philosophy is just flat out wrong. I understand it VERY well.

Okay, maybe I'm wrong and you do understand Apple's philosophy more than I. But then please explain the lack of multi-tasking on the iDevices? Because I'm very confident the reason is because the majority of users cannot, for the lack of a better term, be "trusted" to manage it properly without causing complaints about crashing their devices or horrible battery life. I firmly believe it doesn't yet exist, similar to why copy/paste took so long, is because Apple are waiting until they've made an interface that users will just "get" without requiring a 10 minute explanation video. But I'm open to hearing your theory.

Don't know how much it would have cost. Did anyone expect the $500 price point on the current low end iPad?? Apple laptops are too pricey for me--I'm far too practical, and besides I LIKE Windows 7.

You use a Blackberry, you like Windows, and you hate the iPad. Every single one of your posts on this forum are negative, I'm confused why you even come here.

 

[Carouser]

Don't know how much it would have cost. Did anyone expect the $500 price point on the current low end iPad?? Apple laptops are too pricey for me--I'm far too practical, and besides I LIKE Windows 7.

Yet you hoped for an Apple tablet with OSX. If an Apple laptop is too pricey for you, an Apple tablet with OSX would have been too.

 

[dave1812dave]

I agree, but I think Apple should have the default setting to 1 background app at a time. Then, it could have something in the settings that would let more advanced users set it to open as many apps as they would want.

The reason I think 1 should be the default is Apple is probably going to be selling upwards of tens of millions of ipads, and the majority of users will not understand about managing multitasking and that the reason their system is slow or keeps crashing is they have too many apps open. This would cause problems for Apple as lots of people will start complaining,bad press, and troubleshooting and all kinds of things. Limiting it to 1 as a default would eliminate alot of that.

Having a more closed system on an ipad makes for a faster and less buggy user experience. But, I agree that for advanced users Apple should include ways to get around the closed system, knowing the average user will never do that.

I don't agree that multitasking would cause an undo problem for Apple. Plenty of products multitask, including plenty of Apple products--just not the iphone/touch/ipad. It's time they got on board with how things should work in 2010.

Any user who finds too much multitasking is bringing their device to a crawl will simply turn off the less necessary apps and run the one or two that they most need at the moment.

 

[samcraig]

You think the implementation of copy/paste is intuitive or easy? I've had to explain it SEVERAL times to SEVERAL people - and not idiots or the general public as you put it.

Design philosophy or not - if you treat your customers like idiots or try and make something idiot proof - all you'll do is train people to be lazy and/or continue to be an "idiot" Apple doesn't make things so idiots can operate them. They make products people can understand how to work. There's a big difference.

There are millions of MacBook users who have managed to figure out multifinger gesturing - or guess what - they DON'T use it. But the functionality is there and is useful.

To me, arguing against multitasking is similar to arguing against wifi on the device. After all - you have to know how to set up your iPad to get onto wifi access.

People didn't immediately know how to use the iPhone or iPod touch right out of the gate to its potential. There's a learning curve for ANY device. I don't care how simple. Even a toaster, to a person that hasn't used one has a learning curve.

And intuitive is in the eye of the beholder. Isn't it. What one person thinks is common sense of intuitive might baffle someone else.

I know people who understand the concept of defragging their hard drives and clearing their cache - but don't understand the difference between Hard drive SPACE and Memory. (as an example)

 

[dave1812dave]

Yet you hoped for an Apple tablet with OSX. If an Apple laptop is too pricey for you, an Apple tablet with OSX would have been too.

possibly. But we will never know, will we????

 

[Carouser]

You think the implementation of copy/paste is intuitive or easy? I've had to explain it SEVERAL times to SEVERAL people - and not idiots or the general public as you put it.

Who said their implementation of copy/paste is intuitive or easy? I just said what I thought Apple's design philosophy is. It's entirely possible that they haven't followed that philosophy as well as they could with copy/paste.

Whether you like Apple's philosophy or not is separate from us agreeing on what it is. I don't think they would break that philosophy in order to provide multitasking, whether or not I think multitasking is a good idea.

Design philosophy or not - if you treat your customers like idiots or try and make something idiot proof - all you'll do is train people to be lazy and/or continue to be an "idiot"

I didn't realize Apple had the obligation to make people work hard.

People didn't immediately know how to use the iPhone or iPod touch right out of the gate to its potential. There's a learning curve for ANY device. I don't care how simple. Even a toaster, to a person that hasn't used one has a learning curve.

And it seems Apple's philosophy is to make that curve as gentle ('un-steep') as possible.

And intuitive is in the eye of the beholder. Isn't it. What one person thinks is common sense of intuitive might baffle someone else.

Yes, it is a problem to figure out how to make things as easy to use for as many people to use as possible. So what? Apple's philosophy is in part 'we should try to solve that problem according to our own criteria of what's acceptable'.

 

[Carouser]

possibly. But we will never know, will we????

I know!!! It's entirely possible that Apple could have released an OSX tablet which sells for less than any of their laptops! That's totally believable and doesn't ignore any economic, engineering, or design sense at all!