|
|
Post by donalgdon on Sept 11, 2012 11:23:01 GMT -5
Do background apps actually drain the battery? I can see how if they are accessing the net, but if they are just idling I don't know why it makes any difference. I'm not saying that is the case, I'm just saying I don't know why it would affect the battery. Now, memory, I can see how that would be an issue. Apple prioritises foreground apps very heavily, so background apps in iOS really don't make that much difference, unless they are pulling data. That's the trade off in iOS. True mulitasking isn't there yet, but it is in other OS like Android, for instance. Android also shuts down background processes that aren't being used. They close on their own, so using a task manager app isn't really necessary and actually drains the battery MORE than just letting the OS control the process. Android devices also allow the user to specify how these processes are held in memory and for how long, etc. iOS does not, at least not on a user-level. iOS seems smoother because it cheats the UI by using images in memory rather than the actual item itself. The user typically doesn't notice the difference, so for the most part, it works. The latest version of Android (JellyBean) has really improved the user experience by some kernel-level optimisations which Google is calling "Project Butter," and it really does take Android to another level, even on low-end hardware. Older Android devices really lagged a lot, and even some newer ones did/do for lack of optimisation which is the same thing that happens in desktops. Apple making both the OS and the hardware can exert better control over these optimisations. It's much harder when you have 145 different hardware options running the same OS. Project Butter is a big step forward for Google, but it's only running on 1.2% of Android devices at this point. This fragmentation has always plagued Android, and probably will continue in the near future, because carriers control the OS updates being released. Apple controls their iOS devices to a much higher degree. Good and bad. For the average person, that's mostly good. For a power user or a geek, not so much. That's probably why most of them gravitate toward other options that also have removable battery and storage options as well as USB connectivity options that Apple doesn't care about. |
|
|
|
Post by Holy Schist on Sept 11, 2012 11:28:54 GMT -5
Do background apps actually drain the battery? I can see how if they are accessing the net, but if they are just idling I don't know why it makes any difference. I'm not saying that is the case, I'm just saying I don't know why it would affect the battery. Now, memory, I can see how that would be an issue. Background apps can and services like keeping all your radios on can. When I used Android exclusively I had to use the widgets to turn on and off the Bluetooth, WiFi, and turn off social media and some apps to have my normal use and one charge get me through the day. My users with newer builds and especially the 4G and large screen phones have that complaint with 4G and big screens being the worst. I can have Bluetooth on and go through much more on a charge with my 4. The iPhone doesn't keep as many apps still running. The plus for some with Android is easy to fool with all sorts of settings and change more settings. That's not so great when you deploy these things to 1300+ sales people and delivery drivers or need to make happy demanding top executives. |
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Sept 11, 2012 11:30:27 GMT -5
That's not my question. My question is how any app running in the background and truly idling is responsible for any additional power consumption. I'm talking about any computer, btw, and not just an iPhone. My understanding has always been that the clock runs cycles irrespective of how the OS uses them, and that power consumption increases as hardware use rises. So, unless the OS needs to start swapping memory around to keep the state of those apps accurate, I don't see how they consume any additional power. Again, I'm talking about in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by donalgdon on Sept 11, 2012 11:51:09 GMT -5
That's not my question. My question is how any app running in the background and truly idling is responsible for any additional power consumption. I'm talking about any computer, btw, and not just an iPhone. My understanding has always been that the clock runs cycles irrespective of how the OS uses them, and that power consumption increases as hardware use rises. So, unless the OS needs to start swapping memory around to keep the state of those apps accurate, I don't see how they consume any additional power. Again, I'm talking about in general. In short, no they don't use much power at all. Maybe none, in fact, because the iOS shuts them down automatically unless the app requests and is granted what's called in Android java a "wake-lock" at the kernel-level. This will drain the battery, because the process is going to stay active. Some apps are better written than others, but again, Apple's uber-controlling habit is good for most people. Apple doesn't allow most apps to keep "bg.js" (Background Service) active, so the processes are often killed, even if the user or developer want's them to remain active! In Android, it's customary for the developer of any app to list the specific permissions requested by the app when it's installed. |
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Sept 11, 2012 12:04:16 GMT -5
That's not my question. My question is how any app running in the background and truly idling is responsible for any additional power consumption. I'm talking about any computer, btw, and not just an iPhone. My understanding has always been that the clock runs cycles irrespective of how the OS uses them, and that power consumption increases as hardware use rises. So, unless the OS needs to start swapping memory around to keep the state of those apps accurate, I don't see how they consume any additional power. Again, I'm talking about in general. In short, no they don't use much power at all. Maybe none, in fact, because the iOS shuts them down automatically unless the app requests and is granted what's called in Android java a "wake-lock" at the kernel-level. This will drain the battery, because the process is going to stay active. Some apps are better written than others, but again, Apple's uber-controlling habit is good for most people. Apple doesn't allow most apps to keep "bg.js" (Background Service) active, so the processes are often killed, even if the user or developer want's them to remain active! In Android, it's customary for the developer of any app to list the specific permissions requested by the app when it's installed. Then why did you say that a lot of users don't realize the background apps are draining their battery? |
|
|
|
Post by Holy Schist on Sept 11, 2012 12:05:52 GMT -5
That's not my question. My question is how any app running in the background and truly idling is responsible for any additional power consumption. I'm talking about any computer, btw, and not just an iPhone. My understanding has always been that the clock runs cycles irrespective of how the OS uses them, and that power consumption increases as hardware use rises. So, unless the OS needs to start swapping memory around to keep the state of those apps accurate, I don't see how they consume any additional power. Again, I'm talking about in general. It's the app being busy and hardware use as you've said. My advice to the users unhappy with their 4G Android phones is use the widgets to turn off radios when you don't need them and kill apps that will be busy. We recently put the Apple 4S in the hands of an executive who was unhappy with battery life and having to turn his radios on and off and see he gets through the day better with his WiFi and Bluetooth always on. He also said he much prefers Apple's buttons, menus and physical design as well as how much better it works with the Exchange server. Most users want just what this guy did - a simple thing that works well. I get why some like their devices nerd-friendly and some not. I think the person I'm talking about here typifies why Apple has been so successful. |
|
|
|
Post by donalgdon on Sept 11, 2012 12:19:37 GMT -5
In short, no they don't use much power at all. Maybe none, in fact, because the iOS shuts them down automatically unless the app requests and is granted what's called in Android java a "wake-lock" at the kernel-level. This will drain the battery, because the process is going to stay active. Some apps are better written than others, but again, Apple's uber-controlling habit is good for most people. Apple doesn't allow most apps to keep "bg.js" (Background Service) active, so the processes are often killed, even if the user or developer want's them to remain active! In Android, it's customary for the developer of any app to list the specific permissions requested by the app when it's installed. Then why did you say that a lot of users don't realize the background apps are draining their battery? Because some people leave their data radios connected all the time and they install apps that use that data which will often poll to see if there is a data connection and use it whenever they want. It's best to turn off data if you don't really need it. The device will last a LOT longer. |
|
|
|
Post by sordello on Sept 11, 2012 19:48:17 GMT -5
My Motorola Xoom arrived yesterday. Stayed up much of the night working it out, then watched Sherlock Holmes in bed, then listened to Paul Desmond and Jim Hall until nearly sunrise. I guess that means I'm pleased. First major impression: loved being untethered to iTunes!!! To be able to port to my PC by USB cable and then just do simple file management without having to 'sync' through a RAM-filling behemoth Apple program is a big plus. Second impression: screen resolution is amazingly impressive; navigation very smooth and the keyboard is just right for me. Third impression: QuickOffice HD is perfect. With a screen bigger than a phone screen, this Xoom will go with me to a client and their data can be direct-entered to a spreadsheet with much ease and comfort; data- typing is easy with this one. I also find that when flipped to portrait mode, reading a pdf file is "just right" - no sense that the screen is so small you have to 'flip' after two prargraphs all the time - you get to read a good chunk before needing to turn pages. (With my near-sightedness, it feels just right to hold it close to eye and even take off my glasses - excellent for reading in bed!) Nope. Phone screens are just too small for all that. Though the zoom is 3G, I am tempted to sell off my HTC smartphone and cancel my phone number. People can reach me by 3G or WiFi hot spot through email or Skype call. I'll save a fortune each month! I felt the opposite and was glad to get ride of my Xoom, one of my 3 kids liked it. Most of what you describe has nothing to do with the platform you use and the office apps work on a few. ... <snip> ... That's true and well - these functionalities work well across platforms; I suppose the upshot for me is that this puts the spotlight back on Apple to justify its pricing. People talk about 'hype' but hype alone is no big deal. The real issue is that this hype is being used to justify near double pricing. The functionality I get with my Xoom (and storage size and processing speed, etc..) would have cost me MORE than double if I went Apple. Same apps I once had on the iPad I now have on the Xoom. The free market forces are simply going to have to pull down the prices of these things; it is 'hype' that Apple must rely on to prop them up. One simply has to wonder to what extent the semi-annual release of "new and improved" product is really a technology or marketing decision. |
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Sept 11, 2012 20:15:09 GMT -5
One thing to keep in mind is that for some people, an iPhone is a phone first that does other stuff as well, where other people find the other stuff more important than the actual phone. Since I still think of my phone as a phone, having a bigger screen and other features are cool and useful so long as my phone still seems like a phone. That's why a bigger screen isn't as important. My friend who does every upgrade uses his phone for a lot of the non-phone stuff and he also isn't sitting in front of a computer all day, so I can see why a bigger screen would be desirable for him
|
|
|
|
Post by Holy Schist on Sept 11, 2012 20:56:11 GMT -5
I felt the opposite and was glad to get ride of my Xoom, one of my 3 kids liked it. Most of what you describe has nothing to do with the platform you use and the office apps work on a few. ... <snip> ... That's true and well - these functionalities work well across platforms; I suppose the upshot for me is that this puts the spotlight back on Apple to justify its pricing. People talk about 'hype' but hype alone is no big deal. The real issue is that this hype is being used to justify near double pricing. The functionality I get with my Xoom (and storage size and processing speed, etc..) would have cost me MORE than double if I went Apple. Same apps I once had on the iPad I now have on the Xoom. The free market forces are simply going to have to pull down the prices of these things; it is 'hype' that Apple must rely on to prop them up. One simply has to wonder to what extent the semi-annual release of "new and improved" product is really a technology or marketing decision. Maybe it's your location. The comparable Apple and Motorola (current, same memory) units we buy are not far off in price. Apple also discounts if you work with your local store's business team. The market forces are there more than you think. One of my sites has an owner who loves anything Apple but with business they looked at tablets just like the others. The iPads were chosen after looking at cost and function. You might like many. be forgetting the importance of applications and the superb job Apple has done for developers. That by the way might have Microsoft giving Apple and Google a run for the money. |
|
|
|
Post by sordello on Sept 11, 2012 21:29:20 GMT -5
That's true and well - these functionalities work well across platforms; I suppose the upshot for me is that this puts the spotlight back on Apple to justify its pricing. People talk about 'hype' but hype alone is no big deal. The real issue is that this hype is being used to justify near double pricing. The functionality I get with my Xoom (and storage size and processing speed, etc..) would have cost me MORE than double if I went Apple. Same apps I once had on the iPad I now have on the Xoom. The free market forces are simply going to have to pull down the prices of these things; it is 'hype' that Apple must rely on to prop them up. One simply has to wonder to what extent the semi-annual release of "new and improved" product is really a technology or marketing decision. Maybe it's your location. The comparable Apple and Motorola (current, same memory) units we buy are not far off in price. Apple also discounts if you work with your local store's business team. The market forces are there more than you think. One of my sites has an owner who loves anything Apple but with business they looked at tablets just like the others. The iPads were chosen after looking at cost and function. You might like many. be forgetting the importance of applications and the superb job Apple has done for developers. That by the way might have Microsoft giving Apple and Google a run for the money. Sounds like there is quite a difference across the pond. Either Apple has opted for a 'high-end' pricing straegy here in Oz, or the US market has forced Apple to be in line with other brands I don't know. I don't dispute the technology advances (development too) from Apple, but in other areas they seem to have developed strategies that have allowed their competitors to get strong. The shareholders are no doubt pleased, but I suspect Apple has traded long-term (IBM-like monolith) longevity and stability for a Ford/GM/Chrysler oligarchy model. That's better for the market. Current Apple shareholders have reaped the benefits nicely; future shareholders may begin to see some tapering now. |
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Sept 12, 2012 17:53:52 GMT -5
I have been holding off updating my iPhone 4 in anticipation of a 4s replacement. I'm expecting faster processing and a larger screen within the same length and width as the 4s. I hope I'm not disappointed. I wouldn't want a longer or wider phone. Get ready to be disappointed. I'd be very surprised if Apple pulls off something truly innovative in this space. They've become too complaisant. The "upgrade" from the 4 to the 4s was a joke; an insult to customers just gullible enough to keep buying. The iPhone 5 has a bigger screen, longer battery life, faster processor, more sophisticated camera, improved speakers, vastly improved ear buds with built-in mic, wideband-audio capable phone, LTE (yet still achieves longer battery life), thinner profile, lighter weight, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by donalgdon on Sept 12, 2012 18:05:32 GMT -5
Kinda sucks that they changed the connector. Think of all the landfill accumulation from the "old" connectors and chargers that are basically useless without the Apple adapter to make them work.
Doesn't the spec sheet say that it has the same battery life as the 4s?
|
|
|
|
Post by donalgdon on Sept 12, 2012 21:19:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Holy Schist on Sept 13, 2012 7:09:29 GMT -5
I didn't find it that funny maybe because of my respect for the departed, current boss, and not knowing how the new Apple phone or any could possibly be revolution some expected. Come on world, we've had touch screen, GPS, cameras, camcorder, maps, WiFi in our phones for for a few years now. HTC, RIM and Apple got nice designs down years ago too. I'm pretty sure our revolutions will be in applications until batteries or some way to power them catches up. If you're worried about waste and a net improvement you should consider food, driving habits, and product packaging before USB cables. |
|
