Wireless Forums

Reply
Posted Oct 21, 2009
10:29:22 PM
View profile
iDont/ iDo

So I'm sure you have all seen the iDont commercial by Verizon/Motorolla/Google. If you haven't, heres the link. 

Anyways, it goes like this:

iDon't have a real keyboard.

iDon't run simultaneous apps. 

iDon't take 5 megapixel pictures.

iDon't customize. 

iDon't run widgets.

iDon't allow open development.

iDon't take pictures in the dark.

iDon't have interchangeable batteries.

Everything iDon't

Droid Does

 

So, I would think that this would completely ruin the dreams that a lot of people have about the iPhone coming to Verizion, sense they are putting these ads up. I personally love AT&T and have no issue with coverage, service, billing, etc. but I know a lot of people were looking forward to a Verizon iPhone, but, looks like this puts that rumor to rest. Im curious as to what yall think of the commercial and it's effect on how Verizon/Apple relations will be in the future.  

3,233 views
103 replies
(0) Me too
(0) Me too
Post reply
Cancel
Submit
Replies
(103)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 2, 2009 12:02:40 PM
0
(0)
Professor

Even if the Droid were available for AT&T, I doubt it would sway me from my iPhone as my iPhone swayed me from getting a BB or a Palm. It would have to have something really, really extraordinary to get me (as well as a huge number of iPhone users) not to go with the iPhone anymore.

 

Let's face it, the iPhone's been here for years now, it's got an established base, an increasing and considerable share of the smartphone market, and has engendered customer loyalty to the product. As anyone in marketing knows, once you have that foothold it becomes really, really difficult to dislodge you outside of your own incompetence, and I doubt Apple is falling for that trap.

 

So no, the Droid will not be the iPhone killer as it's being touted to be simply for the above.  

 

However, as much as I despise Vampireon Wireless, I happen to like Motorola, and I hope the Droid is a successful handset.  

 

Even if the Droid were available for AT&T, I doubt it would sway me from my iPhone as my iPhone swayed me from getting a BB or a Palm. It would have to have something really, really extraordinary to get me (as well as a huge number of iPhone users) not to go with the iPhone anymore.

 

Let's face it, the iPhone's been here for years now, it's got an established base, an increasing and considerable share of the smartphone market, and has engendered customer loyalty to the product. As anyone in marketing knows, once you have that foothold it becomes really, really difficult to dislodge you outside of your own incompetence, and I doubt Apple is falling for that trap.

 

So no, the Droid will not be the iPhone killer as it's being touted to be simply for the above.  

 

However, as much as I despise Vampireon Wireless, I happen to like Motorola, and I hope the Droid is a successful handset.  

 

Posted from my iPhone 4. Look at me I'm hot and nerdy.

Re: iDont/ iDo

61 of 104 (1,505 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 2, 2009 1:23:37 PM
0
(0)
Professor

Millennium Archangel wrote:

Even if the Droid were available for AT&T, I doubt it would sway me from my iPhone as my iPhone swayed me from getting a BB or a Palm. It would have to have something really, really extraordinary to get me (as well as a huge number of iPhone users) not to go with the iPhone anymore.

 

Let's face it, the iPhone's been here for years now, it's got an established base, an increasing and considerable share of the smartphone market, and has engendered customer loyalty to the product. As anyone in marketing knows, once you have that foothold it becomes really, really difficult to dislodge you outside of your own incompetence, and I doubt Apple is falling for that trap.

 

So no, the Droid will not be the iPhone killer as it's being touted to be simply for the above.  

 

However, as much as I despise Vampireon Wireless, I happen to like Motorola, and I hope the Droid is a successful handset.  

 


 

Though I am not an iPhone user, I do recognize there is not another device out there that could compete with it, unless it is a newer, better iPhone! I cant see the Droid, even tickling the iPhone. In fact, my personal opinion is that this launch is going to be a big flop, and will receive no more enthusiasm than any other Android launch. For those of you who follow BGR on Twitter, he already posted a few teasers about his Droid review, and they are not that great, to say the least... Terrible keyboard, terrible camera.

 

The techie blog community has already switched their focus from the Droid to the new Sony Ericsson Xperia Android device, which seems to be much better!


Millennium Archangel wrote:

Even if the Droid were available for AT&T, I doubt it would sway me from my iPhone as my iPhone swayed me from getting a BB or a Palm. It would have to have something really, really extraordinary to get me (as well as a huge number of iPhone users) not to go with the iPhone anymore.

 

Let's face it, the iPhone's been here for years now, it's got an established base, an increasing and considerable share of the smartphone market, and has engendered customer loyalty to the product. As anyone in marketing knows, once you have that foothold it becomes really, really difficult to dislodge you outside of your own incompetence, and I doubt Apple is falling for that trap.

 

So no, the Droid will not be the iPhone killer as it's being touted to be simply for the above.  

 

However, as much as I despise Vampireon Wireless, I happen to like Motorola, and I hope the Droid is a successful handset.  

 


 

Though I am not an iPhone user, I do recognize there is not another device out there that could compete with it, unless it is a newer, better iPhone! I cant see the Droid, even tickling the iPhone. In fact, my personal opinion is that this launch is going to be a big flop, and will receive no more enthusiasm than any other Android launch. For those of you who follow BGR on Twitter, he already posted a few teasers about his Droid review, and they are not that great, to say the least... Terrible keyboard, terrible camera.

 

The techie blog community has already switched their focus from the Droid to the new Sony Ericsson Xperia Android device, which seems to be much better!

Re: iDont/ iDo

62 of 104 (1,475 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 3, 2009 12:37:05 PM
0
(0)
Guru
Edited by tonester on Nov 3, 2009 at 1:00:29 PM

Doppler808 wrote:
The END USER can't multitask on ANY cell phone unless they make the screens bigger.

I didn't realize that multitasking required a decently-sized screen; however, different folks have different understandings as to what exactly multitasking involves.  Let me put it in a form of a question--on an iPhone, would one be considered to be "multitasking" on it if using the iPod function/app to listen to music while at the same time browsing in Safari? Or, if allowable, to record a lecture using the Apple Voice Memo app while browsing in Safari (AFAIK there is currently no iTunes voice recording app that will run in the background, but it would be neat if Apple allowed it to do so)?

 


OrangeSockDude wrote:

iDon't have interchangeable batteries.

 

  • While that would be nice, I have to say I'm better off without it. I think I actually lost the interchangeable backs for one of the batteries on my Blackjack. Besides, a good $15-20 Car Charger pretty much ellevates the need for an extra battery.

 

 


That you feel you're better off w/o an interchangeable battery due to your apparently not being able to keep a handle on your battery cover doesn't mean that everybody else would feel the same way.  Also--a car charger (or any charger, for that matter) won't do you much good when the battery on the iPhone eventually goes bad and you choose to send it in for a battery replacement--not unless you don't mind using your phone while it's tethered to a power source 24x7...and yes I understand that Apple may or may not have a loaner phone policy in place for such circumstances, but that's besides the point.  Lemme guess--you'll probably counter that when that time arrives, you'll just move on up to the latest and greatest phone...to which I would say that if the iPhone is the greatest phone of all time, why would you need to replace it for something better?

 


keithyhuntington wrote:
Heres my take on it.... And I'm not a fanboy, cause I've only owned an iPhone for about 10 weeks... It's backed by a reputable company: Apple.there's realy not a single phone out there that is ran by a tech super god like apple.

You may not be an iPhone fanboy but your Apple fanboyism is clearly showing, since only a fanboy would use glowing terms like "tech super god" when describing a company such as Apple... :smileywink:

 

Speaking of iPhone fanboys--yes the iPhone is still the leader of the pack compared to other smartphones, as far as technology/features/innovation is concerned, but only an iPhone fanboy would deny that the gap between the iPhone and the competition (e.g., iPhone and Droid) has narrowed quite a bit within the last year...and will undoubtedly narrow even more as time passes by. The Droid may or may not be a flop, marketing/sales-wise, but in terms of technology/features, it is definitely not light-years behind the iPhone; like I said, anyone who (still) believes the iPhone is waaayyy ahead of the Droid in this regard is clearly suffering from iPhone fanboyitis.

Message Edited by tonester on 11-03-2009 01:00:29 PM

Doppler808 wrote:
The END USER can't multitask on ANY cell phone unless they make the screens bigger.

I didn't realize that multitasking required a decently-sized screen; however, different folks have different understandings as to what exactly multitasking involves.  Let me put it in a form of a question--on an iPhone, would one be considered to be "multitasking" on it if using the iPod function/app to listen to music while at the same time browsing in Safari? Or, if allowable, to record a lecture using the Apple Voice Memo app while browsing in Safari (AFAIK there is currently no iTunes voice recording app that will run in the background, but it would be neat if Apple allowed it to do so)?

 


OrangeSockDude wrote:

iDon't have interchangeable batteries.

 

  • While that would be nice, I have to say I'm better off without it. I think I actually lost the interchangeable backs for one of the batteries on my Blackjack. Besides, a good $15-20 Car Charger pretty much ellevates the need for an extra battery.

 

 


That you feel you're better off w/o an interchangeable battery due to your apparently not being able to keep a handle on your battery cover doesn't mean that everybody else would feel the same way.  Also--a car charger (or any charger, for that matter) won't do you much good when the battery on the iPhone eventually goes bad and you choose to send it in for a battery replacement--not unless you don't mind using your phone while it's tethered to a power source 24x7...and yes I understand that Apple may or may not have a loaner phone policy in place for such circumstances, but that's besides the point.  Lemme guess--you'll probably counter that when that time arrives, you'll just move on up to the latest and greatest phone...to which I would say that if the iPhone is the greatest phone of all time, why would you need to replace it for something better?

 


keithyhuntington wrote:
Heres my take on it.... And I'm not a fanboy, cause I've only owned an iPhone for about 10 weeks... It's backed by a reputable company: Apple.there's realy not a single phone out there that is ran by a tech super god like apple.

You may not be an iPhone fanboy but your Apple fanboyism is clearly showing, since only a fanboy would use glowing terms like "tech super god" when describing a company such as Apple... :smileywink:

 

Speaking of iPhone fanboys--yes the iPhone is still the leader of the pack compared to other smartphones, as far as technology/features/innovation is concerned, but only an iPhone fanboy would deny that the gap between the iPhone and the competition (e.g., iPhone and Droid) has narrowed quite a bit within the last year...and will undoubtedly narrow even more as time passes by. The Droid may or may not be a flop, marketing/sales-wise, but in terms of technology/features, it is definitely not light-years behind the iPhone; like I said, anyone who (still) believes the iPhone is waaayyy ahead of the Droid in this regard is clearly suffering from iPhone fanboyitis.

Message Edited by tonester on 11-03-2009 01:00:29 PM

Re: iDont/ iDo

[ Edited ]
63 of 104 (1,394 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 3, 2009 1:02:44 PM
0
(0)
Master
While I won't argue the point that other phones are catching up with the iPhone, I would still say the most worthy competitor is the Pre, not Android.  I've yet to see Android 2.0, but 1.0 didn't wow me, and 1.6 had problems out the gate.
While I won't argue the point that other phones are catching up with the iPhone, I would still say the most worthy competitor is the Pre, not Android.  I've yet to see Android 2.0, but 1.0 didn't wow me, and 1.6 had problems out the gate.

Re: iDont/ iDo

64 of 104 (1,379 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 3, 2009 1:10:09 PM
0
(0)
Professor

tonester wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:
The END USER can't multitask on ANY cell phone unless they make the screens bigger.

I didn't realize that multitasking required a decently-sized screen; however, different folks have different understandings as to what exactly multitasking involves.  Let me put it in a form of a question--on an iPhone, would one be considered to be "multitasking" on it if using the iPod function/app to listen to music while at the same time browsing in Safari? Or, if allowable, to record a lecture using the Apple Voice Memo app while browsing in Safari (AFAIK there is currently no iTunes voice recording app that will run in the background, but it would be neat if Apple allowed it to do so)?

 


OrangeSockDude wrote:

iDon't have interchangeable batteries.

 

  • While that would be nice, I have to say I'm better off without it. I think I actually lost the interchangeable backs for one of the batteries on my Blackjack. Besides, a good $15-20 Car Charger pretty much ellevates the need for an extra battery.

 

 


That you feel you're better off w/o an interchangeable battery due to your apparently not being able to keep a handle on your battery cover doesn't mean that everybody else would feel the same way.  Also--a car charger (or any charger, for that matter) won't do you much good when the battery on the iPhone eventually goes bad and you choose to send it in for a battery replacement--not unless you don't mind using your phone while it's tethered to a power source 24x7...and yes I understand that Apple may or may not have a loaner phone policy in place for such circumstances, but that's besides the point.  Lemme guess--you'll probably counter that when that time arrives, you'll just move on up to the latest and greatest phone...to which I would say that if the iPhone is the greatest phone of all time, why would you need to replace it for something better?

 


keithyhuntington wrote:
Heres my take on it.... And I'm not a fanboy, cause I've only owned an iPhone for about 10 weeks... It's backed by a reputable company: Apple.there's realy not a single phone out there that is ran by a tech super god like apple.

You may not be an iPhone fanboy but your Apple fanboyism is clearly showing, since only a fanboy would use glowing terms like "tech super god" when describing a company such as Apple... :smileywink:

 

Speaking of iPhone fanboys--yes the iPhone is still the leader of the pack compared to other smartphones, as far as technology/features/innovation is concerned, but only an iPhone fanboy would deny that the gap between the iPhone and the competition (e.g., iPhone and Droid) has narrowed quite a bit within the last year...and will undoubtedly narrow even more as time passes by. The Droid may or may not be a flop, marketing/sales-wise, but in terms of technology/features, it is definitely not light-years behind the iPhone; like I said, anyone who (still) believes the iPhone is waaayyy ahead of the Droid in this regard is clearly suffering from iPhone fanboyitis.

Message Edited by tonester on 11-03-2009 01:00:29 PM

I may be a Apple fan boy now (last 2 years) but I believe he was refering to the company itself. There is no question that the MacBook Air, iMac, iPods, iPod touch and the original iPhones not only "broke the molds" but set the standards. Now a company like that is expected to continue to lead the way. IMO it's not the features that make the iPhone so great, but design, the simple user OS, and the updates and support provided by the "super tech gods HQ" :smileywink:  

 


tonester wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:
The END USER can't multitask on ANY cell phone unless they make the screens bigger.

I didn't realize that multitasking required a decently-sized screen; however, different folks have different understandings as to what exactly multitasking involves.  Let me put it in a form of a question--on an iPhone, would one be considered to be "multitasking" on it if using the iPod function/app to listen to music while at the same time browsing in Safari? Or, if allowable, to record a lecture using the Apple Voice Memo app while browsing in Safari (AFAIK there is currently no iTunes voice recording app that will run in the background, but it would be neat if Apple allowed it to do so)?

 


OrangeSockDude wrote:

iDon't have interchangeable batteries.

 

  • While that would be nice, I have to say I'm better off without it. I think I actually lost the interchangeable backs for one of the batteries on my Blackjack. Besides, a good $15-20 Car Charger pretty much ellevates the need for an extra battery.

 

 


That you feel you're better off w/o an interchangeable battery due to your apparently not being able to keep a handle on your battery cover doesn't mean that everybody else would feel the same way.  Also--a car charger (or any charger, for that matter) won't do you much good when the battery on the iPhone eventually goes bad and you choose to send it in for a battery replacement--not unless you don't mind using your phone while it's tethered to a power source 24x7...and yes I understand that Apple may or may not have a loaner phone policy in place for such circumstances, but that's besides the point.  Lemme guess--you'll probably counter that when that time arrives, you'll just move on up to the latest and greatest phone...to which I would say that if the iPhone is the greatest phone of all time, why would you need to replace it for something better?

 


keithyhuntington wrote:
Heres my take on it.... And I'm not a fanboy, cause I've only owned an iPhone for about 10 weeks... It's backed by a reputable company: Apple.there's realy not a single phone out there that is ran by a tech super god like apple.

You may not be an iPhone fanboy but your Apple fanboyism is clearly showing, since only a fanboy would use glowing terms like "tech super god" when describing a company such as Apple... :smileywink:

 

Speaking of iPhone fanboys--yes the iPhone is still the leader of the pack compared to other smartphones, as far as technology/features/innovation is concerned, but only an iPhone fanboy would deny that the gap between the iPhone and the competition (e.g., iPhone and Droid) has narrowed quite a bit within the last year...and will undoubtedly narrow even more as time passes by. The Droid may or may not be a flop, marketing/sales-wise, but in terms of technology/features, it is definitely not light-years behind the iPhone; like I said, anyone who (still) believes the iPhone is waaayyy ahead of the Droid in this regard is clearly suffering from iPhone fanboyitis.

Message Edited by tonester on 11-03-2009 01:00:29 PM

I may be a Apple fan boy now (last 2 years) but I believe he was refering to the company itself. There is no question that the MacBook Air, iMac, iPods, iPod touch and the original iPhones not only "broke the molds" but set the standards. Now a company like that is expected to continue to lead the way. IMO it's not the features that make the iPhone so great, but design, the simple user OS, and the updates and support provided by the "super tech gods HQ" :smileywink:  

 

Re: iDont/ iDo

65 of 104 (1,374 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 3, 2009 1:12:37 PM
0
(0)
Professor

BrianfromNO wrote:
While I won't argue the point that other phones are catching up with the iPhone, I would still say the most worthy competitor is the Pre, not Android.  I've yet to see Android 2.0, but 1.0 didn't wow me, and 1.6 had problems out the gate.

 

...and from the latest BGR review of the Droid (published this morning), 2.0 is a major improvement, but still not cigar, though he does claim it is the closest to the iPhone in web experience (maybe due to a capacitive screen???).

BrianfromNO wrote:
While I won't argue the point that other phones are catching up with the iPhone, I would still say the most worthy competitor is the Pre, not Android.  I've yet to see Android 2.0, but 1.0 didn't wow me, and 1.6 had problems out the gate.

 

...and from the latest BGR review of the Droid (published this morning), 2.0 is a major improvement, but still not cigar, though he does claim it is the closest to the iPhone in web experience (maybe due to a capacitive screen???).

Re: iDont/ iDo

66 of 104 (1,370 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 3, 2009 1:48:31 PM
0
(0)
Professor
Edited by Doppler808 on Nov 3, 2009 at 1:49:36 PM

tonester wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:
The END USER can't multitask on ANY cell phone unless they make the screens bigger.

I didn't realize that multitasking required a decently-sized screen; however, different folks have different understandings as to what exactly multitasking involves.  Let me put it in a form of a question--on an iPhone, would one be considered to be "multitasking" on it if using the iPod function/app to listen to music while at the same time browsing in Safari? Or, if allowable, to record a lecture using the Apple Voice Memo app while browsing in Safari (AFAIK there is currently no iTunes voice recording app that will run in the background, but it would be neat if Apple allowed it to do so)?


 Multitasking in its truest definition is to perform two or more processes during a single processing cycle.  All phones can do that.  When you make a call and the time shows while you are on a call.  That is multitasking.  The END USER must use more than one sense in order to multitask on a 3-4 inch screen.  You can't see visually both applications to take in data to multitask.  So you are essentially NOT multitasking in its true definition.  YOU would be multitasking if your friend was talking to you while you were texting someone 1,000 miles away.

 

As you said it yourself.  Background...  That's what everyone really wants.  Have apps able to run in the background.  There's a major difference between the two when it comes down to the END USER.  Companies who use "Multitasking" as the term were playing word games to entice people to buy their phones.

 

As for the Andriod commercial if you notice they didn't even call it Multitasking...  They didn't say "iDon't Multitask" they said "iDon't run simultaneous Applications"

Message Edited by Doppler808 on 11-03-2009 11:49:36 AM

tonester wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:
The END USER can't multitask on ANY cell phone unless they make the screens bigger.

I didn't realize that multitasking required a decently-sized screen; however, different folks have different understandings as to what exactly multitasking involves.  Let me put it in a form of a question--on an iPhone, would one be considered to be "multitasking" on it if using the iPod function/app to listen to music while at the same time browsing in Safari? Or, if allowable, to record a lecture using the Apple Voice Memo app while browsing in Safari (AFAIK there is currently no iTunes voice recording app that will run in the background, but it would be neat if Apple allowed it to do so)?


 Multitasking in its truest definition is to perform two or more processes during a single processing cycle.  All phones can do that.  When you make a call and the time shows while you are on a call.  That is multitasking.  The END USER must use more than one sense in order to multitask on a 3-4 inch screen.  You can't see visually both applications to take in data to multitask.  So you are essentially NOT multitasking in its true definition.  YOU would be multitasking if your friend was talking to you while you were texting someone 1,000 miles away.

 

As you said it yourself.  Background...  That's what everyone really wants.  Have apps able to run in the background.  There's a major difference between the two when it comes down to the END USER.  Companies who use "Multitasking" as the term were playing word games to entice people to buy their phones.

 

As for the Andriod commercial if you notice they didn't even call it Multitasking...  They didn't say "iDon't Multitask" they said "iDon't run simultaneous Applications"

Message Edited by Doppler808 on 11-03-2009 11:49:36 AM

Re: iDont/ iDo

[ Edited ]
67 of 104 (1,356 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 3, 2009 1:54:31 PM
0
(0)
Scholar

 Demetri said, "IMO it's not the features that make the iPhone so great, but design, the simple user OS,..."

 

Demetri is right on with this quote. I have been searching for months for a new smartphone to replace my Treo 700p. I have tried multiple WinMo phones, lots of Blackberry phones, the Palm Pre, the new myTouch by T-mobile, and the iPhone. I have talked to people who own each type of phone and gathered their opinions. I will also go play with the new Droid before I make a final decision (plus I have to wait for my contract to run out, LOL).

 

To this point, there's not a phone out there that beats the simplicity, design, and responsiveness of the iPhone. There are phones with higher resolution cameras, bigger screens, or some other option, but the best overall winner for my needs is the iPhone. 

 Demetri said, "IMO it's not the features that make the iPhone so great, but design, the simple user OS,..."

 

Demetri is right on with this quote. I have been searching for months for a new smartphone to replace my Treo 700p. I have tried multiple WinMo phones, lots of Blackberry phones, the Palm Pre, the new myTouch by T-mobile, and the iPhone. I have talked to people who own each type of phone and gathered their opinions. I will also go play with the new Droid before I make a final decision (plus I have to wait for my contract to run out, LOL).

 

To this point, there's not a phone out there that beats the simplicity, design, and responsiveness of the iPhone. There are phones with higher resolution cameras, bigger screens, or some other option, but the best overall winner for my needs is the iPhone. 

Re: iDont/ iDo

68 of 104 (1,350 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 3, 2009 4:46:00 PM
0
(0)
Professor

tonester wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:
The END USER can't multitask on ANY cell phone unless they make the screens bigger.

I didn't realize that multitasking required a decently-sized screen; however, different folks have different understandings as to what exactly multitasking involves.  Let me put it in a form of a question--on an iPhone, would one be considered to be "multitasking" on it if using the iPod function/app to listen to music while at the same time browsing in Safari? Or, if allowable, to record a lecture using the Apple Voice Memo app while browsing in Safari (AFAIK there is currently no iTunes voice recording app that will run in the background, but it would be neat if Apple allowed it to do so)?

 


Without getting into software development 101, Multitasking is software development, has a very clear definition.  Based on that definition the current iPhone OS does not multitask, where as, WM, and Android do have multitasking capabilities. I am sure future versions of iPhone OS will multitask though. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, the iPhone's lack of multitasking application support, did not prevent it from being a game changer and becoming the best selling phone in the world.  While applicatio multitasking has its advantages in software development, Apple has shown that it is irrelevant to its success. So, IMO, currently, this discussion is not really important. If in 2-3 years time the iPhone OS does not have multitasking capabilities, as applications become more complex and networks allow more, this discussion would be relevant.

tonester wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:
The END USER can't multitask on ANY cell phone unless they make the screens bigger.

I didn't realize that multitasking required a decently-sized screen; however, different folks have different understandings as to what exactly multitasking involves.  Let me put it in a form of a question--on an iPhone, would one be considered to be "multitasking" on it if using the iPod function/app to listen to music while at the same time browsing in Safari? Or, if allowable, to record a lecture using the Apple Voice Memo app while browsing in Safari (AFAIK there is currently no iTunes voice recording app that will run in the background, but it would be neat if Apple allowed it to do so)?

 


Without getting into software development 101, Multitasking is software development, has a very clear definition.  Based on that definition the current iPhone OS does not multitask, where as, WM, and Android do have multitasking capabilities. I am sure future versions of iPhone OS will multitask though. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, the iPhone's lack of multitasking application support, did not prevent it from being a game changer and becoming the best selling phone in the world.  While applicatio multitasking has its advantages in software development, Apple has shown that it is irrelevant to its success. So, IMO, currently, this discussion is not really important. If in 2-3 years time the iPhone OS does not have multitasking capabilities, as applications become more complex and networks allow more, this discussion would be relevant.

Re: iDont/ iDo

69 of 104 (1,309 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 3, 2009 4:47:11 PM
0
(0)
Professor

TallGuy1970 wrote:

 Demetri said, "IMO it's not the features that make the iPhone so great, but design, the simple user OS,..."

 

Demetri is right on with this quote. I have been searching for months for a new smartphone to replace my Treo 700p. I have tried multiple WinMo phones, lots of Blackberry phones, the Palm Pre, the new myTouch by T-mobile, and the iPhone. I have talked to people who own each type of phone and gathered their opinions. I will also go play with the new Droid before I make a final decision (plus I have to wait for my contract to run out, LOL).

 

To this point, there's not a phone out there that beats the simplicity, design, and responsiveness of the iPhone. There are phones with higher resolution cameras, bigger screens, or some other option, but the best overall winner for my needs is the iPhone. 


While WM fits my needs better, I absolutely agree with this statement 100%!


TallGuy1970 wrote:

 Demetri said, "IMO it's not the features that make the iPhone so great, but design, the simple user OS,..."

 

Demetri is right on with this quote. I have been searching for months for a new smartphone to replace my Treo 700p. I have tried multiple WinMo phones, lots of Blackberry phones, the Palm Pre, the new myTouch by T-mobile, and the iPhone. I have talked to people who own each type of phone and gathered their opinions. I will also go play with the new Droid before I make a final decision (plus I have to wait for my contract to run out, LOL).

 

To this point, there's not a phone out there that beats the simplicity, design, and responsiveness of the iPhone. There are phones with higher resolution cameras, bigger screens, or some other option, but the best overall winner for my needs is the iPhone. 


While WM fits my needs better, I absolutely agree with this statement 100%!

Re: iDont/ iDo

70 of 104 (1,308 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 3, 2009 9:36:59 PM
0
(0)
Teacher

guandalf wrote:

TallGuy1970 wrote:

 Demetri said, "IMO it's not the features that make the iPhone so great, but design, the simple user OS,..."

 

Demetri is right on with this quote. I have been searching for months for a new smartphone to replace my Treo 700p. I have tried multiple WinMo phones, lots of Blackberry phones, the Palm Pre, the new myTouch by T-mobile, and the iPhone. I have talked to people who own each type of phone and gathered their opinions. I will also go play with the new Droid before I make a final decision (plus I have to wait for my contract to run out, LOL).

 

To this point, there's not a phone out there that beats the simplicity, design, and responsiveness of the iPhone. There are phones with higher resolution cameras, bigger screens, or some other option, but the best overall winner for my needs is the iPhone. 


While WM fits my needs better, I absolutely agree with this statement 100%!


And that is why nothing LIKE the iPhone will kill the iPhone...
it has to be something REVOLUTIONARY and DIFFERENT...
Android is not that different, trust me..I still have the G1. iPhone is still the best
we wont see it's downfall until something new, different, and revolutionary comes out
just because the droid has a bigger screen, camera, etc doesn't make it revolutionary. 

 


guandalf wrote:

TallGuy1970 wrote:

 Demetri said, "IMO it's not the features that make the iPhone so great, but design, the simple user OS,..."

 

Demetri is right on with this quote. I have been searching for months for a new smartphone to replace my Treo 700p. I have tried multiple WinMo phones, lots of Blackberry phones, the Palm Pre, the new myTouch by T-mobile, and the iPhone. I have talked to people who own each type of phone and gathered their opinions. I will also go play with the new Droid before I make a final decision (plus I have to wait for my contract to run out, LOL).

 

To this point, there's not a phone out there that beats the simplicity, design, and responsiveness of the iPhone. There are phones with higher resolution cameras, bigger screens, or some other option, but the best overall winner for my needs is the iPhone. 


While WM fits my needs better, I absolutely agree with this statement 100%!


And that is why nothing LIKE the iPhone will kill the iPhone...
it has to be something REVOLUTIONARY and DIFFERENT...
Android is not that different, trust me..I still have the G1. iPhone is still the best
we wont see it's downfall until something new, different, and revolutionary comes out
just because the droid has a bigger screen, camera, etc doesn't make it revolutionary. 

 

Re: iDont/ iDo

71 of 104 (1,229 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 4, 2009 3:34:41 AM
0
(0)
Professor

bubba8739 wrote:

guandalf wrote:

TallGuy1970 wrote:

 Demetri said, "IMO it's not the features that make the iPhone so great, but design, the simple user OS,..."

 

Demetri is right on with this quote. I have been searching for months for a new smartphone to replace my Treo 700p. I have tried multiple WinMo phones, lots of Blackberry phones, the Palm Pre, the new myTouch by T-mobile, and the iPhone. I have talked to people who own each type of phone and gathered their opinions. I will also go play with the new Droid before I make a final decision (plus I have to wait for my contract to run out, LOL).

 

To this point, there's not a phone out there that beats the simplicity, design, and responsiveness of the iPhone. There are phones with higher resolution cameras, bigger screens, or some other option, but the best overall winner for my needs is the iPhone. 


While WM fits my needs better, I absolutely agree with this statement 100%!


And that is why nothing LIKE the iPhone will kill the iPhone...
it has to be something REVOLUTIONARY and DIFFERENT...
Android is not that different, trust me..I still have the G1. iPhone is still the best
we wont see it's downfall until something new, different, and revolutionary comes out
just because the droid has a bigger screen, camera, etc doesn't make it revolutionary. 

 




This has got to be one of the best comments I've read. I never thought of it like this, but it's true!!!

bubba8739 wrote:

guandalf wrote:

TallGuy1970 wrote:

 Demetri said, "IMO it's not the features that make the iPhone so great, but design, the simple user OS,..."

 

Demetri is right on with this quote. I have been searching for months for a new smartphone to replace my Treo 700p. I have tried multiple WinMo phones, lots of Blackberry phones, the Palm Pre, the new myTouch by T-mobile, and the iPhone. I have talked to people who own each type of phone and gathered their opinions. I will also go play with the new Droid before I make a final decision (plus I have to wait for my contract to run out, LOL).

 

To this point, there's not a phone out there that beats the simplicity, design, and responsiveness of the iPhone. There are phones with higher resolution cameras, bigger screens, or some other option, but the best overall winner for my needs is the iPhone. 


While WM fits my needs better, I absolutely agree with this statement 100%!


And that is why nothing LIKE the iPhone will kill the iPhone...
it has to be something REVOLUTIONARY and DIFFERENT...
Android is not that different, trust me..I still have the G1. iPhone is still the best
we wont see it's downfall until something new, different, and revolutionary comes out
just because the droid has a bigger screen, camera, etc doesn't make it revolutionary. 

 




This has got to be one of the best comments I've read. I never thought of it like this, but it's true!!!

Re: iDont/ iDo

72 of 104 (1,205 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 4, 2009 7:50:08 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

Doppler808 wrote:

tonester wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:
The END USER can't multitask on ANY cell phone unless they make the screens bigger.

I didn't realize that multitasking required a decently-sized screen; however, different folks have different understandings as to what exactly multitasking involves.  Let me put it in a form of a question--on an iPhone, would one be considered to be "multitasking" on it if using the iPod function/app to listen to music while at the same time browsing in Safari? Or, if allowable, to record a lecture using the Apple Voice Memo app while browsing in Safari (AFAIK there is currently no iTunes voice recording app that will run in the background, but it would be neat if Apple allowed it to do so)?


 Multitasking in its truest definition is to perform two or more processes during a single processing cycle.  All phones can do that.  When you make a call and the time shows while you are on a call.  That is multitasking.  The END USER must use more than one sense in order to multitask on a 3-4 inch screen.  You can't see visually both applications to take in data to multitask.  So you are essentially NOT multitasking in its true definition.  YOU would be multitasking if your friend was talking to you while you were texting someone 1,000 miles away.

 

As you said it yourself.  Background...  That's what everyone really wants.  Have apps able to run in the background.  There's a major difference between the two when it comes down to the END USER.  Companies who use "Multitasking" as the term were playing word games to entice people to buy their phones.

 

As for the Andriod commercial if you notice they didn't even call it Multitasking...  They didn't say "iDon't Multitask" they said "iDon't run simultaneous Applications"

Message Edited by Doppler808 on 11-03-2009 11:49:36 AM

In computing, multitasking is a method by which multiple tasks, also known as processes, share common processing resources such as a CPU. In the case of a computer with a single CPU, only one task is said to be running at any point in time, meaning that the CPU is actively executing instructions for that task. Multitasking solves the problem by scheduling which task may be the one running at any given time, and when another waiting task gets a turn.

 

Gee, so if I have three apps open at the same time on a droid and am switching back and forth between the three of them and doing tasks on them without having to save/reopen....

 

I'M MULTI TASKING AND SO IS THE PHONE.

 

End of discussion.  Next time try and talk about something you know about.


Doppler808 wrote:

tonester wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:
The END USER can't multitask on ANY cell phone unless they make the screens bigger.

I didn't realize that multitasking required a decently-sized screen; however, different folks have different understandings as to what exactly multitasking involves.  Let me put it in a form of a question--on an iPhone, would one be considered to be "multitasking" on it if using the iPod function/app to listen to music while at the same time browsing in Safari? Or, if allowable, to record a lecture using the Apple Voice Memo app while browsing in Safari (AFAIK there is currently no iTunes voice recording app that will run in the background, but it would be neat if Apple allowed it to do so)?


 Multitasking in its truest definition is to perform two or more processes during a single processing cycle.  All phones can do that.  When you make a call and the time shows while you are on a call.  That is multitasking.  The END USER must use more than one sense in order to multitask on a 3-4 inch screen.  You can't see visually both applications to take in data to multitask.  So you are essentially NOT multitasking in its true definition.  YOU would be multitasking if your friend was talking to you while you were texting someone 1,000 miles away.

 

As you said it yourself.  Background...  That's what everyone really wants.  Have apps able to run in the background.  There's a major difference between the two when it comes down to the END USER.  Companies who use "Multitasking" as the term were playing word games to entice people to buy their phones.

 

As for the Andriod commercial if you notice they didn't even call it Multitasking...  They didn't say "iDon't Multitask" they said "iDon't run simultaneous Applications"

Message Edited by Doppler808 on 11-03-2009 11:49:36 AM

In computing, multitasking is a method by which multiple tasks, also known as processes, share common processing resources such as a CPU. In the case of a computer with a single CPU, only one task is said to be running at any point in time, meaning that the CPU is actively executing instructions for that task. Multitasking solves the problem by scheduling which task may be the one running at any given time, and when another waiting task gets a turn.

 

Gee, so if I have three apps open at the same time on a droid and am switching back and forth between the three of them and doing tasks on them without having to save/reopen....

 

I'M MULTI TASKING AND SO IS THE PHONE.

 

End of discussion.  Next time try and talk about something you know about.

Re: iDont/ iDo

73 of 104 (1,180 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 4, 2009 8:20:11 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

elrondius,

 

You can talk technical definitions all you want. I am more interested in user experience. For me, the difference between a "swipe" and pressing a home button and then a program icon is not a selling point.

elrondius,

 

You can talk technical definitions all you want. I am more interested in user experience. For me, the difference between a "swipe" and pressing a home button and then a program icon is not a selling point.

Re: iDont/ iDo

74 of 104 (1,172 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 4, 2009 8:24:33 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

TallGuy1970 wrote:

elrondius,

 

You can talk technical definitions all you want. I am more interested in user experience. For me, the difference between a "swipe" and pressing a home button and then a program icon is not a selling point.


No, the issue here is Doppler doesn't know what multi tasking on a computer/smart phone is and he should stick to what he knows and not try and act like he is the expert on something.


TallGuy1970 wrote:

elrondius,

 

You can talk technical definitions all you want. I am more interested in user experience. For me, the difference between a "swipe" and pressing a home button and then a program icon is not a selling point.


No, the issue here is Doppler doesn't know what multi tasking on a computer/smart phone is and he should stick to what he knows and not try and act like he is the expert on something.

Re: iDont/ iDo

75 of 104 (1,169 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 4, 2009 8:50:56 AM
0
(0)
Scholar
Well, I won't get in the middle of your personal debate, but I am interested to know how those programs running in the background may affect battery life or responsiveness. I've had bad experiences with those issues on some early WinMo phones. I think I'll go play with the Droid this weekend.
Well, I won't get in the middle of your personal debate, but I am interested to know how those programs running in the background may affect battery life or responsiveness. I've had bad experiences with those issues on some early WinMo phones. I think I'll go play with the Droid this weekend.

Re: iDont/ iDo

76 of 104 (1,156 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 4, 2009 10:46:05 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

I don't understand why a couple of you are hung up on "multi-tasking" and it's offical technical defination.  Quit simply, multi-tasking for the iPhone would mean running multiple apps at the same time, being able to switch back and forth amoung them, not being forced to end one app in order to run another as it works now.  For cell phones, that's what multi-tasking refers too.  I'd imagine the reason why the iPhone can't is because it doesn't have the processing power to do so efficiently and maybe because Apple doesn't see any reason for it too.  As technology grows and cell phones advance in technology and become more like mini pc's in the palm of your hand, multi-tasking will become more previliant. 

 

If I'm on the go reading an eBook on my iPhone and happen upon a word I don't know the meaning of, it would be nice to open a Dictionary app and find out what it means without having to close down my eReader every time.  This is just one small example of why multi-tasking can be very beneficial and give the user greater freedom and flexability of their devise.  Many don't see this feature as a big deal now, but it will be as time goes on I'm sure.

I don't understand why a couple of you are hung up on "multi-tasking" and it's offical technical defination.  Quit simply, multi-tasking for the iPhone would mean running multiple apps at the same time, being able to switch back and forth amoung them, not being forced to end one app in order to run another as it works now.  For cell phones, that's what multi-tasking refers too.  I'd imagine the reason why the iPhone can't is because it doesn't have the processing power to do so efficiently and maybe because Apple doesn't see any reason for it too.  As technology grows and cell phones advance in technology and become more like mini pc's in the palm of your hand, multi-tasking will become more previliant. 

 

If I'm on the go reading an eBook on my iPhone and happen upon a word I don't know the meaning of, it would be nice to open a Dictionary app and find out what it means without having to close down my eReader every time.  This is just one small example of why multi-tasking can be very beneficial and give the user greater freedom and flexability of their devise.  Many don't see this feature as a big deal now, but it will be as time goes on I'm sure.

Re: iDont/ iDo

77 of 104 (1,132 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 4, 2009 11:08:15 AM
0
(0)
Professor

elrondius wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:

tonester wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:
The END USER can't multitask on ANY cell phone unless they make the screens bigger.

I didn't realize that multitasking required a decently-sized screen; however, different folks have different understandings as to what exactly multitasking involves.  Let me put it in a form of a question--on an iPhone, would one be considered to be "multitasking" on it if using the iPod function/app to listen to music while at the same time browsing in Safari? Or, if allowable, to record a lecture using the Apple Voice Memo app while browsing in Safari (AFAIK there is currently no iTunes voice recording app that will run in the background, but it would be neat if Apple allowed it to do so)?


 Multitasking in its truest definition is to perform two or more processes during a single processing cycle.  All phones can do that.  When you make a call and the time shows while you are on a call.  That is multitasking.  The END USER must use more than one sense in order to multitask on a 3-4 inch screen.  You can't see visually both applications to take in data to multitask.  So you are essentially NOT multitasking in its true definition.  YOU would be multitasking if your friend was talking to you while you were texting someone 1,000 miles away.

 

As you said it yourself.  Background...  That's what everyone really wants.  Have apps able to run in the background.  There's a major difference between the two when it comes down to the END USER.  Companies who use "Multitasking" as the term were playing word games to entice people to buy their phones.

 

As for the Andriod commercial if you notice they didn't even call it Multitasking...  They didn't say "iDon't Multitask" they said "iDon't run simultaneous Applications"

Message Edited by Doppler808 on 11-03-2009 11:49:36 AM

In computing, multitasking is a method by which multiple tasks, also known as processes, share common processing resources such as a CPU. In the case of a computer with a single CPU, only one task is said to be running at any point in time, meaning that the CPU is actively executing instructions for that task. Multitasking solves the problem by scheduling which task may be the one running at any given time, and when another waiting task gets a turn.

 

Gee, so if I have three apps open at the same time on a droid and am switching back and forth between the three of them and doing tasks on them without having to save/reopen....

 

I'M MULTI TASKING AND SO IS THE PHONE.

 

End of discussion.  Next time try and talk about something you know about.


Dude you are so wrong. on a 15 inch screen you can visually collect data from 2 of more visual sources to process from a single processing cycle. On a 3 1/2 inch screen you can't do that. YOU are not multitasking. ALL phones can multitask by definition. The end user is a different story. You can try and validate yourself to think you can multitask on a 3 1/2 inch screen, but by definition YOU can not.

elrondius wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:

tonester wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:
The END USER can't multitask on ANY cell phone unless they make the screens bigger.

I didn't realize that multitasking required a decently-sized screen; however, different folks have different understandings as to what exactly multitasking involves.  Let me put it in a form of a question--on an iPhone, would one be considered to be "multitasking" on it if using the iPod function/app to listen to music while at the same time browsing in Safari? Or, if allowable, to record a lecture using the Apple Voice Memo app while browsing in Safari (AFAIK there is currently no iTunes voice recording app that will run in the background, but it would be neat if Apple allowed it to do so)?


 Multitasking in its truest definition is to perform two or more processes during a single processing cycle.  All phones can do that.  When you make a call and the time shows while you are on a call.  That is multitasking.  The END USER must use more than one sense in order to multitask on a 3-4 inch screen.  You can't see visually both applications to take in data to multitask.  So you are essentially NOT multitasking in its true definition.  YOU would be multitasking if your friend was talking to you while you were texting someone 1,000 miles away.

 

As you said it yourself.  Background...  That's what everyone really wants.  Have apps able to run in the background.  There's a major difference between the two when it comes down to the END USER.  Companies who use "Multitasking" as the term were playing word games to entice people to buy their phones.

 

As for the Andriod commercial if you notice they didn't even call it Multitasking...  They didn't say "iDon't Multitask" they said "iDon't run simultaneous Applications"

Message Edited by Doppler808 on 11-03-2009 11:49:36 AM

In computing, multitasking is a method by which multiple tasks, also known as processes, share common processing resources such as a CPU. In the case of a computer with a single CPU, only one task is said to be running at any point in time, meaning that the CPU is actively executing instructions for that task. Multitasking solves the problem by scheduling which task may be the one running at any given time, and when another waiting task gets a turn.

 

Gee, so if I have three apps open at the same time on a droid and am switching back and forth between the three of them and doing tasks on them without having to save/reopen....

 

I'M MULTI TASKING AND SO IS THE PHONE.

 

End of discussion.  Next time try and talk about something you know about.


Dude you are so wrong. on a 15 inch screen you can visually collect data from 2 of more visual sources to process from a single processing cycle. On a 3 1/2 inch screen you can't do that. YOU are not multitasking. ALL phones can multitask by definition. The end user is a different story. You can try and validate yourself to think you can multitask on a 3 1/2 inch screen, but by definition YOU can not.

Re: iDont/ iDo

78 of 104 (1,118 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 4, 2009 11:10:25 AM
0
(0)
Professor

xPhantomx wrote:

I don't understand why a couple of you are hung up on "multi-tasking" and it's offical technical defination.  Quit simply, multi-tasking for the iPhone would mean running multiple apps at the same time, being able to switch back and forth amoung them, not being forced to end one app in order to run another as it works now.  For cell phones, that's what multi-tasking refers too.  I'd imagine the reason why the iPhone can't is because it doesn't have the processing power to do so efficiently and maybe because Apple doesn't see any reason for it too.  As technology grows and cell phones advance in technology and become more like mini pc's in the palm of your hand, multi-tasking will become more previliant. 

 

If I'm on the go reading an eBook on my iPhone and happen upon a word I don't know the meaning of, it would be nice to open a Dictionary app and find out what it means without having to close down my eReader every time.  This is just one small example of why multi-tasking can be very beneficial and give the user greater freedom and flexability of their devise.  Many don't see this feature as a big deal now, but it will be as time goes on I'm sure.


That would be background processing not multitasking as the end user can not multitask when something is running in the background as YOU can't collect data from the second application to processes.

xPhantomx wrote:

I don't understand why a couple of you are hung up on "multi-tasking" and it's offical technical defination.  Quit simply, multi-tasking for the iPhone would mean running multiple apps at the same time, being able to switch back and forth amoung them, not being forced to end one app in order to run another as it works now.  For cell phones, that's what multi-tasking refers too.  I'd imagine the reason why the iPhone can't is because it doesn't have the processing power to do so efficiently and maybe because Apple doesn't see any reason for it too.  As technology grows and cell phones advance in technology and become more like mini pc's in the palm of your hand, multi-tasking will become more previliant. 

 

If I'm on the go reading an eBook on my iPhone and happen upon a word I don't know the meaning of, it would be nice to open a Dictionary app and find out what it means without having to close down my eReader every time.  This is just one small example of why multi-tasking can be very beneficial and give the user greater freedom and flexability of their devise.  Many don't see this feature as a big deal now, but it will be as time goes on I'm sure.


That would be background processing not multitasking as the end user can not multitask when something is running in the background as YOU can't collect data from the second application to processes.

Re: iDont/ iDo

79 of 104 (1,117 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 4, 2009 11:25:10 AM
0
(0)
Professor
I'm on the fence here, I feel running "iPod music" (or any media player) and surfing the web is multi-tasking, making a call while web surfing IS multi-tasking (Good luck with that VZW lol)! But in the PC world running multiple programs on one screen or multi-screens is what I call Multi-tasking and maybe that's the problem, my Mac does that VERY well and maybe that's why Apple doesn't want to implement it in a junky (Windows Mobile) way on there iPhone.
I'm on the fence here, I feel running "iPod music" (or any media player) and surfing the web is multi-tasking, making a call while web surfing IS multi-tasking (Good luck with that VZW lol)! But in the PC world running multiple programs on one screen or multi-screens is what I call Multi-tasking and maybe that's the problem, my Mac does that VERY well and maybe that's why Apple doesn't want to implement it in a junky (Windows Mobile) way on there iPhone.

Re: iDont/ iDo

80 of 104 (1,109 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 4, 2009 12:00:21 PM
0
(0)
Professor

Demetri70 wrote:
I'm on the fence here, I feel running "iPod music" (or any media player) and surfing the web is multi-tasking, making a call while web surfing IS multi-tasking (Good luck with that VZW lol)! But in the PC world running multiple programs on one screen or multi-screens is what I call Multi-tasking and maybe that's the problem, my Mac does that VERY well and maybe that's why Apple doesn't want to implement it in a junky (Windows Mobile) way on there iPhone.
That is multitasking in a sense, because you are processing data during a processing cycle. You are processing data from sound and visually. When you try and get data from two visual sources NO phone will allow that to happen on a 3 1/2 inch screen even though you have 50 visual type applications running. On a 15 inch screen you can move Apps so you can see 2 or more visually at a time in which then you would be "multitasking".

I had already mentioned this in the other thread. Unless you can use other sources to gather information the END USER can't multitask on a phone. It would merely be background processing in which is COMPLETELY different than multitasking.

Demetri70 wrote:
I'm on the fence here, I feel running "iPod music" (or any media player) and surfing the web is multi-tasking, making a call while web surfing IS multi-tasking (Good luck with that VZW lol)! But in the PC world running multiple programs on one screen or multi-screens is what I call Multi-tasking and maybe that's the problem, my Mac does that VERY well and maybe that's why Apple doesn't want to implement it in a junky (Windows Mobile) way on there iPhone.
That is multitasking in a sense, because you are processing data during a processing cycle. You are processing data from sound and visually. When you try and get data from two visual sources NO phone will allow that to happen on a 3 1/2 inch screen even though you have 50 visual type applications running. On a 15 inch screen you can move Apps so you can see 2 or more visually at a time in which then you would be "multitasking".

I had already mentioned this in the other thread. Unless you can use other sources to gather information the END USER can't multitask on a phone. It would merely be background processing in which is COMPLETELY different than multitasking.

Re: iDont/ iDo

81 of 104 (1,605 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
Nov 4, 2009 12:46:09 PM
0
(0)
Guru

My definition of "multi-tasking" always came from a software orientation, where a processor is running multiple applications simultaneously, regardless of user "focus".

 

As mentioned a few times prior, in my understanding of multi-tasking has little to do with what the user can see and do as opposed to what the device is doing.

 

The iPhone supports limmited "multi-tasking."  I can have a phone conversation going and start up Safari or App Store and browse.  I'd like to be able to have Pandora going while I play Sudoku too, but the iPhone, for whatever reason, does not support that while it does support having the "iPod" playing while I do other things (like play Sudoku).

 

Anyway, beyond that any single threaded OS or single processor system will more than likely only support "time slicing" not actual programmatic or CPU multiprocessing, and as I recall the original iPhone, 2g, and 3g had what I would say were 'comperably weak' processors vs. some of what we've seen coming out of other manufacturers like HTC, but ultimately at this point it's a minor inconvenience.

 

There's not too many circumstances or applications that I'd really have to have multiple apps going on simultaneously.

My definition of "multi-tasking" always came from a software orientation, where a processor is running multiple applications simultaneously, regardless of user "focus".

 

As mentioned a few times prior, in my understanding of multi-tasking has little to do with what the user can see and do as opposed to what the device is doing.

 

The iPhone supports limmited "multi-tasking."  I can have a phone conversation going and start up Safari or App Store and browse.  I'd like to be able to have Pandora going while I play Sudoku too, but the iPhone, for whatever reason, does not support that while it does support having the "iPod" playing while I do other things (like play Sudoku).

 

Anyway, beyond that any single threaded OS or single processor system will more than likely only support "time slicing" not actual programmatic or CPU multiprocessing, and as I recall the original iPhone, 2g, and 3g had what I would say were 'comperably weak' processors vs. some of what we've seen coming out of other manufacturers like HTC, but ultimately at this point it's a minor inconvenience.

 

There's not too many circumstances or applications that I'd really have to have multiple apps going on simultaneously.

Re: iDont/ iDo

82 of 104 (1,587 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 4, 2009 6:02:57 PM
0
(0)
Scholar

Doppler808 wrote:

xPhantomx wrote:

I don't understand why a couple of you are hung up on "multi-tasking" and it's offical technical defination.  Quit simply, multi-tasking for the iPhone would mean running multiple apps at the same time, being able to switch back and forth amoung them, not being forced to end one app in order to run another as it works now.  For cell phones, that's what multi-tasking refers too.  I'd imagine the reason why the iPhone can't is because it doesn't have the processing power to do so efficiently and maybe because Apple doesn't see any reason for it too.  As technology grows and cell phones advance in technology and become more like mini pc's in the palm of your hand, multi-tasking will become more previliant. 

 

If I'm on the go reading an eBook on my iPhone and happen upon a word I don't know the meaning of, it would be nice to open a Dictionary app and find out what it means without having to close down my eReader every time.  This is just one small example of why multi-tasking can be very beneficial and give the user greater freedom and flexability of their devise.  Many don't see this feature as a big deal now, but it will be as time goes on I'm sure.


That would be background processing not multitasking as the end user can not multitask when something is running in the background as YOU can't collect data from the second application to processes.

 

You can have a couple apps running on a pc, can see them both at the same time on your monitor but only one app can be interacted with by the user at a time.  While your interacting with one app the other is essentnially in the background processing data dispite you can still see it on screen.  Plug in two mice to your pc then open two apps and see if you can click on icons on both apps at the exact same time and see if they both obey your commands...won't happen.  Only one app will be active to the user at a time regardless you can see both on screen.  So if I start up the stock market app on the phone and have it fetch stock quotes then open Safari and browse the web, both apps are running and processing data at the same time dispite I can only see and interact with one app at the same time.  To me that's multi-tasking cause I have more than one app processing data, how many I can see on screen at the same time doesn't matter.  That's what I meant by the comment you highlighted me on in my previous response.  Maybe there was some confusion there.

Doppler808 wrote:

xPhantomx wrote:

I don't understand why a couple of you are hung up on "multi-tasking" and it's offical technical defination.  Quit simply, multi-tasking for the iPhone would mean running multiple apps at the same time, being able to switch back and forth amoung them, not being forced to end one app in order to run another as it works now.  For cell phones, that's what multi-tasking refers too.  I'd imagine the reason why the iPhone can't is because it doesn't have the processing power to do so efficiently and maybe because Apple doesn't see any reason for it too.  As technology grows and cell phones advance in technology and become more like mini pc's in the palm of your hand, multi-tasking will become more previliant. 

 

If I'm on the go reading an eBook on my iPhone and happen upon a word I don't know the meaning of, it would be nice to open a Dictionary app and find out what it means without having to close down my eReader every time.  This is just one small example of why multi-tasking can be very beneficial and give the user greater freedom and flexability of their devise.  Many don't see this feature as a big deal now, but it will be as time goes on I'm sure.


That would be background processing not multitasking as the end user can not multitask when something is running in the background as YOU can't collect data from the second application to processes.

 

You can have a couple apps running on a pc, can see them both at the same time on your monitor but only one app can be interacted with by the user at a time.  While your interacting with one app the other is essentnially in the background processing data dispite you can still see it on screen.  Plug in two mice to your pc then open two apps and see if you can click on icons on both apps at the exact same time and see if they both obey your commands...won't happen.  Only one app will be active to the user at a time regardless you can see both on screen.  So if I start up the stock market app on the phone and have it fetch stock quotes then open Safari and browse the web, both apps are running and processing data at the same time dispite I can only see and interact with one app at the same time.  To me that's multi-tasking cause I have more than one app processing data, how many I can see on screen at the same time doesn't matter.  That's what I meant by the comment you highlighted me on in my previous response.  Maybe there was some confusion there.

Re: iDont/ iDo

83 of 104 (1,547 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 4, 2009 10:47:26 PM
0
(0)
Professor

xPhantomx wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:

xPhantomx wrote:

I don't understand why a couple of you are hung up on "multi-tasking" and it's offical technical defination.  Quit simply, multi-tasking for the iPhone would mean running multiple apps at the same time, being able to switch back and forth amoung them, not being forced to end one app in order to run another as it works now.  For cell phones, that's what multi-tasking refers too.  I'd imagine the reason why the iPhone can't is because it doesn't have the processing power to do so efficiently and maybe because Apple doesn't see any reason for it too.  As technology grows and cell phones advance in technology and become more like mini pc's in the palm of your hand, multi-tasking will become more previliant. 

 

If I'm on the go reading an eBook on my iPhone and happen upon a word I don't know the meaning of, it would be nice to open a Dictionary app and find out what it means without having to close down my eReader every time.  This is just one small example of why multi-tasking can be very beneficial and give the user greater freedom and flexability of their devise.  Many don't see this feature as a big deal now, but it will be as time goes on I'm sure.


That would be background processing not multitasking as the end user can not multitask when something is running in the background as YOU can't collect data from the second application to processes.

 

You can have a couple apps running on a pc, can see them both at the same time on your monitor but only one app can be interacted with by the user at a time.  While your interacting with one app the other is essentnially in the background processing data dispite you can still see it on screen.  Plug in two mice to your pc then open two apps and see if you can click on icons on both apps at the exact same time and see if they both obey your commands...won't happen.  Only one app will be active to the user at a time regardless you can see both on screen.  So if I start up the stock market app on the phone and have it fetch stock quotes then open Safari and browse the web, both apps are running and processing data at the same time dispite I can only see and interact with one app at the same time.  To me that's multi-tasking cause I have more than one app processing data, how many I can see on screen at the same time doesn't matter.  That's what I meant by the comment you highlighted me on in my previous response.  Maybe there was some confusion there.
Actually there's a difference. Lets say you want to see who won the world series WHILE making an application for you work place. I could have ESPN.com on one window and then write my code on the other. I could process the information who is up to bat, who is pitching, the score, and while doing my programming. That is multitasking, but as soon as I have it running in the background I can't see that information at real time while doing it. That information is lost to be processed. It is still being processed in the background by the computer, but not the END USER. So the END USER could have never multitasked. For the END USER to truly Multitask they must use other sense simultaneously to process information. IF just using sight YOU must have the information in front of you or else you CAN'T process that information.

xPhantomx wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:

xPhantomx wrote:

I don't understand why a couple of you are hung up on "multi-tasking" and it's offical technical defination.  Quit simply, multi-tasking for the iPhone would mean running multiple apps at the same time, being able to switch back and forth amoung them, not being forced to end one app in order to run another as it works now.  For cell phones, that's what multi-tasking refers too.  I'd imagine the reason why the iPhone can't is because it doesn't have the processing power to do so efficiently and maybe because Apple doesn't see any reason for it too.  As technology grows and cell phones advance in technology and become more like mini pc's in the palm of your hand, multi-tasking will become more previliant. 

 

If I'm on the go reading an eBook on my iPhone and happen upon a word I don't know the meaning of, it would be nice to open a Dictionary app and find out what it means without having to close down my eReader every time.  This is just one small example of why multi-tasking can be very beneficial and give the user greater freedom and flexability of their devise.  Many don't see this feature as a big deal now, but it will be as time goes on I'm sure.


That would be background processing not multitasking as the end user can not multitask when something is running in the background as YOU can't collect data from the second application to processes.

 

You can have a couple apps running on a pc, can see them both at the same time on your monitor but only one app can be interacted with by the user at a time.  While your interacting with one app the other is essentnially in the background processing data dispite you can still see it on screen.  Plug in two mice to your pc then open two apps and see if you can click on icons on both apps at the exact same time and see if they both obey your commands...won't happen.  Only one app will be active to the user at a time regardless you can see both on screen.  So if I start up the stock market app on the phone and have it fetch stock quotes then open Safari and browse the web, both apps are running and processing data at the same time dispite I can only see and interact with one app at the same time.  To me that's multi-tasking cause I have more than one app processing data, how many I can see on screen at the same time doesn't matter.  That's what I meant by the comment you highlighted me on in my previous response.  Maybe there was some confusion there.
Actually there's a difference. Lets say you want to see who won the world series WHILE making an application for you work place. I could have ESPN.com on one window and then write my code on the other. I could process the information who is up to bat, who is pitching, the score, and while doing my programming. That is multitasking, but as soon as I have it running in the background I can't see that information at real time while doing it. That information is lost to be processed. It is still being processed in the background by the computer, but not the END USER. So the END USER could have never multitasked. For the END USER to truly Multitask they must use other sense simultaneously to process information. IF just using sight YOU must have the information in front of you or else you CAN'T process that information.

Re: iDont/ iDo

84 of 104 (1,522 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 5, 2009 5:45:17 AM
0
(0)
Scholar
Not allowing 3rd party apps to run in the background make GPS tracking programs pretty much useless for me.

As kayaker and bicyclist I wanted something that would track my paths so I gave a couple of the GPS tracker applications a try but soon discovered that they only tracked my path if they were left open making them pretty much useless as they would stop tracking if I got a phone call or used my phone for anything at all while the application was tracking my path.
Not allowing 3rd party apps to run in the background make GPS tracking programs pretty much useless for me.

As kayaker and bicyclist I wanted something that would track my paths so I gave a couple of the GPS tracker applications a try but soon discovered that they only tracked my path if they were left open making them pretty much useless as they would stop tracking if I got a phone call or used my phone for anything at all while the application was tracking my path.

Re: iDont/ iDo

85 of 104 (1,500 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 5, 2009 9:19:51 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

From Computerworld:

 

The new Droid slider smartphone by Motorola Inc., running on the Verizon Wireless network, is clearly not an iPhone killer. But it is still pretty cool, with multitasking abilities and Google Inc.'s touches, such as quick access to Google Maps for turn-by-turn navigation with GPS.

 

I guess the Computerworld people are just clueless huh?

From Computerworld:

 

The new Droid slider smartphone by Motorola Inc., running on the Verizon Wireless network, is clearly not an iPhone killer. But it is still pretty cool, with multitasking abilities and Google Inc.'s touches, such as quick access to Google Maps for turn-by-turn navigation with GPS.

 

I guess the Computerworld people are just clueless huh?

Re: iDont/ iDo

86 of 104 (1,481 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 5, 2009 10:30:02 AM
0
(0)
Guru
Edited by tonester on Nov 5, 2009 at 10:31:11 AM

Doppler808 wrote:
For the END USER to truly Multitask they must use other sense simultaneously to process information. IF just using sight YOU must have the information in front of you or else you CAN'T process that information.

I'm confused--based on your comments made above (underline and bold are mine) and in a previous post in this thread...wouldn't listening to music using the iPod function while at the same time texting someone using the Messages app (or similar) be considered end-user multitasking?  After all, two senses (sound/hearing and sight...and actually, three if you consider touch since you'd be tapping the screen if you're composing a text message) are being used simultaneously...no?  Not unless by "sense" you were referring to something entirely different from what my understanding of the word "sense" is...

Message Edited by tonester on 11-05-2009 10:31:11 AM

Doppler808 wrote:
For the END USER to truly Multitask they must use other sense simultaneously to process information. IF just using sight YOU must have the information in front of you or else you CAN'T process that information.

I'm confused--based on your comments made above (underline and bold are mine) and in a previous post in this thread...wouldn't listening to music using the iPod function while at the same time texting someone using the Messages app (or similar) be considered end-user multitasking?  After all, two senses (sound/hearing and sight...and actually, three if you consider touch since you'd be tapping the screen if you're composing a text message) are being used simultaneously...no?  Not unless by "sense" you were referring to something entirely different from what my understanding of the word "sense" is...

Message Edited by tonester on 11-05-2009 10:31:11 AM

Re: iDont/ iDo

[ Edited ]
87 of 104 (1,465 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 5, 2009 10:42:11 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

Its been understood by people who are halfway tech savvy or informed that the iPhone can multitask to a limited degree, such as listening to music and doing one other task.  So the Doid ads are a bit misleading.  "I do limited multi-tasking" doesn't make for  as good a commercial, I suppose.

 

Multi-task, background processing, call it what you want.  The distinction is just esoteric nomenclature at best.   Its pretty clear that Apple wanted to maintain a smooth running device by not clogging up RAM with a bunch of different processes.  Yes, many other platforms (Palm Pre, Droid, Windows Mobile) can have simultaneous programs open, as long as you don't overwhelm the program memory. But that feature is really not that big a deal.

Its been understood by people who are halfway tech savvy or informed that the iPhone can multitask to a limited degree, such as listening to music and doing one other task.  So the Doid ads are a bit misleading.  "I do limited multi-tasking" doesn't make for  as good a commercial, I suppose.

 

Multi-task, background processing, call it what you want.  The distinction is just esoteric nomenclature at best.   Its pretty clear that Apple wanted to maintain a smooth running device by not clogging up RAM with a bunch of different processes.  Yes, many other platforms (Palm Pre, Droid, Windows Mobile) can have simultaneous programs open, as long as you don't overwhelm the program memory. But that feature is really not that big a deal.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: iDont/ iDo

88 of 104 (1,456 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 5, 2009 10:43:15 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

tonester wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:
For the END USER to truly Multitask they must use other sense simultaneously to process information. IF just using sight YOU must have the information in front of you or else you CAN'T process that information.

I'm confused--based on your comments made above (underline and bold are mine) and in a previous post in this thread...wouldn't listening to music using the iPod function while at the same time texting someone using the Messages app (or similar) be considered end-user multitasking?  After all, two senses (sound/hearing and sight...and actually, three if you consider touch since you'd be tapping the screen if you're composing a text message) are being used simultaneously...no?  Not unless by "sense" you were referring to something entirely different from what my understanding of the word "sense" is...

Message Edited by tonester on 11-05-2009 10:31:11 AM

 

Yes, that's what he means.  It doesn't matter if you can physically see both apps.  We're not talking about the end user multi-tasking in the way he's saying, we're talking about the devise itself multi-tasking.  Weather you can see both apps processing at the same time on screen or not, the processor is still multi-tasking data for both apps at the same time.  So who cares if you have to switch back and forth beween apps because you can only see one on the screen at a time, you still have multiple apps processing data for you.  Switching back and forth only having one app on the screen at a time is just the downside of cell phones and their small screens.

 

The Palm Pre can multi-task apps, but as you see on the commericials you can only see one app at a time on screen, cause that's all there is room for.  But you and the phone are multi-tasking, just the inconvienence of having to switch back and forth amoung apps.


tonester wrote:

Doppler808 wrote:
For the END USER to truly Multitask they must use other sense simultaneously to process information. IF just using sight YOU must have the information in front of you or else you CAN'T process that information.

I'm confused--based on your comments made above (underline and bold are mine) and in a previous post in this thread...wouldn't listening to music using the iPod function while at the same time texting someone using the Messages app (or similar) be considered end-user multitasking?  After all, two senses (sound/hearing and sight...and actually, three if you consider touch since you'd be tapping the screen if you're composing a text message) are being used simultaneously...no?  Not unless by "sense" you were referring to something entirely different from what my understanding of the word "sense" is...

Message Edited by tonester on 11-05-2009 10:31:11 AM

 

Yes, that's what he means.  It doesn't matter if you can physically see both apps.  We're not talking about the end user multi-tasking in the way he's saying, we're talking about the devise itself multi-tasking.  Weather you can see both apps processing at the same time on screen or not, the processor is still multi-tasking data for both apps at the same time.  So who cares if you have to switch back and forth beween apps because you can only see one on the screen at a time, you still have multiple apps processing data for you.  Switching back and forth only having one app on the screen at a time is just the downside of cell phones and their small screens.

 

The Palm Pre can multi-task apps, but as you see on the commericials you can only see one app at a time on screen, cause that's all there is room for.  But you and the phone are multi-tasking, just the inconvienence of having to switch back and forth amoung apps.

Re: iDont/ iDo

89 of 104 (1,454 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Nov 5, 2009 11:26:18 AM
0
(0)
Expert

elrondius wrote:

From Computerworld:

 

The new Droid slider smartphone by Motorola Inc., running on the Verizon Wireless network, is clearly not an iPhone killer. But it is still pretty cool, with multitasking abilities and Google Inc.'s touches, such as quick access to Google Maps for turn-by-turn navigation with GPS.

 

I guess the Computerworld people are just clueless huh?


 

So when are you going to switch? Just remember that VZW just raised their ETF on smartphones to 375, so it will cost you a pretty penny if you find out you where wrong.

elrondius wrote:

From Computerworld:

 

The new Droid slider smartphone by Motorola Inc., running on the Verizon Wireless network, is clearly not an iPhone killer. But it is still pretty cool, with multitasking abilities and Google Inc.'s touches, such as quick access to Google Maps for turn-by-turn navigation with GPS.

 

I guess the Computerworld people are just clueless huh?


 

So when are you going to switch? Just remember that VZW just raised their ETF on smartphones to 375, so it will cost you a pretty penny if you find out you where wrong.

Re: iDont/ iDo

90 of 104 (1,437 Views)
Share this post
Share this post