The Outsidr: The Power of Push: Push Notifications vs. Multitasking
Ricky Cadden
· 5 months ago
If I recall correctly, though, those push notifications come from a server somewhere, and are not *entirely* handled by the phone, is that correct? If not, ignore me. If so, then...
That's an incredibly lame option for multitasking, since it won't work if you don't have a connection. Music players, ebook readers, email clients, gaming, etc. And what happens when Apple's server goes down? (*ALL* servers go down, at some point, at least once). What then?
While I see your point about it being more efficient, I definitely don't buy it from a usability standpoint.
outsidr
· 5 months ago
But push notifications aren't an "option for multitasking". The system is something entirely different -- and better in some cases as I pointed out above.
Yes, push notifications are a mechanism of a server and if the server goes down the system goes down. Such is life unfortunately. Similarly however, if AOL's AIM servers go down you can't IM. If AP News' serves go down you can't read its stories. And so on. If the body empowering push notifications is large and knowledgeable, interruptions should be at a minimum as they are will all hardy networks. In some cases the best solution might be for the service provider to also host the push notification server. Regardless, there will always be outages just as there are with AIM, AP News and every other service that relies on computers.
As for the rest of your comment, yes we agree. Push notifications are not always useful for apps like music players, games, etc (though I'm not sure how you would play a game if it was in the background). E-book readers and email apps are prime candidates for push notifications though. If you don't have a connection, you can't get new data -- if you have an internet connection you can. Data (existing e-books, existing emails) is still stored locally and as such, it's still useful with or without a connection. The difference is that now, these apps have zero drain on your resources.
antonioj
· 5 months ago
If only the iphone notification system did not SUCK. However, it can suck less with GriP (growl for iphone), now with support for push notifications (bye bye stupid popup on the middle of the screen)
Sad to see you've become an Apple fanboy. There, I said it, hate me, ban me, whatever. I 'get' absolutely nothing out of this post. I really don't. Except that you're desperately trying to explain Apple's decision to have this notification system. It's great and all, but it's not multitasking. And therefore the iPhone is not a smartphone, no matter how much you want it to be. Battery life? I can handle that. Really. I. Can. I don't have to rely on Stevie to think that one for me. I can think by myself. And not leave dozens of apps running at the same time. It really is that simple.
Oh, and one more thing. Especially since the 3GS (is that a plural or a brand? oh wait, Apple's branding guys are geniuses, I must not make fun of that) *is* so fast, not having multitasking is ridiculous. Just ridiculous. That is all.
I really am considering unsubscribing, not that it would make any difference to you, but this, for me, is sad. I've enjoyed a lot of posts over here, and over time I have disagreed with your points, *but* everything you wrote was rational and well-thought, so that did not bother me. This is anything but rational.
PS: I do agree that in some cases the push system might be superior to multitasking. One or two cases. That's it. Remember the backlash when Microsoft wanted Win7 Starter to only run 3 (foreground, mind you) apps? Oh, yeah. That was Microsoft and it is evil. This is Apple and they are gods. Sorry, I forget.
It still amazes me, to this day, how caught up in your bubble you Apple fans are.
outsidr
· 5 months ago
I'm not going to take the time to write up an itemized response to what came off as a pretty fanatical comment. I always find it amusing that people can have actual hatred for a company that manifests itself in bizarre, unwarranted and borderline-ridiculous ramblings.
Go if you must but before you do, try giving this post a second read. Maybe even a third. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but judging from your response you really didn't understand this post or my position at all. Not even a little bit. It's like you're replying to 50 posts you read on other blogs, but doing so on this blog for some reason.
If recognizing the potential of a new solution and pointing out how it might work in conjunction with currently available features to overcome limitations that will always be present in mobile devices somehow makes me a "fanboy" in your eyes, that's fine. It still doesn't negate the viability of the solution though, and it definitely doesn't have any bearing on reality.
Vlad
· 5 months ago
I apologize if it came off as a fanatical comment. It was a rare thing for me, but I just wrote it without giving it a few hours' thought. And your point about replying on your blog to what I've read on 50 others might be true, in retrospect.
I also wish you wouldn't take it personally. Even if it seems like it was something personal, it wasn't. And it's not. You don't know me, but with me, it never is personal. If I come off as aggressive (like might have happened here), it's not toward you. Or anyone else for that matter. My comments were about your thoughts, written in the post, nothing else.
But, the thing is, I have re-read it. I still don't understand why you wrote it. In fact, I understood more of that from your comments (not only the reply to me), than from the post itself.
If you wanted to point out a new 'thing', fine. Not that there's anyone in the tech world who still doesn't know about it, but fine.
My beef is this. If you want to make it into a new thing that may in some ways (as I said, very few, but still) be better than multitasking, that's very fine by me. As long as you realise that the advantages of multitasking are infinitely, well, more.
If you say "hey, here's this new push notification thing, it's interesting, and here are its strengths", ok.
But the feeling (yes, I know...) I got from the post was that you were trying, really trying, to prove that this is better than multitasking no matter what the use-case. Which is just plain wrong, and where my 'fanboy' line came from. See, 'tis what Apple is trying to do. Re-invent the wheel by making it square and then getting people to fanatically (yes!) adore that concept. Because, you know, surely if Apple did it, it's gotta be better than what everyone else is doing. In some cases, that may be true, but in this one, it just isn't.
I don't hate. Anyone or anything. I don't hate Apple, I don't hate the iPhone, I don't hate you. I'm just trying to be rational (and failing, it seems, but in a different way than the Gizmodo's of the world) in a tech/blogosphere which is caught up in a very irrational bubble when it comes to anything Apple does.
I try to point out when marketing is just marketing and nothing more. Not because I enjoy doing this all that much, but because I see more and more people fall for stuff their experience and smarts should make them avoid. And see for what it really is.
I don't know what Apple's internal reasoning for not having multitasking is. I don't care. But for me, calling it a smartphone when it can't multitask is just marketing. And it certainly isn't smart.
And I do like the push notification idea, believe it or not. But imho, it has to be implemented in a phone that can multitask, too. Now that would truly be a great evolution of the stuff everyone else is doing. So much so that in a few years we would possibly even call it a revolution. Lack of multitasking is neither.
I hope I've made myself heard better this time. I didn't unsubscribe, and I won't. One post that seems 'off' isn't worth it. But please, don't stare at the lights for too long. They'll blind you. (So as to not be misunderstood, I will say that by lights I mean marketing. And by being blind I mean not seeing the whole picture). Thing is, I kinda knew you aren't the type to do this, which is probably why my reaction was as it was.
I've always appreciated your work, and I still do. I just didn't particularly appreciate this post, that's all.
This was not about Apple or Nokia or whatever. It was about my fear that one of the voices I most respect in the mobile blogosphere might have turned into a fanboy. I'm the first one to be very happy if I was wrong.
You can't push notice streaming media ... end of story. alerts are not always contextual either which is pretty lame.
outsidr
· 5 months ago
"Now with that said, not every app is a candidate for background notifications. Music players for example, need to be able to run in the background. Also, apps that interact with OS elements need to be able to run background processes (profile schedulers, local alarms, call filters, etc). Push notifications are most definitely not an all-encompassing solution. This is where the iPhone still falls short and will continue to fall short until Apple A) allows certain third-party apps to run background processes and B) allows third-party applications to interact with the OS. But imagine if your Windows Mobile or Symbian handset had an implemented system where Twitter apps, IM apps, etc could utilize background notifications while call filters, music players and profile schedulers could continue to run background processes. Mobile bliss."
;)
Jonathan
· 5 months ago
bliss indeed ...
outsidr
· 5 months ago
"Now with that said, not every app is a candidate for background notifications. Music players for example, need to be able to run in the background. Also, apps that interact with OS elements need to be able to run background processes (profile schedulers, local alarms, call filters, etc). Push notifications are most definitely not an all-encompassing solution. This is where the iPhone still falls short and will continue to fall short until Apple A) allows certain third-party apps to run background processes and B) allows third-party applications to interact with the OS. But imagine if your Windows Mobile or Symbian handset had an implemented system where Twitter apps, IM apps, etc could utilize background notifications while call filters, music players and profile schedulers could continue to run background processes. Mobile bliss."
All Comments
That's an incredibly lame option for multitasking, since it won't work if you don't have a connection. Music players, ebook readers, email clients, gaming, etc. And what happens when Apple's server goes down? (*ALL* servers go down, at some point, at least once). What then?
While I see your point about it being more efficient, I definitely don't buy it from a usability standpoint.
something entirely different -- and better in some cases as I pointed out
above.
Yes, push notifications are a mechanism of a server and if the server goes
down the system goes down. Such is life unfortunately. Similarly however, if
AOL's AIM servers go down you can't IM. If AP News' serves go down you can't
read its stories. And so on. If the body empowering push notifications is
large and knowledgeable, interruptions should be at a minimum as they are
will all hardy networks. In some cases the best solution might be for the
service provider to also host the push notification server. Regardless,
there will always be outages just as there are with AIM, AP News and every
other service that relies on computers.
As for the rest of your comment, yes we agree. Push notifications are not
always useful for apps like music players, games, etc (though I'm not sure
how you would play a game if it was in the background). E-book readers and
email apps are prime candidates for push notifications though. If you don't
have a connection, you can't get new data -- if you have an internet
connection you can. Data (existing e-books, existing emails) is still stored
locally and as such, it's still useful with or without a connection. The
difference is that now, these apps have zero drain on your resources.
http://networkpx.blogspot.com/2009/06/grip-01-1...
Battery life? I can handle that. Really. I. Can. I don't have to rely on Stevie to think that one for me. I can think by myself. And not leave dozens of apps running at the same time. It really is that simple.
Oh, and one more thing. Especially since the 3GS (is that a plural or a brand? oh wait, Apple's branding guys are geniuses, I must not make fun of that) *is* so fast, not having multitasking is ridiculous. Just ridiculous. That is all.
I really am considering unsubscribing, not that it would make any difference to you, but this, for me, is sad. I've enjoyed a lot of posts over here, and over time I have disagreed with your points, *but* everything you wrote was rational and well-thought, so that did not bother me. This is anything but rational.
PS: I do agree that in some cases the push system might be superior to multitasking. One or two cases. That's it. Remember the backlash when Microsoft wanted Win7 Starter to only run 3 (foreground, mind you) apps? Oh, yeah. That was Microsoft and it is evil. This is Apple and they are gods. Sorry, I forget.
It still amazes me, to this day, how caught up in your bubble you Apple fans are.
off as a pretty fanatical comment. I always find it amusing that people can
have actual hatred for a company that manifests itself in bizarre,
unwarranted and borderline-ridiculous ramblings.
Go if you must but before you do, try giving this post a second read. Maybe
even a third. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but judging from your response you
really didn't understand this post or my position at all. Not even a little
bit. It's like you're replying to 50 posts you read on other blogs, but doing
so on this blog for some reason.
If recognizing the potential of a new solution and pointing out how it might
work in conjunction with currently available features to overcome limitations
that will always be present in mobile devices somehow makes me a "fanboy" in
your eyes, that's fine. It still doesn't negate the viability of the
solution though, and it definitely doesn't have any bearing on reality.
me, but I just wrote it without giving it a few hours' thought.
And your point about replying on your blog to what I've read on 50 others
might be true, in retrospect.
I also wish you wouldn't take it personally. Even if it seems like it was
something personal, it wasn't. And it's not. You don't know me, but with me,
it never is personal. If I come off as aggressive (like might have happened
here), it's not toward you. Or anyone else for that matter. My comments were
about your thoughts, written in the post, nothing else.
But, the thing is, I have re-read it. I still don't understand why you wrote
it. In fact, I understood more of that from your comments (not only the
reply to me), than from the post itself.
If you wanted to point out a new 'thing', fine. Not that there's anyone in
the tech world who still doesn't know about it, but fine.
My beef is this. If you want to make it into a new thing that may in some
ways (as I said, very few, but still) be better than multitasking, that's
very fine by me. As long as you realise that the advantages of multitasking
are infinitely, well, more.
If you say "hey, here's this new push notification thing, it's interesting,
and here are its strengths", ok.
But the feeling (yes, I know...) I got from the post was that you were
trying, really trying, to prove that this is better than multitasking no
matter what the use-case. Which is just plain wrong, and where my 'fanboy'
line came from. See, 'tis what Apple is trying to do. Re-invent the wheel by
making it square and then getting people to fanatically (yes!) adore that
concept. Because, you know, surely if Apple did it, it's gotta be better
than what everyone else is doing. In some cases, that may be true, but in
this one, it just isn't.
I don't hate. Anyone or anything. I don't hate Apple, I don't hate the
iPhone, I don't hate you. I'm just trying to be rational (and failing, it
seems, but in a different way than the Gizmodo's of the world) in a
tech/blogosphere which is caught up in a very irrational bubble when it
comes to anything Apple does.
I try to point out when marketing is just marketing and nothing more. Not
because I enjoy doing this all that much, but because I see more and more
people fall for stuff their experience and smarts should make them avoid.
And see for what it really is.
I don't know what Apple's internal reasoning for not having multitasking is.
I don't care. But for me, calling it a smartphone when it can't multitask is
just marketing. And it certainly isn't smart.
And I do like the push notification idea, believe it or not. But imho, it
has to be implemented in a phone that can multitask, too. Now that would
truly be a great evolution of the stuff everyone else is doing. So much so
that in a few years we would possibly even call it a revolution. Lack of
multitasking is neither.
I hope I've made myself heard better this time. I didn't unsubscribe, and I
won't. One post that seems 'off' isn't worth it. But please, don't stare at
the lights for too long. They'll blind you. (So as to not be misunderstood,
I will say that by lights I mean marketing. And by being blind I mean not
seeing the whole picture).
Thing is, I kinda knew you aren't the type to do this, which is probably why
my reaction was as it was.
I've always appreciated your work, and I still do. I just didn't
particularly appreciate this post, that's all.
This was not about Apple or Nokia or whatever. It was about my fear that one
of the voices I most respect in the mobile blogosphere might have turned
into a fanboy. I'm the first one to be very happy if I was wrong.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/10/editorial-ta...
notifications. Music players for example, need to be able to run in the
background. Also, apps that interact with OS elements need to be able to run
background processes (profile schedulers, local alarms, call filters, etc).
Push notifications are most definitely not an all-encompassing solution.
This is where the iPhone still falls short and will continue to fall short
until Apple A) allows certain third-party apps to run background processes
and B) allows third-party applications to interact with the OS. But imagine
if your Windows Mobile or Symbian handset had an implemented system where
Twitter apps, IM apps, etc could utilize background notifications while call
filters, music players and profile schedulers could continue to run
background processes. Mobile bliss."
;)
notifications. Music players for example, need to be able to run in the
background. Also, apps that interact with OS elements need to be able to run
background processes (profile schedulers, local alarms, call filters, etc).
Push notifications are most definitely not an all-encompassing solution.
This is where the iPhone still falls short and will continue to fall short
until Apple A) allows certain third-party apps to run background processes
and B) allows third-party applications to interact with the OS. But imagine
if your Windows Mobile or Symbian handset had an implemented system where
Twitter apps, IM apps, etc could utilize background notifications while call
filters, music players and profile schedulers could continue to run
background processes. Mobile bliss."
;)