No Porn In The Windows Phone 7 Marketplace

[Jon Westfall]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/06/windows-phone-7-marketplace-to-be-porn-free-zone.ars' target='_blank'>http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...n-free-zone.ars</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Also published are the application certification requirements that applications must meet to be allowed in the Marketplace. Just as with the Windows Mobile Marketplace, no porn or sexually suggestive content is allowed. Microsoft is clearly seeking to avoid the controversy that Apple faced when it yanked porn from the store. Microsoft still hasn't committed to offering any alternative way of loading applications. Businesses wanting their own privately developed, privately deployed software will still have to go via Marketplace. Their programs will still be private, but as things stand, there won't be any mechanism for cutting out the middleman."</em></p><p>Sorry to dash your thoughts of Microsoft as the "cool dude that's down with dirty pictures" - They won't allow pornographic apps in the Windows Phone 7 marketplace. But do we really need that anyway? As many have said, most smartphones already have the best porn application out there - a web browser. So is this all just a bunch of smoke porn-loving journalists keep resurrecting with Win Phone, Apple, and others? I mean, how shocking is it that a major corporation wouldn't want offensive content displayed on it's service?</p>

[Fritzly]

The point is not if I wanted porno or not, the point is that I am the one who decide what I do with my device. If you prefer "Freedom to choose".
Regrettably MS is desperately trying to copy Apple in every details....

[Ed Hansberry]

I think it is more of an issue of it being nightmarish for parents to control what is on their children's devices. Games for consoles and PC's are rated now and parents can easily control what they allow to run on the machines. Doing the same for mobile apps though would be a daunting task given how fast they proliferate.

I side with MS on this one - better safe than sorry. As an adult, if you need porn, you don't need an app store to get it.

[Fritzly]

I think it is more of an issue of it being nightmarish for parents to control what is on their children's devices. Games for consoles and PC's are rated now and parents can easily control what they allow to run on the machines. Doing the same for mobile apps though would be a daunting task given how fast they proliferate.

I side with MS on this one - better safe than sorry. As an adult, if you need porn, you don't need an app store to get it.

I do not need porn, I want my freedom of choice; very different.

Technically speaking MS could just block certain sections of the market depending by the age of the person signing in.

Finally what is "porn"? In the US be on a beach in topless would be; when I was a child I remember be on the beaches of the French Riviere in early '60 and nobody cared about topless.

[wreiad]

I do not need porn, I want my freedom of choice; very different.

Technically speaking MS could just block certain sections of the market depending by the age of the person signing in.

Finally what is "porn"? In the US be on a beach in topless would be; when I was a child I remember be on the beaches of the French Riviere in early '60 and nobody cared about topless.
Shouldn't Microsoft have the 'freedom' to limit what you do with their phones? If you want 'freedom', use your discretion and buy another device that allows porn apps and don't buy a wp7 device. I don't really understand why people have this misguided 'freedom' mentality. You're privledged to use the devices, and just like on this website, there are rules you must abide to ie you can't have everything you want just from throwing around the word 'freedom'.

[doogald]

I do not need porn, I want my freedom of choice; very different.

You have the freedom to access anything that you want to on the internet. If being a creep is part of it, go for it.

[Jon Westfall]

The point is not if I wanted porno or not, the point is that I am the one who decide what I do with my device. If you prefer "Freedom to choose".
Regrettably MS is desperately trying to copy Apple in every details....

Well, I suppose I look at it this way. Yes, you did buy the device and should be able to do with it what you wish. However buying a device doesn't give you any right to demand the product be tailored to your desires. Let's use a different analogy: You want to buy a specific brand of watch - and none of those watches include a second-hand. If you buy one, do you have any right to demand the watchmaker let you add a second hand easily?

So yes, you could jack open the watch and add your own second-hand - just like I'm sure someone will find a way to put apps on a WP7 device that didn't get listed in the app store. It's Microsoft's product, and it's Microsoft's call on how they want it to be. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to buy it (this is one of the few times I find myself sounding like Steve Jobs... and it's sorta scary!)

And besides, the browser will probably give you better porn access than any app would anyway, and most likely cheaper!

[Fritzly]

Which is exactly what I will do: Steve Jobs and now his epigons at MS will not have the "privilege" to see my money.

[ptyork]

I'm forever amazed not so much at the big-brother censoring that Apple and now Microsoft are imposing but at the big-brother-knows-best mindset that so many of you (and by you, by extension I mean our society) are espousing. As with Fritzly, I could care less if porn is accessible on my phone, but I sure want to make that decision for myself or for my own family. Furthermore, I want to decide what kind of material is considered acceptable. Apple is banning cartoon boobs from Ulysses, political cartoons, apps with certain politically charged content, and other forms of expression as it deems fit. Keeping hard porn out of the hands of children is one thing. Social engineering by my effing phone company is a whole 'nother thing entirely. Give ME the tools to limit what I see and what my kids can see. DO NOT attempt to tell me what is right for me. Even when you're right, you'll be wrong.

I was already leaning (way) away from the WP7 platform. Now I'm running away entirely. Thank God for Google. MS I've been a big supporter and an MS developer for 20 years, but you're REALLY disappointing me. If you're going to copy your competition, don't do it blindly.

PS - Slightly unrelated, but how on earth does Apple expect the magazine publishing industry to "standardize" on the iPad when Apple is going to have final editorial power over their content. What a joke! I'm sorry, but this model fails so badly it is painful.

[Ed Hansberry]

ptyork and others, why do you think your right to self censor trumps Microsoft's and Apple's rights to develop the platform they want to develop and include the content they want to include? I think you have it backwards. Your taxpayer money isn't funding them.

Do you boycott G, PG and PG-13 movies because there is no porn in them and you feel they are making content decisions for you?

Do you boycott broadcast TV because there is no porn in them and you feel they are making content decisions for you?

Do you boycott most news sites on the web because, as a rule, there is no porn in them and you feel they are making content decisions for you?

Do you boycott tech sites on the web because, as a rule, there is no porn in them and you feel they are making content decisions for you?

Or, do you just boycott Microsoft and Apple because you feel they are making content decisions for you?

[Fritzly]

ptyork and others, why do you think your right to self censor trumps Microsoft's and Apple's rights to develop the platform they want to develop and include the content they want to include? I think you have it backwards. Your taxpayer money isn't funding them.

Do you boycott G, PG and PG-13 movies because there is no porn in them and you feel they are making content decisions for you?

Do you boycott broadcast TV because there is no porn in them and you feel they are making content decisions for you?

Do you boycott most news sites on the web because, as a rule, there is no porn in them and you feel they are making content decisions for you?

Do you boycott tech sites on the web because, as a rule, there is no porn in them and you feel they are making content decisions for you?

Or, do you just boycott Microsoft and Apple because you feel they are making content decisions for you?

Please do not compare apples with oranges: I would not buy a DVD player which would restrict what I can play as well as a PC that would restrict what site I can browse.
And let me reiterate a concept it seems eluding you: it is not about porn but a company that arrogate the right to decide what I can do.
Laws are supposed to establish it not companies or individual; regrettably it seems that Plato's "Republic" is not longer a popular reading nowadays.

[Ed Hansberry]

Please do not compare apples with oranges: I would not buy a DVD player which would restrict what I can play as well as a PC that would restrict what site I can browse.
Not apples and oranges at all. However...
And let me reiterate a concept it seems eluding you: it is not about porn but a company that arrogate the right to decide what I can do.
what seems to elude you is why do you think you have the right to decide what features/content MS must support. What yo uhave the right to do is not purchase it.

Laws are supposed to establish it not companies or individual; regrettably it seems that Plato's "Republic" is not longer a popular reading nowadays.
Companies have the full right to dictate what their product is capable of/not capable of, assuming such decisions don't contradict laws. Not sure why that is so hard to grasp. But, because this has been repeated several times in this thread, i suppose you may be excercising your right to ignore it. That is your right of course.

I am going to excercise my right to not respond to the next response that makes the same complaint in another way. ;)

[ptyork]

ptyork and others, why do you think your right to self censor trumps Microsoft's and Apple's rights to develop the platform they want to develop and include the content they want to include? I think you have it backwards. Your taxpayer money isn't funding them.

I didn't say it trumped it. I didn't scream they were violating my 1st amendment rights. I said they were doing the wrong thing. And I think that it is amazing that they are allowed to get away with it--NOT by the government but simply by the buying public and the free press. Our society has moved a long way away from the "live free or die" mentality we had even 20 years ago and we are allowing big corporations to dictate morality simply because they are considered "cool." Since when did we start to trust massive multi-national organizations in this way?

As for your analogies, you got most of them completely wrong. This is a PLATFORM. Not specific content. Theater vs. movie. Television vs. TV station. Internet vs. web site. You're at the wrong level. I wrote countless posts on Apple Thoughts a while back trying to explain the problems with this type of policy. There are many, but the main one is that they are disallowing all content except that which passes through their marketplace AND they are censoring that marketplace. If they allowed side loading of apps (i.e., if there was a competing marketplace that did not censor) then that would be fine. But they don't.

It's a "kind-of-big" deal for the consumer. Let's try my analogy. You have (likely unknowingly) fallen into a two year relationship with a crazy control freak. Okay, not crazy, but lets say you like to drink and curse on occasion but you somehow fell in lust with a Mormon. And you can't even sneak a drink or curse in on the side because she's got you constantly monitored. I can't even make my favorite spaghetti sauce because it requires red wine! Uugh!!! You could break things off, but it'd be painful and probably cost you quite a bit. Worse, you're in a REALLY small town with only three eligible women, and she's by far the hottest one there. And in many ways you really like her. It makes decisions tough at the very least. I give MS credit for explaining their policy in advance. I'd never have considered buying my iPhone had I known in advance how psycho controlling Apple was going to be with their app store. At least I can decide not to support MS before buying into a two year contract.

But it is far worse for the content provider / app developer. They have either to accept censorship and distribute "lesser" apps in the market or stick to their guns and give the market the finger. If there's an alternative market for the platform, that's no big deal, but there isn't. If I want to target an iPhone owner with my app, I have only one possible way to do that. And believe me, as an app developer, I WANT to target an iPhone owner since they account for 99%+ of all app sales.

And what is the definition of the unacceptable content? Who defines it? Is it a whimsical judgement call (as it is today) or are there absolute rules? Are cartoon boobs okay or not? Cartoon butts? If not what happens to all the fart apps? How about sounds? What about political censoring? Nothing inciteful allowed? Okay, what about something inciting riots against of BP? Is that okay? No? What about a app that simply shows video of oil gushing into the gulf and birds covered in oil? It COULD incite hatred of BP and thus riots. Riots against BP okay? How about riots against Obama? Crazy morality issues aside, if you're a developer and you don't know where the lines are, you can spend tens of thousands of dollars developing an application only to find out after the fact that you crossed a line in the sand. It'd be one thing to have a less than desirable rating slapped on my app (as often happens with movies), but to have it banned entirely is just insane.

There are other issues with this policy, but I'm getting tired. Rest assured that it is far more than just randomly boycotting Apple and Microsoft. The bottom line is that today it is technically EASY to build in firewalls and controls that allow unrestricted freedom of expression while still allowing individuals easy control over the access to undesirable content. Hell, even TV's have it with the V-Chip, and that was technically hard. Why not choose this path rather than the one that makes the multi-national corporation the one in charge of dictating morality?

[David Tucker]

For the record, porn doesn't interest me. But I would hardly call anyone a creep who is interested in viewing it. There's nothing unusual about it.

The problem isn't that Apple or Microsoft block porn or other content on their app store. That's fully within their rights. What I think is not within their rights is to block the ability to do an end-around the app store and install your own apps. When I buy a phone, its mine. It's not Apple's, or Microsoft's, Google's, HTC's, Motorola's...you get the idea.

And it goes beyond porn. I believe it creates an illegal and artificial barrier to entry to the marketplace. If Microsoft were to say that any web browser you wanted to install on Windows had to be approved my Microsoft had to be approved by Microsoft and then declared any browser submitted was "duplicate functionality" there would outrage, and investigation, and eventually the federal government stepping it. And that's essentially what happened.

If I'm an app developer, why do I have to have Apple's or Microsoft's permission to sell a product? Don't tell me that because Apple and MS make the OS that its their right to dictate what can and can be used on it. That's a BS argument. If you owned a TV that wouldn't let you, no matter what, use any channels on it other than those distributed by the TV manufacturer you wouldn't put up with that. What about if you wanted to buy a car but the only fuel you could use was from the dealer? That would not be acceptable.

Apple may not be considered a monopoly but if you want to make a living selling applications for mobile devices you have to sell on the iPhone and your only choice is through Apple which I think is entirely unacceptable.

[Ed Hansberry]

The problem isn't that Apple or Microsoft block porn or other content on their app store. That's fully within their rights. What I think is not within their rights is to block the ability to do an end-around the app store and install your own apps. When I buy a phone, its mine. It's not Apple's, or Microsoft's, Google's, HTC's, Motorola's...you get the idea.
Three years ago and earlier, I would have agreed. Today, not so much. When your phone is performing sluggishly, who do you blame? The phone maker or platform maker, or both. Few blame the half a dozen poorely written apps hogging system resources.

Apple and MS took two steps to prevent that - 1) approve the apps to ensure that it doesn't adversly impact the device peformance and 2) eliminate third party app multitasking? so nothing in the background impacts device or foreground app perfrormance.

We could wax philosophical about how there are better ways to accomplish the same thing, but regardless, MS and Apple have the right to accomplish their goals the way they want.

A phone isn't a PC. it has far more resource limitations and much higher expectations that when you do somethign, it should respond IMMEDIATELY.

[Jason Dunn]

It's entirely logical and understandable that Microsoft doesn't want to earn money off porn apps - they earn 30% off every app sale after all, and there are many reasons why they don't want to be involved in that.

There's a perfectly capable "porn portal" on the device: it's called a Web browser.

This is much ado about nothing.

[Jason Dunn]

Apple is banning cartoon boobs from Ulysses, political cartoons, apps with certain politically charged content, and other forms of expression as it deems fit. Keeping hard porn out of the hands of children is one thing. Social engineering by my effing phone company is a whole 'nother thing entirely.

I agree with you that Apple has gone too far with their banning of apps that contain satire, etc. That's ultra heavy-handed. As for the no porn thing, as a Microsoft shareholder, I'm pleased they will not be earning income from selling porn apps - I wouldn't want any part of that.

[David Tucker]

Strangely my Android phone never experiences any appreciable sluggishness. Considering that I have a Cliq XT which has resource hogging Motoblur and the hardware is on the low end of the Android spectrum, I find that an unconvincing argument.

My phone does respond immediately. It allows me to do whatever I want. And Google doesn't feel a need to impose its own morality on its end users and even if it did, I would have options beyond the app store.

Like I said, I can buy into the argument that a company can control its own app store but I will not accept any argument that a company has ANY right to control what you do with your phone after you buy it. I own it. If I want to install something on it, what right does Apple have to control that?

There is a reason Apple is under multiple FTC investigations looking into its business tactics regarding the app store.

[Jason Dunn]

Please do not compare apples with oranges: I would not buy a DVD player which would restrict what I can play as well as a PC that would restrict what site I can browse.

Not an applicable comparison, unless that DVD only played DVDs that was sold by the DVD player OEM, and that OEM made a 30% cut off every porn DVD that was sold. How many companies want to be in the business of selling porn DVDs?

[David Tucker]

Not an applicable comparison, unless that DVD only played DVDs that was sold by the DVD player OEM, and that OEM made a 30% cut off every porn DVD that was sold. How many companies want to be in the business of selling porn DVDs?

Porn is a visible example but Apple blocks far more than porn.

[Ed Hansberry]

Strangely my Android phone never experiences any appreciable sluggishness. Considering that I have a Cliq XT which has resource hogging Motoblur and the hardware is on the low end of the Android spectrum, I find that an unconvincing argument.

Android runs all third party apps in a separate java VM. While I concede that is a workable solution since the OS controls the VM, not sure that java is the answer, nor is a separate VM for every app.

[Fritzly]

Not an applicable comparison, unless that DVD only played DVDs that was sold by the DVD player OEM, and that OEM made a 30% cut off every porn DVD that was sold. How many companies want to be in the business of selling porn DVDs?

It is a perfectly applicable comparison: Sony distributes movies and sell DVDs player; the problem with WM7 is MS decided to be the only gateway you must use to buy programs. This is the culprit: would you buy a car that can only use gasoline sold at the car manufacturer pumps? I would not.
Btw how many DVD player manufacturers sell players that only play DVDs made by the same company?....... Speaking about a winning strategy....

As for your other question the answer is very simple: as many as the demand for the product will sustain...

[doogald]

For the record, porn doesn't interest me. But I would hardly call anyone a creep who is interested in viewing it. There's nothing unusual about it.

I would. I guess I did. I still will.

Wal-Mart is allowed to decide whether or not they sell even soft-porn magazines or movies, or sell CDs with explicit lyrics. If you don't like the fact that they have made that decision, as a consumer who might purchase products or a vendor who may want to sell something that Wal-Mart may decide at some point not to carry, you have every right to not shop or sell to Wal-Mart.

You have every right to not buy an iPhone, or not create iPhone apps. Apple and Microsoft have every right to decide what will or will not sell in their stores. Since they are responsible for supporting phones, they have every right to decide that a particular app does not meet the rules that they set for what they will allow on the phone. To be honest, going forward, I am sure that Microsoft probably thinks that they will get more sales from parents who appreciate that their kids will not easily get porn apps on them than lose sales to people who would rather stand up for an unimportant principle than get a device that may be the best device for them.

Yes, it is unimportant. Important is a policy that would prevent you from sending an email to your congressman, or post a legal message online. The purchase of a porn app is an odd principle to hang your hat on, if you ask me - particularly knowing that the phone will include an excellent porn delivery system that does not involve apps. Or you can just go out and buy a damned magazine.

[Jason Dunn]

It's a "kind-of-big" deal for the consumer. Let's try my analogy. You have (likely unknowingly) fallen into a two year relationship with a crazy control freak...

Honestly, I think this is *really* simple: Microsoft probably asked themselves one question here...do we want to be in the business of profiting from porn? The answer is no, and thus, no porn apps allowed. Seems really simple to me - I do some computer consulting on the side, and if I had someone contact me for help and they were a porn production company, I'd turn down their business. I do not want to profit from porn. I don't want Microsoft to profit from porn either as a shareholder.

[ptyork]

Honestly, I think this is *really* simple: Microsoft probably asked themselves one question here...do we want to be in the business of profiting from porn? The answer is no, and thus, no porn apps allowed.

Yada, yada. Blockbuster doesn't profit from porn. Netflix doesn't profit from porn. WalMart doesn't profit from porn. Microsoft doesn't want to profit from porn. Fine. That's great. BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT. As a seller, I can still sell my porn DVD's in SOME marketplaces and sell to the same DVD Player owners that purchase less racy stuff from the more mainstream marketplaces.

This is NOT POSSIBLE with MS and Apple phones. They control the ONLY market that supplies apps to these phones. As many of us are trying to say, this is the problem. And mark my words, like the policy or not--like the supposed stability and security it gives you or not--the DOJ will be correcting this problem soon. Apple and MS will be allowed to have A market. Just not THE market.

And please everyone stop saying that you can always produce apps for another phone. I want to sell DVD's, NOT LaserDiscs and video cassettes. It's a SERIOUSLY flawed argument.

And come on Jason. It is so much more than porn. If it were just porn, I'd be ethically upset, but could probably take it since I personally could care less about a porn app on my phone. But it is any range of apps deemed for any reason to be popularly unacceptable. And that can and will expand well beyond porn just like it has the the Apple store.

[Jason Dunn]

The problem isn't that Apple or Microsoft block porn or other content on their app store. That's fully within their rights. What I think is not within their rights is to block the ability to do an end-around the app store and install your own apps. When I buy a phone, its mine. It's not Apple's, or Microsoft's, Google's, HTC's, Motorola's...you get the idea.

I agree with you there - if someone wants to install an app from outside the Marketplace, and they understand the risks involved, both to their device stability and to the security of their information, they should be allowed to. Porn apps included - it's their device. I don't like that part of Microsoft's approach - people should be allowed to install what they want if they understand the risks they're taking.

[Jason Dunn]

It is a perfectly applicable comparison: Sony distributes movies and sell DVDs player; the problem with WM7 is MS decided to be the only gateway you must use to buy programs. This is the culprit: would you buy a car that can only use gasoline sold at the car manufacturer pumps?

It sounds like your real argument is about the fact that there's only one way to get applications onto the device, the Windows Phone Marketplace. I agree 100% with you there (see my other response to David).

[Jason Dunn]

And come on Jason. It is so much more than porn. If it were just porn, I'd be ethically upset, but could probably take it since I personally could care less about a porn app on my phone. But it is any range of apps deemed for any reason to be popularly unacceptable. And that can and will expand well beyond porn just like it has the the Apple store.

I've only heard that Microsoft will not allow porn apps in the Windows Phone Marketplace - nothing about satire, etc. I'm in 100% agreement that Apple's Big Brother approach reaches too far, and if Microsoft decides to do the same thing, you'll find me on your side in the blink of an eye - but until they do, I think you're jumping the gun.

[ptyork]

I've only heard that Microsoft will not allow porn apps in the Windows Phone Marketplace - nothing about satire, etc. I'm in 100% agreement that Apple's Big Brother approach reaches too far, and if Microsoft decides to do the same thing, you'll find me on your side in the blink of an eye - but until they do, I think you're jumping the gun.

I hope you're right. But I have no confidence in this whatsoever. Once you take on the role of moral shepherd, it is hard to draw the line at only one relatively insignificant type of "moral questionable" material. The logic that they don't want to profit from porn likely applies to not profiting from "Pin the Bomb on the Arab" or other racially charged "games." Or from games that graphically depict gruesome violence. And it is their right (and perhaps even moral obligation) to do so, but as you've agreed above, there NEEDS to be some way to sell this kind of smut and for people to buy it outside of their "Microsoft sanctioned and approved" marketplace.

[David Tucker]

I would. I guess I did. I still will.

Its interesting that you take my argument, which has nothing to do with porn, and twist it right back to porn. Beyond that...if I don't like it don't write apps for the iPhone? Sorry, that's not how it works in this great nation of ours. Apple has decided, say I can't write a web browser, so I just say "ok, I won't." Seems to me when a company by the name of Microsoft did similar things, they got hit hard by the federal government.

Apple does not have the right to dictate things like duplicate functionality rules. I don't think they will be able to maintain these rules forever if they keep the app market as the exclusive avenue to iPhone development. Since when did the rights of a huge international corporation count for more than the rights of the little guy? I'm appalled and shocked at that attitude quite frankly. And not just from you...that's just the general attitude now. Big brother knows best I guess!

[David Tucker]

Android runs all third party apps in a separate java VM. While I concede that is a workable solution since the OS controls the VM, not sure that java is the answer, nor is a separate VM for every app.

No, and Apple shouldn't do it Google's way just because it works for Google. But the iPhone OS is more than capable of running multiple apps at once. Its a moot point now since Apple has reversed course and the new iPhones will multitask.

[ptyork]

No, and Apple shouldn't do it Google's way just because it works for Google. But the iPhone OS is more than capable of running multiple apps at once. Its a moot point now since Apple has reversed course and the new iPhones will multitask.

Just so you know, there's very little conceptual difference between the way that Google, Apple, and MS are planning on running their apps. Modern Objective-C/Cocoa apps run in a separate, managed container. Memory management (garbage collection), execution isolation, etc. are essentially identical in that. The only real difference is when the compilation takes place. Java is JIT (just in time) meaning that the app is compiled into native machine code by the VM when it is executed (implying a slight delay at startup). .Net is the same way (it is basically Microsoft's copy/refinement of Java, after all). Objective C apps are pre-compiled implying a slightly faster load time. I THINK that both MS and Google would cache the native pre-compilations unless the bytecode changed, so the delays would likely only occur once, making the difference all but moot.

Anyway, in reality, all three use separate, isolated VM's to execute the apps.

FWIW, Palm's implementation (you know, the only one with REAL multitasking) is even crazier, basically running separate instances of a WebKit based rendering engine, javascript interpreter, and local web server for each app. And apples-to-apples hardware-wise, it's pretty darned good at juggling a LOT of apps simultaneously.

[ptyork]

Memory management (garbage collection), execution isolation, etc. are essentially identical in that.

Okay, just so nobody dings me on it, the iPhone implementation of the Objective-C 2.0 runtime doesn't support garbage collection, just "retain counts." It is still "managed" by the runtime, just not as transparently as it is in Java and .Net. The rest of the above diatribe still applies, though. :)

[Ed Hansberry]

No, and Apple shouldn't do it Google's way just because it works for Google. But the iPhone OS is more than capable of running multiple apps at once. Its a moot point now since Apple has reversed course and the new iPhones will multitask.

Apple didn't reverse course. They allowed some specific APIs to allow certain processes to run in the background. The apps have to be rewritten to allow this. What is really happening is the app hands off certian functions to the OS. Multitasking is when the OS lets each app do their own thing.

To the end user it will simulate multitasking pretty well, and it might be the right solution for most people, but multitasking it ain't.

Look at it this way. Would anyone have considered Windows 95 able to multitask if every app had to be rewritten, otherwise only one app at a time could run? Of course not.

[David Tucker]

What makes it not "true" multitasking. The feature didn't exist in the OS before...just because the way its handled isn't supported by current apps doesn't make it not "true" multitasking. If any app can be updated to take advantage then yes, its multitasking.

As you yourself said, these are limited devices. To get a full experience, multitasking must be handled much differently than a desktop. But as long as there is a way to do it, then that's all that matters.

[ptyork]

To the end user it will simulate multitasking pretty well, and it might be the right solution for most people, but multitasking it ain't.

Yep, by and large this is just a "listen for background events" interface that notifies apps of a very specific subset of desired events and allows them some latitude to process them in specific ways. And worst of all, there's still no support for background network polling or receiving networked updates except through it's horrendously limited push API. Thus, we still have no support for twitter, text chat, or the like. VOIP, yes, in limited ways. But text messages, nope. Obviously this is a battery life thing, but geez! At least allow a push notification type that triggers an app to wake up and poll the network. You know, I might just want to do more than throw up a dialog and go "bing bing" or update a counter on an icon...

[David Tucker]

Oh, so iPhone doesn't multitask still? IRC not possible from the sounds of it!

[ptyork]

Oh, so iPhone doesn't multitask still? IRC not possible from the sounds of it!

Nope, it is as Ed stated. It simulates multitasking for only certain activities. Others are still 100% impossible. So no IRC. No live feeds of any kind. Supposedly you are supposed to be able to receive VOIP calls, but I'll believe that when they release the API documentation to the public (or I get a Skype call while playing Finger Physics). All of it controlled by the OS. Apps are still put to sleep when placed in the background and only partially awakened when very specific events are reported to them by the OS. But it is still only the OS that is allowed to "run" in the background.

Honestly, it isn't a bad system. In fact, it is the system I was calling for last year (some heated argument with Vincent on Apple Thoughts). I just wish they'd expand it a bit more.

But true application-level multi-tasking by any commonly accepted definition? No.

[Fritzly]

It sounds like your real argument is about the fact that there's only one way to get applications onto the device, the Windows Phone Marketplace. I agree 100% with you there (see my other response to David).

Yes this is my point. Also the "approval process" will severely limit the usefulness of the device; one example: no VOIP...

[doogald]

Oh, so iPhone doesn't multitask still? IRC not possible from the sounds of it!

This depends on the IRC app, of course, but iOS 4 does allow VOIP and other communication apps to process in the background, and this includes Twitter clients. At the announcement of iPhone OS 4, Skype demonstrated its app working in the background while in a call, but the multitasking is not limited to voice. (Saying that, it may be limited to iPhone 4 and 3Gs, though.)

[ptyork]

This depends on the IRC app, of course, but iOS 4 does allow VOIP and other communication apps to process in the background, and this includes Twitter clients. At the announcement of iPhone OS 4, Skype demonstrated its app working in the background while in a call, but the multitasking is not limited to voice. (Saying that, it may be limited to iPhone 4 and 3Gs, though.)

According to Apple...

http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/multitasking.html

...and the industry pubs, this is not true. At least about the Twitter clients (not about the limited to iPhone 4 and 3Gs part). But it is still somewhat confusing. See for example...

http://www.tipb.com/2010/06/10/ios-background-api-solution-multitasking/

There are three specific "backgroundable" processes: VOIP, geolocation, and streaming music. Apple made this very clear. Now the above article reference mentions "receiving messages" in the background if you're a VOIP app. This is confusing because it would seem to open the door to network polling from any app (which is specifically prohibited and complained about by numerous iOS developers on various forums). I THINK they meant "incoming call" and perhaps "new voicemail" messages specifically, because the article then goes on to talk about how disappointed users will be NOT to have their Twitter, IM and RSS clients running in the background.

A bit confusing, and this is why I'm holding out the API docs. It may be that their definition of VOIP is much larger than it is defined by the rest of the planet. We'll find out in 5 days when they open up the docs to those of us unwilling to pay $99/year for the privilege of developing apps and giving them 30% of our revenues. In the mean time, though, I have to say that I'm 99%+ sure you're mistaken, at least in iOS 4.0.

[Jason Dunn]

Once you take on the role of moral shepherd, it is hard to draw the line at only one relatively insignificant type of "moral questionable" material. The logic that they don't want to profit from porn likely applies to not profiting from "Pin the Bomb on the Arab" or other racially charged "games."


I hear what you're saying and I agree. It's hard to draw that line, and it really underscores the need for customers to be able to install their own apps. That's one thing I don't like about Microsoft's approach - hopefully it's a restriction they'll loosen over time.