iOS I think has really aggressive background task killing, and it also drives me insane. I know they do it for battery life but I'm about ready to switch to Android, and would have a long time ago if I that didn't also mean replacing my watch, headphones, etc.

Is it too much to ask for me to manage my own background processes on my phone? I don't want the OS arbitrarily deciding what to pause & kill. If it actually does OOM, give me a dialog like macOS and ask me what to kill. Then again, if a phone is going OOM with 12GB of RAM there's a serious optimization problem going on with mobile apps.

▲

toast0 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> iOS I think has really aggressive background task killing, and it also drives me insane. I know they do it for battery life but I'm about ready to switch to Android, and would have a long time ago if I that didn't also mean replacing my watch, headphones, etc.

Android does all sorts of wacky stuff with background tasks too... Although I don't feel like my 6 GB Android is low memory, so maybe there's something there, but I also don't run a lot of apps, and I regularly close Firefox tabs. Android apps do mostly seem well prepared for background shenanigans, cause they happen all the time. There's the AOSP/Google Play background app controls, but also most of the OEMs do some stuff, and sometimes it's very hard to get stuff you want to run in the background to stay running.

I dunno about watches, but Airpods work fine with Android, as long as you disconnect them from FindMy cause there's no way to make them not think they're lost (he says authoritatively, hoping to be corrected).

	▲	spaqin 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		On Android of course it depends on the configuration. I am running LineageOS 23 on an older device with 6GB of RAM as well and it would kill basically anything (making e.g. paying with a credit card a pain when you have to switch to the bank app to confirm a transaction). Had to adjust few variables for ZRAM control and now it's seamless.

▲

estimator7292 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I recently started learning how to do iOS apps for work and the short answer is: you don't.

Apple seemingly wants all apps to be static jpegs that never need to connect to any data local or remote, and never do any processing. If you want to do something in the background so that your user can multitask, too damn bad.

You can run in the background, for a non-deterministic amount of time. If you do that, iOS nags your user to make it stop. If you access radios, iOS nags your user to disable it.

It's honestly insane. I don't know why or how anyone develops for this platform.

Not to mention the fact that you have to spend $5k minimum just to put hello world on the screen. I can't believe that apple gets away with forcing you to buy a goddamn Mac to complile a program.

	▲	n8cpdx 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You can get a brand new Mac for < $600 People develop for iOS because iOS users spend more money. End of story.
	▲	post-it 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I've never felt nagged. Every time I get one of those popups, which isn't too often, I think "neat, good to know." It's inconvenient that apps can't do long-running operations in the background outside of a few areas, but that's a design feature of the platform. Users of iOS are choosing to give up the ability to run torrent clients or whatever in exchange for knowing that an app isn't going to destroy their battery life in the background.
	▲	babypuncher 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> If you do that, iOS nags your user to make it stop. If you access radios, iOS nags your user to disable it. These are features, because we can't trust developers to be smart about how they implement these. In fact, we can't even trust them not to be malicious about it. User nags keep the dveloper honest on a device where battery life and all-day availability is arguably of utmost importance. > you have to spend $5k minimum just to put hello world on the screen. Now that's just nonsense.