CNET’s 10 Reasons Why iOS 4 Will Rock on iPad

[Maura]

​

CNET’s iPad Atlas blog is feeling a smidgeon of iPhone 4 envy at the moment, especially as the iPhone 4 has iOS 4, which won’t be coming to the iPad until some time this fall. So to cheer themselves up, they’ve come up with 10 reasons why iOS 4 is really going to rock on the iPad. See how many of them you agree with:

1. Split-screen multitasking - with the iPad screen being so much larger than that of the iPhone 4, you should be able to run apps such as Mail and Safari, for example, side by side.
   
2. Being able to run iPhone 4 apps in full resolution - the current iPad iOS 3.2 is unable to cope with the iPhone 4’s enhanced resolution, but all that should be fixed come iOS 4.
   
3. Running multiple iPhone apps at once - at present when running iPhone apps, iPad owners have just two choices: viewing the app in its original tiny size, or zooming in x2, with less than desirable results on that beautiful screen, if we’re being honest. CNET puts forward the idea that maybe iOS 4 could allow lots of old iPhone apps to run alongside each other.
   
4. Better folder management - The iPad’s larger screen was just made for bigger and better folders.
   
5. FaceTime and a camera dock - CNET asks, how about a camera dock that enables the user to use video chat on the iPad?
   
6. More multitouch controls - some MacBook style two and three-finger swipe controls would be just the start.
   
7. Bring back the core apps! - Hands up if you’re missing the Clock, Weather, Calculator, Voice Memos, Compass and Stocks (well maybe not Stocks!)
   
8. Pop-up widgets - CNET gets really creative and asks for certain applets to launch in pop-up windows.
   
9. Centralized app management - universal settings so that you don’t have to tinker with each app individually.
   
10. Document clipboard - CNET wants documents made accessible via a central Spotlight-searchable database on the iPad, to be used for both sharing and reference.

Source: CNET

 

[pallentx]

Are any of those confirmed features, or is this CNET's wish list of what Apple "could" do?

 

[Maura]

I think it's more CNET's wish list!

 

[andsoitgoes]

Indeed. Side-by-side applications running at the same time?

No.

CNET obviously doesn't realize that the iPhone 4 doesn't do this, it puts any background programs into standby and that said, the iPad has HALF the memory as the iPhone 4.

It's a shame that they don't have people at CNET who know how to properly do research

 

[Ripplinghurst]

I think the split screen idea is doable, even with less memory (depending on the app, of course). For instance, Navigation and Trapster, or BeattheTraffic and iTunes, or iTunes and navigation could easily be used in a split screen interface (since iTunes is always running anyway). And the same with Pandora.

I think the possibility should be there.

 

[HarlyFan]

I hope the OS4 update comes out sooner then later. The iPad can use some much needed help!!! It would be great to see the CNet ideas implemented....

 

[FahQ]

It's nice to dream lol but the memory limitations are very real on the iPad. I think if most of those suggestions do show up it'll be on the iPad 2

 

[Bremen]

It's nice to dream lol but the memory limitations are very real on the iPad. I think if most of those suggestions do show up it'll be on the iPad 2

Agree.....

 

[Ripplinghurst]

Can somebody explain to me how running two apps in onw screen is any different than running two, three or four in the background?

I mean the video memory is constant, no matter how many apps you run. Suppose you open Pandora, put it on the background and then you launch some nav or traffic app. What does it matter significantly if the app is showing or not. With j/b backgrounder, the apps don't even know about it and it was usable on the 3G iPhone, why it wouldn't on the much faster iPad?

I think people are assuming too much here, correct me I
F I'm wrong please.

 

[pallentx]

Can somebody explain to me how running two apps in onw screen is any different than running two, three or four in the background?

I mean the video memory is constant, no matter how many apps you run. Suppose you open Pandora, put it on the background and then you launch some nav or traffic app. What does it matter significantly if the app is showing or not. With j/b backgrounder, the apps don't even know about it and it was usable on the 3G iPhone, why it wouldn't on the much faster iPad?

I think people are assuming too much here, correct me I
F I'm wrong please.

I suppose it would depend on the apps. If both have graphics or visual elements that are changing and have to be rendered, then it would be a much greater load. Also, multitasking in iOS4 is not exactly full multitasking. When you switch apps the state of the app is saved and closed except for a certain process that Apple has approved to allow the developer to code to continue. In the Pandora example, when you switch away from Pandora, everything about the app except the audio stream is cleared out of memory and stops processing. That would include the adds streaming to the screen, the animation of the play controls as the song progresses, the availability of the thumbs-up and thumbs-down buttons, etc... If you were to have Pandora side by side with a web browser, the system would have to keep all parts of the app live and interactive, not just the audio stream.

 

[Ripplinghurst]

Thanks, that makes sense. But I wouldn't be afraid of the graphic load on an app like Pandora, which practically just display album art and song info for updates.

Any decent game on the App store is likely to have more graphic intensive rendering than most that would be useful in a split screen scenario, I think.

 

[pallentx]

Thanks, that makes sense. But I wouldn't be afraid of the graphic load on an app like Pandora, which practically just display album art and song info for updates.

Any decent game on the App store is likely to have more graphic intensive rendering than most that would be useful in a split screen scenario, I think.

That's the problem, some apps probably wouldnt be much of a drain, others could be really bad. Apple's philosophy is to protect you from being able to do something that would cause the device to run slow. I would prefer to have the choice to accept slower performance for certain capabilities, but that is not how Apple does things.

 

[ventus]

Wow who pays these people?