Stupid background app question...

acosmichippo

Genius
Platinum
Sep 10, 2007
15,384
1,089
113
DC
#1
Apple states that when they tested an IM app running in the background, they noticed an 80% drop in battery life, correct?

So my question is directed towards those jailbroken folk using backgrounder or some always-on IM app; is that 80% drop cosistent with your experience? Seems a little extreme to me...
 

Youngbinks

Zealot
Gold
Jun 4, 2007
7,617
3
38
31
Atlanta, Georgia
#2
I was thinking that as well Hip. I don't see how an App running in the background runs down the battery THAT much. It really does seem extreme.
 

acosmichippo

Genius
Platinum
Sep 10, 2007
15,384
1,089
113
DC
#4
that's what I thought. While I don't use IM apps, I have never noticed anything close to an 80% drop in battery life with my other background apps running (last.fm scrobblers, clippy, winterboard, vwallpaper, etc.

There must be another reason Apple doesn't allow background apps... The only question is why they have to lie about it.
 

ifanphone

New Member
Apr 7, 2009
19
0
0
#5
whoa 80%... i haven't noticed any of my constantly-running apps have the battery drop that low..
 

acosmichippo

Genius
Platinum
Sep 10, 2007
15,384
1,089
113
DC
#7
me neither.

i'm frankly surprised more people aren't interested in this discussion.
 

Adam1389

Member
Silver
Nov 20, 2008
588
1
18
Ilwaco, WA
#8
I ran backgrounder for a while with Beejive and didn't notice any difference in my battery life. I don't see how putting something into memory would eat your battery anyhow...
 

xcissexc

New Member
Aug 9, 2007
501
0
0
#9
i use it for aim sometimes. i can notice my battery drain pretty quickly when i do. its not so much the memory usage that kills the battery, its with apps llike IM apps that are constantly using the internet. when i use edge my battery goes down pretty fast
 

styfle

Zealot
Gold
Mar 31, 2008
3,381
7
38
#10
I don't remember the exact context of the quote but I'm guessing Apple meant background processing can use up the battery up to 80% faster. I'm sure tweaking it to not check for IM's as often could increase battery life but the 80% thing is probably just worst case scenario.
 

acosmichippo

Genius
Platinum
Sep 10, 2007
15,384
1,089
113
DC
#11

psylichon

Genius
Moderator
Oct 31, 2007
16,591
751
113
40
Philly
#12
I think Apple has a flair for the dramatic when describing how things would be if they didn't design things the way they design them. This is one example. I'm sure in a worst case scenario (leaving a streaming video app in the background without wifi) you would see that much of a drop, but not with normal usage.

Another Apple "factoid" I throw into this category is that aluminum casings hamper cellular signals. I think this was convenient to say when they were mass-marketing iPhones with plastic casings. Anyone wanna bet a new, miraculous technology will be invented by Apple to "circumvent" this shielding problem should they choose to go back to aluminum for the next iPhone?
 

Swagger

New Member
Gold
Jul 9, 2007
2,076
1
0
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
web.me.com
#13
I think Apple has a flair for the dramatic when describing how things would be if they didn't design things the way they design them. This is one example. I'm sure in a worst case scenario (leaving a streaming video app in the background without wifi) you would see that much of a drop, but not with normal usage.

Another Apple "factoid" I throw into this category is that aluminum casings hamper cellular signals. I think this was convenient to say when they were mass-marketing iPhones with plastic casings. Anyone wanna bet a new, miraculous technology will be invented by Apple to "circumvent" this shielding problem should they choose to go back to aluminum for the next iPhone?
I totally agree with you if other mobile device makers have discovered how to allow background Apps running without battery drain. Why then can't Apple in all their greatness do the same? It's more of the same we're Apple and we don't have to. The hell with what the customers want. Mark