> For instance the subjective experience of using Android is that you can never close any app that you've opened other than by uninstalling it

Is there a reason the user should explicitly terminate an app rather than just stop using it? Why not have a GC button, too? "Closing" and "file system" are meaningless to anyone who hasn't got a grasp of implementation. Don't show that stuff to the user.

Those are just screenshots captured from the app you're seeing. If you switch to any OpenGL based app you'll see it restart.

FWIW Force Stop from the settings->app section will stop an app unless it's forced to be sticky because another service depends on it.

> Those are just screenshots captured from the app you're seeing.

That's not entirely accurate. Many of the apps can and will stay in memory (it doesn't suspend all of them). Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

If you want to get really pedantic those are screenshots in the app drawer that are swapped with an application's surface in SurfaceFlinger just as it comes fullscreen.

But yeah, Android doesn't kill apps outright when you switch away, that would be a pretty poor experience to restart each time you opened a link in Twitter and came back from it for instance.

> if you want to get really pedantic those are screenshots in the app drawer that are swapped with an application's surface in SurfaceFlinger just as it comes fullscreen.

Oh I know I was just being specific since you said they were "just" screenshots. Wanted to make sure it was clear some of those apps may in fact still be in memory. ️

I'll admit my Nexus 6P has been endlessly frustrating, but it is possible to "close" apps by swiping sideways on their tiles after pushing the square button.

This is a great comment.

You should not close apps because you may interfere with tracking your location and other data collection.

Data collection is necessary to enrich your "user experience". When we know what you want we can fulfill your every wish! Just say "OK, Google". It will be great!

The developers behind this crap do not hear from satisfied users. Because the truth is no one really cares about this stuff. They care about things like reception and battery life...

except for some nerds like the ones who comment on HN who can easily point out all the stupidity of these "business" models.

When users are like puppets on a string, helplessly dependent. When there are no alternatives, no competition. Is that a business? And I suppose shooting fish in a barrel is game of skill.

Oddly enough, Googlers read HN comments and frequently defend the company, speaking only for themselves of course. Why should they care that anyone sees Android for what it really is? Whining nerds do not count, right? So why pay attention to what they think?

If developers of Android and iOS had any respect, if they had a conscience, then they would not be usurping people's computing resources for their own ends. Sure, users will be oblivious to what is going on and they will not complain. That does not mean it's OK to do these things.

Wow, it's interesting how much HN dislikes your comment given the number of privacy and cryptography experts here.

(Edit: Probably the repeated pejorative usage of 'nerd', I guess.)

Well, it was a rant rather than information. And I disagree with it from the beginning:

> You should not close apps because you may interfere with tracking your location and other data collection.

That's bullshit reason - you'd write a background service, not try to stop users from closing the app. For any single application I'm using I'm happy for it to be cached rather than restarting every time. This is just arguing against a cache layer, because <made up reason>.

Going offtopic from the rant to an Android development question, if I may - I thought background services were shut down brutally at random times, and hard to keep running reliably unless some app which uses them is open? I'm a newbie to Android dev, but I have an app which (attempts to) maintain an always-on connection, and I've gone with a foreground service because that doesn't get killed (as often).

That seems to go against the documentation: (https://developer.android.com/guide/components/services.html)

> A started service must manage its own lifecycle. That is, the system does not stop or destroy the service unless it must recover system memory and the service continues to run after onStartCommand() returns.

A started service shouldn't be killed randomly - after all, that's how the downloads are handled - you don't see those disappearing without a reason.

Downloads are generally handled via foreground services (one significant difference is that foreground services show up as an icon in your notification area, notice downloads or Play Store updates appear there?). Background services are more like OLE in the sense of they let you set your app up so another app can ask it for stuff.

Nothing perjorative at all about the term "nerd".

The issue is not simply privacy, it's control of the hardware.

This is why I didn't get to it until the edit. If I could be sure I wouldn't offend my clients, one of the first questions I'd ask is "are you a nerd?" As it is I have to couch it as "what's your background? are you technical?" and risk getting pinned as a condescending asshole when all I'm asking is "do you want me to tell you what the opcodes are doing to the transistors or do you want to tell me how the machine is 'feeling'?

The real question, I guess, is "do you have the knack"?

I think your comment comes off a bit harsh or crass for the HN crowd but I'll admit much of it is accurate. It's amazing how much I've had Nexus, Motorola and other flagship android devices(including my Nexus 6P) simply restart out of nowhere or where my Nexus 6P doesn't charge (happened 3 times now; really screwed up my mornings).

I love android but it feels like every iteration has plenty of huge bugs never really addressed. iOS always seems more reliable but far more limited with some of the things I want to do with a phone.