News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by anc84 on Monday January 14, 2019 @07:41AM (#18902536)
Can I run XMPP or IRC on an iphone by now or does it still only receive messages when foregrounded?
Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by dithering on Monday January 14, 2019 @08:53AM (#18902904)
"Use a bouncer" might be the answer there. All engineering is compromise, and needing a bit more compromise to support legacy applications is not unreasonable.

(In fact, why are you running a stream-oriented application over such an unreliable connection at all?)

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by admax88q on Monday January 14, 2019 @11:23AM (#18904111)
My XMPP client works perfectly on my Android phone. Prompt and reliable notifications of new messages. Better than most "Push Message" based clients I've used for other chat services.

It's consistently the last in battery usage as well.

Honestly I don't need the OS to protect me from poorly engineered apps, I just need it to correctly blame the apps so I know which ones to stop using.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by apexalpha on Monday January 14, 2019 @11:29AM (#18904162)
>Honestly I don't need the OS to protect me from poorly engineered apps, I just need it to correctly blame the apps so I know which ones to stop using.

No, but the other 6 billion people on the planet do.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by ndiscussion on Monday January 14, 2019 @12:26PM (#18904603)
Which is why Apple is so big. Also Walmart. Also Top40.
Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by vxNsr on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:35PM (#18905718)
Classic HN response.

I'd guess a FTP and a linux file-server would solve all your filesharing woes as well.

No dev making a mass market device or software should build as if the 1% graybeard engineer is gonna be the only user, that's a lot more user hostile.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by admax88q on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @01:20PM (#18923382)
The "which apps are using battery" feature is easily useable by novice users.

However most phone vendors incorrectly assume "background connections" will drain battery life despite evidence to the contrary.

Phone vendors have a vested interest though in forcing developers to use their proprietary "push" feature for syncing to phones, they say it's for "battery life" but really its about vendor lock in.

A well engineered app can sync over its own TCP connection just fine and not hurt battery life, but then such an app can work on any device, not just blessed Android builds that have access to GCM.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by stickfigure on Monday January 14, 2019 @03:14PM (#18906059)
Android's "these are the apps killing your battery life" interface is perfectly usable by Joe Everyuser. This is a specious argument.
Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by vxNsr on Tuesday January 15, 2019 @11:56AM (#18912576)
Reality suggests otherwise.

Every modern phone today will give you a list of the apps that take the most juice, and yet somehow for some reason people still install facebook. We might need to protect users from themselves.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by admax88q on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @01:18PM (#18923347)
Or users could start holding facebook accountable for shitty battery life.

I don't understand why phone manufacturers need to add features to protect facebook users from facebook. facebook has the money to build an app that isn't shit.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by dithering on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:40PM (#18905773)
Never mind HN, that's a classic Slashdot response.
Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by anc84 on Monday January 14, 2019 @10:33AM (#18903694)
A bouncer is not a satisfying answer, then I could just use something web-based anyways.

My Android tablet is on a stable WiFi network at home...

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by lol768 on Monday January 14, 2019 @09:42AM (#18903275)
>"Use a bouncer" might be the answer there.

Weechat and weechat-android are great choices here. Best CLI and Android IRC clients I've used, and I've tried quite a few.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by rootusrootus on Monday January 14, 2019 @09:11AM (#18903017)
I run Cisco Jabber on my iPhone, and it seems to run fine. AFAIK that is XMPP.
Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by JustSomeNobody on Monday January 14, 2019 @09:27AM (#18903135)
Getting messages should not/does not have anything to do with running in the background.
Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by toast0 on Monday January 14, 2019 @09:50AM (#18903339)
If you want a messaging app to work well, it should send and receive messages when the phone has network connectivity and power. Power is a prerequisite for running in the foreground, but network connectivity is not. Some people may in fact want messaging apps to only work while in the foreground and network available, but I suspect that's less desired.

If you're trying to run standard irc and appear online as much as possible, that's not going to work in iOS without a bouncer to stay online for you and send push messages to send notifications and allow the app to run for a bit to download the messages.

It's probably not a bad idea on Android too, it's technically possible to run as a background service and stay connected, but there's a lot of uncertainty, because other services can crowd you out, and you're at the whim of Google and oems with power management these days.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by fixermark on Monday January 14, 2019 @01:22PM (#18905069)
And also, it's the 21st century and we don't need chat protocols to be client-side-liveness chatty to "stay on" when the entire cellular network is architected to find devices and route messages to them.

IRC isn't a well-designed protocol for this use case, and a "land-side" bouncer that bridges the chatty protocol to a lazier protocol ought to be more energy-efficient overall.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by int_19h on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:24PM (#18905617)
Well-designed or not, it exists, and sometimes you just want to use it, without a lecture on how it's suboptimal.
Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by fixermark on Monday January 14, 2019 @03:10PM (#18906023)
That's fine. you are "free" to hack your own version of Android that modifies the APIs to disregard power-management best practices.

... and maybe your own hardware to run them on. But I wouldn't expect any major player competing against other companies to do the work for you when the outcome is supporting some chat protocols that most people don't use.

(Otherwise, if you're expecting vendors to do it for you, you get to expect the lecture that comes with that expectation, in the form of APIs designed to minimize the ease of doing the wrong-for-the-average-utility-of-the-platform thing. Your cell radio could probably be adjusted to operate as a spark-gap transmitter also, but I don't expect them to provide an easy API for that either ;) ).

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by lol768 on Monday January 14, 2019 @09:41AM (#18903268)
Getting messages requires an open TCP connection, hence it really is quite important (at least with IRC) that the app stays running in the background.
Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by JustSomeNobody on Monday January 14, 2019 @04:46PM (#18906839)
This is what the push message API in iOS is for. It wakes up the app when messages come in.
Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by lol768 on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @05:46PM (#18926281)
> This is what the push message API in iOS is for. It wakes up the app when messages come in.

IRC isn't reliant on a proprietary push message API, though (be that provided by Apple or Google).

I'm sure there are long-lived bouncer plugins that will integrate with said APIs, but the core IRC protocol is not suited to or designed for devices that aren't capable of a long-lived connection.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by jabberthemutt on Monday January 14, 2019 @06:13PM (#18907473)
Which means there is a third party eavesdropping on chat.
Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by feikname on Monday January 14, 2019 @09:48AM (#18903313)
Receiving messages (aka "listening" in server jargon) is essentially a background task, constantly probing to check for any changes.
Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by jsjohnst on Monday January 14, 2019 @11:02AM (#18903963)
I think the point being made is that’s a terrible use of resources, not only are you keeping the app running, but you are also forcing the power hungry LTE radio to stay on more.

This idea that the end device should do all the work is not a sustainable approach. There should be a server side component that is handling this for you and sending push notifications when your app needs to wake up for new data.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by admax88q on Monday January 14, 2019 @11:26AM (#18904137)
> sending push notifications when your app needs

How do you think push notifications work? There isn't some magic in LTE to wake up your phone. Your phone needs to keep a connection open in the background and periodically wake up the modem to check for new information.

I use Conversations (XMPP client) on Android, it keeps a plain old TCP connection open in the background and honestly it does not much battery at all. It's consistently at the bottom of battery usage according to my phone.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by fixermark on Monday January 14, 2019 @01:25PM (#18905084)
Do push notifications take advantage of knowledge of the physical layer of the network?

It's a lot cheaper to keep an LTE radio on in a low-wattage "ping me if you need me" mode and trust the 'infinite-power' landside terminal to notify you of messages than to wake it up once every N seconds to loudly ping a cell tower "HEY LET ME KNOW IF I HAVE ANY MESSAGES KTHX."

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by jsjohnst on Monday January 14, 2019 @07:48PM (#18907996)
> How do you think push notifications work?

There’s a very distinct difference between having a persistent connection that only transmits data when there’s something notable vs having a connection that constants pushes a kitchen sink of data that may or may not be needed. Sure, if you sent a push notification on every single message and status change on the IRC server, it’d likely use the same amount of (or maybe more) battery, but who does that?

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by JustSomeNobody on Monday January 14, 2019 @04:48PM (#18906858)
Right. That's why there's an API for it. Each app doesn't have to stay awake listening. The OS will wake the app up.
Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by feikname on Monday January 14, 2019 @10:49PM (#18908726)
Oh, that does make sense.

In that case, having the app run the background really does seem like a waste when compared to leaving the OS to do this task.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by dmitriid on Monday January 14, 2019 @08:12AM (#18902673)
Slack receives messages with no problem.

If XMPP/IRC can’t provide that, it’s not iOS’ problem.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by amaranth on Monday January 14, 2019 @02:31PM (#18905687)
Slack works because of push notifications. A random IRC app can't handle push notifications for you because they aren't the IRC server and aren't running a bouncer for you. On the other hand, the IRC server can't handle push notifications for you because they don't have an app signed with Apple's key sending the notifications.

Basically protocols as a general thing can't work on iOS, only individual apps/services which get to read all your messages and access your login credentials work.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by dmitriid on Tuesday January 15, 2019 @03:35AM (#18909651)
> Basically protocols as a general thing can't work on iOS, only individual apps/services which get to read all your messages and access your login credentials work.

Which I think is a reasonable requirement for a chat service, especially on mobile.

Re:Android vendors, don’t kill my app by fixermark on Monday January 14, 2019 @01:25PM (#18905089)
I don't know why you were downvoted; it's a solid-and-concise critique of the difference in protocols.