Network I/O

I’ve had the opportunity to use a bunch of different smartphone OSs for extended periods recently. They’ve all taken interestingly different tacks on some of the key stuff, normally all within the bounds of reasonable implementation decisions but with very different results and useful to different people.

One of the most interesting decisions I’ve noticed is the model that things have for handling network I/O. At one end of the scale you’ve got iPhone OS which does very little network I/O off-line – it will fetch mail in the background and there’s MobileMe sync but that’s about it. Everything else is triggered by direct user action and is generally visible to them. Even with the mail there’s an element of interactivity – it will notify the user about mail before it’s actually been downloaded, for example. At the other end of the scale the Blackberry does its level best to mask the existence of the network – any updates go on in the background, with the fact that there’s any interaction with a remote system being hidden everywhere except with things like unsent messages. Both these are reasonable choices.

The iPhone model flows from the same place as the decision not to allow background apps, trading interactive performance and a degree of usability (especially where the network is slow or intermittent) for a tight control on things that incur power and bandwidth costs. This avoids surprises, especially given the number of third party apps out there, ensuring that the system always behaves as expected.

The Blackberry avoids the user being troubled by the vagaries of spotty connectivity but also means resources get consumed without user interaction, which can impact performance all round without it being clear to users what the device has been spending resources on. Then again, it’s much less common to use anything except the standard application set on a Blackberry and that is highly optimized for its function – there’s less to be worried about.

I’m not sure I’d say either approach is better – they’re not solving quite the same problem and they’re certainly part of very different systems – so it’s interesting to consider the differences. Personally I find waiting for the network annoying, but then I’m a pretty technical user so the drawbacks in terms of understanding power consumption aren’t so important for me as they will be for many other users.