Why do they have to go through apple’s servers? Why can’t users select an alternative push provider? Why can’t apps be allowed to just maintain their own socket if the user is ok with the battery impact?
Another part to this is that people have been highly critical of Apple when their battery performance is poor, not realizing that its an app that is consuming the battery. That has been mitigated some by Apple showing which apps are consuming the battery the most, but people tend to blame the OS rather than the application when something goes wrong.
> The most impressive things to read on Raymond’s weblog are the stories of the incredible efforts the Windows team has made over the years to support backwards compatibility:
>> Look at the scenario from the customer’s standpoint. You bought programs X, Y and Z. You then upgraded to Windows XP. Your computer now crashes randomly, and program Z doesn’t work at all. You’re going to tell your friends, “Don’t upgrade to Windows XP. It crashes randomly, and it’s not compatible with program Z.” Are you going to debug your system to determine that program X is causing the crashes, and that program Z doesn’t work because it is using undocumented window messages? Of course not. You’re going to return the Windows XP box for a refund. (You bought programs X, Y, and Z some months ago. The 30-day return policy no longer applies to them. The only thing you can return is Windows XP.)
While Apple doesn't go that far to preserve backwards compatibility, they're still the ones that take the heat when a popular app is excessively battery consuming as its the battery indicator that's going down.
