Really, killing apps is the only reason to have the multitask bar anyway - since multiple instances of running apps isnt possible in iPhone OS, you could simply return to the running app by re-tapping the app icon on the home screen. The multitask bar exists solely for a shortcut to running apps and to kill them from running.

No more stressing in the blogs about apps being killed only by the OS! You do have control if you want it. Likely what Scott was implying is that you just don't have to monitor it if you don't choose to.

At the begin of 2009, Apple was the only real player in the mobile app market, and today there is no argument that the platform still holds the lead by a huge amount for quality, useful third party applications. But as we push further into 2010 and app stores for Android, Palm WebOS, and even Blackberry and WinMo gain market share, users considering jumping ship will face a similar plight for the first time. How many invested dollars in platform specific apps do I stand to lose by jumping platforms?

The cost of mobile apps and the .99 cent phenomenon
An interesting factor to consider is the actual cost for these apps. Amazingly, the iPhone App Store has somehow managed to make the one dollar purchase a new cultural standard. There are three unspoken rules for price point that near every app purchaser follows, whether conscious or not. If it doesn't offer incredibly deep functionality, it should probably be free. If it does offer something useful, it should be .99 cents and have incredible customer support to boot. If it costs more than that, it'd better either be something for a niche market or the latest 3D game from EA. Anything else will get low ranked into submission, and subsequently the .99 cent price point always seems to show up eventually. The interesting result of this is that the average user may have up to 50 apps loaded in their device, and have only paid in the neighborhood of 20 dollars, if even that. For these users, the cost involved with switching platforms is low enough that the cost barrier doesn't outweigh enough of the device cost to rule out the switch.

Higher cost apps
Low cost apps may ultimately be less of a concern, but what about higher cost apps? Navigation apps are an obvious first contender here, with dollar figures as high as $99 and up. But even if we disregard this app category, $5 apps add up very quickly. A mobile professional using a few more expensive apps can be looking at an app bill up to the $50-$100 range to get their existing applications onto their new device.

Free apps
Even free apps still pose issues. In the past, the worst part of getting a new device was re-entering all of your contacts into your shiny new device (on a monochrome screen, no less). Thankfully those days are generally over, thanks to desktop sync or carriers handling the move for you. But for the first time users may face a new transition nuisance in the form of setting up their apps all over again in their new device, if the app (or an equivalent one) even exists in the new platform's store. There's both learning curve considerations and the time required to re-enter all of your preferences and logins. It can be a full days venture or more depending on the apps in question.

Pulling the trigger
For most, the deciding factor will be cost, and it's likely a percentage. If a user is looking at $150 for a subsidized phone and then immediately face an additional initial outlay of $50 or more in app costs right from the get go, plus a day to get their device setup with those apps, it may be enough to make users think twice about the switch. I'd wager that if the total app cost is less than 30% of the device cost, it's negligible to the user. It's a phenomenon that we haven't truly experienced yet, with the exception of possibly legacy WinMo users who may have purchased software for the platform and jumped ship to the iPhone. But the percentages of users will grow exponentially this year as Apple faces what is likely to be a much larger platform and apps push than they've seen yet from Android and Palm. Inevitably a portion of users will consider the switch. What is unknown is whether those users will have the foresight to realize the app transition cost and, if so, if that will be enough for them to stay with their existing platform instead of jumping ship.

It's an interesting notion to think that perhaps Apple intended this all along, anticipating the competition that was guaranteed to emerge. Unlike on desktop OS's, mobile platforms don't follow the serial number registration paradigm. As such, it is near impossible for third party developers to even allow a free or low cost transition between platforms, as many desktop software providers do today. Time will tell whether platform agnosticism will begin to appear in third party app purchases,  but for the time being, as users continue to download and purchase more apps, they are effectively creating more vested interest in sticking to their existing platform, making the inevitable question of jumping platforms all that much harder to stomach.

So what do you think? What would be your threshold for switching platforms being simply too much to contend with? Sound off in the comments.

I'll leave the specs to the tech blogs, here's some links:

Engadget

Mashable

Gizmodo

Got all that? Good. So what does this all mean? Google's sudden announcement of sorts (of course, this is still all very unofficial) could signal an important shift in the way Google is marketing Android. Clearly, the real competition for Android is the Apple iPhone OS. Apple has always been a hardware manufacturer who also makes their own software and OS, however Google has always kept a hard line of being the exist opposite, focusing on data as a product. If Android is to succeed, part of that success will be to distance itself from the third party only precedent that Windows Mobile has already set, and adding a first party device could help to do just that. Even Microsoft has realized the value of a first party device with the often rumored pink phone.

Android is still a third party first platform, and although this may create some buzz for Android in Q1, this is still a third party phone from HTC with a Google logo on it. That does make it a gold standard Android device (with no third party skins and theoretically first priority ROM updates), but so is the Droid, so what is the justification for Google? If the no contract purchase rumor holds true, is this just Google making an attempt to try and shift the market away from subsidized devices? We'll have to wait and see, but since we've already effectively seen the ROM that will be in the device in the Droid (2.1), that really only leaves room for hardware surprises to capture market share. We'll likely see what cards Google has to play at CES in January.

 If history is any indication (and with Apple, it definitely is), we know a few things are likely facts about the next major iteration of the iPhone OS.

1. It will be announced in March and released to registered developers shortly thereafter
Apple's annoucnement schedule is growing increasingly rigid. You can bet on the beta announcement sometime around mid March, and a new device with 4.0 in June (with the release to existing users close behind).

2. It will include a fair amount of the buzz items that have been predicted, but not all of them
A lot of the speculated features won't make it to 4.0, but the good ones will, on two conditions. One, that they benefit Apple, and two, that they are timely (we'll leave technically feasible out of the mix since it goes without saying). Apple is a marketing machine, sometimes at the expense of what is best for its growing user base. The benefit to them is that those decisions often grow that same user base by destroying competition by releasing features in a timely manner, gathering more buzz than they would have, and often times implementing the functionality better by learning from the early adopters mistakes. Apple has a track record of doing just that incredibly well. Copy/Paste & MMS? I rest my case.

3. It won't do true multitasking
I'd dare say that the truth is that they probably could do it now technically, but they still won't. Its far too soon to eat their own words about why its a poor decision, and, while push notifications are still incredibly useful on their own, the way in which they were touted as a replacement for multitasking makes a larger time gap necessary to keep Apple looking like they were correct last year, and that they are still correct now.

 4. It will deliver at least one unexpected, buzzworthy feature
Apple knows that to get buzz, they need at least one thing to tie up blogs about for a two week period. to do that, it needs to be ground breaking in some way. Expect something unexpected in some form for March, but likely more of a technological benefit than a glossy, direct end user benefit - thats saved for number 5:

5. There will be at least one major feature of the final release not announced in March
OS 3.1 existed both for bug fixes and to give developers access to the unnanouced video player API that was clearly ready well before and saved for the 3GS launch. Expect at least one unnanounced API that is device specific to the next gen iPhone/iPod Touch that won't be available in the 4.0 beta, but will be in 4.1, which will probably be in September.

6. No more paid updates for Touch devices
It's been batted around the web for a while now, but the real reason this is likely is due to the huge market share the Touch now accounts for. Getting that user base on the latest OS may soon outweigh the dollars from paid upgrades.

7. The end of the road for 2G iPhone/1st gen iPod Touch device support
It was a possibility with 3.0, but its a near inevitability with 4.0 - the original 2G and the 1st gen iPod Touch will likely no longer be supported. 3.0 runs comparatively poorly on these devices as it is. 

My predictions for new OS 4.0 features:

1. Background processes
Further promoting the "we don't need multitasking" mentality, I'm guessing some form of background or shell-style app integration will be allowed, possibly via the copy/paste menu, which could easily be a full context menu. This opens up the option for simple application accessors to be available between apps, which brings me to #2:

2. Cross application access
Right now, the sandbox between third party apps and anything else is exceedingly rigid. Some form of improvement will be made to allow more explicit communication to core apps and possibly even other third party apps, but this is much less likely in this iteration of the OS.

3. Event modes and location awareness
Based on patents filed by Apple, this is a logical change to make it more lifestyle integrated. The device will change modes and operating states based on calendar events, timers, physical device location, and likely device docks as well. They need something to compete with Android 2.0's car mode (not to mention Google Navigation, which i think Apple is preparing a competitor to, but not in this release).

4. The end of the home screen as we know it
It just doesnt work anymore, and the iTunes 9 interface for moving the icons around is clearly a stopgap solution for a company that puts such emphasis on interface. Do we really think that Apple will stick to a paradigm that requires connecting a mobile device to a physical computer to easily manipulate the icons? If anything, grouping will appear, but I'd expect a substantial change to the home screen interface this time around.

5. Sync access to third party apps via iTunes
The http port workarounds for third party apps to upload and download data is a mess and confusing to most users. Moreover, the inability to sync data any way other than over the air is problematic at best, and is one of the last benefits that Palm and WinMo still hold over Apple. I'd be very surprised if Apple doesn't fix that quickly.

6. The end of the name 'iTunes'?
The application is clearly no longer named properly, and the recent acquisition of Lala is a good opportunity to spin iTunes into something brand new, cloud based, possibly a Pandora killer. If the 'tunes' portion of iTunes is due for such an overhaul, it would be an opportune time to rename the core application and clarify that audio is but one of the functions that the application serves. Apple's push into the enterprise sector will be huge this year, and an application that seems worthy, both in functionality and name, in a business environment, seems essential.

So there you have it, my thoughts for 4.0. What do you think about 4.0? Sound off in the comments.