Apps

is this true?

Doubtful

Does the background application immediately relaunch itself?

Obviously simply holding things in memory takes less energy than allocating a whole new lot of bits.
In practice it wouldn't make much difference.

that's what i thought.

> be me
> leave epub reading app running
> go to sleep
> wake up
> battery at %15

Phone operating systems already close background apps that don't go out of their way to avoid being closed, so I don't see how it would make much of a difference.

> runs cbr reader app
> exits app
> presses home button
> app is still loaded

sounds like improper behavior

Background apps will stick around until the current foreground app starts asking the OS for more resources. After a while any background app that hasn't been used recently and doesn't have a persistent notification will be killed by the OS. iOS and Android have been doing this for as long as they've allowed multiple apps to run at the same time.

Yes it is for apps that were developed well according to platform.
For major apps like facebook and instagram it's the opposite.

It's true, when you close an app it has to open itself again to be able to listen to your microphone and access your camera which consumes more than if you just let it watch them all the time.

It's bullshit, and I've heard it for years.

Test it yourself. Wake up one morning, reboot, and open a shit ton of apps. Wake up the next morning and swipe away apps you don't frequently use throughout the day.

I've done this test on several phones, and swiping away rarely used apps always results in noticeably less battery drain.

It 100% depends on which apps though. People applying a blanket statement either way are fooling themselves because all apps aren't created the same nor held to the same standards.

This is true, but my general rule of thumb is that if it isn't a messaging app or something I open every hour or so, just swipe it away.

Even well-established apps like Spotify will eat through battery for no reason. Google's apps seem to do well, though.

In general that works because an overwhelming majority of popular apps aren't made well (they're made according to the needs and efficiency of the company which tends to mean skimping out on 'native' aspects where possible). Like spotify as you bring up, on any platform, spotify isn't made to eat up as little resources as possible and adhere to all platform standards, but instead to just be a usable uniform experience.

It's unfortunate things are this way because it means people develop unnecessary habits to cope just so their battery isn't fucked. Too bad apple/google/etc won't do anything about it.

some apps are assholes

yes, and I'm glad he made a comic about his topic

>I'm with her

Not at all if we are talking about Android since apps can run in background. It's true for iOS tho, since apps on background "freeze" and end up using less power on RAM than when you launch them.

Yes and no.
Mostly no, as many apps are written in a shitty manner.

Apps like Snapchat drain the fuck out of your battery in the background, especially since update.

However closing it stops it pushing for notifications, so either way you lose

>Download Words with Friends
>Play round with senpai
>>App drains battery faster than running maps and watching video while streaming music until you physically "stop" the process in battery stats

this hasn't been true for like 7 years

so, in summary? nobody can agree.

that's the Sup Forums i know and love.

>long press on return to kill app
I love this option.

time to sue for fake news

So if you use a wide variety of different apps (media, messaging, social), is it better to leave them all or just clear them all?

at least 1/3 apps have wakelocks that prevent deep sleep, which means your phone won't go to its lowest power state.

It's half true and half false.
Apps that you frequently check should be left opened, but apps that you only check once every few hours or less can be closed.
For example I have several active group chats on hangouts, so I never close that. Meanwhile it's rare for someone to text me, so I always close my texting app after I check it.

Only on iphone that has proper background app management. Not on Android.

I don't have battery life problems. Funny thing is... all the midrange phones I buy have always had replaceable batteries.

Proper = no multitasking, got it.

>hurr durr let's leave 30 tabs open, the browser unloads them from memory anyway

Something being on XKCD is a good way to know that it's not true.

iOS has multitasking. It's just that it's better than Android's.

big if true

weak

Yes, it's like turning the lights off/on in your house all the time. The activation/deactivation energy spikes high enough that keeping it on longer ends up being more energy efficient.

Android dev here. When you press the home button it pauses but not stops the app, asking it to save it's state. So a properly designed app should store objects to a system provided bundle, which is then provided to the app when it resumes. So by pressing the home button (pausing the app) and then swiping it away, app are needlessly storing it's state within the system, and the state objects are being destroyed and garbage collected.

But if you stopped the app by pressing the back button until it exits, and then swipe it away, it has pretty much no effect other than clearling it out of recents. The app shouldn't be running any background tasks at that point, so swiping it away does literally nothing to save battery.

So technically it does waste battery, swiping them away. But usually not by much. The only exception is a poorly designed app that doesn't stop it's background tasks when it's suppose to.

What about forcing the application to stop?

stops all the app + all processes started by the app, and doesn't clear it from recents.

If the goal is to prevent it from doing stuff in the background, it won't help because services have the ability to restart themselves when killed by the system.