What are the background push principles of iOS-iOS and Android? What is the difference?

IOS push
IOS has a push service program at the system level that uses port 5223. The protocol using this port originated from Jabber's later development into XMPP and was used in IM software such as Gtalk.

Therefore, iOS push is not strictly understood:
The message sent by the Apple Server to an IM service program mounted on the background of the mobile phone.
Then, the system identifies the specific Apps Based on the IM message.
The system then notifies these Apps separately.

The message content is as follows:
It should be said that Apple has no technological innovation. However, the entire architecture is amazing. Because:
1
The use of tested protocols poses low technical risks.

2
Apple has the courage to take responsibility:
He needs to maintain a costly server cluster and is responsible for the server down.

Selecting a low-risk technical solution with fewer bugs reduces user pain, which is the credit of the Architecture engineer.
Apple is responsible for minimizing uncontrollable accidents and ensuring the user experience.
This can only be said to be the credit of the company's decision makers.
(From the perspective, it is important to have a technical VP... Scott leaves ..)

The benefits they bring to users are also tangible.
1. Security.
Only logged-on developers can push data through Apple's server.

2. Fast, stable, and reliable.
Apple controls the push server and OS.

3 more power-saving.

4. Make the entire system experience more unified and simple.
There will be no such brainstorms as killing the background. (There is no need for a large number of Apps services to push to the background ).
Nor will Apps be killed, so they will not be able to handle the mental disability of pushing (the Android version of Sina Weibo, which was earlier, is still the case ).

5. Easy to develop.
Of course, developers still need to do things, such as maintaining a server or something: http://www.ifanr.com/4109. But the complexity is undoubtedly much reduced.

Android push
Apps hanging on the background has always been a feature that Android is proud of (although I really don't know whether it is good or bad ..)... Everyone goes to the background and waits for push to become a technical choice.

Of course, Google also provided a push method similar to Apple later. Not plagiarism. After all, there is no particular innovation in Apple's overall technological implementation.

User battery?

Apps developers will not consider it at the system level. He assumes that other Apps are less "unconscious ". What Google does not force is:No one is really responsible for the user's battery.

However, Google's solutions are not all tragedy:
Because the entire technical solution is not mandatory, Android Apps are more flexible after receiving the push.
For Android versions like Line, you can directly reply to the Popup of the push notification. iOS requires jailbreak.

Last words
Forced and closed, sometimes not a bad thing. He means the person who makes the decision is responsible for this.

Therefore, if Apple's push solution is innovative?

I think it is a solution that surpasses the technology and does not hesitate to let the company take more risks and responsibilities. (Similar to the dedicated BB network, the Global 3 GB of Kindle)

I personally believe that it is worthwhile to assume these "extra" responsibilities...

As long as it is for the user.

 

 

 

Clear Saup-from zhihu