Yes I agree. A phone should never be allowed to get unpleasant to touch. Maybe apple went to generous with their temp limit, or their sensor has too much play between devices.
But also some programs shouldn't be allowed to go full blast when they are stuck in a self inflicted loop while waiting for something (instead of doing actual compute). And that is what I meant with activity monitor. If such behavior from popular software was more obvious, CPU waster could be helt accountable. Maybe you may even delegate a program to only use a single core or only e-cores. But instead, I guess, we have to settle with a thermal limit of 30°C so we won't even notice if an open app eats through our battery in the background.
> But also some programs shouldn't be allowed to go full blast when they are stuck in a self inflicted loop while waiting for something (instead of doing actual compute). And that is what I meant with activity monitor. If such behavior from popular software was more obvious, CPU waster could be helt accountable.
Have you solved the halting problem? Because that’s the only way generally to distinguish “actual” compute from stuck without forward progress. There are heuristic approaches obviously and it might be neat for Apple to try that out, but that means killing services randomly even though they may be behaving well. They do this for memory internally where you indicate expected ranges (eg when inactive it’s X and when I take out an “active” token it’s Y). Could try this for CPU consumption.
Generally though, iOS is carefully designed to not let anything run in the background except for OS services. The latter you can’t kill and former means that going to the homescreen is generally sufficient to kill whatever was misbehaving (microphone, navigation, and music let you run backgrounded but the former 2 have UI indicating this and the latter is usually audible and if any other app starts playing you stop so it’s not reliable)..
But also some programs shouldn't be allowed to go full blast when they are stuck in a self inflicted loop while waiting for something (instead of doing actual compute). And that is what I meant with activity monitor. If such behavior from popular software was more obvious, CPU waster could be helt accountable. Maybe you may even delegate a program to only use a single core or only e-cores. But instead, I guess, we have to settle with a thermal limit of 30°C so we won't even notice if an open app eats through our battery in the background.