泰德，你想要实现的目标是可以实现的，只是可能不是你现在想的那样。

我建议您阅读活动和服务。停止使用术语“应用程序”，开始引用组件，即活动，服务。我认为你只需要更多地了解Android平台;这是一个标准PC应用程序的心态变化。事实上，你的帖子中没有一个词是“活动”(简单的FAQ引用，即不是你的话)，我告诉我你需要阅读更多。

我同意泰德的观点。我明白退出应用程序不是 “Android方式”，但它似乎不应该被排除。在这里 您可能需要一个真正的应用程序出口(不是 只是活动):

The user might want some control over which app gets killed in the case of low memory. If important app A is running in the background, then you might like to exit app B when you are done with it so that app A doesn't get killed by the operating system. If your application has sensitive data cached in memory, you might like to kill the app so that a virus/worm/rogue app can't get at it. I know the security model is supposed to prevent that, but just in case... If your application uses resources (like network, CPU, sensors, etc.) that could adversely affect the phone, then one way of ensuring that those resources are freed up is to exit the application. I understand that well-behaved apps should free up resources when they are not needed. But again, exiting the application seems like a reasonable way of ensuring that.

Android应用程序的生命周期是为手机用户设计的，而不是电脑用户。

应用程序生命周期是将Linux服务器转变为消费者设备所需的极其简单的范例。

Android是基于Linux的Java，一个真正的跨平台服务器操作系统。这就是为什么它传播得这么快。应用程序生命周期封装了操作系统的底层现实。

对于手机用户来说，应用只是安装或不安装。没有奔跑或退出的概念。事实上，应用程序进程应该一直运行到操作系统释放它们以获取所拥有的资源为止。

因为这是Stack Overflow，任何阅读这篇文章的人都是计算机用户，必须关闭他们90%的知识来理解移动应用程序的生命周期。

使用以下代码:

Intent i = new Intent();
i.setAction(Intent.ACTION_MAIN);
i.addCategory(Intent.CATEGORY_HOME);
ListActivity.this.startActivity(i);
finish();

博客文章“何时在Android应用程序中包含退出按钮”(提示:永远不要)解释得比我好得多。我希望每个Android开发者都读过这本书。

摘录:

In my experience what [the users] really want is: An unambiguous way to guarantee that an app will stop consuming resources (battery, CPU cycles, data transfer, etc.). Many users perceive that an exit button implements this requirement and ask for it to be added. Developers, looking to please their users, obligingly add one. Shortly thereafter they both fail. In most cases the exit button simply calls Activity.finish(). This is exactly equivalent to hitting the back button. Exactly. Services keep running and polling keeps happening. Users may think they've killed the app but they haven't, and soon they'll be even more annoyed. Exit behavior is now ambiguous. Should your exit button just close the Activity, or should it also stop all associated Services, Receivers, and Alarms? What should Back do? What happens if they hit Home instead? What happens if your app has a widget? Should the exit button stop that from updating too? The solution is to make the back button behave as you'd expect the exit button to. Better yet, simply stop consuming resources whenever the app isn't visible.

继续阅读完整的文章。

作为一个Android开发新手，我开始熟悉生命周期等等。作为一名Android用户，我一直讨厌自己无法删除应用程序。

为什么用户应该信任一个应用程序?我们可能认为把应用放在后台是“安全的”，但用户真的安全吗? 我们可能会爱上“新”做事方式的天才，但并不是所有的应用程序都写得很完美，甚至很好。有些可能是恶意的，并试图保持后台进程一直运行。有些可能是出于好意，但很混乱。

我讨厌打开浏览器或谷歌，从我上次离开的地方开始，不得不向后堆叠几十个缓慢的页面，只是为了感觉我有一个干净的开始。用户应该拥有最终的控制权。有多少次技术支持告诉我们“重启我们的机器”或“关闭程序并重新启动”?用户需要感觉他们是在重新启动应用，而不是恢复一个可能会让他们沮丧或给他们带来问题的状态。

你不能指望人们保留一个复杂的环境模型，只是为了使用一个应用程序来完成一些事情。人们觉得自己可以控制铅笔和纸，因为这体现在他们对铅笔和纸的行为和未来行为的体验中。 软件是魔术，它发生在幕后。它的行为规则就像创建它的开发者一样反复无常。

We should try to design appliances that relate to an underlying, almost physical, model that is robust and reliable and truly intuitive to the user. "Killing" an app is something a user can embrace. It's like throwing out a pile of scratch paper and starting over; closing a book and putting it back on the shelf. Magic has its place for dedicated professionals who can invest themselves in a particular world, such as video editing or animation systems. And these users often contribute to the features themselves and so are comfortable with them. But everyday users deserve at least a few really grounded options they can rely on regardless of sophistication level, in my opinion. I'm for an easy way to exit a process completely even if it is not the target model the system aspires to.