Wireless iPhone sync software rejected by Apple from App Store

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
Apple this week rejected "Wi-Fi Sync," a third-party application that allows the iPhone and iPod touch to sync wirelessly with iTunes.



The developer, Greg Hughes, has instead turned to the unauthorized source for iPhone software, Cydia, which is available only on "jailbroken" devices that can run software not approved by Apple. Wi-Fi Sync is available to purchase through the Cydia Store for $9.99.



Hughes told Engadget that an Apple representative told him over the phone that the application was not specifically in violation of the terms of the iPhone OS developer agreement.



"While he agreed that the app doesn't technically break the rules, he said that it does encroach upon the boundaries of what they can and cannot allow on their store," the developer said. "He also cited security concerns."



Wi-Fi Sync allows an iPhone or iPod touch to wirelessly transfer data such as music to the device without tethering it to a computer via a USB cable. It is not supported on the iPad. The current application works with Mac OS X and requires separate, free software to be installed on the machine running iTunes. Hughes said a Windows version of the desktop application is forthcoming.



The developer first introduced the application in late April.







Apple has maintained tight control of the ability of its devices to sync with the iTunes desktop client. Last year, the iPhone maker was engaged in a well-publicized sync spat with rival Palm.



Originally, Palm's WebOS mobile operating system identified itself as an iPod to allow the device to sync with iTunes by default. But Apple released numerous iTunes updates that killed the functionality. The back-and-forth battle continued for months, until the USB Implementers Forum sided with Apple and warned Palm that its actions were in violation of the organization's rules.
«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 140
    This is why jailbreaking is the only way to have a iPhone.
  • Reply 2 of 140
    fixmdudefixmdude Posts: 93member
    Wow, did we all buy our iPhones or are we just renting them from Apple? Even if I rented a laptop, I'd still have the freedom to put software on it.
  • Reply 3 of 140
    tazinlwfltazinlwfl Posts: 117member
    I'm a bit disappointed about this... I would have LOVED this one! I dont want to JB my 3GS, especially with 4.0 coming... but this is tempting :-(
  • Reply 4 of 140
    ktappektappe Posts: 824member
    This is pretty much a fail on Apple's part. They can't hide behind "think of the children" on this one; no, they're stuck looking like overbearing doofuses who are exercising their right to reject apps "just because". I'd planned to get a new iPhone next month to replace my 3G, but now I'll at least wait until jailbreak is proven to work on it, and look seriously at an HTC Incredible while I wait. I've had about enough of this.
  • Reply 5 of 140
    babiasubabiasu Posts: 12member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fixmdude View Post


    Wow, did we all buy our iPhones or are we just renting them from Apple? Even if I rented a laptop, I'd still have the freedom to put software on it.



    If you think Android is open, you're wrong!
  • Reply 6 of 140
    zindakozindako Posts: 468member
    Meh, kinda disappointed myself, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
  • Reply 7 of 140
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ROCjetblue320 View Post


    This is why jailbreaking is the only way to have a iPhone.





    Nope. This is why sophisticated users prefer Android. No bullshit.
  • Reply 8 of 140
    babiasubabiasu Posts: 12member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    Nope. This is why sophisticated users prefer Android. No bullshit.



    Android market is not good enough for developer. People also want the apps are free like the OS.
  • Reply 9 of 140
    postulantpostulant Posts: 1,272member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie;


    Nope. This is why sophisticated users prefer Android. No bullshit.



    lol @ sophisticated users...
  • Reply 10 of 140
    oskiooskio Posts: 60member
    and the love hate relationship saga continues with my iPhone.....
  • Reply 11 of 140
    shubiduashubidua Posts: 157member
    I don't understand how he managed to such an app without breaking any rules.



    I mean, the sync is deep down in the system, isn't it? So how did he manage to fool the system and make it work, because the way I understand it, the sync is the same as when done over the usb cable?
  • Reply 12 of 140
    bartfatbartfat Posts: 434member
    I see the trolls are out in full force today. I bet if this gets popular, Apple will implement it anyway in a later update. But the real question is, even though wireless syncing is cool, what happens if you just want it to charge and transfer data fast at the same time? Sometimes wires are still better than wireless. I mean, you'd still have to plug in a wire for power anyway, so it might as well be the wire leading to your USB port.
  • Reply 13 of 140
    paulmjohnsonpaulmjohnson Posts: 1,380member
    This is a shame - would have been useful.



    I'm actually surprised Apple have not introduced something like this themselves (maybe they are planning to).
  • Reply 14 of 140
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,613member
    I've always wanted Wi-Fi syncing on my iPhone -- it just makes sense. I mean, hell, my first generation Zune 30 had Wi-Fy syncing from the get-go.
  • Reply 15 of 140
    postulantpostulant Posts: 1,272member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fixmdude;


    Wow, did we all buy our iPhones or are we just renting them from Apple? Even if I rented a laptop, I'd still have the freedom to put software on it.



    You have that freedom now, you just can't download it from Apple. If the app store doesn't meet your needs, by all means find an alternate. I can't tell Apple what apps to sell, and Apple can't tell me what I can do with my devises.
  • Reply 16 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    Nope. This is why sophisticated users prefer Android. No bullshit.







    are all 'sophisticated' users trolls like you?
  • Reply 17 of 140
    donlphidonlphi Posts: 214member
    First of all... The app demo that is floating around shows that you have to be sitting by your computer to use it anyway, so spend the 2 additional seconds to plug the phone in. By the time the computer and phone finally pair, you could have been done syncing and out the door (assuming you leave the house).



    It's selling for $10 on cydia.



    Apple was right on this move. See the demo first, then reply.
  • Reply 18 of 140
    Wouldn't wireless synching be really, really slow anyway? I mean synching with the cable takes 5-10 minutes. How long wirelessly? Sounds like a great idea, but kind of impractical at the moment. I'm sure when we have faster wireless it'll be a no brainer for Apple to implement their own wireless synching and you won't have to spend $10 on a feature that should be built into the system. Kind of like the characters that had to spend $2 on an application to rotate the keyboard in certain Apps before Apple updated the OS with landscape keyboards. Yall need to be patient, wireless synch isn't a "must have" feature right now.
  • Reply 19 of 140
    javacowboyjavacowboy Posts: 864member
    In Objective-C, private APIs (such as whatever were used for the wireless sync app) are not really private because developers can still find them due to the nature of the language and the runtime. This is in contrast to a managed runtime like Java and .NET, where private APIs really are hidden behind developers because they're not public methods.



    Apple needs to come to terms with the disadvantages of using a 20+ year old programming language that has seen little modifications (properties, closures) over that time.
  • Reply 20 of 140
    postulantpostulant Posts: 1,272member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bartfat;


    I see the trolls are out in full force today. I bet if this gets popular, Apple will implement it anyway in a later update. But the real question is, even though wireless syncing is cool, what happens if you just want it to charge and transfer data fast at the same time? Sometimes wires are still better than wireless. I mean, you'd still have to plug in a wire for power anyway, so it might as well be the wire leading to your USB port.



    I don't transfer content on my device regularly anyhow. And since I have to charge my device via USB, that's also when I do content transfer if any is required.



    Besides, aren't there apps which allow complete access to all your media wirelessly without having to be physically stored on your phone?
Sign In or Register to comment.