or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Wireless iPhone sync software rejected by Apple from App Store
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wireless iPhone sync software rejected by Apple from App Store

post #1 of 141
Thread Starter 
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.
post #2 of 141
This is why jailbreaking is the only way to have a iPhone.
post #3 of 141
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.
post #4 of 141
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 :-(
post #5 of 141
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.
post #6 of 141
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!
post #7 of 141
Meh, kinda disappointed myself, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
post #8 of 141
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.
post #9 of 141
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.
post #10 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie;

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

lol @ sophisticated users...
post #11 of 141
and the love hate relationship saga continues with my iPhone.....
post #12 of 141
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?
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." - Albert Einstein
Reply
post #13 of 141
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.
post #14 of 141
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).
post #15 of 141
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.
post #16 of 141
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.
post #17 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

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



are all 'sophisticated' users trolls like you?
post #18 of 141
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.
post #19 of 141
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.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #20 of 141
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.
post #21 of 141
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?
post #22 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartfat View Post

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.

For the same reason Apple released TimeCapsule. Sometimes wireless can be more convenient. You are right though, I would hate to see what shape an iPhone would be in if it died in the middle of a sync, even if it is just a data sync.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #23 of 141
Again Apple is on the cutting edge only to dull it down with dumb restrictions. I would love to convert all my computer needs to Mac, but Apple continues to give me reasons not to.
post #24 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by donlphi View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant View Post

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?

All of these are good posts with relevant questions/points.

Every single post booing Apple for what must be another draconian attack, are childish at best, pathetically uninformed at worst.

WiFi sycning is no where even close to being an acceptable replacement, or even adequate accompaniment, to USB. It's slow as an old dog, uses battery instead of charging it, and still requires connection to your computer, proximity, and even in the demo, shows the user sitting at his computer with the iPhone laying on the desk....How unimaginably pointless. Plug the damn thing in, click sync, and you're done in 10 seconds, not 3 minutes.

Ever copy 3 songs to your iPhone? It's done before iTunes can even show you the progress bar. Watching those 3 songs transfer in the demo not only proved my point, but forced me to laugh out loud, as I knew this is most one could hope for at this juncture of wireless tech.

Syncing in general is going to be out, long before WiFi syncing becomes a useable standard feature. There won't be any point in syncing your music or video when your portable can stream them, gapless and seamless, and in full quality, over the air, just as if they were local on the device. This, isn't far off at all, and is much easier to accomplish than actually transferring (copying) the files.
post #25 of 141
Wow AI threads are dead compared to Macrumours. Already 140 posts over there.

I still haven't decided if this is bad or good yet. I mean I dock or connect my device anyway to charge it and actually I've never synced with iTunes since I bought my device. I sync using MobileMe for iCal but that's it so I'm obviously wireless already.

I think I just answered my own question. Maybe Apple doesn't like this app because there would be less of a reason to need MobileMe. I know that besides being on the road people do take advantage of MobileMe even when they're at home because they might as well use the service you're paying for even if the computer is only downstairs.

Some people over at Macrumours have already downloaded the app from Cydia and after the initial setup it apparently runs pretty well. Slower than USB of course but some people don't mind a hit in speed to be wireless.

I personally don't need Wi-Fi sync but I do think it should be a standard feature.
post #26 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by success View Post

Wow AI threads are dead compared to Macrumours. Already 140 posts over there.

Less garbage...
post #27 of 141
This would be more useful for the iPad since it's plugged into a wall socket for charging rather than the computer.
post #28 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

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. .



Those grapes are SOUR!
post #29 of 141
[QUOTE=pmz;1632394
WiFi sycning is no where even close to being an acceptable replacement, or even adequate accompaniment, to USB.[/QUOTE]


And therefore, we are not allowed the choice?
post #30 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

All of these are good posts with relevant questions/points.

Every single post booing Apple for what must be another draconian attack, are childish at best, pathetically uninformed at worst.

WiFi sycning is no where even close to being an acceptable replacement, or even adequate accompaniment, to USB. It's slow as an old dog, uses battery instead of charging it, and still requires connection to your computer, proximity, and even in the demo, shows the user sitting at his computer with the iPhone laying on the desk....How unimaginably pointless. Plug the damn thing in, click sync, and you're done in 10 seconds, not 3 minutes.

Ever copy 3 songs to your iPhone? It's done before iTunes can even show you the progress bar. Watching those 3 songs transfer in the demo not only proved my point, but forced me to laugh out loud, as I knew this is most one could hope for at this juncture of wireless tech.

Syncing in general is going to be out, long before WiFi syncing becomes a useable standard feature. There won't be any point in syncing your music or video when your portable can stream them, gapless and seamless, and in full quality, over the air, just as if they were local on the device. This, isn't far off at all, and is much easier to accomplish than actually transferring (copying) the files.

Wired is always faster than wireless. Not just for syncing, but for everything. Yet we all use it. The identical arguments could be made about wireless backups, yet Apple offers that as a solution. The fact that wireless is slower than wired hardly equates to a reason not to use it. Wifi is slower but more convenient. It's a tradeoff most of us have to to accept. Sometimes, convenience wins.

I wonder, if Apple were to implement this, how many people now coming up with reasons to say it is a useless idea would get on the band wagon. I guess one they are allowed to think it is ok, then it is ok.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #31 of 141
just plug it in. no big deal.

post #32 of 141
So much for being magical.
post #33 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas;

I wonder, if Apple were to implement this, how many people now coming up with reasons to say it is a useless idea would get on the band wagon. I guess one they are allowed to think it is ok, then it is ok.

It's not useless. It's just useless to cry over it.
post #34 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

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.

I think Apple considers those "disadvantages" advantageous language features, as do many developers. It's not really too much to expect iPhone OS developers to behave like adults and abide by the terms of the developer agreement.
post #35 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

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.

that's why both of the sophisticated users bought zunes!

post #36 of 141
I'd be surprised if this feature wasn't showing up with the new iPhone next month. That's my guess as to why this wasn't be approved this month, esp. if the guy is charging $10. If the free, Apple-supplied version shows up a month later, there is the potential to have lots of very unhappy "Wi-Fi Sync" buyers.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #37 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

... I wonder, if Apple were to implement this, how many people now coming up with reasons to say it is a useless idea would get on the band wagon. I guess one they are allowed to think it is ok, then it is ok.

The difference, of course, were Apple to implement it is that they wouldn't end up having to field support calls related to failed syncs caused by code over which they have no control. It's not like people are going to call the developer for support if their phone gets bricked, and, human nature being what it is, their ire will end up directed at Apple, however unreasonable that might be. It's entirely appropriate for them to reject an app performing such a basic system operation, just as it would be entirely appropriate for them to implement it themselves if they so decided.
post #38 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

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.

If you don't understand the purpose of private APIs (and private vs. public class methods) then I'd guess you don't do a lot of development with libraries... This is strictly because those apps that use private APIs break when the underlying libraries change (and they always change).

If you can't manage to restrain yourself from using them, just because the libraries are visible to you (OBTW the corollary in Android works the same way), maybe some therapy or a self-help book is in order.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #39 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

I'd be surprised if this feature wasn't showing up with the new iPhone next month. That's my guess as to why this wasn't be approved this month, esp. if the guy is charging $10. If the free, Apple-supplied version shows up a month later, there is the potential to have lots of very unhappy "Wi-Fi Sync" buyers.

Might be free if you buy a new iPhone but what about the existing users?
post #40 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartfat View Post

I see the trolls are out in full force today.

You may need a quick dictionary lesson... "Troll" does not equal "someone who disagrees with Apple".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Wireless iPhone sync software rejected by Apple from App Store