Wireless iPhone sync software rejected by Apple from App Store - Page 2

Sure, I am not disagreeing at all with Apple's decision to ban this app. Wireless syncing certainly has technical issues that might adversely affect end users and their experience with the iPhone platform. And if Apple were to implement it, I am certain they would include safeguards for things like the battery dying or the connection dropping in the middle of a sync. These are legitimate concerns and ones Apple would consider and work around before implementing it themselves.

But, most of criticisms have instead been simply that syncing wireless is not a workable solution mainly because of the speed limitations compared to USB or that USB syncing charges the battery and wireless doesn't. I would wager these would no longer be considered reasons not to do wireless syncing if Apple implemented it...and these are concerns that would exist whether the solution was from Apple or a third party. The same limitations would exist, but not matter, if Apple did it.

The user doesnt need to sit in front of his/her computer everytime... That was just to do itthe first time... From then on, you just open the app and initiate it from the phone...

You must be new here

I'm kind of torn on this one. On the one hand it's just wrong to reject an app that they admit "technically doesn't break the rules," (if that part is true), but on the other, based on people who've seen the demo, it seems like a crappy app with limited utility.

I would argue against what is said above that Apple mostly just allows wireless syncing with Time Capsule or a TM drive because it's "trickle" data and therefore the bandwidth doesn't matter as much because it's just tiny updates every 15 minutes or so rather than gigabytes of songs and music.

On the other other hand though, my Apple TV will wirelessly sync huge HD movies in almost no time at all, so wireless syncing of even a 32 Gig iPhone wouldn't be *that* painful. It would certainly be nice to be able to leave my iPhone anywhere in my house and not have to run to the sync cradle in the morning before work because the phone had intelligently taken the opportunity to wirelessly sync while everyone was sleeping.

I think the trouble is that while we can all probably find an example of a time when wireless syncing would be handy, as an overall solution for syncing for the average user it's not going to work. By that I mean if it was available, the average user would try to use it, have problems with it, have it fail a lot, and might subsequently come to the conclusion that their phone sucks or Apple sucks etc.

It's the fact that the iPhone is marketed to and used by those pesky "average users" again that's likely the problem again.

I can't speak for anyone else, but they would matter to me. It's not like you can sync your iPhone and do anything else at the same time anyway. I'd just as soon have it over as soon as possible, so I think I would just plug in to sync anyway. I always go into Airplane Mode when I sync, anyway, because it's such a pain to have to redo it if someone calls you in the middle of a sync. (I wonder what happens with this software in that case?)

What would be nice would be the ability to selectively sync things like contacts or calendar entries wirelessly, without having to do a full sync. I know you can do this with MobileMe, but I'd rather be able to do it directly to/from my Mac

I have a feeling this app was rejected because Apple will do this themselves in the not too distant future....

I always wanted wireless syncing but not on my iPhone but on my iPod Nano. I use it while running and most of the time I'm listening to podcasts so I'm continually moving them on and off. Big difference is I hardly ever charge my Nano. That thing can go weeks without a charge due to the fact I'm using about an hour a day. However with my iPhone it's getting charged once a day (sometime even more frequently) and it's syncing while it charges so for me it wouldn't be that great for me.

That being said I think there's probably a lot of people that would use it so I see a place for it in the iTunes App Store.

The hand held camera work was a fail in my opinion.


In general, I agree, though I might have a charger on my night stand or by my couch or at the entry door. It really doesn't have to be fast if it's a daily update. The USB cable would be necessary for video or lots of audio file updates, but if it's just calendars, contacts and maybe a few audio tracks, WiFi would do the job pretty well.

IPhone beta 3 has been released a couple of weeks ago and we have heard no mention of that feature so I would guess it is not going to be in the rumored release next month.

That you would actually defend choosing a crap app because it fits your ideals, instead of an implementation that works the way it's supposed to.

Nice.

Well, remember, every time you do a sync, it also does a system backup.

That was my first thought. Apple does not allow developer access to the file system for security reasons. There's no way they could have done this without breaking the rules.


Here's a hint: Any time someone says that Apple told them something about an app store app but can't provide an email, take it with a HUGE grain of salt. Most (if not all) App Store/developer discussions are done by email. I doubt very much that Apple said it doesn't break the rules.

Steve Jobs:

"I've got a little challenge for you, Sark - a new recruit. He's a tough case, but I want him treated in the usual manner. Train him for the games, let him hope for a while, then blow him away."
--

Sark:

"You got it. I've been hoping you'd send me somebody with a little bit of guts. What kind of Program is he?"
--

Steve Jobs:

"He's not any kind of Program, Sark. He's a User."
--

Sark: [surprised]

"A User?"
--

Steve Jobs:

"That's right. He pushed me in the real world. Someone pushes me, I push back, so I brought him down here.

--

[pause]


Steve Jobs:

"End of line."

------

Meanwhile, somewhere else on an infinite plane of glowing grid lines, a little app tries to communicate with it's User via newly acquired WiFi capabilities, when suddenly, ZAP! A luminous goo of 1s and 0s spills from a fresh angry wound as the app's tiny glowing hockey-helmeted head is cleaved in two by a neon Frisbee. An Apple logo, engraved in light upon the surface of the flying deadly disc, pulses a bit brighter.

------

You weren't one of the ones stating that those particular (or otherwise inherent) problems were the reasons for not implementing wireless syncing. If you had been, then it would be interesting to hear your stance if/when Apple implemented it with the same problems. I will be interested in seeing what those users say if/when Apple does it. Will speed issues and battery drain suddenly be ok? The issues you mentioned are ones Apple could solve and so stand up as legitimate reasons. It seems the issues that other's have brought up would have to be rationalized away if Apple were to do it, because even Apple can't change physics.

As to your question about the wireless sync being interrupted, I wonder if they have any warning to users to make sure they do a wired sync periodically and before the initial wireless sync. At least that way, if it hoses your system you can restore.

Your idea for limited and/or selective syncing is a good one and is what I would think Apple would implement. Allowing for smaller, shorter syncs would help mitigate, if not eliminate, potential and inherent problems with the concept or wireless syncs.

It's also suspicious that the guy went *straight* to Cydia the next day. Almost as if the rejection was expected and the application to the app store just done for cred or for publicity.

Tend to agree. But it depends on the situation too. I'm no power user, so I only 'sync' up every once in a while(once a month... perhaps). However, for wireless printing or file sharing, I can see having that now.

Steve-- take that 30B in cash, hire some engineers and hop to it.

IMO Steve-o is waiting for uber high speed wireless. I recall some article that Apple was pushing Intel for Gbit wireless or something. That would make sense in the Steve Jobs way of thinking... gots to be perfect ya know. He would have the ability to tie in Apple TV etc into one master controlled world. World domination... Apple is DOOMED.

If you don't have a MobileMe account that's one thing, but what's wrong with doing it the MobileMe way. If I added a contact on my phone right now, it would show up on my MBP and iMac in a matter of moments. If I added a calendar event on my MBP, likewise, it'll show up on my iPhone right away. How is this all that different than doing it directly to/from my Macs? Just curious.

Even with TimeCapsule, the initial sync can be huge and depending on what files have changed between syncs, the incremental and daily syncs can also be large. The major differences are that Apple had implemented safeguards for interrupted backups and even if a backup goes bad, it doesn't affect your system. An interrupted iPhone sync could be very problematic. And yes, I think Apple will only implement this (or even allow others) once they have developed an intelligent API that can work around some of the inherent problems and risks.

But, as I have said, my issue is with the people claiming wireless speed or charging the battery are reasons enough to not have this feature. Not because those aren't valid reason and may in fact be enough to even allow this feature from being allowed, but because those same users would ignore these problems and risks if Apple implemented it.

i thought briefly about going with the new iphone that will come out....but it seems all we hear from apple is no, no, no.
android 2.2 will probably have usb and wireless tether, will function as a wireless access point and is supposedly twice as fast as 2.1
its like windows 95 vs mac all over again except with phones. android can be had on a wide array of hardware and styles and providers. apple locked down to their hardware, 'their' carrier and 'their' 'approved' apps.
same type of stupidity that cost them the market back in the day.
so i ask myself why buy a new macbook pro when this one dies, why buy a new imac when it goes away? ubuntu 10.04 is amazing and my google nexus one is good enough and about to get better.

Bingo. This is one the main reasons I am willing to pay for MobileMe. And this is a good reason for them to consider massively dropping the price or making it free. This eliminates the need for what most people would want/use wireless syncing for.

True, but not everyone wants to have a MobileMe account, but would still like to be able to do that quickly.

I agree. Most of the times I synch there is actually not very much data that needs to be transferred. A couple of podcasts perhaps, and calendar, but apart from that, it's rare that speed would be a problem.

I'm curious about that, what part of it was crap? I didn't see anything significant in the video. It looked a lot like wired syncing, without the wire.


The desktop side part does address it, it offers a way to turn that off. That part was shown in the video. It doesn't look like it disables it if you do a wired connection, but I suppose that should be addressed because an occasional backup should be done. That said, most people don't back up, even a weekly backup is far better than what most people do for themselves.


Indubitably. Chateu de Droid '09 was the best vintage. '10 was a tad too 'oak-y'.

Or was that the wrong kind of sophisticated?

Yeah you own your iPhone. You don't own the App Store. They can decide what they want to put in there.

Since you own your iPhone, you have the right to jailbreak if you want.

You can put what you like on your iPhone, Apple are not stopping you.
Apple are just refusing to put software in THIER store (not your store).
There are many alternative phones out there, you are free to choose.

Just as Apple don't have to PCs or Windows in their Retail Stores, they don't have to sell software they don't like in the App Store. How simple is that?

Precisely why I didn't really see the point of wireless synching. Hell, the backup iTunes does of my iPhone takes almost 5 minutes every time I sync and I get impatient with that. Doing it wirelessly would take forever.


Perhaps like Tulkas said, they'll reduce the price or even make it free in the near future. IMO, MobileMe is a must have for any iPhone owner.

I am gonna print this one and save it for some rainy days

Sophisticated ?

Sophisticated as in fine amateurs of aesthetically beautiful and innovative industrial design, high quality customer friendly software, operating system, ecosystem ? No wait, those sophisticated persons buy Apple products...

You must be rather referring to sophisticated evening kernel rebuilders, anti-viruses power admins, poor application lovers running on barely good enough OS on cheap hardware ?

Until of course, Apple comes out with the functionality built in, then you'll love it.

I would rather be "pathetically uninformed" than a blind Apple Fan Boy.

I like the concept of an option to wireless synch from your computer(s) to your mobile devices.

However there are some concerns:

1) security
2) speed
3) reliability
4) IP protection

Can this be done in such a way to provide secure access to both my computer(s) and mobile devices?

Is any sensitive information (calendars, contacts and data, for example), secure from being intercepted, and even worse, modified?

While most won't care about a few .mp3 files, there are other, more valuable files... Are they secure?

The speed of current WiFi makes this, largely, impractical for anything but a few mp3 files while within 300 feet of your computer.

I've got lots of videos and some big content files that I need to regularly synch-- especially during the grandkids soccer season... WiFi synch isn't practical for these.

The user will tend to use this as a "convenience", forgoing backup and a full synch, just to get (synch) a few photos or songs... That's a good thing, IMO (although you could just connect and be done with it).

Having forgone backups (tradeoff for speed), what happens when the device crashes, as others have mentioned? What will the user need to do to restore the device and recover its content?

As most know:
-- the worst time to design a backup/recovery procedure is right after a failure
-- a reliable backup procedure needs to be done automatically and/or manually on a fixed (cast in stone) schedule
-- if ya' ain't got backups, ya' ain't got recovery

A large part of the appeal of Apple's mobile devices is access to 3rd-party content: movies; music videos; songs/albums; apps, etc. I suspect that the owners of this content would not be pleased if it is being bounced around the airwaves without any control or protection. Sitting at my home computer, I can see at least 6 networks of neighbors...

I have iPhone/iPads apps I am working on. At some stage in their development, they get installed on on my mobile devices. I definitely do not want my IP floating, unfettered, amongst the neighbors.

I believe the only way (if any way) 3rd parties would permit their content to be synched over WiFi, is if the capability was provided and guaranteed by Apple.


OK, all that said....



I believe that:

-- content can be secured using encryption.
-- WiFi speeds will improve in the near future.
-- backup and reliability programs and procedures can be developed for mobile devices
-- IP content can be encrypted and tied to specific devices
-- Apple will need to provide this and take responsibility for it


In the not-too-distant future, I see someone buying, say, an iPad, as the first and only computing device in the household (cable TV/Internet router aside).

This will come with a free MobileMe account tied to the device.

They will plug their new iPad in for electrical charging, and (if the cloud is available) it will "find" their MobileMe account for content charging (new purchases or updates).

Cameras and other devices will connect to the iPad to add personal content (they already do).

In this world, the iPad will [mostly] be untethered from any computer... it can be tethered, but, doesn't need to be.

When the cloud is accessible, synchs and partial backups (interruptible and restartable) will take place... automatically.


So, Yeah, I like the idea... But it depends on how its done, and who takes responsibility for it being done right!
.

Truth be told I would bet good money apple rejected this because its probably a feature they intend to introduce themselves on an upcoming release.
Kinda lame, but thruth be told, if any of us were in charge of apple we'd probably do the same thing.

I totally agree with them disabling palm from syncing with iTunes though. If palm wants to create there own music store they are more then welcome too, they cant just piggy back off apple's success though.

Because if Apple did it, it would be done properly!

Another potential problem that would end up falling on Apple's shoulders. Users turn off backups, never do one again, have a problem with their iPhone, can't restore it properly, Angry phone calls to Apple support ensue...

Remember, when people have system problems resulting from 3rd party utilities like this, they don't usually turn to the 3rd party to help them out, nor do they become angry with the 3rd party if they can't be helped. Whether that's rational or not, that's the way people behave, and it's entirely reasonable for Apple to prevent these sort of situations from occurring by not approving apps that could lead to them.

That's what people with grudges against Apple don't understand: Apple has given us reason to trust that when they implement a feature, they'll implement it well.
It's like with copy-and-paste: Apple was not the first to implement it in a phone, but they arguably did it the best. I'm sure plenty of people wanted the ability but also didn't want to settle with half-baked implementations of it. Does that make us blind Apple fanboys? No, it means we're patient enough to wait for it to be done well.

I too was thinking about the Apple TV sync when reading this thread. It would work just fine. Something tells me Steve is worried about the sync eating up the battery life or something. While you could sync while charging away from your Mac in the house, my main problem would be that I don't leave my computer on when I am not using it. While it would be nice to have, I guess I really don't need it.

What would provide value is being able to sync these devices with a time capsule or some other always on device. Requiring a computer with iTunes to activate your iPad is just lame! Don't get me wrong... Love the iPad, but didn't get why I couldn't use it out of the box. At some point these things need to stop being accessories.

I can understand both sides. Wifi syncing would be great convenience, however there really are security and stability concerns if something was to go wrong during syncing over the air. A shame but understandable they'd reject it. Hopefully he'll do well on Cydia and maybe in the future it'll be more feasible to have this as a shipping feature.

Wow, an incredibly useful feature that Apple has yet to put into any of their devices - of course reject it? Why wouldn't you? /s.

I would have too.
Apple isn't the only one entitled to make a buck.

Why are people suddenly so concerned that security is an issue here? Do you worry when you're writing confidential emails over wifi? Wifi transfers can easily be secure, that's a fact.

Already taken care of.

That's how I feel too. For security reasons alone, there should have been clear rules about this type of app.

Given that the app allows access to data you can sync, if you were on a shared access point, how is Apple supposed to know that the app isn't so insecure that simply typing in a URL would give you full access to the device's data?

While this is a cool utility to have and one I'd quite like, it's not a huge deal to lose the feature and I'd rather be assured the phone has some amount of security on public wifi access points.