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...
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.
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.
... 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, remember, every time you do a sync, it also does a system backup.
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Android market is not good enough for developer. People also want the apps are free like the OS.
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.
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.
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.
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.
True, but not everyone wants to have a MobileMe account, but would still like to be able to do that quickly.
Comments
You may need a quick dictionary lesson... "Troll" does not equal "someone who disagrees with Apple".
You must be new here
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.
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.
... 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And therefore, we are not allowed the choice?
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.
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.
Well, remember, every time you do a sync, it also does a system backup.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
------
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
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Android market is not good enough for developer. People also want the apps are free like the OS.
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.
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.
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.
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.
True, but not everyone wants to have a MobileMe account, but would still like to be able to do that quickly.