Actually there doesn't have to be a reason. Usually there is no conspiracy or Apple being stupid. Typically the real reason a feature is missing is nothing more complex than Apple has a limited number of software engineers, a limited amount of time before the deadline and a long list of higher priority features they want to implement first.
I'm just hoping it makes it on the list of features to be implemented in the next version..
Could be, but we're really just exchanging pet theories here. In defense of mine, I'd point out that Apple had the opportunity to implement WiFi syncing as far back as iPhone v1 and iPod touch v1. So that's several years ago now. They've done a whole raft of things including three major OS upgrades since then.
On one hand, there are 3rd-party browsers that can hold multiple pages without reloading.
On the other hand, this does not happen with 8 pages on the iPhone using multiple apps somerunning in te backdround but mostly switching between them.
I don't believe this is by design. I've measured the RAM usage between the 3GS and iPad WiFi, the iPad needs a lot more RAM yet both come with 256MB.
Well, perhaps "design" was not the right word, but I don't think it was because of memory, even though more on the iPad would be welcome. Call it a "quirk" of the iPad Safari implementation that they need to fix.
The user experience on desktop computers (including notebooks) equipped with touch interfaces is notoriously bad, quite simply because the ergonomics are horrible, and. anecdotally, it seems most people pretty much stop using this feature of their computers, once the novelty wears off, because it's easier and more comfortable to just use their keyboard and mouse/trackpad.
Apple is not particularly noted for producing devices with bad user experiences, nor for implementing technology in devices simply because they can. So, I wouldn't give this rumor any credence at all.
(Yes, if implemented as a special purpose workstation that sits on the desktop at a slight incline, it might be useful in some applications, but the market for this would not be large and it hardly would seem worth Apple investing in it given the volume they would be likely to sell -- i.e., not many.)
Actually, there is another possibility. Apple could include the iPhone simulator as part of Mac OS X (instead of just with the developer package).
With some tweaks, this would allow you to run any apps you have downloaded (free, purchased) on your desktop as widgets.
This seems unlikely as well, a) because, for example, iPhone apps pretty much suck on the iPad if they aren't universal for both, and b) it would open up a can of licensing worms -- i.e., developers didn't sell you app licenses to use the apps on non-iOS devices.
There's a post over on Daring Fireball about Forrester predicting total tablet sales for this year to be 3.5 million. So, apparently apple will sell only 500K more, or by now 3-400K more. Apple is definitely doomed. I wonder if they've turned off the production lines yet?
I'd really like to know how you get one of these analyst jobs. It sounds like less work than being Rush Limbaugh's fact checker.
There's a post over on Daring Fireball about Forrester predicting total tablet sales for this year to be 3.5 million. So, apparently apple will sell only 500K more, or by now 3-400K more. Apple is definitely doomed. I wonder if they've turned off the production lines yet?
I'd really like to know how you get one of these analyst jobs. It sounds like less work than being Rush Limbaugh's fact checker.
I think we already chewed over the Forrester report, but for sure this guy is out to lunch. He backed into his iPad forecast by lumping the iPad into his overall forecasts for all tablet computers. A perfect example of spreadsheet disease.
It's all self explanatory. You've contradicted your own post by stating that it sits for 6 hours in a powered dock on your nightstand yet want it to start as soon as you are within WiFi range of your home.
How is that contradictory? The vast majority of the time I sync less than 50 megabytes of data. As I said if there was a setting that would stop the sync if the battery was less than 50%, best of all worlds. If I have plenty of battery, sync. If not, as soon as I plug into power, sync. Either way my phone stays up to date without me having to think about it.
What's so hard about it?
Quote:
That completely ignores how it could task the phone's processor and battery. What if you were doing other tasks at the time or had only a few percent battery remaining? These have to be considered for a consumer device.
That's why I commented about having a setting where you can set a threshold on battery percentage remaining that would disable it until the phone is plugged in. Have the setting be user settable and people like you who are overly concerned about the battery can disable it unless the phone is plugged into the wall. Everyone is happy and the end result is a very Apple-like experience - "it just works".
Quote:
You can't just say, "well the user should now better and spend hours a day tinkering with their settings so I can have the freedom to do what I want". Thinking that way is destine for failure.
That's why I didn't say that
Quote:
What you suggest is to make it so "simple" that there are no checks and balances to make sure the backup can happen on the device while still keeping the device useful. How you can't see keeping the device useful during a backup needs to be questioned.
Have you noticed backups happen in a fraction of the time in iOS 4? Pretty much a non issue. Also I don't need a backup every time I connect my phone - nor does iTunes do a backup every time you plug the phone in - I sincerely doubt I'm in a minority in plugging my phone in at night - so restrict backups to only happen when the phone is powered on.
Heck, just by seeing usage patterns here in the forums quite a few people rarely plug into their computer - but they for sure plug their phone into power at least every other day. Perfect window for syncing content at a minimum.
Quote:
I also question your implication that syncing 64GB over 802.11b without it charging simply wouldn't happen because every uses a dock and 802.11n and has already synced it so it's only a minimal sync. That is hypocritical to your other statement that making the system check for for feasibility before syncing iss overly complex.
Huh? Your paragraph doesn't even make sense. Syncing a full 64GB of data is impossible for the iPhone and an extreme edge case for the iPad. Other than initial setup/sync (which you could easily restrict to USB) people will be syncing a subset of the total capacity on their devices. Esp. if they sync automatically more frequently
But I still stand by my assertion that even syncing 64GB of an iPad over G is not a big deal and could easily happen overnight. And if it doesn't oh well, pick it up the next time the iPad is in range, or if it's really important or time critical you plug it into USB.
Quote:
I'm amazed at how this simple idea of usable features for the majority seems to pass over so many heads.
I'm amazed you didn't read my post more clearly and see that I had already addressed your major objection about battery usage.
Quote:
You can look at any of the Android phones to see exactly what uncontrolled features for the sake of having the feature can do to ruin the user experience.
If you think wireless sync is equal to the morass of poorly implemented features and inconsistent vendor provided UI's over multiple versions of the OS that can't be universally upgraded across Android hardware families I would have to ask - into hyperbole much?
I've been reading and enjoying your posts for a long time in these forums, so I know that's not the case - I think we just have a simple failure to communicate. I don't see the same issues you do. I dunno, perhaps it's because your assuming operations like backup and sync are atomic, lock out the phone and will fail unless that can be preserved - I don't think that needs to be the case. My Calendars, Contacts and Mail update in the background. If i use the App Store app on the iPhone or iPad the apps update en-mass, even in the background - how is updating from Apple's Servers or my iTunes library that much different? It isn't. And syncing can be configured so that if interrupted, it picks up from where it left off. Indeed, if you are syncing via USB and get a call on your iPhone, the sync is interrupted and you have to resume it when your call is over - and it picks up where you left off. No difference between a cable and wireless, except wireless is far more convenient and far more likely to happen. And wireless sync is LONG overdue...
According to a reply to an e-mail to him, Jobs said that the iPad would get WiFi syncing "someday". I suppose that might mean the phone as well, and possibly, the iPod Touch.
Mmmm.... Just 'cause I don't know-- What happens (setup, backup, synch) if you buy a MacBook Air as your first and only computer?
sync to the cloud? Airport Extreme? External hard drive? I don't understand how the MacBook Air changes the equation - what am I missing in the point you were trying to make?
Syncing is already slow over USB = 480Mbit. WiFi sync would be slower. It would be nice and convenient though. Truthfully I am more interested in a faster cable such as USB3 or Light Peak.
Assuming the signaling/cable type is the limiting factor, I don't think it is. Unless things radically improve, iPhone on LightPeak would be like bicycling the Autobahn. iDevice syncing is just slow, seems needlessly slow. Last time this came up, I had calculated my 3G's backup speed to be 20Mbps, something WiFi g can do, though just barely.
Comments
Actually there doesn't have to be a reason. Usually there is no conspiracy or Apple being stupid. Typically the real reason a feature is missing is nothing more complex than Apple has a limited number of software engineers, a limited amount of time before the deadline and a long list of higher priority features they want to implement first.
I'm just hoping it makes it on the list of features to be implemented in the next version..
Could be, but we're really just exchanging pet theories here. In defense of mine, I'd point out that Apple had the opportunity to implement WiFi syncing as far back as iPhone v1 and iPod touch v1. So that's several years ago now. They've done a whole raft of things including three major OS upgrades since then.
On one hand, there are 3rd-party browsers that can hold multiple pages without reloading.
On the other hand, this does not happen with 8 pages on the iPhone using multiple apps somerunning in te backdround but mostly switching between them.
I don't believe this is by design. I've measured the RAM usage between the 3GS and iPad WiFi, the iPad needs a lot more RAM yet both come with 256MB.
Well, perhaps "design" was not the right word, but I don't think it was because of memory, even though more on the iPad would be welcome. Call it a "quirk" of the iPad Safari implementation that they need to fix.
... As an informal, unscientific poll, how many of you believe this most dubious of dubious rumors [iMac with touch interface]:
http://www.looprumors.com/index.php?...macs_with_ios/ ...
The user experience on desktop computers (including notebooks) equipped with touch interfaces is notoriously bad, quite simply because the ergonomics are horrible, and. anecdotally, it seems most people pretty much stop using this feature of their computers, once the novelty wears off, because it's easier and more comfortable to just use their keyboard and mouse/trackpad.
Apple is not particularly noted for producing devices with bad user experiences, nor for implementing technology in devices simply because they can. So, I wouldn't give this rumor any credence at all.
(Yes, if implemented as a special purpose workstation that sits on the desktop at a slight incline, it might be useful in some applications, but the market for this would not be large and it hardly would seem worth Apple investing in it given the volume they would be likely to sell -- i.e., not many.)
Actually, there is another possibility. Apple could include the iPhone simulator as part of Mac OS X (instead of just with the developer package).
With some tweaks, this would allow you to run any apps you have downloaded (free, purchased) on your desktop as widgets.
This seems unlikely as well, a) because, for example, iPhone apps pretty much suck on the iPad if they aren't universal for both, and b) it would open up a can of licensing worms -- i.e., developers didn't sell you app licenses to use the apps on non-iOS devices.
I'd really like to know how you get one of these analyst jobs. It sounds like less work than being Rush Limbaugh's fact checker.
There's a post over on Daring Fireball about Forrester predicting total tablet sales for this year to be 3.5 million. So, apparently apple will sell only 500K more, or by now 3-400K more. Apple is definitely doomed. I wonder if they've turned off the production lines yet?
I'd really like to know how you get one of these analyst jobs. It sounds like less work than being Rush Limbaugh's fact checker.
I think we already chewed over the Forrester report, but for sure this guy is out to lunch. He backed into his iPad forecast by lumping the iPad into his overall forecasts for all tablet computers. A perfect example of spreadsheet disease.
It's all self explanatory. You've contradicted your own post by stating that it sits for 6 hours in a powered dock on your nightstand yet want it to start as soon as you are within WiFi range of your home.
How is that contradictory? The vast majority of the time I sync less than 50 megabytes of data. As I said if there was a setting that would stop the sync if the battery was less than 50%, best of all worlds. If I have plenty of battery, sync. If not, as soon as I plug into power, sync. Either way my phone stays up to date without me having to think about it.
What's so hard about it?
That completely ignores how it could task the phone's processor and battery. What if you were doing other tasks at the time or had only a few percent battery remaining? These have to be considered for a consumer device.
That's why I commented about having a setting where you can set a threshold on battery percentage remaining that would disable it until the phone is plugged in. Have the setting be user settable and people like you who are overly concerned about the battery can disable it unless the phone is plugged into the wall. Everyone is happy and the end result is a very Apple-like experience - "it just works".
You can't just say, "well the user should now better and spend hours a day tinkering with their settings so I can have the freedom to do what I want". Thinking that way is destine for failure.
That's why I didn't say that
What you suggest is to make it so "simple" that there are no checks and balances to make sure the backup can happen on the device while still keeping the device useful. How you can't see keeping the device useful during a backup needs to be questioned.
Have you noticed backups happen in a fraction of the time in iOS 4? Pretty much a non issue. Also I don't need a backup every time I connect my phone - nor does iTunes do a backup every time you plug the phone in - I sincerely doubt I'm in a minority in plugging my phone in at night - so restrict backups to only happen when the phone is powered on.
Heck, just by seeing usage patterns here in the forums quite a few people rarely plug into their computer - but they for sure plug their phone into power at least every other day. Perfect window for syncing content at a minimum.
I also question your implication that syncing 64GB over 802.11b without it charging simply wouldn't happen because every uses a dock and 802.11n and has already synced it so it's only a minimal sync. That is hypocritical to your other statement that making the system check for for feasibility before syncing iss overly complex.
Huh? Your paragraph doesn't even make sense. Syncing a full 64GB of data is impossible for the iPhone
But I still stand by my assertion that even syncing 64GB of an iPad over G is not a big deal and could easily happen overnight. And if it doesn't oh well, pick it up the next time the iPad is in range, or if it's really important or time critical you plug it into USB.
I'm amazed at how this simple idea of usable features for the majority seems to pass over so many heads.
I'm amazed you didn't read my post more clearly and see that I had already addressed your major objection about battery usage.
You can look at any of the Android phones to see exactly what uncontrolled features for the sake of having the feature can do to ruin the user experience.
If you think wireless sync is equal to the morass of poorly implemented features and inconsistent vendor provided UI's over multiple versions of the OS that can't be universally upgraded across Android hardware families I would have to ask - into hyperbole much?
I've been reading and enjoying your posts for a long time in these forums, so I know that's not the case - I think we just have a simple failure to communicate. I don't see the same issues you do. I dunno, perhaps it's because your assuming operations like backup and sync are atomic, lock out the phone and will fail unless that can be preserved - I don't think that needs to be the case. My Calendars, Contacts and Mail update in the background. If i use the App Store app on the iPhone or iPad the apps update en-mass, even in the background - how is updating from Apple's Servers or my iTunes library that much different? It isn't. And syncing can be configured so that if interrupted, it picks up from where it left off. Indeed, if you are syncing via USB and get a call on your iPhone, the sync is interrupted and you have to resume it when your call is over - and it picks up where you left off. No difference between a cable and wireless, except wireless is far more convenient and far more likely to happen. And wireless sync is LONG overdue...
When, is another question.
Mmmm.... Just 'cause I don't know-- What happens (setup, backup, synch) if you buy a MacBook Air as your first and only computer?
sync to the cloud? Airport Extreme? External hard drive? I don't understand how the MacBook Air changes the equation - what am I missing in the point you were trying to make?
Syncing is already slow over USB = 480Mbit. WiFi sync would be slower. It would be nice and convenient though. Truthfully I am more interested in a faster cable such as USB3 or Light Peak.
Assuming the signaling/cable type is the limiting factor, I don't think it is. Unless things radically improve, iPhone on LightPeak would be like bicycling the Autobahn. iDevice syncing is just slow, seems needlessly slow. Last time this came up, I had calculated my 3G's backup speed to be 20Mbps, something WiFi g can do, though just barely.