"The next version of the Bluetooth short-range wireless protocol" will take about a year to get into products. I think the article falsely points to Apple wanting to include this. While BT would allow the handset to connect directly with the machine, using WiFi over a network would be much faster. It still doesn't resolve the issue of having to still plug in the device from a draining battery or the much slower speeds you get from not using USB2.0.
I think the assumption that Bluetooth would be used for synching is the problem, when either WiFi or cable would be better.
Bluetooth will likely become the favored way to play against others for games or exchange information when one is face-to-face with another iPhone/iPod touch owner, and synching MAY be done over Bluetooth if no other alternative is available.
battery life, people...Apple has shown on numerous occasions that better battery life trumps certain features which *should" otherwise be available.
Speaking of which- does anybody know what the average charging cycle for an iPhone is? Is it once a day- twice a day? I swear I charge my iPod Touch every other day and it doesn't even have phone useage. Just wondering.
Speaking of which- does anybody know what the average charging cycle for an iPhone is? Is it once a day- twice a day? I swear I charge my iPod Touch every other day and it doesn't even have phone useage. Just wondering.
I charge my iphone every night. If I am online a lot all day I will have to charge it after work.
I think the assumption that Bluetooth would be used for synching is the problem, when either WiFi or cable would be better.
Bluetooth will likely become the favored way to play against others for games or exchange information when one is face-to-face with another iPhone/iPod touch owner, and synching MAY be done over Bluetooth if no other alternative is available.
Gaming and sending files to others will be great, which is why I don't understand the articles mention of wireless syncing. I just hope we'll be able to send and receive audio and video files from within our iPod app. Unprotected ones, of course.
A new wireless standard is needed to make it sync at an acceptable speed wirelessly. This is still not it, unless you don't care how fast or slow it goes. It looks like Bluetooth 3 is about good enough to match USB 1.1 in actual speed.
Definitely true for the initial sync. Beyond that, people tend to only sync an album of music or a couple photo rolls during each sync. So wifi is fast enough for the vast majority of syncing. I suppose the conundrum is whether to implement the feature when at times it would result in an unacceptably long sync time.
Apple's strategy with app updates could be applied to syncing as well. Granted, not a perfect solution. But one that could be solved by upgrading to an already existing wifi standard. My point was that bluetooth 3.0 isn't "paving the way" to wireless syncing. The road already exists.
Have you thought about a bunch of USB cables and a bunch of powered USB hubs?
You do describe a situation that is a legitimate issue with the iPhone, but I can't see Apple caring about that in lieu of the potential pitfalls from including it.
Well, yeah. I know that I can drill holes in the ceiling of my office and run cables up to the attic and down again to my bedroom, but I haven't got around to running the new conduits for the TV cable for the last year, so the odds of me getting around to that just for an alarm clock are slim to none.
I also know I can just sync it before I leave in the morning, but I don't always have time for the transfer. I'm a "get up and leave the house right away" kind of person.
Even though I'm sure the number of people this bothers is tiny, it just seem funny to me that the iPhone can't be used in that way even though all my previous phones could. I have to sleep bathed in the wireless signal from my Time Capsule, yet if the iPhone was on the stand right next to my bed, it still couldn't sync even though it has 6 hours or so to do it, is plugged in to power, both devices are wirelessly capable, and is within twelve feet or so of the Time Capsule in absolute terms.
I'm still hopeful that they will enable a "sync wirelessly when plugged in" mode, but I'm certainly not counting on it.
Even though I'm sure the number of people this bothers is tiny, it just seem funny to me that the iPhone can't be used in that way even though all my previous phones could.
i understand your point and I think it's legitimate I want to point out that your previous phones only had to sync KBs of data, not GBs. I have podcasts that are quite large, especially video podcasts. But you know all this because your initial post pointed out the logistical issues, so I'll stop.
The benefit of BT over WiFi is specifically the shorter range-- you don't have to fight a neighbor's signal. Shorter range is also lower power.
My guess on wireless sync is that there are too many variables to make it "just work." It's a shame, but the problem and permutations are not trivial. You could use zeroconf where it works, but what about all the other times?
I've always been downright baffled, completely perplexed, outright dumbstruck... that mobile phones don't back up (sync) their contacts over their digital phone connection.
I remember when Bluetooth was first announced. This was during the dark days of Apple, and I remember thinking, "great, one more technology that PC users will have that will make it harder to be a Mac user". Then, funny enough, Apple embraced it (along with USB, WiFi and other tech)...and even embraced Bluetooth more than it was found in the PC world. Then, damn the Motorola phone with iTunes came out and iTunes couldn't synch via Bluetooth. The iPhone came out and it was missing all kinds of Bluetooth functionality. Now with iPhone 3.0 and potential things available with Bluetooth 3.0, it seems like Apple is going to embrace all of the goodness (and leave the silly stuff alone).
24mbps using wifi? I guess using a wifi radio is convenient since it is already present in the device, but Whatever happened to UWB with speeds of 400mbps?? I know wireless USB was using it but ithough it was being integrated into the next version of bluetooth?!
Also, what good is this really? Simple things like headsets and speakers don't need more speed, and in more complex uses all the devices with Bluetooth 3.0 will have WiFi anyways right? I guess I can see future applications where a universal authentication/pairing service is necessary, but couldn't the same type of pain-free pairing be done with WiFi by itself?
24mbps using wifi? I guess using a wifi radio is convenient since it is already present in the device, but Whatever happened to UWB with speeds of 400mbps?? I know wireless USB was using it but ithough it was being integrated into the next version of bluetooth?!
Also, what good is this really? Simple things like headsets and speakers don't need more speed, and in more complex uses all the devices with Bluetooth 3.0 will have WiFi anyways right? I guess I can see future applications where a universal authentication/pairing service is necessary, but couldn't the same type of pain-free pairing be done with WiFi by itself?
The only reason I see would be a timing issue for response purposes- in other words gaming.
All of this talk about syncing has me thinking - Are the iPhone APIs rich enough to allow a 3rd party alternative to MobileMe?
Most of what people are asking for in this thread can already be done over WiFi using MobileMe and iTunes for iPhone, but I agree $99/year forever is a bit much to ask for that.
But if a third party could sell a set of apps for PCs, Macs, and iPhones that kept calendars, contacts, photos and iTunes libraries synchronized, I'd pay for that.
Do any developers reading the thread know if the APIs support access to the data stores for this?
All of this talk about syncing has me thinking - Are the iPhone APIs rich enough to allow a 3rd party alternative to MobileMe?
Most of what people are asking for in this thread can already be done over WiFi using MobileMe and iTunes for iPhone, but I agree $99/year forever is a bit much to ask for that.
But if a third party could sell a set of apps for PCs, Macs, and iPhones that kept calendars, contacts, photos and iTunes libraries synchronized, I'd pay for that.
Do any developers reading the thread know if the APIs support access to the data stores for this?
1) MobileMe doesn't sync your media, only your contacts and calenders. All your media and personal iPhone settings are done through iTunes.
2) The APIs do allow for accessing contacts but I doubt that Apple would allow an app that wants to constantly sync all your data and media.
3) MobileMe can be had for $69, but even that would be pricey if dynamic contact syncing is all you need it for. For even the $99 price what you get is very competitive, but again, if you won't use all those features then it becomes a waste.
4) You can already setup Exchange on your iPhone and have that data synced dynamically. It's cheap, and possibly free. It just won't sync your media, but then again, neither will MobileMe.
... Also, what good is this really? Simple things like headsets and speakers don't need more speed, and in more complex uses all the devices with Bluetooth 3.0 will have WiFi anyways right? I guess I can see future applications where a universal authentication/pairing service is necessary, but couldn't the same type of pain-free pairing be done with WiFi by itself?
it only seems useless because people here are focussing on syncing, there are other uses for the technology.
For example, the new iPhones will be "aware" of each other so apps that work by detecting the presence of another iPhone and send over information like "business card" apps will be very fast. It would also be used for multi-player gaming, exchanging pictures etc.
Bluetooth file transfer has rarely if ever worked for me on any Mac for years now even though it's nominally available as an option. It also notoriously fails on PCs, phones, and almost everything else as well. This sounds like they have fixed a lot of the problems with that and if Apple got behind it as a standard, it would be a good idea IMO.
Comments
"The next version of the Bluetooth short-range wireless protocol" will take about a year to get into products. I think the article falsely points to Apple wanting to include this. While BT would allow the handset to connect directly with the machine, using WiFi over a network would be much faster. It still doesn't resolve the issue of having to still plug in the device from a draining battery or the much slower speeds you get from not using USB2.0.
I think the assumption that Bluetooth would be used for synching is the problem, when either WiFi or cable would be better.
Bluetooth will likely become the favored way to play against others for games or exchange information when one is face-to-face with another iPhone/iPod touch owner, and synching MAY be done over Bluetooth if no other alternative is available.
battery life, people...Apple has shown on numerous occasions that better battery life trumps certain features which *should" otherwise be available.
Speaking of which- does anybody know what the average charging cycle for an iPhone is? Is it once a day- twice a day? I swear I charge my iPod Touch every other day and it doesn't even have phone useage. Just wondering.
On another note I can't wait til bluetooth gets unlocked on my Touch for 3.0.
Speaking of which- does anybody know what the average charging cycle for an iPhone is? Is it once a day- twice a day? I swear I charge my iPod Touch every other day and it doesn't even have phone useage. Just wondering.
I charge my iphone every night. If I am online a lot all day I will have to charge it after work.
I think the assumption that Bluetooth would be used for synching is the problem, when either WiFi or cable would be better.
Bluetooth will likely become the favored way to play against others for games or exchange information when one is face-to-face with another iPhone/iPod touch owner, and synching MAY be done over Bluetooth if no other alternative is available.
Gaming and sending files to others will be great, which is why I don't understand the articles mention of wireless syncing. I just hope we'll be able to send and receive audio and video files from within our iPod app. Unprotected ones, of course.
Then in 2008 I got an iPhone and lost this capability because Apple saw fit to disable BT sync.
A new wireless standard is needed to make it sync at an acceptable speed wirelessly. This is still not it, unless you don't care how fast or slow it goes. It looks like Bluetooth 3 is about good enough to match USB 1.1 in actual speed.
Definitely true for the initial sync. Beyond that, people tend to only sync an album of music or a couple photo rolls during each sync. So wifi is fast enough for the vast majority of syncing. I suppose the conundrum is whether to implement the feature when at times it would result in an unacceptably long sync time.
Apple's strategy with app updates could be applied to syncing as well. Granted, not a perfect solution. But one that could be solved by upgrading to an already existing wifi standard. My point was that bluetooth 3.0 isn't "paving the way" to wireless syncing. The road already exists.
Have you thought about a bunch of USB cables and a bunch of powered USB hubs?
You do describe a situation that is a legitimate issue with the iPhone, but I can't see Apple caring about that in lieu of the potential pitfalls from including it.
Well, yeah. I know that I can drill holes in the ceiling of my office and run cables up to the attic and down again to my bedroom, but I haven't got around to running the new conduits for the TV cable for the last year, so the odds of me getting around to that just for an alarm clock are slim to none.
I also know I can just sync it before I leave in the morning, but I don't always have time for the transfer. I'm a "get up and leave the house right away" kind of person.
Even though I'm sure the number of people this bothers is tiny, it just seem funny to me that the iPhone can't be used in that way even though all my previous phones could. I have to sleep bathed in the wireless signal from my Time Capsule, yet if the iPhone was on the stand right next to my bed, it still couldn't sync even though it has 6 hours or so to do it, is plugged in to power, both devices are wirelessly capable, and is within twelve feet or so of the Time Capsule in absolute terms.
I'm still hopeful that they will enable a "sync wirelessly when plugged in" mode, but I'm certainly not counting on it.
Even though I'm sure the number of people this bothers is tiny, it just seem funny to me that the iPhone can't be used in that way even though all my previous phones could.
i understand your point and I think it's legitimate I want to point out that your previous phones only had to sync KBs of data, not GBs. I have podcasts that are quite large, especially video podcasts. But you know all this because your initial post pointed out the logistical issues, so I'll stop.
My guess on wireless sync is that there are too many variables to make it "just work." It's a shame, but the problem and permutations are not trivial. You could use zeroconf where it works, but what about all the other times?
I charge my iphone every night. If I am online a lot all day I will have to charge it after work.
Thanks.
I wirelessly BT synced my phone -- a Sony Ericsson -- with Mac OS from 2003-2008.
Then in 2008 I got an iPhone and lost this capability because Apple saw fit to disable BT sync.
You still have it- only now it's called MobileMe and costs $99!
Then in 2008 I got an iPhone and lost this capability because Apple saw fit to disable BT sync.
I've always been downright baffled, completely perplexed, outright dumbstruck... that mobile phones don't back up (sync) their contacts over their digital phone connection.
Also, what good is this really? Simple things like headsets and speakers don't need more speed, and in more complex uses all the devices with Bluetooth 3.0 will have WiFi anyways right? I guess I can see future applications where a universal authentication/pairing service is necessary, but couldn't the same type of pain-free pairing be done with WiFi by itself?
24mbps using wifi? I guess using a wifi radio is convenient since it is already present in the device, but Whatever happened to UWB with speeds of 400mbps?? I know wireless USB was using it but ithough it was being integrated into the next version of bluetooth?!
Also, what good is this really? Simple things like headsets and speakers don't need more speed, and in more complex uses all the devices with Bluetooth 3.0 will have WiFi anyways right? I guess I can see future applications where a universal authentication/pairing service is necessary, but couldn't the same type of pain-free pairing be done with WiFi by itself?
The only reason I see would be a timing issue for response purposes- in other words gaming.
ATV synchs large files fine over Wifi already.
Most of what people are asking for in this thread can already be done over WiFi using MobileMe and iTunes for iPhone, but I agree $99/year forever is a bit much to ask for that.
But if a third party could sell a set of apps for PCs, Macs, and iPhones that kept calendars, contacts, photos and iTunes libraries synchronized, I'd pay for that.
Do any developers reading the thread know if the APIs support access to the data stores for this?
All of this talk about syncing has me thinking - Are the iPhone APIs rich enough to allow a 3rd party alternative to MobileMe?
Most of what people are asking for in this thread can already be done over WiFi using MobileMe and iTunes for iPhone, but I agree $99/year forever is a bit much to ask for that.
But if a third party could sell a set of apps for PCs, Macs, and iPhones that kept calendars, contacts, photos and iTunes libraries synchronized, I'd pay for that.
Do any developers reading the thread know if the APIs support access to the data stores for this?
1) MobileMe doesn't sync your media, only your contacts and calenders. All your media and personal iPhone settings are done through iTunes.
2) The APIs do allow for accessing contacts but I doubt that Apple would allow an app that wants to constantly sync all your data and media.
3) MobileMe can be had for $69, but even that would be pricey if dynamic contact syncing is all you need it for. For even the $99 price what you get is very competitive, but again, if you won't use all those features then it becomes a waste.
4) You can already setup Exchange on your iPhone and have that data synced dynamically. It's cheap, and possibly free. It just won't sync your media, but then again, neither will MobileMe.
... Also, what good is this really? Simple things like headsets and speakers don't need more speed, and in more complex uses all the devices with Bluetooth 3.0 will have WiFi anyways right? I guess I can see future applications where a universal authentication/pairing service is necessary, but couldn't the same type of pain-free pairing be done with WiFi by itself?
it only seems useless because people here are focussing on syncing, there are other uses for the technology.
For example, the new iPhones will be "aware" of each other so apps that work by detecting the presence of another iPhone and send over information like "business card" apps will be very fast. It would also be used for multi-player gaming, exchanging pictures etc.
Bluetooth file transfer has rarely if ever worked for me on any Mac for years now even though it's nominally available as an option. It also notoriously fails on PCs, phones, and almost everything else as well. This sounds like they have fixed a lot of the problems with that and if Apple got behind it as a standard, it would be a good idea IMO.