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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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. .
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow AI threads are dead compared to Macrumours. Already 140 posts over there.
Less garbage...
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
... 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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
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.