[FireWire]

Apple seems to have a love-hate relationship with bluetooth.. while their keyboards and mice use BT, I find their support is very minimal compared to what it should be.. For exemple, with the iPhone, we can't use it to sync pictures and contacts with our computers (forcing us to plug the cable and lose a charging cycle just to upload a few pictures), we can't send files with other BT phones (a feature that has been around for almost a decade), their Remote app doesn't support it (wi-fi only, which I'm sure consumes the same amount of power), and they only support a very limited number of profiles (stacks). Is there any reason for that?

I was ashamed the other day when I wanted to show a friend the magic of bluetooth by sending him a picture, only to discover that the iPhone didn't even have that feature.. why use it only for hands-free?

[sek929]

Oddly enough, I can only send files to my phone (simple LG) through Leopard, and I can only send files to my computer with Windows XP.

[The Final Dakar]

I think the deal is that they want to limit connectivity to the iPhone as much as possible. Maybe it's a security issue. They love to have that thing on lockdown.

[FireWire]

I remember when we could send text message directly from Address book via bluetooth.. good old days..

[ort888]

They don't hate Bluetooth... they hate you.

[subego]

I'm torqued they don't have wifi sync, but the more I think about it, this may come down to the backup it makes during sync. This can be pretty agonizing for a wired connection, imagine that on Bluetooth.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm torqued they don't have wifi sync, but the more I think about it, this may come down to the backup it makes during sync. This can be pretty agonizing for a wired connection, imagine that on Bluetooth.

Yep. I have dock plugged into the wall, so long as it can join the network I don't see why it shouldn't be able to sync from anywhere in the house.

[ort888]

They need to save some features for later so they can keep us all upgrading year after year.

[mduell]

It's not hate, it's indifference.

[Railroader]

Apple and its lackadaisical attitude...

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by mduell 

It's not hate, it's indifference.

If that were true they wouldn't have denied that wireless sync app.

[Salty]

Why didn't you just email it to your friend? You wanted to show him the WONDER OF BLUETOOTH? Seriously, Bluetooth is S-l-o-w, and if your friend doesn't have a smart phone that can receive emails, tell him to get with the times.

Syncing over Bluetooth would be painfully slow and impractical. Bluetooth is good at being a low power tech for keyboards, mice, and a little bit of audio for headsets. Apple even supports Stereo bluetooth which isn't very good. Are you the sort of person that gets pissed off the MacBook are doesn't have a Parallel port? I'd much rather have Apple make sure that they're developing what's next, rather than focusing on a bit of legacy stuff that doesn't work well anyway.

That said, WiFi sync would be killer, I imagine they've had problems with reliability though.

[osiris]

Bluetooth is slow, that's why Apple hates it. And every time you mention the subject, Steve Jobs kills a kitten.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Salty 

Why didn't you just email it to your friend? You wanted to show him the WONDER OF BLUETOOTH? Seriously, Bluetooth is S-l-o-w, and if your friend doesn't have a smart phone that can receive emails, tell him to get with the times.

I agree, but what about the iphone users that don't have unlimited data plans? Wouldn't it be nice for them to transfer a picture with bluetooth or wifi just to avoid the data usage? What if you are on a plane, in another country or in an area with no service?

[Salty]

If you're on a plane you can email the photo and it'll happen once you're done. It's not as if they need it on their phone that instance you have yours for them to look at it on.

And the iPhone isn't specifically made just for people on planes. Fact is bluetooth file transfer is slow, hard to configure, and annoying. Apple uses Bluetooth when it makes sense like on iPod touches for multi player.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Salty 

Syncing over Bluetooth would be painfully slow and impractical.

At 2.1Mbps, it's going to take what, a second to sync your contacts and calendars? 5 seconds max to sync a cellphone camera picture?

[macaddict0001]

if you have the 16 GB model and you want to fill it, it would take nearly 17 hours, that sounds pretty slow to me.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by mduell 

At 2.1Mbps, it's going to take what, a second to sync your contacts and calendars? 5 seconds max to sync a cellphone camera picture?

2.1Mbps is totally theoretically, rarely actual. With my LG phone with Bluetooth 2.1, I rarely see more than 700Kbps while transferring photos. And nobody is gonna wait 20 hours to fill an iPhone at that speed, while the iPhone is losing battery.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Salty 

That said, WiFi sync would be killer, I imagine they've had problems with reliability though.

It's actually not too shabby, I use it with my 1G iPod touch (jailbroken). The only killer is battery life (well my iPod's battery is shot anyway). So you might as well just plug it in.

[FireWire]

Maybe it's too slow for syncing the entire library, but it would be usable for contacts and pictures, and maybe a few songs once the initial uploading has taken place via USB. My main gripe is that I don't want to plug my iPhone just to upload one picture, and in the process waste one charge cycle.. and I don't want to wait 3-4 days until my next charge to upload it.. It was doable 7 years ago, I don't see why it would be impractical today...

[Salty]

I think you don't understand how charge cycles work. You shouldn't be running your phone dead all the time. Apple actually has a page explaining how batteries work.

[macaddict0001]

Unless you have Ni-Cads. Lead acid likes to stay fully charged, NIMH and Lithium don't care enough to bother adjusting your usage habits.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

I agree, but what about the iphone users that don't have unlimited data plans? Wouldn't it be nice for them to transfer a picture with bluetooth or wifi just to avoid the data usage? What if you are on a plane, in another country or in an area with no service?

That would be a concession to yesterday's thinking. iPhone/iPad don't make sense if you have to think about data caps/lack of network. You can bet that the fact that data caps even exist threw Jobs into a series of shouting bouts.

Bluetooth is useless for any *real* data transfer, and employing it for small transfers only would have far more people ranting about "arbitrary" transfer size limits than if they just leave it out.

Much better to use it for what makes sense - remotes and other input devices, as well as the odd gaming connection, and use technology for file transfer that was actually built for data transfer.

[Salty]

Also your average picture is less than 300k, the standard data cap in Canada is 500 megs, you can send a HELL of a lot of pictures in that space. I'm normally around 160 megs a month.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by macaddict0001 

if you have the 16 GB model and you want to fill it, it would take nearly 17 hours, that sounds pretty slow to me.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

2.1Mbps is totally theoretically, rarely actual. With my LG phone with Bluetooth 2.1, I rarely see more than 700Kbps while transferring photos. And nobody is gonna wait 20 hours to fill an iPhone at that speed, while the iPhone is losing battery.

I'm not suggesting syncing your entire library over BT. I'm saying it would be great for small updates, like contacts, calendars, and even a photo or two.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Salty 

Also your average picture is less than 300k, the standard data cap in Canada is 500 megs, you can send a HELL of a lot of pictures in that space. I'm normally around 160 megs a month.

What average picture is this? My iphone pictures are between 1.5 and 2.5 mb each. 160mb a month is relatively little. On average, I used more than double that on my original iphone with only edge speeds, I'm about to pass 1gb on the new phone and I've had it less than a month.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I'm not suggesting syncing your entire library over BT. I'm saying it would be great for small updates, like contacts, calendars, and even a photo or two.

Yes, but you know if Apple includes it (unless they block wireless syncing for the first time), somebody is gonna post all over the internet that it took a full day to sync their iPhone and it killed the battery in the process. Then they'll try to start a class action.

[CharlesS]

If my RAZR was able to handle contact and calendar syncing via Bluetooth four years ago, I think the iPhone could manage it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Mine does that via 3G.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by FireWire 

(forcing us to plug the cable and lose a charging cycle just to upload a few pictures)

A charging cycle is not "simply plugging in to charge and then unplugging it 10 minutes later."

A full charging cycle is completed when the battery is run down completely until the device turns off and then plugging it in and letting it recharge fully. All other charges use partial charging cycles.

So, for example, if you start at 100%, run the battery down to 50%, and then recharge back to 100%, you used half a charging cycle. If you do that again, you will have used a full charging cycle.

If you plug in a phone at, say, 76% to sync with iTunes and during the sync the charge goes to 78%, you've used up 2% of a charging cycle. Big. Fat. Deal.

As for your original question, lost amid the hype over the antenna and other issues, one of Steve Jobs' e-mail replies said that we would have wireless syncing "someday."

But even then, if syncing wirelessly causes your battery to go from 78% to 76%, you're still using 2% of a charge cycle.