Comments on: iPhone to Offer Wireless File Transfer; Finally

By: jim

jim — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:36:35 +0000

Why would anybody want a niche product like wireless file transfer? Seriously. It’s only 2009 – it’s not like home users have wireless. When I travel i like to carry as many cables as possible and when i’m at home i like to make sure that I am sat next to my media server. C’mon you Apple haters – just because you’ve been used to Bluetooth file transfer on every phone that you’ve used in living memory. And just because the most bog-standard devices can file transfer by wi-fi. I bet your device can’t pinch zoom!!!!

By: Ken Sherman

Ken Sherman — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:16:34 +0000

Chirs:
Oops, I stand corrected. Just too small a sample I guess.
Smoking good shit by the way.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:46:56 +0000

Happened upon this blog entry, hope somebody gets OBEX working.

@Ken Sherman – huh? What are you smoking? My GF’s Treo, my mom’s Moto V3xx, and my back up Moto Z9 all support OBEX – all ATTWS devices. Every ATTWS WinMo PDA I’ve ever seen in the past two years supports OBEX. I transfer data files and vCards all the time. Cripes.

By: hilzfuld

hilzfuld — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:43:24 +0000

Woh, thanks Tom, you got some good points there, except I still have one big question. Why are all these features safe enough and needed enough to implemented on all Symbian, Windows Mobile, and RIM devices? Why is Apple the only one with all the above mentioned concerns?I think Apple should just pack in whatever they can and make their users happy.

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:38:13 +0000

Here’s my 2cents…
I have no explanation for the missing copy/paste – except they might be trying to ensure they have a patent on the method/gestures first. And possibly what Eli above mentioned in terms of UI design philosophy. {I similarly have only ‘missed not having it’ on infrequent occasions. What I’d actually prioritize higher though would be “Full Search” across the iPhone, all apps, files and docs.}
I think MMS is not there due to the original contract with AT&T, and concerns about cellular traffic/ffees, and their subsequent belief that emailing the photo is as-easy {it’s not}. They’d likely like to have this decision reversed – in fact there’s some recent rumors AT&T is rethinking this. I believe that MMS supports both photo and video, and they have no iPhone video functions currently either.
As for bluetooth, stereo bluetooth audio support might be a big battery drain, and battery life was obviously one of the highest priorities {they even underclocked the processor for it}. Same for video at the moment – though that’s likely also a filesize {space} and encoding performance {processor} issue they likely want it to be AAC/MP4.
And as for bluetooth file transfer, I think that’s a security issue and a filesystem access issue. Bluetooth isn’t very secure, and they don’t control the security mechanism, and it’s likely a concern or knowledge that it’s a relatively easy hack to enable others to upload files to your phone, or for you to load files that contain ‘payloads’ – as well as ‘opening pandora’s box’ re: access to the filesystem, the need for an iPhone filemanager, as well as the aforementioned sharing of music and application files, and even more significant, the bypassing of the use of iTunes and the AppStore to load applications – which they don’t want to broadly occur.
Lastly, I really think, also somewhat similarly to Eli, that Apple’s iPhone team is trying to pursue a new computing platform paradigm, and not just adopt ‘todays’ computer system paradigms – which fundamentally revolve around a user-managed File/Disk Operating System construct – and both the weaknesses, and ‘freedoms’ that come with that..

By: hilzfuld

hilzfuld — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:29:21 +0000

OK, let me start off by thanking all of you for your feedback. I hear that you guys are trying to protect Apple, and I respect that, but the bottom line is, the iPhone has a lot of room for improvement, I think we can all agree on that.
Eli, thanks for the long comment, you know I was tempted to debate every point individually, but knowing us and our past conversations, I would not get much sleep tonight.
Ken: thanks for your comment, just a funny side point, when I saw your name, it sounded familiar so I googled it and came up with this http://www.google.com/search?q=ken+sherman+CNET&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enIL291IL292.
Basically, I thought you were a senior editor at Cnet, i.e Kent German (http://www.cnet.com/profile/KentGerman/). Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

By: Ken Sherman

Ken Sherman — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:08:36 +0000

As far as I can tell, no ATT phones support file transfers over BT.
I think the cell companies want to charge for file transfers on and off the phones and to other phones.

By: Itamar

Itamar — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:32:12 +0000

About time eh?

By: Eli Ungar

Eli Ungar — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:03:18 +0000

There are two basic considerations that Apple takes into account when implementing features on the iPhone:

1) How will this feature effect the overall iPhone experience?
2) How many users will actually find this feature useful?

Regarding the first consideration, it seems clear to me that one of Apple’s primary concerns is that the iPhone experience be consistent and reliable. It’s an unfortunate fact of life that the more features you add to a mobile device, the less stable it becomes. I’m not an expert in Bluetooth technology, but my sense is that Apple has shied away from implementing the more sophisticated features of Bluetooth, because they do not meet Apple’s high stability and reliability standards.

Regarding the second consideration, the iPhone is a mass-market consumer electronics device. The number of people who care about things like stereo bluetooth or wireless file transfer is so small, that it doesn’t make sense for Apple to invest time and resources into implementing such features.

You may argue that cut and paste and MMS do have mass-market appeal and here I would say two things. First, Apple is thinking so differently about the UI of the iPhone that they honestly don’t think the cut and paste issue matters. And in truth, their partly right on this one. Yes, on the few occasions that I have needed to cut and paste it has been incredibly annoying that my iPhone can’t do it, but because the UI of the iPhone is so radically different from previous generation UI’s, this isn’t a daily problem. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of times over the past two years that I have really wanted cut and paste.
Second, regarding MMS, I think Apple has missed the boat on this one. They are looking too far into the future and they believe that when everyone has a smartphone people ought to just email photos to each other. The reality is that we are a LONG way away from that sort of smartphone ubiquity and MMS is a standard that would really come in handy right now.

As far as video recording is concerned, I have no doubt that this will be a feature implemented in a future iPhone, but right now, the battery life is not there to support its inclusion. I think Apple is wise in not including this capability in the current iPhone, because if they did, we’d have the horrible battery situation that we currently see on the G1.

What this all comes down to in the final analysis is whether you prefer Apple’s top-down Catholic style approach to products, or you prefer Google’s bottom-up Protestant style approach. I still prefer Apple’s products and the trade-off in feature set is very much worth it to me. I also think that 20 million iPhone users feel the same way.

By: Magneto

Magneto — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:33:47 +0000

Why no Bluetooth before? Apple was trying to protect iTunes and prevent people from sending each other files (read mp3). They would rather have people buy music than share.