3 ms·
It'd better be an N Wifi if I'm going to sync 16GB of music to a new device, and even that's going to take quite a while. Of course, USB 2.0 isn't really up to
by m_eiman 16y ago
It'd better be an N Wifi if I'm going to sync 16GB of music to a new device, and even that's going to take quite a while. Of course, USB 2.0 isn't really up to the task either - but at least it's faster by a significant factor.
- mootymoots 16y agosure, the initial sync, like an initial time machine backup, would take an age to sync wirelessly... I'm thinking post that though, walking into my network and syncing latest updates, even without my prompting
- m_eiman 16y agoAgreed, I can't think of any good reason not to allow sync over wifi (or over 3g for that matter, if I'm on a flatrate plan).
- ericd 16y agoBecause the 3G infrastructure is overloaded as it is without multi-gig downloads?
- m_eiman 16y agoDownloading the initial sync over 3g isn't something I'd do if I could avoid it, but incremental syncs would be just fine. Even adding an album or two wouldn't take -that- long, and if the network can't handle a few downloads now and then it's just plain broken. Besides, everyone over here in Sweden is selling mobile broadband like there's no tomorrow, so their networks should be up to it.
- ericd 16y agoAh how I wish the US had Sweden's net/mobile infrastructure. Carriers here like to complain that people are downloading too much rather than just upgrading the infrastructure to deal with it. I shudder to think what would happen if people started downloading over the air on a serious scale, it's already pretty bad with normal web surfing.
- mootymoots 16y agoThat is a problem (certainly in London anyway)... I say initial sync over wired, continuous over wireless. I had some thoughts on it recently: http://www.reynoldsftw.com/2010/04/imagine-a-wireless-sync-world-cc-apple/ http://www.reynoldsftw.com/2010/04/imagine-a-wireless-sync-w...