6 ms·
It's not really an AirDrop equivalent if it requires you to be on the same network. AirDrop is really useful when you're out and about somewhere and you want to
by sgt 6y ago
It's not really an AirDrop equivalent if it requires you to be on the same network. AirDrop is really useful when you're out and about somewhere and you want to send someone a file. In those cases there's possibly not a WiFi available or in the case of visitors to your home; only you are on the network, not your friend. So I would not see the point of using this instead of AirDrop unless you have to send a file to someone using Android.
- capableweb 6y agoTo be fair, AirDrop requires you to be on the same network as well, as otherwise the devices don't have any way of communicating. If you're already on the same WiFi, it'll use WiFi but if not, it'll connect to each other via Bluetooth (eg, connecting to the same network [a network of two devices]), but the setup of the connection is automatic. Maybe Snapdrop can do something similar with the new Bluetooth Web APIs.
- vkoskiv 6y agoFalse. AirDrop does discovery via bluetooth, but then sets up an ad-hoc WiFi connection directly between devices to transmit data. No network required.
- felixr 6y ago> sets up an ad-hoc WiFi connection ... No network required. It does need a network, that's why it creates one using an ad-hoc WiFi connection.
- JoBrad 6y agoThe creation of this ad hoc network is seamless, invisible to the user, and doesn’t require _external_ network hardware.
- capableweb 6y ago> False > sets up an ad-hoc WiFi connection > No network required Guess we have different definitions of what a "network" is. I'd call that a network, of two devices.
- avianlyric 6y agoI think the important difference is that AirDrop doesn't require you both to start on the same network for discovery, which SnapDrop does.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sgt 6y agoThat Airdrop sets up its own temporary network hidden from view is not really relevant to most users though. For the user, it just works like "magic". All you need are two phones.
- ComputerGuru 6y agoThat was the initial version of AirDrop that had the same network requirement; future releases negotiated an adhoc wifi connection over bluetooth then used that.
- yeneek 6y agothis issue is solvable with relay server
- rektide 6y agothere's no means for your devices to find/discover each other in the real world
- iamAtom 6y agoMajority of people want to use Airdrop to share file in same network in my experience.
- carstenhag 6y agoSometimes difficult when devica A is using a corporate wifi and device B uses a public wifi/mobile data
- lxgr 6y agoDefinitely not true for me. My most common scenario is "can you please send me all the photos of the trip/dinner/... in the original resolution" in a car park/train station/street corner.
- toomuchtodo 6y agoiCloud album link?
- ComputerGuru 6y agoPlease no. The recipient does not actually “have” the photo when it is sent.
- ianleighton 6y agobut they have the option to download (with the iCloud share link, not shared album).
- sgt 6y agoI suspect most people use AirDrop for the use case where a bunch of folks are physically somewhere together, perhaps on a trip or having coffee, and someone asks: "hey, can you quickly send me that video?". Without Airdrop that isn't always feasible: 1) a WiFi network may not be available to send using other means 2) perhaps the video is very large and would eat your data 3) no cell reception at all, as is common on adventure or hiking trips
- ncfausti 6y agoİ have an Android and a MBP. The number of times where İ think, "why is this so hard to get this file to that computer" is more than I'd like to admit. Cloud drives (iCloud, OneDrive, GDrive) are all too slow on bad WiFi. This should help me.
- dietr1ch 6y agoHave you tried Syncthing?
- citrusybread 6y agonot the OP, I'm on Linux + Android and I hate my phone so much. next phone will be a pinephone and a DSLR or mirrorless camera at this rate. the ONLY thing that's worked for me is syncthing -- I can't copy files over USB reliably at all. I guess I could also pay for google photos but honestly fuck google so much. I have a pixel 3a so all I get is the unlimited low-res images. Why the hell this thing can't just backup files over USB or SMB or a card reader/USB drive plugged in to usb-C is beyond me.
- fartcannon 6y agoI have a Pinephone. Its incredible. We need more users. Buy one! The next generation is on it's way and it's supposed to be pretty awesome.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mlacks 6y agoI have the reverse problem (win10 devices/iphone) and it has become enough of an issue to convince me to switch to android. Its ridiculous how Apple treats non apple devices as third-class citizens.
- sgt 6y agoHow would you send a file using Android (without access to an already existing network)? I asked someone with an Android phone the other day and apparently it's not practical.
- Uehreka 6y agoAlas, this is a general issue with WebRTC: Most people are behind NATs[1], and not even STUN[2] can save them. In order for this to support internetwork (heh) transport, you'd need a TURN[3] server that could relay the traffic between the participants. Of course, at that point you're not really Peer2Peer anymore: You have a server between you and that server is going to cost actual money to run. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traversal_Using_Relays_around_NAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traversal_Using_Relays_around_...
- runlevel1 6y agoThis made me curious about the state of IPv6 adoption. About 33% of folks have IPv6 connectivity now, up from 5% in 2015.[1] The NAT problem isn't going away anytime soon, but it's good to see some progress is finally being made on that front. [1]: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6...