5 ms·

So you are willing to commit to cloud-only, controlled by a random corp and subject to network availability but you are not going to trust the hardware you can

• glhaynes 15y ago
  If I didn't want to do cloud sync, I'd be more excited about a local sync. One doesn't tend to generate gigabytes of data on a phone so even a Bluetooth sync would be sufficient for most people.
  • planb 15y ago
    You don't use your smartphone to capture HD video, do you?
    • glhaynes 15y ago
      I do from time to time. Even they can be transferred over today's WiFi in a matter of seconds. My point is that keeping local devices in sync for all but a very few uses is already today easily solvable. So I wonder why we'd want to move to an architecture where our computers are reliant on our phones... there seem to be some significant tradeoffs to that model and it's not clear to me what real gains there would be.
      • lmm 15y ago
        >keeping local devices in sync for all but a very few uses is already today easily solvable. No, it really isn't. Manual file transfer is... doable, but still more problematic than it should be. But there is absolutely nothing that will seamlessly keep my phone in sync with my tablet when I don't have network access (i.e. I take a photo on my phone and it's on my tablet, without me doing anything). If you have a solution, link please.
        • glhaynes 15y ago
          It's not solved, it's easily solvable. :)