5 ms·
This is a gimmick. On the other hand the whole app is a workaround for the neutered iPhone communication stack. Uploading something to a server just to share i
by blub 15y ago
This is a gimmick. On the other hand the whole app is a workaround for the neutered iPhone communication stack.
Uploading something to a server just to share it with someone standing near you is ridiculous.
- softbuilder 15y agoYou mean like chat or email?
- dfc 15y agoYou /msg or email people standing next to you?
- mdonahoe 15y agoever work in an office?
- dfc 15y agoI have but I had a door so maybe that's what is different. But still I don't know why I would stand next to someone and chat / email them...
- mistercow 15y agoI do. When sending a link for example, this is the path of least resistance. Yes, I could read it out and have the other person type it (which would take ten times as long). And yes, if I wanted to use bandwidth optimally, I would make a direct connection to their device and send it that way. But up to a certain length of data, the overhead of making that specialized connection outweighs any inefficiency of communicating through a middleman.
- blub 15y agoYes, emailing/chatting is also ridiculous. And so is sending a package when you want to hand someone an object. Terribly inefficient.
- pazimzadeh 15y agoThis could be a good way to quickly upload multiple screenshots to the computer.
- Shank 15y agoYeah. It does work, and it doesn't seem like a bad thing. The problem is that instant upload reduces the functionality on Android by a ton.
- kennywinker 15y agoSimilarly on iOS, iCloud handles moving photos from my phone to my Mac. This, however, would be useful for passing photos to friends or people I'm working with.
- kennywinker 15y agoI walk into a room full of computers... Windows, Linux, Mac, iPads, Android Tablets. I have a device in my hand that has photos I just took. In what world is transferring those photos to a specific other device in that room easy? Sure, I can set up MY home computer to automatically pull pics from my phone, but I want to put it on Bob from work's computer... or the boss' iPad. I would turn to email or dropbox before, but at first glance, this is a pretty damn elegant solution.
- jrockway 15y agoI log into my Google+ account and all the pictures on my phone are magically there.
- kennywinker 15y ago1. open google plus on bob-from-work's computer. 2. log out bob-from-work's account. 3. log in your account (type in username / password) 4. navigate to your recent photos (are they there yet? you just took them...) 5. download them yourself / wait while bob-from-work downloads them. This whole time bob-from-work can see all your other recent photos as well. 6. make sure you log out. or: 1. open bump 2. go to the website on bob-from-work's computer 3. tap the photos you want to share 4. smack the spacebar with your phone.
- mistercow 15y ago>Uploading something to a server just to share it with someone standing near you is ridiculous. Not really. For one thing, it greatly simplifies security concerns for the user without compromising anything.
- stcredzero 15y agoNo, there is always a compromise in security and privacy as part of the price of convenience.
- mistercow 15y agoThere is no additional compromise. If you go opening up sockets directly between devices, you open yourself to new exploits if you don't implement that communication correctly. If you use a server in the middle, you can just use HTTP and leverage built-in, strongly vetted web browser code that was already there. And if that code has security holes, they were already available to attackers before your app came along. It's the difference in immune system exposure between a pill and a hypodermic needle.
- stcredzero 15y agoThere is no additional compromise. What you say is generally true for file transfer mediated by server. I am unconvinced it's specifically true for Bump. What I said still stands: security is inversely proportional to convenience. Often security is purchased up-front, paid for by inconvenience. With Bump, you "pay" via an app which uses a coincidence in time and space to "authenticate" you. Such a transaction usually works out, and is probably no riskier than giving clerk you don't know your credit card. (Another place where one gets convenience in exchange for privacy and security.) In the case of transactions with serious downsides, should they go wrong, then users should be aware where there are compromises in security. Denying the truth of this is to spread ignorance.
- mistercow 15y agoWell, I have no idea if Bump uses HTTP and such to do this via vetted methods or if it is really secure in terms of opening your device up to attack vectors. I was making the general point that transferring files between proximal devices by uploading to an intermediate server isn't inherently pointless. I do not think that Bump is attempting to be secure in terms of keeping your images from being intercepted or that it is right to even describe what it does as "authentication". It would be more accurately described as "client selection". There is a niche of insecure file transfers to be filled though. For example, I sometimes send images to people via imgur, which is completely insecure, but sometimes I'm sending images and I don't care if other people can see them. That is a very different kind of security issue than one that allows an attacker to control a device, which is the sort that I meant when I said that using an intermediate server doesn't open up security holes.
- tomaskafka 15y ago"Uploading something to a server just to share it with someone standing near you is ridiculous." It is ridiculous from the technical point of view. It is ingenious for the users. I am sure that the question 'what else do we consider splurging' is the one that could uncover a lot of innovative uses of technology. http://blog.tomaskafka.com/what-do-we-consider-splurging http://blog.tomaskafka.com/what-do-we-consider-splurging