Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

caesarp

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 30, 2012
1,073
614
Do you need wifi? Cause my work wifi blocks apple downloads. I didn't want to wait till I get home.
 

caesarp

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 30, 2012
1,073
614
You can only do OTA updates over wifi. It's been this way since OTA updates were introduced.

Stupid cell phone carriers. I hate them.

What's the big deal? Do they really think it will crash the cell towers?
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
Stupid cell phone carriers. I hate them.

What's the big deal? Do they really think it will crash the cell towers?
Think of how many people will be updating and how many will be doing it at almost the same time and how large the major updates are in size. It's kind of obvious that it wouldn't be a good idea.
 

bozzykid

macrumors 68020
Aug 11, 2009
2,431
492
You can only do OTA updates over wifi. It's been this way since OTA updates were introduced.

Not true. The carrier file that includes the settings for each carrier sets a limit on the size of OTA update it will allow. So you can do OTA updates over cellular when the update file is really small.
 

Tyler23

macrumors 603
Dec 2, 2010
5,664
159
Atlanta, GA
Not true. The carrier file that includes the settings for each carrier sets a limit on the size of OTA update it will allow. So you can do OTA updates over cellular when the update file is really small.

No, this is an Apple restriction. You can update apps over cellular, but iOS software updates must be done over Wifi.
 

caesarp

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 30, 2012
1,073
614
Think of how many people will be updating and how many will be doing it at almost the same time and how large the major updates are in size. It's kind of obvious that it wouldn't be a good idea.

I call B.S. Let the cell phone carriers prove it. I think they just forbid this in the deal they cut with Apple, because they wanted to and cause they could.

I doubt it would do any serious harm or that it would create that much of a spike in cell phone usage.

Where's the scientific evidence that it would cause any harm?
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
Not true. The carrier file that includes the settings for each carrier sets a limit on the size of OTA update it will allow. So you can do OTA updates over cellular when the update file is really small.
There were OTA updates that were just 12 MB and still required Wi-Fi.
 

Tyler23

macrumors 603
Dec 2, 2010
5,664
159
Atlanta, GA
I call B.S. Let the cell phone carriers prove it. I think they just forbid this in the deal they cut with Apple, because they wanted to and cause they could.

I doubt it would do any serious harm or that it would create that much of a spike in cell phone usage.

Where's the scientific evidence that it would cause any harm?

I think it is also to protect the user.

Imagine how many non technically gifted people have iPhones. Now say, 80% of them have 2GB per month data plans. Now say, they see a software update on their phones, and think, wow this is great! I'm going to update! While they're in their cars or walking around the mall. Now, imagine the backlash when they realize they just burned through 1.5GB of their 2GB data plan in a few minutes..
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
I call B.S. Let the cell phone carriers prove it. I think they just forbid this in the deal they cut with Apple, because they wanted to and cause they could.

I doubt it would do any serious harm or that it would create that much of a spike in cell phone usage.

Where's the scientific evidence that it would cause any harm?
im sure there's evidence that it would create a burden especially for large updates that a lot of people will jump in quickly. Logic alone pretty much supports that.

Where's the evidence that it wouldn't be an issue?
 

matttye

macrumors 601
Mar 25, 2009
4,957
32
Lincoln, England
I call B.S. Let the cell phone carriers prove it. I think they just forbid this in the deal they cut with Apple, because they wanted to and cause they could.

I doubt it would do any serious harm or that it would create that much of a spike in cell phone usage.

Where's the scientific evidence that it would cause any harm?

Noone's saying it would 'cause harm,' just bring the network to a standstill or seriously slow down the internet for a lot of people.

This is why networks often 'throttle' the most prolific downloaders so that they don't single handedly cause slowdowns for the 'innocents.'

Why else would they not allow it?
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
I think it is also to protect the user.

Imagine how many non technically gifted people have iPhones. Now say, 80% of them have 2GB per month data plans. Now say, they see a software update on their phones, and think, wow this is great! I'm going to update! While they're in their cars or walking around the mall. Now, imagine the backlash when they realize they just burned through 1.5GB of their 2GB data plan in a few minutes..
Yeah, if anything this would actually be favorable to the carriers as they would get tons of money from overage charges, despite some complaints. So the whole carrier conspiracy kind of doesn't work out.
 

caesarp

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Sep 30, 2012
1,073
614
im sure there's evidence that it would create a burden especially for large updates that a lot of people will jump in quickly. Logic alone pretty much supports that.

Where's the evidence that it wouldn't be an issue?

I submit the lack of a need to prove a negative; just like I don't need to prove that there is no god. Those who suggest otherwise, need to prove the affirmative.
 

DarkRyoushii

macrumors newbie
Jun 11, 2013
27
0
Of course it won't kill the cell towers, chances are they will employ some sort of cache so everyone will only be downloading from the closest tower (not apple servers), sure it would be a higher average than normal but definitely within working range.
 

Ffosse

macrumors 68000
Nov 5, 2012
1,827
652
Well I'm updating mine over cellular, not a phone, rather an iPod Touch tethered to my phone.

I have unlimited data and generally use 90 to 120Gbs a month.
 

hagr182

macrumors regular
Apr 6, 2010
192
29
Id like to think its because of the data consumption it may produce to you as a user, similar as to why you can´t download apps over 50mb.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
I submit the lack of a need to prove a negative; just like I don't need to prove that there is no god. Those who suggest otherwise, need to prove the affirmative.
Got it, so you just think that's the case. Alright.

In the end all that matters to anyone is how it's actually set up to work (not really why or why not), so whatever opinions we might have doesn't change the fact that Wi-Fi is needed, and that's really that.
 

PNutts

macrumors 601
Jul 24, 2008
4,874
357
Pacific Northwest, US
I doubt it would do any serious harm or that it would create that much of a spike in cell phone usage.

Where's the scientific evidence that it would cause any harm?

I recommend you contact your IT department and ask that same question to them (why block Apple downloads). Like with a carrier, it might simply be a policy. But there is a cost associated with transferring every bit into your phone and your company and the carriers decided to not absorb that cost so you can get iOS 7 a few hours earlier. I don't know.

During March Madness my company had to block some sites because the network slowed to a crawl and people couldn't get business done that <gasp> made us money.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.