iSync 1.5 Now Available

[MacRumors]

Now Available via Software Update:
iSync lets you manage your contacts, calendars, To Do lists, and Safari bookmarks across multiple Mac OS X computers and devices (such as an iSync-compatible mobile phone, Palm OS device, or iPod), so you always have your most current information with you. To sync a Palm OS device, you need to install the iSync Palm Conduit version 1.2 or later.


iSync 1.5 adds support for more devices such as the latest Sony Ericsson and Motorola phones. For more information about supported devices and connectivity requirements, visit www.apple.com/isync (http://www.apple.com/isync).


Before you install iSync 1.5, you must install iCal 1.5.2 or later. To download the latest version of iCal, visit www.apple.com/ical (http://www.apple.com/ical), or use Software Update (in System Preferences) to install the latest version.


If you are using Mac OS X version 10.3 and plan to synchronize a Bluetooth mobile phone, you need to have Bluetooth version 1.5 or later installed. To download the latest version, use Software Update (in System Preferences). If you have an earlier version of Mac OS X, visit www.apple.com/isync (http://www.apple.com/isync) to download the appropriate Bluetooth version.

Details about the new iSync release are available here: http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/isync_readme.html

[Calvinatir]

Come on Motorolla V600!!

EDIT: SCORE! It does work now!

[sgarringer]

heres hoping my nextel phone will sync. oh wait, no bluetooth, no support, i doubt thats gonna happen!

come in IR support! =]

[kgarner]

Is this just more device support, or did they add anything new?

[third_floor]

Why do Motorola phones have no Bluetooth support?

[Calvinatir]

Why do Motorola phones have no Bluetooth support?

I agree..what's up with that!

[idkew]

installing now- will let you know if my p800 still syncs


oh yeah- works fine.

[Swinny]

Installed and running...seems to be more or less the same as before...supports my new Sony Ericsson K700i though...so no complaints!

[fflipper]

Why do Motorola phones have no Bluetooth support?

I have to second this one. after they announced the itunes partnership i was sure that they would get bluetooth working for isync.

[sworthy]

motorola bluetooth phone: http://www.motorola.com/mdirect/hellomoto/experience/v710/flash/features_new.shtml?

[aricher]

This is so friggin bogus. Great "partnership,' with Motorola - so great I spent the extra $$ on a Bluetooth enabled V600 only to discover now that I need a data cable for iSync usage. Heck - with OnSync I could do everything via Bluetooth.

I'm glad they added more device support but pissed about the lack of BT with Moto phones.

[nickdaze]

I don't know if I'm hallucinating, or if my Bluetooth sync with my phone is now 1 billion times faster! Well... maybe not a billion, but you know what I mean. Anyone else?

Using Sony Ericsson T673

[SiliconAddict]

I have to second this one. after they announced the itunes partnership i was sure that they would get bluetooth working for isync.


I'm sorry but comments like these are funny. Everytime a new partnership is formed with some other company like IBM, Pepsi, Moto, etc there are a group of people that think such partnerships go beyond a simple deal between the companies such notions are well...you know. Moto has never been about flashy tech. They make good, solid, rugged phones. And frankly BT is flashy tech. Will they eventually get BT? Sure. But it may very well be a while and its not going to be because they want to make it Apple compatable. If anything they will most likely get a firewire port on a phone before BT. (To charge and transfer iTunes songs with.)

[Kingsnapped]

I paid for onsync, but I'm still pissed off about this.

I know it's not listed on the "supported devices" page, but it is still bogus.

[Parikh1234]

I have a v600 also and I am pissed off that I cant sync without a cable. Its nice to know that i can finally sync my v600 but only with a cable. Time to go to ebay for a cable. :D

[encro]

Excellent Update! No changes in performance as far as I can tell nickdaze but I have found 1 undocumented feature:

All Day Events are now supported on the T610 (and probably other SE phones) but only read-only in this update. Still better than not showing up at all before iSync 1.5.

Turn it on in your iSync Phone Preferences.

[crakly]

has anyone installed this yet? does it affect salling clicker funtionality?

[titaniumducky]

Weird....

I tried downloading this, OS X 10.3.5, and the Security Update at once. After downloading, Software update would have a spinning beach-ball and the rotating gray thing next to iSync, but it would show no message (like "Installing x% complete") and it just hung. I tried it twice.

Now I'm downloading just OS X 10.3.5 (which I understand includes the Security Update), and then I'll install iSync. Now it's almost done with the install of 10.3.5.

[fflipper]

I'm sorry but comments like these are funny. Everytime a new partnership is formed with some other company like IBM, Pepsi, Moto, etc there are a group of people that think such partnerships go beyond a simple deal between the companies such notions are well...you know. Moto has never been about flashy tech. They make good, solid, rugged phones. And frankly BT is flashy tech. Will they eventually get BT? Sure. But it may very well be a while and its not going to be because they want to make it Apple compatable. If anything they will most likely get a firewire port on a phone before BT. (To charge and transfer iTunes songs with.)

Motorola and Sony were some of the first phones to have bluetooth, infact one of the first handsfree sets came from moterola, I had one. Terible batery life and everything else that was bad about it. I also have thier latest bluetooth handsfree and am very happy with it. the v600 is (i think and to lazy to look it up) the only quadband bluetooth enabled phone. Thier whole marketing campaign during last years superbowl was the jamesbond like add with bluetooth and quadband. Apple has constantly said it is motorola's fault that they do not support isync. iTunes is good enough for them but not isync? yes i expect more out of this partnership. I dont want to go and spend another 30 bucks on a sync cable. if the phone has bluetooth it should support sync'ing period.

Also I have heard that thier PC based software for syncing isnt even that good. (can't test it cause I dont have a pc anymore)

[encro]

has anyone installed this yet? does it affect salling clicker funtionality?


Salling Clicker still works just as well as ever :)

[mikeyrogers]

V600 support! MY CRAPPY DAY HAS NOW BEEN MADE!!!

[James Craner]

Installed the update on Powerbook 1.5 GHz 15", sync to .mac and iPod no problems.

[Lanbrown]

Why do Motorola phones have no Bluetooth support?

Because it's Motorola and they are always late.

[Misplaced Mage]

I know from talking to Motorola customer support that the V710 lacks the Bluetooth object push profile (OPP) needed for iSync to operate over Bluetooth with that phone, but does the lack extend to other Motorola phones like the V600?

[mikeyrogers]

Nevermind, I'm still pissed. I guess Apple didn't know the V600 had a Bluetooth chip in it...

[fflipper]

I know from talking to Motorola customer support that the V710 lacks the Bluetooth object push profile (OPP) needed for iSync to operate over Bluetooth with that phone, but does the lack extend to other Motorola phones like the V600?

So is this an apple thing or a moto thing? moto sells a bluetooth adapter and phone tools 2.0 on thier site for 80 bucks for the pc for the v600 and v710. what protocol is that using? it supports sync for phone book and cal plus all the other wizbang things in regards to skinning.

[SilentPanda]

has anyone installed this yet? does it affect salling clicker funtionality?

Why would it? They're two separate programs that both happen to use bluetooth. I don't think Salling Clicker actually uses any iSync functionality.

[macridah]

Nice. my new phone is now on the supported device list. But I have to wait til i get off work to try it. Can't wait to try it!

[Lanbrown]

Moto has never been about flashy tech. They make good, solid, rugged phones. And frankly BT is flashy tech. Will they eventually get BT? Sure. But it may very well be a while and its not going to be because they want to make it Apple compatable. If anything they will most likely get a firewire port on a phone before BT. (To charge and transfer iTunes songs with.)

Motorola used to make quality phones that were rugged. Ever since digital came available, Motorola has had quality problems. Antennas that break, higher DOA then most of the other manufacturers, buggy software that cause problems and that they blame on the network rather than their phone. When push came to shove, Motorola fixed their software issue, so much for it being a network issue as they claimed. Their phones are not what they once were. Some carriers only carried them because people requested them and they wanted the business. If people didn't demand them (basically from past history in the analog days) then that division would have folded. Motorola is more of some flash here and there then anything else. They are consistently late to the party compared to other vendors.

Firewire for what reason? How fast would the flash be? Not that fast. I could possibly see USB On-The-Go.

[hayesk]

I have a v600 also and I am pissed off that I cant sync without a cable. Its nice to know that i can finally sync my v600 but only with a cable. Time to go to ebay for a cable. :D

Check www.eforcity.com too - they have cheap *new* stuff.

[Lanbrown]

Nevermind, I'm still pissed. I guess Apple didn't know the V600 had a Bluetooth chip in it...

It has nothing to do with Apple, but Motorola and their lack of supporting various BT profiles. Look here to see the various profiles:
https://www.bluetooth.org/spec/
What profiles a company decides to support when they implement BT is up to them.

So how is this the fault of Apple that Motorola made that decision?

[kgarner]

All Day Events are now supported on the T610 (and probably other SE phones) but only read-only in this update. Still better than not showing up at all before iSync 1.5.
That made it worth it for me! I have been waiting for this feature.

[crees!]

Check www.eforcity.com too - they have cheap *new* stuff. I read some people's comments online that the data cable from eforcity for the moto phones has a connection problem and you have to jiggle it sometime. I didn't want to mess with that so I bought my cable straight from Moto.. granted it was $30 instead of $15 but I didn't want to have to fool with any loose connections.. especially on a new product.

[third_floor]

I'm still trying to figure out whether this is Apple's choice or Motorola's choice.

@sworthy - I know about the phone. It's one that I am about to buy, because it is Bluetooth enabled. I just wish the new iSync supported it (vice versa?).

@SiliconAddict - I agree with your comments; however, what is there to stop Motorola from supporting Bluetooth standards, and to stop Apple from making a Mot-compatible synchronization software? A partnership in music does not automatically infer cross-compatibility from both companies; I was not talking about this. I am just interested to know the reason for which Motorola's Bluetooth is not supported.

@fflipper - if the phone has Bluetooth it should support sync'ing period.
My thoughts exactly. iTunes partnership or not, Motorola phones should be able to sync with my Powerbook.

@Lanbrown - Like I said to sworthy, I know about Motorola's Bluetooth phones. I'm asking not why Motorola has no Bluetooth support (they do; vide V600, V710) but rather why iSync cannot use Bluetooth to put my Address Book onto my (future) V710.

If anyone has any technical documentation about the reasoning behind this (that is, I don't want to hear about the Apple/Motorola iTunes partnership), then please refer me to it. I want to know why Motorola has built Bluetooth into their phones only to leave it unsupported, or, if this is not the case, why Apple cannot make iSync work with Motorola's hardware.

EDIT: I see your link, Lanbrown. I'll check it out.

[kgarner]

Another picky question. Did they change the icon for the T610? I hate the red one that they use. Any T610 users know about this?

[Seamaster]

Can anyone help me with a vanishing Bluetooth preference pane? Every time I click my Bluetooth icon in System Prefs, the prefs screen just sits there, and the Bluetooth options screen never opens. Same deal if I try to invoke it from "Open Bluetooth Preferences" in the Bluetooth menu.

Any ideas? It's been like this for a while; I hoped the 10.3.5 upgrade might reinstate it.

seamaster, :confused:

[fflipper]

I'm still trying to figure out whether this is Apple's choice or Motorola's choice.

@sworthy - I know about the phone. It's one that I am about to buy, because it is Bluetooth enabled. I just wish the new iSync supported it (vice versa?).

@SiliconAddict - I agree with your comments; however, what is there to stop Motorola from supporting Bluetooth standards, and to stop Apple from making a Mot-compatible synchronization software? A partnership in music does not automatically infer cross-compatibility from both companies; I was not talking about this. I am just interested to know the reason for which Motorola's Bluetooth is not supported.

@fflipper -
My thoughts exactly. iTunes partnership or not, Motorola phones should be able to sync with my Powerbook.

@Lanbrown - Like I said to sworthy, I know about Motorola's Bluetooth phones. I'm asking not why Motorola has no Bluetooth support (they do; vide V600, V710) but rather why iSync cannot use Bluetooth to put my Address Book onto my (future) V710.

If anyone has any technical documentation about the reasoning behind this (that is, I don't want to hear about the Apple/Motorola iTunes partnership), then please refer me to it. I want to know why Motorola has built Bluetooth into their phones only to leave it unsupported, or, if this is not the case, why Apple cannot make iSync work with Motorola's hardware.

EDIT: I see your link, Lanbrown. I'll check it out.

The only thing that i found doing some digging off of apples message board as well as looking up the various protocols mentioned is that motorola support SyncML for thier phones

link (http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?14@79.vKulaWyyte2.20@.6898b067)

apple does not support syncml with anything within os x (based on browsing through the various threads). So motorola acctually has a sync strategy (Charter Member of SyncML Group (http://www.cellular.co.za/syncml.htm) ) while apple does not support this protocol. this makes me believe that it is in fact apple behind the eightball on this issue and not moto.

However the fact that apple can sync with the latest update over a cable but not bluetooth just adds more confusion.

anyone out there know more about this stuff that can explain it would be greatly appreciated.

[sigamy]

Very few Verizon phones on the supported list. No LG, Samsung or Audiovox. I wish Verizon offered some cool phones!

[kgarner]

Very few Verizon phones on the supported list. No LG, Samsung or Audiovox. I wish Verizon offered some cool phones!
One of the main reasons I didn't sign up with Verizon again was the lack of Bluetooth phones. I liked everythng else, but I love my Bluetooth phone and Salling Clicker more. :D

[idkew]

has anyone installed this yet? does it affect salling clicker funtionality?


no problems here on my p800 w/clicker.

[titaniumducky]

Weird....

I tried downloading this, OS X 10.3.5, and the Security Update at once. After downloading, Software update would have a spinning beach-ball and the rotating gray thing next to iSync, but it would show no message (like "Installing x% complete") and it just hung. I tried it twice.

Now I'm downloading just OS X 10.3.5 (which I understand includes the Security Update), and then I'll install iSync. Now it's almost done with the install of 10.3.5.

That worked fine.

[ifjake]

yeah too bad it doesn't work with my LG phone. let's see shell out a hundred bucks for a new phone or deal with it.... phone... deal with it... hundred bucks..... i'd have to say i'll just deal with it.

[hiltmon]

motorola bluetooth phone: http://www.motorola.com/mdirect/hellomoto/experience/v710/flash/features_new.shtml?

The V710 des not sync with iSync over bluetooth, anyone know why (yes I know Apple states it is USB only) but WHY????

[fuge]

Very few Verizon phones on the supported list. No LG, Samsung or Audiovox. I wish Verizon offered some cool phones!

I would say the Moto v710 is a cool (bluetooth) phone.

moto v710 (http://www.motorola.com/mdirect/hellomoto/experience/v710/flash/default.shtml)

I have it. Haven't tried bluetooth yet but the usb cable works just fine with iSync. As McDonalds would say, "I'm lovin' it."

Now I just need to figure out how to get my mp3's on to the phone...

[jettredmont]

yeah too bad it doesn't work with my LG phone. let's see shell out a hundred bucks for a new phone or deal with it.... phone... deal with it... hundred bucks..... i'd have to say i'll just deal with it.

My thoughts exactly ... but are any of the supported phones just $100?

My problem is that Verizon gets the best coverage hereabouts (and, really, the only reliable coverage), and has the best plans available for that coverage, but has crappy phones. None of them that are available here with a current-subscriber discount are iSync-capable. So, until one of the other companies gets better coverage, or Verizon gets better phones, or Apple starts slumming it by supporting LG's funky proprietary communications protocols ... I'm stuck.

Such is life.

[displaced]

(disclaimer: I'm from the UK, so know not how things work in the US)

Do you guys have to buy specific phones for each network? So, you can't pick up any phone and use it with any network you choose? Seems a bit of a pain having to choose between Good Phones/Crappy Coverage and Bad Phones/Good Coverage...

Is it a technical difference, or are the phones simply locked in software? On our GSM networks, we often get subsidised phones which are locked in software to the network who sold it. But after the contract's up (usually 1 year), or for a nominal fee before then, the network will unlock it.

Just curious...

[BWhaler]

Now, if they can only get iDisk syncing to work as advertised, I will be a happy Mac guy.

[third_floor]

(disclaimer: I'm from the UK, so know not how things work in the US)

Do you guys have to buy specific phones for each network? So, you can't pick up any phone and use it with any network you choose? Seems a bit of a pain having to choose between Good Phones/Crappy Coverage and Bad Phones/Good Coverage...

Is it a technical difference, or are the phones simply locked in software? On our GSM networks, we often get subsidised phones which are locked in software to the network who sold it. But after the contract's up (usually 1 year), or for a nominal fee before then, the network will unlock it.

Just curious...
See, the US wireless providers don't really have standards (nor do they want them.) You Europeans and Asians just get a network, and it works. Over here we have gajillions of bands and networks and no 3G yet and blah blah blah.

I think I'm getting this Motorola V710, and the USB cable, but I really wish Apple would just go ahead and start supporting Bluetooth in general.

By the way, thanks, fflipper, that clears up a lot.

[henryblackman]

The only thing that i found doing some digging off of apples message board as well as looking up the various protocols mentioned is that motorola support SyncML for thier phones

link (http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?14@79.vKulaWyyte2.20@.6898b067)

apple does not support syncml with anything within os x (based on browsing through the various threads). So motorola acctually has a sync strategy (Charter Member of SyncML Group (http://www.cellular.co.za/syncml.htm) ) while apple does not support this protocol. this makes me believe that it is in fact apple behind the eightball on this issue and not moto.


Actually Apple has a high performance SyncML system that manages all of .Mac's synchronisation. They aren't well known for it, but they are a real leader in this area: Brendan McCarthy (http://www.ebyss.net/pages/ProfInfo.html) (from FusionOne) wrote the entire system with his small team.

[crees!]

iSync works in both directions correct? I have information on both my phone and in Address Book but they are not the same. So will these 2 different sets of phone numbers be the same after syncing?

[Raman1970]

Motorola Motorola Motorola.. what about NOKIA!!! I have a 6820 and a 6230 that I need to Sync. I have been waiting since March for an update and still nothing. Aside from the two I own there are atleast another 5 Nokia bluetooth phones out that need support. I can connect to it via bluetooth and browse it, copy and remove pictures but can not use iSync... that bites! Guess I have to wait another four months or use a piece of crap to Sync.

[drlunanerd]

The 4G iPods still show up as a 3G icon in iSync 1.5. Am surprised they haven't changed this (iTunes 4.6 and OS X 10.3.4 both show the correct icon representation).

[theadz01]

can't believe the lack of Nokia support - was looking forward to iSyncing my Nokia 6230

[Kingsnapped]

The 4G iPods still show up as a 3G icon in iSync 1.5. Am surprised they haven't changed this (iTunes 4.6 and OS X 10.3.4 both show the correct icon representation).

Hm.. my 3g looks like a 2g.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[vouder17]

i was hoping that isync would enable infrared support on my computer. My imac still has an infrared port but OS X doesn't recognize it.
Oh well
DjVoTez

[RubberChicken]

Sync all day events causes sync failure and phone crash on my t39m.

[drlunanerd]

Hm.. my 3g looks like a 2g.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

My 1G looks like a 1G - check.
My 4G definitely looks like a 3G...

[akw]

I'd like to second everyone's frustration with iSync not supporting Motorola phones via bluetooth. I own a v600. It has bluetooth. I own a powerbook. It has bluetooth. This shouldn't be a problem, damn-it-all. As a consumer I don't care about standards, protocols, and all that crap. Apple, you need to hack something together to make this work. This is utterly absurd. I'm dissatisfied with iSync based on this point alone. Charge me for the software if you have to, but just make it work.

[fflipper]

Actually Apple has a high performance SyncML system that manages all of .Mac's synchronisation. They aren't well known for it, but they are a real leader in this area: Brendan McCarthy (http://www.ebyss.net/pages/ProfInfo.html) (from FusionOne) wrote the entire system with his small team.

Thanks for clearing some things up only to add more confusion :confused:

If apple is a leader in SyncML and use it in isync, but supposedly use OPEX (think that is the protocol i have seen thrown around) for phone syncing. And motorola does not use that, (for the nokia users out there noticed the same issue, the phone makers are switching to SyncML on newer phones which is the isync issue) than is it again the phone maker or apple that has issues with this product. I have to agree there are times that i as a user want things to just work and not spend 30 bucks on a cable when i have bluetooth as part of my $250 phone.

oh well just going to have to sit back and deal like i have in the past as i refuse to spend the money on a cable to transmit data when i have a perfectly good set of bluetooth chips going to waste.

[titaniumducky]

Hm.. my 3g looks like a 2g.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

That's odd. My 3G looks like a 3G.

[ibookin']

I don't know about the V500 and V600, but the reason the V710 doesn't sync is because it is missing the necessary Bluetooth profile. This is especially annoying to us Verizon users, since this is the first Bluetooth phone on Verizon and it still doesn't support the full gamut of Bluetooth functionality.

I have this phone and it is not recognized by iSync when using Bluetooth. I have a data cable, so I'll try it out with that later tonight.

Also, for the poster who was talking about Motorola Phone Tools, the V710 doesn't work with it over Bluetooth due to the missing profiles I mentioned above. The V600, however, works fine.

[fabsgwu]

Very few Verizon phones on the supported list. No LG, Samsung or Audiovox. I wish Verizon offered some cool phones!

you might be sorry tomorrow when they introduce the Moto v710 flip phone, with BT and a 1.2 megapixel camera. They're also introducing a slew of new phones next quarter that should bolster their reputation - outstanding coverage and reliability, meet cool phones.

http://commerce.motorola.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=260904&prmenbr=126&phone_cgrfnbr=1&zipcode=

[jettredmont]

(disclaimer: I'm from the UK, so know not how things work in the US)

Do you guys have to buy specific phones for each network? So, you can't pick up any phone and use it with any network you choose? Seems a bit of a pain having to choose between Good Phones/Crappy Coverage and Bad Phones/Good Coverage...

Is it a technical difference, or are the phones simply locked in software? On our GSM networks, we often get subsidised phones which are locked in software to the network who sold it. But after the contract's up (usually 1 year), or for a nominal fee before then, the network will unlock it.

Just curious...

Both. First, there are, if I remember correctly, four separate technologies at work here in the US. There are some phones which only support one of the technologies, but most are dual-, tri-, or even quad-mode phones. For instance, Sprint's network is PCS; AT&T's is CDMA; etc. I think someone over here's using GSM (what the rest of the world uses), but the coverage isn't good in general. In addition, yes, phone companies brand their phones when you buy them via software so that even if the network is the same (Verizon and AT&T, for instance, I believe both use CDMA) you can't go to a different provider with the same phone. I'm not sure if this is reversable or not; generally after the just-short-of-lifetime contract expires on a phone it's so obsolete you're better off getting a new one anyways.

I think it's a pretty well understood fact that cellular is a mess here in the US. We're a good decade behind the rest of the world technology-wise, and the gap is only growing.

On the other hand, our tax dollars don't subsidize the cell companies and we have fairly reasonable charges overall ... Cheap buys cheap!

[crees!]

So can anyone answer the question I posted earlier? That being as an example if you have 5 contacts on your phone and 5 different contacts in Address Book that after syncing both your phone and A.B. will have the same 10 contacts. Thank you.

[virividox]

iv been waiting for this for quite a while now whoohoo

[Kingsnapped]

So can anyone answer the question I posted earlier? That being as an example if you have 5 contacts on your phone and 5 different contacts in Address Book that after syncing both your phone and A.B. will have the same 10 contacts. Thank you.

Yes. iSync will work both ways. Much like how playlists made in the iPod appear in iTunes, new contacts will move to your computer from your phone.

[crees!]

Yes. iSync will work both ways. Much like how playlists made in the iPod appear in iTunes, new contacts will move to your computer from your phone. Playlists made in my 3G pod do not appear in iTunes since they are deleted once the iPod is attached. But you're saying yes that the contacts on my phone will be transferred to the computer and vice versa?

[Kingsnapped]

Playlists made in my 3G pod do not appear in iTunes since they are deleted once the iPod is attached. But you're saying yes that the contacts on my phone will be transferred to the computer and vice versa?

iSync does NOT work with my V600 (grr..) but that is the general idea of iSync. Everything... syncs up. I know I've had a few playlists called "On the Go playlist" on my iTunes from my 3G iPod. I think one of us is just crazy.

But yes, if your phone is supported, contacts should go both ways.

[Casual]

You're welcome :D

[GeorgeTheMonkey]

Displaced, don't even ask about the cellular phone system over here in the U.S. ;) It's a mess! :eek:

Basically, though, we're divided into CDMA and GSM technologies -- two different technologies, that essentially accomplish the same thing through different means. GSM has been around the longest, while CDMA has made a very decent introduction for itself in the past 4-5 years. (There was TDMA, used by AT&T and I believe Cingular for a while, but they're slowly migrating to a completely GSM system.)

For each technology, there are different bands. For GSM and CDMA we mainly use the 850 Mhz and 1900 Mhz band -- 1900 Mhz is also known as PCS, if I understand it right. (Services like T-Mobile and Sprint are 100% "PCS," meaning they operate completely on the 1900 Mhz band.) Some of America also uses the 900 Mhz band, and I believe the 1800 Mhz band might be used in some instances as well.

For GSM providers, there's mainly Cingular and T-Mobile; AT&T was a player, but Cingular just bought them out. For CDMA, you've got Verizon and Sprint, basically.

The problem with most GSM providers, though, and all CDMA providers is that you're basically pressured to use their phones.

If you're using a GSM provider, you're lucky enough because GSM phones use SIM chips; you can go out and buy an unlocked GSM phone without a chip, if you wish, take it to the provider you want, and they can pop in one of their chips. They're a bit more expensive to buy third-party and unlocked, but you can take them with you to any GSM provider, and you'll always have just one phone, even if you switch providers several times. It's as simple as popping in another chip. I just bought an unlocked SE K700i from eBay, for example, and will likely be taking it to Cingular.

CDMA users are out of luck -- you have to buy a phone specifically from that provider, because of the technologies involved. Their phones are dependent on the provider, and to my knowledge there are no "unlocked" CDMA phones. So basically, if you want to switch from Sprint to Verizon, you'll have to buy another phone as well. If you walk into a Cingular or T-Mobile store, though, too, and bought a phone -- the phone will actually be locked to that service as well. GSM providers aren't in the habit of playing any more friendly with each other than CDMA providers: but the difference is, with GSM you can buy an unlocked phone, and providers will (though ocassionally grudgingly) pop in their chip.

Regardless of technology, all providers like to offer "cheap" prices and special deals on phones because of two reasons: 1) they get you to sign up for 1- or 2-year contracts, essentially signing your life away, and 2) the phone is locked to their service. If you're unhappy with them, that's tough; you're stuck with them because you spent $200 on an otherwise useless phone.

So the end result is kind of a mixed bag; you can buy awesome phones to use here in the U.S., but you're stuck to using a GSM provider. That may not be a problem, depending on your geographic location (it's not for me), but for some people, CDMA is the only reliable technology in their area.

And so ends my long-winded and probably unnecessary explanation. :cool: My ultimate advice: if you like to have the coolest, up-to-date phones, buy an unlocked GSM phone off of eBay and take it to a GSM provider. If the GSM network in your area is spotty, just wait a bit, as CDMA phones are slowly catching up -- the Motorola V710, for instance. :)

[Porchland]

Very few Verizon phones on the supported list. No LG, Samsung or Audiovox. I wish Verizon offered some cool phones!

LG in particular. Mine -- the one everyone has, with the camera -- has a great calendar and a great little camera that I'd love to be able to sync if it moves to a BT version. I expect Apple is going to continue adding more models to the list. There's not reason they shouldn't.

[Baron58]

Both. First, there are, if I remember correctly, four separate technologies at work here in the US. There are some phones which only support one of the technologies, but most are dual-, tri-, or even quad-mode phones. For instance, Sprint's network is PCS; AT&T's is CDMA; etc. I think someone over here's using GSM (what the rest of the world uses), but the coverage isn't good in general. In addition, yes, phone companies brand their phones when you buy them via software so that even if the network is the same (Verizon and AT&T, for instance, I believe both use CDMA) you can't go to a different provider with the same phone.


Well-intentioned, but HIGHLY misinformed post.

First off, if you want to know anything about cellular, start with www.howardforums.com where all the phone geeks hang out, or www.gsmworld.com.

Next, lets clear up some misinformation about standards.

There are 4 basic voice standards in the American market: AMPS, TDMA, CDMA, GSM. For the sake of argument, let's ignore the iDEN 'push-to-talk' business that Nextel uses.

AMPS = Analogue Mobile Phone System. Remember 'bag' phones, or the original car phones with the curly antennas? I don't know where one would even get a new AMPS phone any time in the last 4 years, but AMPS service still exists for many legacy devices still in use. This is the only NON-DIGITAL cell system in use.

TDMA = Time Division Multiple Access. Usually 800/850 MHz frequency band.

CDMA = Code Division Multiple Access. Usually 800/850 MHz frequency band.
(WCDMA and 1xRTT are the data protocols that may accompany CDMA voice service)


GSM = Global System for Mobiles.
(GPRS and EDGE are the data protocols that may accompany GSM voice service).
There are four frequency bands that GSM service may be provided over:
The rest of the world uses 900MHz/1800MHz for two bands (900MHz for shorter range with better building penetration, and 1800MHz (a 2x multiplier) for longer range with worse building penetration). These two bands were already assigned to other purposes in the USA when the GSM standard was established, so for American operations we went one notch up and started with 1900MHz. Now that GSM is taking over the US market, old cell towers are being updated. Since they used to use the 800/850 range for CDMA or TDMA, it's easy & cheap to convert them to 850MHz GSM towers. Hence, the fourth band. To recap:

850 = USA
900 = World
1800 = World
1900 = USA

So you can see that a tri-band 850/1800/1900 (e.g. the SE T616) is optimised for the US with limited international use. A tri-band 900/1800/1900 (e.g. my Nokia 6600) is optimised for world use with limited USA use. A quad-band 850/900/1800/1900 (e.g. the v600) is a true 'world phone', able to work on GSM frequencies around the world (if your carrier has roaming agreements, but that's a different issue). So, pick the phone depending on where you'll be using it. People at my company travel internationally, so AT&T service with the v600 has been a lifesaver since AT&T has the best international roaming agreements and the quad-band support means they get the best service regardless of where they are.


TDMA & CDMA phones are usually carrier-specific. You can't even own two phones and switch between them on the same account, since that has to be done by a rep for the carrier and is a pain. You're locked-in and screwed.

GSM phones will work on any GSM carrier if the frequencies are compatible. If you buy a GSM phone at a discount through the carrier, it'll be 'locked' to that carrier unless you find someone to unlock it (can be done on-line for ~$20.00, more or less). GSM phones have a slot for a thumbnail-sized SIM card. Your 'account' is in the card *not* the phone. That way, you can put your card in any unlocked phone and it'll work. You can have a different phone for each day of the week, or to match your outfit, or whatever, and simply pop your SIM card into the phone and it'll power up with your number and whatever contacts you've stored on the card.

Now let's look at the major carriers:

Assume that most of these carriers had AMPS service 'way back when', but haven't set up new subscribers since the late 90's.

AT&T Wireless: TDMA until 2002, now only signing up people with GSM service and migrating old TDMA users to GSM (like me). GSM Service initially all 1900MHz, now only phasing in 850MHz coverage. Transparent roaming on Cingular's towers where available.

Cingular: TDMA until 2002, now only signing up people with GSM service and migrating old TDMA users to GSM. GSM Service initially all 1900MHz, now only phasing in 850MHz coverage. Deal to merge with/absorb AT&T pending regulatory approval. Transparent roaming on AT&T's towers, where available.

Sprint: Proprietary CDMA network with 3G extensions, 850MHz. No signs of migration to GSM.

Verizon: CDMA with 3G extensions, 850MHz. No signs of migration to GSM.

T-Mobile: GSM 1900MHz only.

Smaller players in the US used to vary between TDMA and CDMA, depending on who they wanted to be friendly with for roaming. Now, more will be GSM as the combined GSM user base will exceed the CDMA user base.

In most parts of the US now, if someone is using AT&T, Cingular or T-Mobile and their phone is less than 2 years old, they're most likely on GSM.

[Elan0204]

It's always nice to see new updates, even though I don't use iSync right now. Perhaps I'll have to invest in a bluetooth phone and module. :)

[talkatron2]

The detailed discussion by Baron58 is an improvement over the comments by GeorgeTheMonkey, but still has a lot of errors. In particular, the post is filled with pro-GSM bias.

AMPS is indeed the old analog standard from the 1980s. It runs at 800 MHz and is the only standard available in many rural areas today. New digital networks run at either 800 MHz (supplementing AMPS coverage, which is still there) or at new 1900 MHz spectrum.

Verizon has AMPS and CDMA networks, at both 800 MHz and 1900 MHz. Sprint has only 1900 MHz CDMA coverage, but many roaming agreements with 800 MHz CDMA and AMPS networks. Almost all current Sprint phones and many Verizon phones are tri-mode and can work at AMPS and CDMA at 800 MHz and CDMA at 1900 MHz. There are also regional (example: Alltel) and rural carriers operating CDMA/AMPS networks.

The advantage of a tri-mode CDMA phone is you can make a call from almost anywhere in the US. National carriers such as Sprint and Verizon were also leaders in rolling out higher-speed data, which the GSM carriers are only now catching up to. The fact that you cannot import an unlocked phone from Europe is true, but only relevant for the small number of US customers who don't take advantage of carrier subsidies.

One national GSM carrier (T-Mobile USA) started only in the mid-90s and has only 1900 MHz coverage. T-Mobile has the worst coverage of any GSM or CDMA carrier. Two other national carriers, Cingular and AT&T Wireless (which are going to merge next year), started as AMPS carriers, then supplemented that with a digital standard called TDMA, and have now basically completed on overlay of GSM/GPRS at both 800 and 1900 MHz. They have subsequently increased the speed of GPRS data with EDGE, although, unlike the CDMA carriers, they have been slow to roll out higher-speed handsets to take advantage of EDGE. T-Mobile is MIA on high-speed data of any sort (other than WiFi at Starbucks and Borders).

Another problem is the air interface of GSM is incompatible with TDMA and AMPS, so unless you buy a rare GAIT hybrid phone, GSM phones cannot make calls on legacy systems. Many customers, including those on AT&T and Cingular, still use these systems. I got my mom a brand new Nokia TDMA/AMPS phone on AT&T in June!

GSM is the standard you should use if you plan to import phones from Europe. If you use T-Mobile, you can use a European tri-band phone. Cingular and AT&T really need US-centric phones that have both 800 and 1900 MHz support. Also, if you plan to roam in Europe, T-Mobile has the best rates.

However, Verizon Wireless has consistently been rated #1 in coverage, nework reliability, and customer satisfaction. It is the only company publicly executing a coherent plan for near-nationwide broadband-level data access. Sprint has wonderful coverage if you buy its $5 roaming plan and has great and inexpensive higher-speed data.

The national CDMA carriers Sprint and Verizon are the leaders in voice coverage, data coverage and data services. There are many reasons to use other carriers, but GSM is not some superior technology that Americans need to adopt.

[JFreak]

Motorola and Sony were some of the first phones to have bluetooth

where on earth did you pick that piece of mis-information up? motorola is a company that has not been and will not be using cutting edge technologies. motorola supported bluetooth once it saw it feasible.

bluetooth was developed by ERICSSON and that's the #1 reason it took nokia so long to support that technology. granted, ericsson is not today known of its phones anymore and they are sold under sony-ericsson brand, so you're half right...

[Wender]

I have iSync set to sync every hour, and now the application itself opens every hour when syncing, and stays open! That's annoying and must be a mistake.

[geeman]

After deleting and re-pairing BT connectivity between phone and Mac, my Sony Ericsson K700i now works seamlessly with iSync 1.5. Yay!

[Blade]

i can and always have been able to access the v600 via bluethooth from the bluethooth menu and upload or download pictures sounds etc via bluethooth so why wont isync talk to it. This makes me think that it's Apple that needs to sort things out with isync to get things working properly. very dissapointed it still doesn't work!

[Lanbrown]

I'm still trying to figure out whether this is Apple's choice or Motorola's choice.

@Lanbrown - Like I said to sworthy, I know about Motorola's Bluetooth phones. I'm asking not why Motorola has no Bluetooth support (they do; vide V600, V710) but rather why iSync cannot use Bluetooth to put my Address Book onto my (future) V710.

If anyone has any technical documentation about the reasoning behind this (that is, I don't want to hear about the Apple/Motorola iTunes partnership), then please refer me to it. I want to know why Motorola has built Bluetooth into their phones only to leave it unsupported, or, if this is not the case, why Apple cannot make iSync work with Motorola's hardware.

EDIT: I see your link, Lanbrown. I'll check it out.

It's simple. There are various BT profiles and both sides have to be able to use the same profile. You have a hands free profile; if you are using a headset that doesn't support the hands free profile, then it won't work, but yet they are still Bluetooth. You also have a headset profile, if the headset and the phone both support it, it will work. In this case, Motorola has neglected to add the profile, which would allow their phones to be used with iSync.

My link shows all of the BT profiles, now that doesn't keep someone from creating their own, it’s just that it would be non-standard and not be compatible with equipment from other vendors.

[Lanbrown]

Very few Verizon phones on the supported list. No LG, Samsung or Audiovox. I wish Verizon offered some cool phones!

That's what you get for using CDMA. The installed user base in the GSM arena is huge compared to CDMA. This means developing a chipset solution costs less for GSM as the costs are spread out over a larger user base. This allows more features to be included for the same price.

[Lanbrown]

See, the US wireless providers don't really have standards (nor do they want them.) You Europeans and Asians just get a network, and it works. Over here we have gajillions of bands and networks and no 3G yet and blah blah blah.

I think I'm getting this Motorola V710, and the USB cable, but I really wish Apple would just go ahead and start supporting Bluetooth in general.

By the way, thanks, fflipper, that clears up a lot.

What are you talking about? There are five technologies here. The first and oldest is analog, which the FCC will allow the cellular companies to stop selling come January 2005. The remaining technologies are all digital, TDMA, CDMA, GSM and iDen. Most of the companies that offer TDMA are switching their users to GSM, so TDMA is dead. That leaves GSM, CDMA and iDen. Cingular, AT&T Wireless and T-Mobile all use GSM, AT&T Wireless and Cingular also have their TDMA networks. T-Mobile is all GSM. On the CDMA side you have Verizon Wireless and Sprint. On the iDen front, you have Nextel. Nextel will be switching technologies in the near future. So when you say the US wireless operators don't follow standards, that is far from the truth. As for the bands, you basically have two. You have the original band (cellular) which is on the 824-849 and 869-894 MHz range. Then you have the PCS bands, which is in the 1850-1990 MHz range. As for no 3D services, you are mistaken; it is available in select cities.

Apple does support BT, it's Motorola that has decided not to use a standard profile.

[Lanbrown]

Both. First, there are, if I remember correctly, four separate technologies at work here in the US. There are some phones which only support one of the technologies, but most are dual-, tri-, or even quad-mode phones. For instance, Sprint's network is PCS; AT&T's is CDMA; etc. I think someone over here's using GSM (what the rest of the world uses), but the coverage isn't good in general. In addition, yes, phone companies brand their phones when you buy them via software so that even if the network is the same (Verizon and AT&T, for instance, I believe both use CDMA) you can't go to a different provider with the same phone. I'm not sure if this is reversable or not; generally after the just-short-of-lifetime contract expires on a phone it's so obsolete you're better off getting a new one anyways.

I think it's a pretty well understood fact that cellular is a mess here in the US. We're a good decade behind the rest of the world technology-wise, and the gap is only growing.

On the other hand, our tax dollars don't subsidize the cell companies and we have fairly reasonable charges overall ... Cheap buys cheap!

You are mixing technologies and bands. Most of what you said is inaccurate. Phone locking is true on the GSM front. On the TDMA and CDMA side, that's not the case, as the phone doesn't support it. As for GSM, three of the top six providers offer it and is the only service they will sell you. Two of the three are getting rid of their older network and the third never had an older network. As for the coverage issue, that's carrier and geographical based. You have good and bad providers in every area. We are not a decade behind. 3G services are still being rolled out in Europe as well as in the US. While their 3G rollout is further ahead, it's not by decades more like a year or two. Some parts of the world (non third world countries) don't even have any 3G service at all. So the US is ahead of them, but behind others. Japan is the leader, and will probably continue to be.

[Lanbrown]

Displaced, don't even ask about the cellular phone system over here in the U.S. ;) It's a mess! :eek:

Basically, though, we're divided into CDMA and GSM technologies -- two different technologies, that essentially accomplish the same thing through different means. GSM has been around the longest, while CDMA has made a very decent introduction for itself in the past 4-5 years. (There was TDMA, used by AT&T and I believe Cingular for a while, but they're slowly migrating to a completely GSM system.)

For each technology, there are different bands. For GSM and CDMA we mainly use the 850 Mhz and 1900 Mhz band -- 1900 Mhz is also known as PCS, if I understand it right. (Services like T-Mobile and Sprint are 100% "PCS," meaning they operate completely on the 1900 Mhz band.) Some of America also uses the 900 Mhz band, and I believe the 1800 Mhz band might be used in some instances as well.

For GSM providers, there's mainly Cingular and T-Mobile; AT&T was a player, but Cingular just bought them out. For CDMA, you've got Verizon and Sprint, basically.

The problem with most GSM providers, though, and all CDMA providers is that you're basically pressured to use their phones.

If you're using a GSM provider, you're lucky enough because GSM phones use SIM chips; you can go out and buy an unlocked GSM phone without a chip, if you wish, take it to the provider you want, and they can pop in one of their chips. They're a bit more expensive to buy third-party and unlocked, but you can take them with you to any GSM provider, and you'll always have just one phone, even if you switch providers several times. It's as simple as popping in another chip. I just bought an unlocked SE K700i from eBay, for example, and will likely be taking it to Cingular.

CDMA users are out of luck -- you have to buy a phone specifically from that provider, because of the technologies involved. Their phones are dependent on the provider, and to my knowledge there are no "unlocked" CDMA phones. So basically, if you want to switch from Sprint to Verizon, you'll have to buy another phone as well. If you walk into a Cingular or T-Mobile store, though, too, and bought a phone -- the phone will actually be locked to that service as well. GSM providers aren't in the habit of playing any more friendly with each other than CDMA providers: but the difference is, with GSM you can buy an unlocked phone, and providers will (though ocassionally grudgingly) pop in their chip.

Regardless of technology, all providers like to offer "cheap" prices and special deals on phones because of two reasons: 1) they get you to sign up for 1- or 2-year contracts, essentially signing your life away, and 2) the phone is locked to their service. If you're unhappy with them, that's tough; you're stuck with them because you spent $200 on an otherwise useless phone.

So the end result is kind of a mixed bag; you can buy awesome phones to use here in the U.S., but you're stuck to using a GSM provider. That may not be a problem, depending on your geographic location (it's not for me), but for some people, CDMA is the only reliable technology in their area.

And so ends my long-winded and probably unnecessary explanation. :cool: My ultimate advice: if you like to have the coolest, up-to-date phones, buy an unlocked GSM phone off of eBay and take it to a GSM provider. If the GSM network in your area is spotty, just wait a bit, as CDMA phones are slowly catching up -- the Motorola V710, for instance. :)

CDMA has been around a lot longer than that; it was commercially available in the mid 90's, that's a lot longer than four or five years. Qualcomm invented CDMA back in the 80's; it took longer than anticipated to get it into the phone market.

AT&T hasn't been bought yet, the only approval has been from the shareholders, they still need federal approval.

You're not pressured to use their phone. I can go out and buy any GSM phone I want and use it, at a minimum it must be a tri-band and be unlocked. All I have to do is move the SIM to the new phone and that's it. No calling the carrier like you have to do with the CDMA carriers. If you buy a CDMA phone, you can have the carrier switch it in their system. You just have to give them the information they request.

[Lanbrown]

The detailed discussion by Baron58 is an improvement over the comments by GeorgeTheMonkey, but still has a lot of errors. In particular, the post is filled with pro-GSM bias.

AMPS is indeed the old analog standard from the 1980s. It runs at 800 MHz and is the only standard available in many rural areas today. New digital networks run at either 800 MHz (supplementing AMPS coverage, which is still there) or at new 1900 MHz spectrum.

Verizon has AMPS and CDMA networks, at both 800 MHz and 1900 MHz. Sprint has only 1900 MHz CDMA coverage, but many roaming agreements with 800 MHz CDMA and AMPS networks. Almost all current Sprint phones and many Verizon phones are tri-mode and can work at AMPS and CDMA at 800 MHz and CDMA at 1900 MHz. There are also regional (example: Alltel) and rural carriers operating CDMA/AMPS networks.

The advantage of a tri-mode CDMA phone is you can make a call from almost anywhere in the US. National carriers such as Sprint and Verizon were also leaders in rolling out higher-speed data, which the GSM carriers are only now catching up to. The fact that you cannot import an unlocked phone from Europe is true, but only relevant for the small number of US customers who don't take advantage of carrier subsidies.

One national GSM carrier (T-Mobile USA) started only in the mid-90s and has only 1900 MHz coverage. T-Mobile has the worst coverage of any GSM or CDMA carrier. Two other national carriers, Cingular and AT&T Wireless (which are going to merge next year), started as AMPS carriers, then supplemented that with a digital standard called TDMA, and have now basically completed on overlay of GSM/GPRS at both 800 and 1900 MHz. They have subsequently increased the speed of GPRS data with EDGE, although, unlike the CDMA carriers, they have been slow to roll out higher-speed handsets to take advantage of EDGE. T-Mobile is MIA on high-speed data of any sort (other than WiFi at Starbucks and Borders).

Another problem is the air interface of GSM is incompatible with TDMA and AMPS, so unless you buy a rare GAIT hybrid phone, GSM phones cannot make calls on legacy systems. Many customers, including those on AT&T and Cingular, still use these systems. I got my mom a brand new Nokia TDMA/AMPS phone on AT&T in June!

GSM is the standard you should use if you plan to import phones from Europe. If you use T-Mobile, you can use a European tri-band phone. Cingular and AT&T really need US-centric phones that have both 800 and 1900 MHz support. Also, if you plan to roam in Europe, T-Mobile has the best rates.

However, Verizon Wireless has consistently been rated #1 in coverage, nework reliability, and customer satisfaction. It is the only company publicly executing a coherent plan for near-nationwide broadband-level data access. Sprint has wonderful coverage if you buy its $5 roaming plan and has great and inexpensive higher-speed data.

The national CDMA carriers Sprint and Verizon are the leaders in voice coverage, data coverage and data services. There are many reasons to use other carriers, but GSM is not some superior technology that Americans need to adopt.

I agree with most, but you come across as pro-CDMA. I know plenty of people that are unhappy with Verizon. They have their coverage issues as well. You also negated to mention what can happen January 2005. AMPS is no longer a requirement by the FCC. Cingular can turn their AMPS system off and reallocate the spectrum for GSM. Verizon Wireless will have a problem with doing that. They have a GM On-Star deal, and they just started installing digital in select vehicles. There will be quite a few unhappy users if they turn it off come January.

[mum4d]

Another picky question. Did they change the icon for the T610? I hate the red one that they use. Any T610 users know about this?
When I first run iSync 1.5 my T610 icon changed to a T630 (white). But when i quit iSync and relaunched it, it was back to the red one again!

[mum4d]

Still having BIG problems syncing a P900

Anyone know a fix??

[third_floor]

What are you talking about? There are five technologies here. The first and oldest is analog, which the FCC will allow the cellular companies to stop selling come January 2005. The remaining technologies are all digital, TDMA, CDMA, GSM and iDen. Most of the companies that offer TDMA are switching their users to GSM, so TDMA is dead. That leaves GSM, CDMA and iDen. Cingular, AT&T Wireless and T-Mobile all use GSM, AT&T Wireless and Cingular also have their TDMA networks. T-Mobile is all GSM. On the CDMA side you have Verizon Wireless and Sprint. On the iDen front, you have Nextel. Nextel will be switching technologies in the near future. So when you say the US wireless operators don't follow standards, that is far from the truth. As for the bands, you basically have two. You have the original band (cellular) which is on the 824-849 and 869-894 MHz range. Then you have the PCS bands, which is in the 1850-1990 MHz range. As for no 3D services, you are mistaken; it is available in select cities.

Apple does support BT, it's Motorola that has decided not to use a standard profile.

To me, five technologies / bands is four too many. That's where my "bajillions" comment came in. I was exaggerating. Slightly. :)

As for 3G, the first EDGE phone (from AT&T) only came out a few weeks ago. I couldn't care less if the EDGE infrastructure is in place; if no phones support it, it's useless.

When I said the US doesn't follow standards, I meant it. The rest of the world is doing fine on a GSM (with GPRS and EDGE), while we have to choose between spotty GSM coverage or older CDMA tech with better coverage. Granted, WCDMA is coming (hasn't Japan had that for a few years?), but that doesn't change the fact that the US is severely lacking in wireless communications.

All of this is moot though, because I want a V710 and I want to sync it with iSync.

People can go on all day about this tech and that, and who is biased towards what tech and blabbity blah, but in the end, what matters is what works. CDMA works where I live and where I go to school. My father's GSM phone doesn't have a signal at my house, or on VT's campus.

So now I have a question. How hard is it to get these Bluetooth profiles onto the phone? Is there some sort of hack, or am I barking up the wrong tree? If so, how hard could it possibly be to add support for the existing profiles in iSync? Methinks there is more than just technology barriers here. Corporate red tape really seems to slow down the advancement of technology that works.

[Baron58]

The detailed followup by talkatron2 filled in some AMPS-related gaps in what I posted, but still has a lot of errors. In particular, the post is filled with pro-CDMA bias. :D

(It sounded just as silly when you said it the other way around.)

The error in my previous post was that I listed Sprint as being in the 850MHz band instead of the 1900MHz band.


The fact that you cannot import an unlocked phone from Europe is true, but only relevant for the small number of US customers who don't take advantage of carrier subsidies.


Chicken-and-egg. People don't buy unbundled phones commonly in the USA because (a) most don't know it's an option, (b) it was *never* an option until a couple of years ago, and (c) providers <cough>Verizon</cough> want to lock people in. The providers resisted Local Number Portability for the same reason. Once it becomes a familiar concept, people will DEMAND the flexibility that a SIM card provides.

To return this back to the thread topic.... Do you want a phone with bluetooth/iSync compatibility? Do you have GSM service? Look at Apple's iSync page for compatible phones, research them on the manufacturer's sites, decide what you want, and find a good price with Google/Froogle (or just-talk.com or gsmphonesource.com or whereever). No, you won't get it for $29.00, but YOU HAVE A CHOICE.

Don't have GSM service? Stuck with a proprietary phone vendor? Stuck with a phone with the world's worst interface (e.g. Audiovox 8600)? Too bad. Stop whining. It's not Apple's fault, you're the one who ceeded your choice of phone to a lock-in company.


Another problem is the air interface of GSM is incompatible with TDMA and AMPS, so unless you buy a rare GAIT hybrid phone, GSM phones cannot make calls on legacy systems. Many customers, including those on AT&T and Cingular, still use these systems.


Much like a mac/windows argument, 'compatibility' is a buzzword to which people don't apply sufficient critical thinking.

TDMA is just as incompatible with the older AMPS system as GSM is incompatible with TDMA. 'Compatibility' in the sense that you're expressing it simply means "can MY phone get a signal from THAT tower?".

The 'legacy system' is that of AT&T/Cingular, who jointly have X number of towers nationwide with which may be equipped with AMPS and/or TDMA and/or GSM. As they phase in GSM on those towers, the coverage difference between TDMA <--> GSM coverage approaches zero. This means that number of towers with GSM == number of towers with TDMA == number of towers you can get a signal from.

2 years ago when it was first introduced, GSM coverage sucked dead bunnies through a straw. Now, differences are negligable, and next year the combined, GSM-equipped ATT/Cingular will exceed Verizon in user base and tower count.


However, Verizon Wireless has consistently been rated #1 in coverage, nework reliability, and customer satisfaction. It is the only company publicly executing a coherent plan for near-nationwide broadband-level data access. Sprint has wonderful coverage if you buy its $5 roaming plan and has great and inexpensive higher-speed data.

The national CDMA carriers Sprint and Verizon are the leaders in voice coverage, data coverage and data services. There are many reasons to use other carriers, but GSM is not some superior technology that Americans need to adopt.

See, if you had discussed bandwidth & channel utilisation of CDMA vs. GSM, you could have legitimately shown a technical advantage of CDMA over GSM. Marketingspeak ("we're better because we're better...") doesn't work for me.

The fact is that people will have coverage gaps, bad customer service experiences, and dissatisfaction with rate plans with ANY AND ALL cell providers. So use whatever carrier makes you happy, but remember that GSM allows you the flexibility to get your needs met in an open and flexible way that CDMA providers cannot match.

[talkatron2]

I agree with most, but you come across as pro-CDMA. I know plenty of people that are unhappy with Verizon.

Thanks why I referenced consumer surveys, not my own personal experience. For example, Consumer Reports has Verizon #1 in satisfaction in most metro areas they survey.

You also negated to mention what can happen January 2005. AMPS is no longer a requirement by the FCC. Cingular can turn their AMPS system off and reallocate the spectrum for GSM.

This is not true at all. The projected AMPS turn-off date is not for a few more years, and will more than likely be extended again and again.

[Lanbrown]

To me, five technologies / bands is four too many. That's where my "bajillions" comment came in. I was exaggerating. Slightly. :)

As for 3G, the first EDGE phone (from AT&T) only came out a few weeks ago. I couldn't care less if the EDGE infrastructure is in place; if no phones support it, it's useless.

When I said the US doesn't follow standards, I meant it. The rest of the world is doing fine on a GSM (with GPRS and EDGE), while we have to choose between spotty GSM coverage or older CDMA tech with better coverage. Granted, WCDMA is coming (hasn't Japan had that for a few years?), but that doesn't change the fact that the US is severely lacking in wireless communications.

All of this is moot though, because I want a V710 and I want to sync it with iSync.

People can go on all day about this tech and that, and who is biased towards what tech and blabbity blah, but in the end, what matters is what works. CDMA works where I live and where I go to school. My father's GSM phone doesn't have a signal at my house, or on VT's campus.

So now I have a question. How hard is it to get these Bluetooth profiles onto the phone? Is there some sort of hack, or am I barking up the wrong tree? If so, how hard could it possibly be to add support for the existing profiles in iSync? Methinks there is more than just technology barriers here. Corporate red tape really seems to slow down the advancement of technology that works.

And there are places that CDMA doesn't have any coverage. W-CDMA is UMTS, which is available in select cities. EDGE is 2.75G and GPRS is 2.5G.

The profiles are built-in and you cannot add them.

[third_floor]

And there are places that CDMA doesn't have any coverage. W-CDMA is UMTS, which is available in select cities. EDGE is 2.75G and GPRS is 2.5G.

The profiles are built-in and you cannot add them.
For those of you who don't know what UMTS is (it's a rarely used acronym, at least around here), see this article: http://www.umts-forum.org/servlet/dycon/ztumts/umts/Live/en/umts/What+is+UMTS_index

You're right about the 2.5G / 2.75G thing too, that was my mistake. That still doesn't change the fact that 3G is rare here.

That sucks about Bluetooth profiles. Why, oh why can't just have standards?

[displaced]

Thanks everyone for the responses! (although I can't pretend to have grokked them all).

I was aware of the differences between CDMA and GSM as technologies, but was curious about the practicalities of the differences. From what I've heard, CDMA's primary advantage (from a network's POV) is greater range per mast versus GSM. Given the different population densities between the US and Europe, this has got to be a major consideration.

But GSM's modularity is a clear winner for the consumer. Effectively, you're leasing the SIM from the network, and the phone's yours. Of course, in order to get a subsidised phone, you have to promise to lease that SIM for the length of a contract (usually 1 year). But that leads to some very nice deals. For example, I've been happy with my network (Orange) for 5 years, and get to upgrade to the latest and greatest phones for a bargain upgrade price (usually ~£50) each year. The old phone's then free to do with as I wish. Orange send me a free Pay As You Go SIM card for the spare phone, but there's nothing to stop me signing up with another network (either PAYG or contract) with the old phone. The freedom to take your phone to any network, with number portability being around for 5 or so years, means the nets are offering very good value deals on phones and timeplans.

Technically, our networks in the UK operate on two bands. The older networks (O2 - formerly Cellnet and Vodafone) are on one frequency, and the two newer nets (Orange and T-Mobile - formerly one2one) share the other. A few years ago, this used to be a barrier as you had to wait for the phone you wanted to come out in a model capable of using your network's band. However, every phone for the past few years has been at least dual-band (covering all of Europe), and most are now tri-band for use with US GSM.

Anyway... sorry for dragging things OT!

iSync 1.5's still working fine with my T610, .Mac and iPod.

[Lanbrown]

Thanks everyone for the responses! (although I can't pretend to have grokked them all).

I was aware of the differences between CDMA and GSM as technologies, but was curious about the practicalities of the differences. From what I've heard, CDMA's primary advantage (from a network's POV) is greater range per mast versus GSM. Given the different population densities between the US and Europe, this has got to be a major consideration.

But GSM's modularity is a clear winner for the consumer. Effectively, you're leasing the SIM from the network, and the phone's yours. Of course, in order to get a subsidised phone, you have to promise to lease that SIM for the length of a contract (usually 1 year). But that leads to some very nice deals. For example, I've been happy with my network (Orange) for 5 years, and get to upgrade to the latest and greatest phones for a bargain upgrade price (usually ~£50) each year. The old phone's then free to do with as I wish. Orange send me a free Pay As You Go SIM card for the spare phone, but there's nothing to stop me signing up with another network (either PAYG or contract) with the old phone. The freedom to take your phone to any network, with number portability being around for 5 or so years, means the nets are offering very good value deals on phones and timeplans.

Technically, our networks in the UK operate on two bands. The older networks (O2 - formerly Cellnet and Vodafone) are on one frequency, and the two newer nets (Orange and T-Mobile - formerly one2one) share the other. A few years ago, this used to be a barrier as you had to wait for the phone you wanted to come out in a model capable of using your network's band. However, every phone for the past few years has been at least dual-band (covering all of Europe), and most are now tri-band for use with US GSM.

Anyway... sorry for dragging things OT!

iSync 1.5's still working fine with my T610, .Mac and iPod.

The biggest factor is the frequency. It's unfair to say that CDMA has greater range. The cellular band has better penetration through buildings as well as can reach farther using the same output level then PCS can. You can have CDMA on both bands. The towers are also optimized, so some towers have their power turned down; this prevents it from interfering with its neighbor. Each tower has three sides and each one is set independently. More and more towers have been placed to handle capacity as well as coverage issues, so quite a few towers are not running at full transmitting power. That alone negates which technology can transverse a greater distance. The band is the biggest factor though. Also the phone plays a huge part, you can have phone A have virtually no signal and phone B can have four out of five bars. Same technology, same carrier, just a different antennae design. The same holds true for the antennas on the towers. A lot of companies are upgrading them on their older towers, as the newer ones can provide better coverage.

Our cellular band would be equivalent to your old band and out PCS would be equivalent to your new band. Frequency wise, they are quite close. If you looked into it, you would probably see that Vodafone has some of the newer band as well.

It's not just cut and dry that this technology can go father then another, there are many factors.

[digitalbiker]

It has nothing to do with Apple, but Motorola and their lack of supporting various BT profiles. Look here to see the various profiles:
https://www.bluetooth.org/spec/
What profiles a company decides to support when they implement BT is up to them.

So how is this the fault of Apple that Motorola made that decision?


My question is to Lan Brown. How do you know what profiles motorola is or isn't supporting?

The Motorola V600 phone syncs via bluetooth with WindowsXP and various software programs. Also OSX recognizes the V600 phone and you can send data via Vcard format, mp3 ringtones, etc.

Obviously there must be some reason why Apple isn't supporting ISync through Bluetooth when they do support via the USB cable. But to assume that it is all Moto's fault when other OS's and part of OSX supports the phone sounds a lot like an anti-Motorola bias.

[GeorgeTheMonkey]

Hehe, you lot are really serious about your phone technologies, aren't you? :)

I'm happy to be only marginally knowledgeable in this matter. ;)

[Lanbrown]

My question is to Lan Brown. How do you know what profiles motorola is or isn't supporting?

The Motorola V600 phone syncs via bluetooth with WindowsXP and various software programs. Also OSX recognizes the V600 phone and you can send data via Vcard format, mp3 ringtones, etc.

Obviously there must be some reason why Apple isn't supporting ISync through Bluetooth when they do support via the USB cable. But to assume that it is all Moto's fault when other OS's and part of OSX supports the phone sounds a lot like an anti-Motorola bias.

Because there are a lot of profiles in Bluetooth. Not every device supports all of them. Those profiles may or may not be used over wire connections. Different profiles are used for different things. You don't use the headset profile to send a file to the phone. The profiles are made for a particular task and define how the device handles what it receives. Just because you can sync using a different application doesn't mean anything. One could create a proprietary profile; this would prevent interoperability. Nokia was known for this, you have to use their software to sync. Nokia is now going to SyncML, which will allow the phones to be synced over a multitude of connections and be software independent. Motorola has used the same program for syncing for quite sometime, which dates back to the late 90's.

[akw]

Because there are a lot of profiles in Bluetooth. Not every device supports all of them. Those profiles may or may not be used over wire connections. Different profiles are used for different things. You don't use the headset profile to send a file to the phone. The profiles are made for a particular task and define how the device handles what it receives. Just because you can sync using a different application doesn't mean anything. One could create a proprietary profile; this would prevent interoperability. Nokia was known for this, you have to use their software to sync. Nokia is now going to SyncML, which will allow the phones to be synced over a multitude of connections and be software independent. Motorola has used the same program for syncing for quite sometime, which dates back to the late 90's.

So which profile has Motorola neglected to implement? Why can't Apple use the same proprietary profile that Motorola uses, if that's the case? This is not a technically impossible achievement.

The message to Apple has to be: "Look, your product is built specifically to sync devices. A good number of people that use your product want bluetooth syncing with Motorola phones. We know it's possible. Make it happen. Do it quickly."

[digitalbiker]

I guess I needed to be more specific with my question.

How do you know which of the BlueTooth profiles Motorola is or isn't supporting?

Do you have a source of information for the V600 phone that specifically states which profile Motorola is supporting or are you just speculating?

I can't find the information on their website. However it does reference support for software which supports the SyncML standard.

The reason I am asking is because I am interested in switching to this phone and I am wondering if Apple will support sync operations when Tiger comes out with a revamped ISync that supports SyncML.

Personally I don't use ISync much because I have never been able to run it without screwing up my address book and pda databases. I always end up with four or five multiple copies of addresses and inadvertently erased entrys. It takes me hours of work to hand edit and delete all of the entries after using ISync, so I just gave up on it.

I'll wait to see how it is revamped in Tiger.

[katanna]

I have a Palm m100 that in the past I have had to use other software to sync.
Does this new iSync sync with the Palm m100? (It is hidden in storage for the summer, so I can't check myself)

Matthew

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

bluetooth was developed by ERICSSON and that's the #1 reason it took nokia so long to support that technology. granted, ericsson is not today known of its phones anymore and they are sold under sony-ericsson brand, so you're half right...

You're only half right yourself.

Even though the initiative to develop Bluetooth came from Ericsson already in 1994, the Bluetooth SIG (Special Interest Group) was founded in 1998 by Nokia and Ericsson along with Intel, IBM and Toshiba. These 5 were joined in December 1999 by Microsoft, Lucent, 3COM and Motorola. Today the Bluetooth SIG has over 1800 members.

So there is really no reason why Nokia and Motorola shouldn't support all the usual Bluetooh profiles, except maybe policy... ;)

Nokia and Motorola were also heavily involved in creating JSR-82 (Java APIs for Bluetooth), the group was even lead by Ravi Viswanathan from Motorola. But JSR-82 (or JABWT as its also called) is still only avaliable on very few smartphones (SE P900 and Nokia 6600/7700, Motorola has none, yet).

[mustang_dvs]

I know from talking to Motorola customer support that the V710 lacks the Bluetooth object push profile (OPP) needed for iSync to operate over Bluetooth with that phone, but does the lack extend to other Motorola phones like the V600?

The V710 des not sync with iSync over bluetooth, anyone know why (yes I know Apple states it is USB only) but WHY????

Here's why neither the v600 nor the v710 support iSync over Bluetooth: OBEX.

OBEX is an OBject EXchange protocol that Bluetooth (and various other wireless transmission methods, principally IrDA) uses to exchange files and data. Moto botched the OBEX implementation in the v600 and then went one better and completely forgot to include it in the shipping version of the v710 firmware. (Motorola claims that a firmware update for the v710 will rectify this within 60 days (http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=425371) -- I wouldn't hold my breath.)

OPP (Object Push Protocol) is a similar data transfer protocol, though it is primarily used for send-only applications, like providing info to signal strength indicators and caller-id functions of cars which support bluetooth phones. The v600 properly supports OPP, but the v710... WHOOPS! Moto also forgot to include it in the current firmware, as well.

(The v710 has a lot of BT-related shortcomings - it only supports HandsFree and Dial-Up Networking profiles. Sure, it supports SyncML, it just has no way of utilizing it over Bluetooth. D'Oh!)

iSync doesn't support BT syncing with Moto phones because Moto botched it's bluetooth support, not because Apple did anything (or omitted something). SyncML support is planned, perhaps for 10.4.

From Apple's iSync Product Overview (PDF) (http://images.apple.com/isync/pdf/iSync_Product_Overview-060303.pdf)
What is SyncML,and does iSync support it?
SyncML is an open-standard synchronization protocol supported by the Open Mobile Alliance. It is based on XML and open data formats and is designed to work with everything from servers to desktop computers to mobile phones. Apple is a strong advocate of open standards and has publicly endorsed SyncML as a future direction for iSync, but iSync does not support SyncML as of this release.

A pretty good explanation of iSync's current OBEX implementation, vs SyncML. (http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1002081.html)

[Ibjr]

I'd like to second everyone's frustration with iSync not supporting Motorola phones via bluetooth. I own a v600. It has bluetooth. I own a powerbook. It has bluetooth. This shouldn't be a problem, damn-it-all. As a consumer I don't care about standards, protocols, and all that crap. Apple, you need to hack something together to make this work. This is utterly absurd. I'm dissatisfied with iSync based on this point alone. Charge me for the software if you have to, but just make it work.

I own an ibook with bluetooth and wifi. I own airport. I connect to the internet and check which phones work with iSync before i buy one. I don't whine.

I am also quick enough to google it ahead of time and find out that Isync's furture shows support for it. Ugh.

ugh. Mac users. Apple doesn't do hacks, thats why it works so well.

[Ibjr]

i can and always have been able to access the v600 via bluethooth from the bluethooth menu and upload or download pictures sounds etc via bluethooth so why wont isync talk to it. This makes me think that it's Apple that needs to sort things out with isync to get things working properly. very dissapointed it still doesn't work!

Hey because eveything must be that simple right? Quit bitching and just accept that life isn't that simple and apple is working hard. Be thankful that they aloow a datacable sync while you wait for BT support w/ v600. They could have just not done the cable sync and waited a few more months to allow any sync with your V600

[third_floor]

Right, Mac users should be limited to certain phone models.

There's a difference between bitching and moaning and genuinely looking for a solution. Don't be so quick to judge.

[akw]

I own an ibook with bluetooth and wifi. I own airport. I connect to the internet and check which phones work with iSync before i buy one. I don't whine.

I am also quick enough to google it ahead of time and find out that Isync's furture shows support for it. Ugh.



I'm not whining. I'm expressing frustration with the current state of iSync. In a perfect world I would wait for a phone to be supported by iSync via bluetooth before I purchased it. Given that nearly every one of the phones supported by iSync are over a year old, that would be a piss poor way to buy phones, wouldn't it?

So yeah. You're right. I purchased the v600 knowing that I was trading advanced functionality on my phone for iSync support. What I assumed, and apparently shouldn't have, was that Apple would be capable enough to make iSync work with the v600 via bluetooth in a timely fashion.

So maybe you're suggesting I go with a different phone? Great. Let me state this clearly. Almost every phone that is supported by iSync over bluetooth is crap. No amount of googling will save me from that fact. And that is why I'm pissed. I shouldn't have own a ****ty phone so that I can sync with my Mac.


ugh. Mac users. Apple doesn't do hacks, thats why it works so well.

That's an interesting level of insight you have into Apple's development processes. Is that one of their R&D policies?

R&D Policy #53: No hacks.

Concessions made in code elegance (hacks) may or may not effect how well the code works. Besides, wouldn't you rather have a hacked up solution that works rather than no solution at all? Come to think of it, you wouldn't even know the difference and neither would I. It would just work.

[Raman1970]

Hey because eveything must be that simple right? Quit bitching and just accept that life isn't that simple and apple is working hard. Be thankful that they aloow a datacable sync while you wait for BT support w/ v600. They could have just not done the cable sync and waited a few more months to allow any sync with your V600

You know.. I first had a Nokia 6100 (non bluetooth) but I purchased the USB data cable. iSync went through 2 upgrades and no support. Then my phone was stolen, so I got a 6820 w/ bluetooth and two more updates later still no support via bluetooth or USB cable! So about a year later, I still can not Sync unless I use a PC! Now I realise Nokia has lost some market share especially here in the US but they are still the number 1 cell phone maker. So expecting iSync to support the 5 most current bluetooth Nokia phones is not asking too much!

[Baron58]

It has nothing to do with Apple being 'capable enough' to make iSync work with the v600 via bluetooth in a timely fashion. The fault lies with MOTOROLA for not implementing bluetooth profiles properly on the v600. There is no universal sync framework on Windows, each product provides it's own way to sync (Palm, various phones, etc.), so you could say that the fault lies with MOTOROLA for not providing an OS X sync application. Apple's only mistake was in making iSync at all - because then people expect that because it exists, they are entitled to have it work with Product X, and it's some great injustice that it doesn't do what THEY think it ought to do.

The fact is that Apple says "Here is a product called iSync. Here are devices with with iSync works. Enjoy." They NEVER said that it will work with all devices, or all bluetooth devices, or that the v600 would in fact be supported at any time in the future. If you projected unrealistic expectations onto it, tough.


Almost every phone that is supported by iSync over bluetooth is crap. No amount of googling will save me from that fact. And that is why I'm pissed. I shouldn't have own a ****ty phone so that I can sync with my Mac.

No, they aren't. Although my experience supporting a v600 leads me to believe that it's only redeeming quality is the quad-band support.

You don't have to own any phone, and you don't have to sync with your Mac. It's a privilige, not a right.

[akw]

It has nothing to do with Apple being 'capable enough' to make iSync work with the v600 via bluetooth in a timely fashion. The fault lies with MOTOROLA for not implementing bluetooth profiles properly on the v600. There is no universal sync framework on Windows, each product provides it's own way to sync (Palm, various phones, etc.), so you could say that the fault lies with MOTOROLA for not providing an OS X sync application. Apple's only mistake was in making iSync at all - because then people expect that because it exists, they are entitled to have it work with Product X, and it's some great injustice that it doesn't do what THEY think it ought to do.

The fact is that Apple says "Here is a product called iSync. Here are devices with with iSync works. Enjoy." They NEVER said that it will work with all devices, or all bluetooth devices, or that the v600 would in fact be supported at any time in the future. If you projected unrealistic expectations onto it, tough.




No, they aren't. Although my experience supporting a v600 leads me to believe that it's only redeeming quality is the quad-band support.

You don't have to own any phone, and you don't have to sync with your Mac. It's a privilige, not a right.

So now it's a privlege to use iSync? That's a novel concept. How about the following concept instead? If Apple wants to have the privlege of collecting tens of thousands of dollars from my pocket book over my life time then they'll write software that satisfies my needs. Otherwise someone else will get the money.

I'm asking Apple to implement sync over bluetooth for Motorola phones. How is that a bad thing? Why does that bother you? What's the problem with that request? Should we just accept what Apple produces with a smile? Even if we're not satisfied and it doesn't meet our needs? Don't let your zealotry get in the way of reason.

Perhaps you can suggest a phone for me that has iSync support over bluetooth and carries a similar form factor and feature set to the v600?

I'm personally partial to Nokia. Out of 58 Nokia phones available in the USA, Apple supports 7 (4 of which are those hideous 3600 series bricks). Not bad considering iSync has been available for something like two years. I can sync almost every last one of the 58 Nokia phones on my Windows box using Nokia's software without a hitch. Interesting.

What are my other options? Let's see. How about a T68? or a T68i? Those aren't even supported on some GSM networks anymore. Or maybe the T68i replacement the T610? Let's face it, Sony Ericsson phones have come a long way since the T68, but they've still got an even longer way to go. Even the T630 isn't much better. Slapping new themes on the OS and wrapping the internals in a different case doesn't do much for making a better phone. No dice there. I won't even comment on the Siemens phones.

So all in all, pickings are really slim if you want to use iSync. But then again, I guess that's a privilege. Is it a privilege to wait for additional phone support too? Or maybe it's just a privilege to buy outdated phones so I can use iSync? So much potential with iSync is going untapped. It's too bad for Apple and for us.

I'm miffed about this. Can you tell?

[Ibjr]

R&D Policy 53: No hacks.

Concessions made in code elegance (hacks) may or may not effect how well the code works. Besides, wouldn't you rather have a hacked up solution that works rather than no solution at all? Come to think of it, you wouldn't even know the difference and neither would I. It would just work.

Code elegance is the reason OSX has the dev switching. Code elegance is the reason most Slashdotters are crazy for OSX. Code elegance is the reason apple isn't MS. Code elegance is a reason apple isn't working on on a Servicepack two type patch. When they do it, they do it right.

Understand?

[hype.it]

P900 and iSync Users

Help is to hand. Here's the solution. As you know, getting iSync 1.4 or 1.5 to see your P900 Smart-Phone after a firmware update is a real pain. Sony Ericsson recently edited it's firmware in such a way that iSync no longer see' or finds the handset when you choose Add Device from the Menu. This hack, forces iSync to see your phone.

This archive is intended for Mac users only!
To open the .sitx archive, you'll need Stuffit Expander (http://www.stuffit.com/mac/index.html)

Thread: More info (http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=429510)
Download the attachment: HowardForums (http://www.howardforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=3508916)

[akw]

Code elegance is the reason OSX has the dev switching. Code elegance is the reason most Slashdotters are crazy for OSX. Code elegance is the reason apple isn't MS. Code elegance is a reason apple isn't working on on a Servicepack two type patch. When they do it, they do it right.

Understand?

You're obviously not a developer.

[Nik_Doof]

Anyone had any probs with Nokia 6600 in this version?

My Nokia's software is v4.09.1, since i got iSync 1.5 the bluetooth service on the phone crashes alot :( had to sync 5 times to get a full sync today.

Also the problem with the Nokia 6230... its not supported as its the Series 40 software, once one phone in the series 40 is supported you could probably botch in support by editing the plist, like people did before support for the 6600 was offical. Series 60 is supported, so that covers alot of Nokia phones not listed on the iSync site, like Nokia's site (http://www.forum.nokia.com/main/0,6566,010_40_10,00.html)

Also no matter what the iSync site says, address book pictures will be synced to SE T610/T630...as its done in the past for me :)

[tkarches]

My "hideous" Nokia 3650 (which I have been using since June 2003) has worked nearly flawlessly with iSync (and with most of the 3rd party software that I have loaded).

- it takes decent pictures
- it plays MPEG-4 movies
- pictures and movies can be copied to (and from) removable MMC media
- it holds my calendar and address book
- it even makes phone calls :-)
- it works anywhere in the world

I would reccomend it in a heartbeat.

The current 3620 is not such a good deal anymore, but the screen is very nice. If you are willing to live without a camera, I would get an N-Gage QD, myself ($100 with contract). It does everything my 3650 does (except for having a camera.) in a nice form factor. Perfect for playing the GameBoy emulator....

Tom

[akw]

My "hideous" Nokia 3650 (which I have been using since June 2003) has worked nearly flawlessly with iSync (and with most of the 3rd party software that I have loaded).

- it takes decent pictures
- it plays MPEG-4 movies
- pictures and movies can be copied to (and from) removable MMC media
- it holds my calendar and address book
- it even makes phone calls :-)
- it works anywhere in the world

I would reccomend it in a heartbeat.

The current 3620 is not such a good deal anymore, but the screen is very nice. If you are willing to live without a camera, I would get an N-Gage QD, myself ($100 with contract). It does everything my 3650 does (except for having a camera.) in a nice form factor. Perfect for playing the GameBoy emulator....

Tom


I think the functionality and quality are absolutely outstanding on the 3650. But you have to admit, the size and aesthetics leave a lot to be desired. I suppose if that's not important to you then this is a great phone. To me it looks hideous. No offense.

[GeorgeTheMonkey]

To the happy gentleman (and ladies?) with the K700s:

I'm currently having a problem -- two actually -- when I iSync. First, I have yet to be able to get any of my contacts' addresses and other information to sync.

Second, when I sync with iCal, all my events actually appear to be scheduled for an hour earlier on the phone. (In addition to the phone having problems with all-day events.)

I'm thinking the problem is with my firmware: I just got the phone, shipped from NY with the R2A041 firmware. The latest is R2L001, I believe. So for those with K700s and who use iSync, do you have the aforementioned programs? If not, could you confirm that a firmware update will take care of these problems?

Thanks! :D

[matticus008]

See, the US wireless providers don't really have standards (nor do they want them.) You Europeans and Asians just get a network, and it works. Over here we have gajillions of bands and networks and no 3G yet and blah blah blah.

I think I'm getting this Motorola V710, and the USB cable, but I really wish Apple would just go ahead and start supporting Bluetooth in general.

By the way, thanks, fflipper, that clears up a lot.

The V710 will NEVER support Bluetooth file sync. Verizon specifically ordered the phones not to support that BT profile, which is the biggest complaint about the "Bluetooth" capability of these phones. That is, you can't use Bluetooth for anything except Verizon-sanctioned purposes. Google for V710 and bluetooth support and you'll get tons of info on this.

[aricher]

There are articles floating around on the web that Verizon wants to start charging for ANY data transfered to/from all their customers phones. This includes any data transfered via Bluetooth. This is the main reason I chose not to go with Verizon - greedheads.

[~loserman~]

Why do Motorola phones have no Bluetooth support?

Personally I don't know why someone would want a bluetooth phone.
It has very very very poor security. If you want people getting access to your information then bluetooth is the way to go.

[IndyGopher]

Personally I don't know why someone would want a bluetooth phone.
It has very very very poor security. If you want people getting access to your information then bluetooth is the way to go.
While you are right about the security of bluetooth, I don't imagine most people keep information on their phone that would terribly sensitive. Also, keeping bluetooth active on my phone kills the battery life, so I only enable it when I am transferring information. Add to that needing to OK any pairing attempts on both ends, and it would be a whole lot easier to just steal my phone than to syphon data off of it.

Either way, you get a bunch of phone numbers that are listed in the phone book, and the most embarrassing thing you might find out is how often I order pizza. Phones are like anything else. Don't write anything down you don't want read in a courtroom or church.

[Moof1904]

Am I misinformed or does iSync still not sync the "Notes" section of a Palm-type PDA? If I'm correct, why can't/won't iSync do this? It seems terribly inconvenient and is what's preventing me from using iSync.