Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone 15 Pro Rumored to Feature Thunderbolt Port With Significant Advantage Over Lightning
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As in some beurocrat's son/daughter works for a USB-C cable/connector manufacturer! LOL!
To anyone saying AirDrop is "superior" or "works flawlessly", you must not be transferring large files. I'm not talking about ~5GB. I'm talking about 20GB+ files. It can't do those. AT ALL. It's incredibly annoying that Files does not support wired transfers through Finder. Absolutely ridiculous. We still need wired connections for those kinds of transfers. Even if AirDrop worked for that, it still wouldn't be as fast for the transfer. AirDrop might be convenient for your uses, but it's not for everyone. Wireless speeds will NEVER be faster than wired connections.
WiFi and Bluetooth and file transfers are not proprietary things. Anyone can create an app that uses bluetooth for device discovery (plenty already do) and WiFi for data transfer (plenty already do).
Your mistake is assuming that the reason 20GB+ files fail is because it is wireless, and that a wired transfer of that size wouldn't also fail.
Last edited:
So iphone 17 ultra max will come with ethernet connector? With reduced speed for the non ultra max models.
Why would a wired transfer fail…? Every single time I go to do a transfer that large through AirDrop, Finder will just hang. Does it on every Mac that I use. Finder never hangs when I transfer to VLC or any other app that supports the Finder integration or to a USB drive.
Not for nothing here, but one is dealing with different protocols for the transfer.
Obviously wireless and wired are going over 802.x, while USB is USB. But with wireless and wired, one has to take latency into account (especially with wireless), let alone the fastest negotiable speed between the devices. If a file is going to be copied between a Mac and a PC, both the Mac and PC have gigabit NICs in them, but the switch or router they are connected to is only a 10/100 switch, your fastest negotiated speed is going to be 100Mbps. Does this necessarily mean failure? no. However, if there is any packet loss during the transfer, that data packet has to be retransmitted (if possible; TCP handles this), or the entire transfer started again (UDP transfers don't have that resiliency).
Perhaps the solution here is to use a program that supports a protocol that handles that loss and resiliency. Something like scp, rsync, or something similar may be better, as Macs do support those.
BL.
Why would a wireless transfer fail?
You don't seem to get that the problem lies with the OS and handling large file transfers, period. Not with some imaginary issue with wireless.
Windows has that problem with anything larger than 4GB. Mac/iOS do not… at least not through a wired connection.
Start a wireless transfer, then with your device in hand, walk away from the router supplying your 802.11x connection, then ask that same question again.
The problem is latency. The further you are away from the source, the weaker your wireless signal is; go too far, and you lose your connection completely. There are plenty of instances where a transfer will fail more wirelessly than over a Cat 5/5e/6/7 cable. There is nothing that the OS can do if your connectivity to your network goes belly up, and wireless has a greater tendency for that to happen because of location and lack of true resiliency in the 802.11x protocol. Compare that to standard ethernet, and you will find wired transfers much more resilient than wireless.
BL.