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.
iSync 1.5 Now Available
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
V600 and bluetooth.......
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!
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!
third_floor said:
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.
sigamy said:
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.
third_floor said:
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.
jettredmont said:
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.
GeorgeTheMonkey said:Displaced, don't even ask about the cellular phone system over here in the U.S.It's a mess!
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.
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.
talkatron2 said:
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.
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!kgarner said:
Lanbrown said:
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
talkatron2 said:
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.
talkatron2 said:
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.
talkatron2 said:
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.
Lanbrown said:
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.
Lanbrown said:
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.
third_floor said: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.
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_indexLanbrown said:
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?
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.
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.
displaced said:
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.
So how do you know that Moto is not supporting Sync profile?
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.
Lanbrown said:
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.
Hehe, you lot are really serious about your phone technologies, aren't you?
I'm happy to be only marginally knowledgeable in this matter.
I'm happy to be only marginally knowledgeable in this matter.
digitalbiker said:
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.
Lanbrown said:
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."
Missing the point of the question!
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.
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.
JFreak said:
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).