Because there's a human scale to things at the end of the day. It's why we will probably never need 16k resolution for phones - the human eye can only see so many pixels.

iPhone 15 max storage configuration is 512 GB. So you can transfer the entirety of the phone in 10 minutes. Plug it in, have a coffee and come back. Is it changing anyone's life if it can be done in 90 seconds instead? How often do you need to transfer the entirety of your phone storage?

USB 2.0 speed: 480 Mbps (mega bits per second).

512 GB (giga bytes) = 512 * 8 Gb (giga bits)

Time required to transfer 512 GB at sustained max USB 2.0 speed: 512 * 8 * 1024 / (480 * 60) minutes.

That's 145 minutes. About 2.4 hours.

That's a meaningless number. When was the last time you saw anyone even attempting to transfer hundreds of gigabytes of data using their phones? Do data hoarders now see their phones as some ideal NAS or what?

Typically twice...the last time you back up your old phone and the first time you restore to your new phone.

I've had good luck with the bottom storage level for years...until I bought a 360 GoPro...seriously huge filesizes.

I did it last week and do it regularly. My (full) 512GB iPhone takes 40+ hours to transfer over USB, I presume to to lots of small files.

You're right about the math. I misread the spec

But at the same time, I don't really yield my point. 2 hours - just plug it in at night and it's done in the morning. We routinely do things where we plug in a phone for 2 hours

It sounds pretty simple as a case of if it's important for you, then you should seek out other options, like the pro. Android phones also come in a mix of 2.0/3.0 speeds.

> Lots of people.

They might actually be asking for examples.

I do it but pretty rarely to just back up a few things manually to the point that speed doesn’t matter much.

Genuine question: How does USB 2.0 compare to Bluetooth (Airdrop) and wifi (assume local network or ad hoc, not icloud or internet) speeds on the 15 line?

EDIT: TIL more about the underlying mechanics of Airdrop than I thought I would, appreciate the lesson.

Actual Bluetooth is slow, 1.5Mbit or so, depending on the implementation. You wouldn't transfer large amounts of data that way. Maybe a photo, or smallish files. But, as the other poster noted, Airdrop uses Wi-Fi direct now so it's at wifi speeds.

Modern Wi-Fi 6 (what is in the new iPhones, even in the older iPhones) is theoretically much faster. Gigabit+ speeds. In practice, you can expect similar or faster speeds vs. USB2 over Wi-Fi. If it's ad-hoc from iPhone to iPhone, it should be much closer to theoretical max since they will be in close proximity.

I’ve seen both AirDrop and LAN over WiFi reach a steady state at around 55-60 MB/s in ideal conditions, which is remarkably similar to USB 2.0. That speed is only reached when the devices are stationary and close to each other though, any movement causes a temporary drop since wave compression or interference presumably results in signal degradation and some sort of checksumming to occur. Also I can’t recall the specifics but AirDrop only uses Bluetooth to negotiate the connection. The underlying transmission uses peer-to-peer WiFi, so it’s no surprise their speeds are similar to each other.

Incidentally, I’m sure there’s a myriad of practical reasons why it would have been too early for Apple to go entirely portless, but funnily enough as it turns out, a decrease in transfer speed compared to USB 2.0 over Lightning wouldn’t have been one of them.

AirDrop only uses Bluetooth for handshake and configuration. Data is then transferred over Wi-Fi Direct.

Airdrop negotiates a WiFi connection using Bluetooth but does all the data transfer at WiFi speeds.

USB 2.0 Hi Speed is 480 Mb/s

I get about that with my 13 mini on my WiFi 6 AP.

BT 5.x I have no idea.

waaay back in ancient history, we breathed a sigh of relief at the State Department of Transportation when we received the messaging that we didn't need to cater to every edge case when designing an internet facing customer (who, at the time, might have had a 9600 baud modem)

Many parts of the world got Cell coverage before they got land lines because they were cheaper to deploy.

“The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed.

The Economist, December 4, 2003” ― William Gibson

On the other hand, the web would be a lot better if developers tested their sites at a much reduced bandwidth.

Both of you are right. I think the us non prosumer is entirely on icloud

they can't both be right, this is the internet! But yeah, many Wi-Fi routers are faster than USB2.0 nowadays

That WiFi stability is a problem is a weird take. WiFi is extremely close range. If it's a problem: 1. Get a cheap WiFi router. 2. Find a place with low wireless interference. 3. Transfer over LAN. Problem solved. Moreover, 99.99% of people can just skip over to step 3.

I think they meant that the upstream connection to the ISP and beyond is unstable. Not the literal WLAN connection between the router and device.

It is not that Wi-Fi stability is a problem, but more that the broadband connection itself is unstable.

But you don't need internet access to replace USB cables. WiFi should deliver gigabit transfer speeds between your PC and phone, however unstable the upstream connection may be.

LAN is also USB2.0 on these devices. Also SD card readers, etc.

If you stay in hotels often, it’s also a good day if the WiFi/internet is merely unstable.

I thought 802.11ax delivers gigabit transfer speeds?

Have you run across 802.11ax anywhere outside of your house, or perhaps a high end office building? When you have, was there bandwidth enough to actually use it?

That’s all I’m saying. If you take a lot of photos/video and you’re trying to get it off the phone, it sucks if you’re travelling. You can’t even plug it into your laptop and get it off decently (though it’s still often faster than hotel Wifi).

I’ve spent hours sitting there trying. It’s very frustrating.

I’ll just end up getting the Pro model anyway, but like intel disabling ECC on all but their ‘server’ CPUs - it’s unnecessary, irritating, and restrictive. Well within their rights though.

Typical Apple. They love lock-in.

Sky is blue. Water is wet.

And those people are going to spend $800 on a cutting edge 5G phone?