Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

Bluetooth Gets Faster & Requires Less Power 158

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i-tought-bluetooth-was-already-dead dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (BSIG) has announced a new specification named "Enhanced Data Rate" or EDR for short. EDR aims to provide faster data transmission and reduce the power consumption from traditional Bluetooth technology. The data speeds will be roughly three times faster which means you could easily use multiple Bluetooth devices simultaneously. The reduced power consumption also means longer battery life and less heat generated. The new EDR standard will be backward compatible with the current standard Bluetooth devices. This makes upgrading to the new standard effortless."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bluetooth Gets Faster & Requires Less Power More

Bluetooth Gets Faster & Requires Less Power

Comments Filter:

  • Neat... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:03PM (#9392699)
    ... but I'm having to fight a little too hard to find neat things to do with Bluetooth. I made my laptop connecton the net once with my cell phone... but.. uh yeah.

    • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Inf0phreak ( 627499 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:06PM (#9392718)
      You could pick up toothing [wired.com].

      • Re:Well... (Score:3, Funny)

        by SLiK812 ( 518195 )
        Toothing on 'multiple devices'. Iguess that would be called 'Group Toothing', or cyber-swinging for geeks.

      • Re:Well... (Score:2, Informative)

        by klasikahl ( 627381 )
        After reading that article when it was published, I tried searching for BT devices within range while in a populated area and found nothing. I was disappointed, logically. :P

    • Bluetooth Growth Predicted to Increase - A Lot (Score:4, Funny)

      by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:09PM (#9392734) Homepage Journal

      but I'm having to fight a little too hard to find neat things to do with Bluetooth.

      Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the latest anonymous sex trend with Bluetooth nicknamed "toothing" [cnn.com].

    • Re:Neat... (Score:5, Informative)

      by DarkHazard ( 713597 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:09PM (#9392744)
      With Bluetooth I'm able to also connect to the internet on trips but I'm also now sending wallpapers, ringtones etc to my phone.
      Another favourite feature is the Address Book sync. Its such a paint to enter full Address Book entries on the phone so instead I enter on the comp. and sync it with my phone. Bluetooth ain't so bad :P
      • But you've been able to do that all along with USB or, god forbid, serial connections.

        I don't mean to say that Bluetooth isn't a hundred times better than either of those -- it is, and my next phone will definitely be Bluetooth-enabled -- but Bluetooth is hardly responsible for this capability.

    • Re:Neat... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:26PM (#9392881) Journal
      There's lots of cool things to do with Bluetooth but nobody'll implement it because they're all dumb.

      1) Cell phone "submissiveness" - an establishment (like a movie theater or a school) installs a device that causes your BT-enabled phone to shutthehellup. When this happens, the phone beeps once to notify the user of the situation. The user can opt out if he/she wishes.

      2) Tire pressures - to go along with our RFID license plates, our tires could tell our cell phones (or the dashboard) if they are low on pressure.

      3) Coupons - a person's cell phone (once again) could be configured to receive (or not) coupons at the grocery store upon entering.

      4) Wireless peripherals - the biggest usability problem with PCs these days is the rats nest behind (or on top of, in front of) the damn things. Holy shit... Some of you know what I'm talking about. This is crazy.

      Sure - it was all a nice thought and some of it even made it (I have a wireless keyboard that could have used the BT standard but didn't for WHO KNOWS what reason) but now we've got wireless-serial-attached-SCSI and every other damn wireless specification coming. Great!

      What the industry needs is an independent board to regulate this stuff. Intel doesn't like Firewire so they codevelop USB. Great! If we had a board that could pick a standard, we wouldn't be stuck with this cruft. Don't get me wrong - I'm all about having freedom but it would be nice if the industry said, "we like this standard - go ahead and develop that other crap but we will only endorse this".

      Sure - Intel does have clout but you still have to buy a separate USB cable for that iPod (usually a second trip to the store, too).

      • Re:Neat... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by System.out.println() ( 755533 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:35PM (#9392947) Journal
        What the industry needs is an independent board to regulate this stuff. Intel doesn't like Firewire so they codevelop USB.

        First of all, we have such a body - it's called the IEEE. And I'm sure a number of other bodies I've never heard of as well.

        As for Intel developing USB because it didn't like FW... I don't think that's accurate. Firewire and USB are good at different things (FW is better at sending video, for example, but would be less than ideal for a mouse or keyboard due to cost) and can+should happily coexist on your computer.

        I'm all about having freedom but it would be nice if the industry said, "we like this standard - go ahead and develop that other crap but we will only endorse this".

        I don't think you realize that's exactly what's happening. Bluetooth and Wifi have been accepted, and while the others may come, they'll likely be considered "extras". (Wifi and bluetooth, like USB and Firewire, are good at different things - power vs. range and bandwidth, in this case)
        • That arguement works for USB 1.0/1.1, but what purpose does USB2 serve aside from dividing the market? Firewire had already proven its greatness for hard drives, scanners, and video. Here comes USB2, and guess what? It is only used for the exact same things!

          Firewire did it first and better.

          OTOH, now most devices support both, and Firewire 800 has shown up on a few Ath64 mobos, so I guess I'm bitching about nothing...

          Hey what happens if you attach a device compatible with both Firewire and USB2 to both
          • USB gives combination decent speed + backward compatibility. A lot of PC's still don't have Firewire ports, unfortunately.

            Hey what happens if you attach a device compatible with both Firewire and USB2 to both ports on your PC?

            Depends on the drive, it'll either (1) ignore the second plug, or (2), mount twice, I'm guessing.
      • Most of these make sense, except...

        "3) Coupons - a person's cell phone (once again) could be configured to receive (or not) coupons at the grocery store upon entering."

        Stores do not issue coupons for your health and well being. You get coupons in the mail, newspaper, and flyers because the grocery store is trying to get you in there. It's called a "loss leader". You sell a few items at a loss, in the hopes that the customer will purchase many other items you will make profit on. It also encourages brand l

      • 2) Tire pressures - to go along with our RFID license plates, our tires could tell our cell phones (or the dashboard) if they are low on pressure.

        Already done [roadsnoop.com]

        4) Wireless peripherals - the biggest usability problem with PCs these days is the rats nest behind (or on top of, in front of) the damn things. Holy shit... Some of you know what I'm talking about. This is crazy.

        We are using Bluetooth-dongles here in the office. Just plug them in to a printer, and our Bluetooth-enabled laptops can print to the

    • Re:Neat... (Score:4, Funny)

      by abscondment ( 672321 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:37PM (#9392962) Homepage

      see, what you need is one of these:

      linked image [p-p-p-powerbook.com]

      I hear they fly, too.

    • Re:Neat... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nathanh ( 1214 )
      ... but I'm having to fight a little too hard to find neat things to do with Bluetooth. I made my laptop connecton the net once with my cell phone... but.. uh yeah.

      Some newer cars (eg, BMW 5) have bluetooth integration so your phone works directly without needing a car-kit or cradle. Kind of neat.

  • Finally... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DarkHazard ( 713597 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:05PM (#9392709)
    A faster Bluetooth. With my Sony Ericsson T616 speeds are laughable and slow and maybe now Bluetooth will finally be able to maximize its potential and actually start to compete with other wireless specs.

    And the power consumption. A gift from the heavens. Bluetooth lowers my cellphones standby to about a 8 hours with no calls.

    • Re:Finally... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Great!

      Now your phone can be hacked even quicker!
    • With my Sony Ericsson T616 speeds are laughable and slow and maybe now Bluetooth will finally be able to maximize its potential...

      I doubt your speed issue is a result of the speed of the Bluetooth connection between your laptop and your phone, but rather the 9600-14.4kbps GPRS connection between your phone and your provider's network. I don't think EDR Bluetooth is going to help any with your cellular Internet connection. At least not until 3G becomes ubiquitous.
      • To clariffy what I meant it is not internet speeds. It is the speed of sync [i.e address book, emails, sending wallpapers and other content]
        • Oh, sorry. I just assumed you meant Internet access. I use my SE Z600 for GPRS connectivity, and I also sync my address book, calendar, etc to it. I guess I just notice the GPRS speed more than the sync speed, because it never would have occured to me that it would be slow enough to complain. In fact, I think my Z600 syncs pretty fast. Before I had it, I used iSync to sync my stuff to my iPod. When I added the phone to the sync scheme, I only noticed an extra couple of seconds to complete the sync.
    • Sure, the data transfer speed of BT are laughable if you're just transmitting large amount of data between two devices, like uploading MP3s to your phone's memory card or something. But still, at least for me, my main use of BT has been using my phone's GPRS connection with my laptop, and for that usage BT speed is well enough - although EDGE- or WCDMA-connections could theoretically transfer faster than BT, but what I've heard they practically do hardly over 64 kbit/s...

      However, what I found laughable in
    • Yout T616 experience is a little different from mine, but I agree that using Bluetooth is a real battery hog.

      I added a bunch of contacts to my address book at work today - mostly business stuff. When I went to lunch, I set off iSync.

      Upon arriving home this evening, I used iSync on my home machine, synced my phone with my computer...and realized my phone was still in the car. Now that's cool.

      But if I could only hit the cell tower form home.
    • I use a Nokia 6310i and without bluetooth the standby is round 10 days and with bluetooth on, well, I don't see any difference. Usually it works 9 or even the same 10 days with the blutooth. I think it depends on the implementation and with a good implementation the consumption can be controlled like this case.

  • Excellent... (Score:5, Funny)

    by th1ckasabr1ck ( 752151 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:05PM (#9392710)
    ... now I can move my bed even farther away from my desk and still be able to use my wireless keyboard. Rock.

    • Re:Excellent... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Oh my!
      Geek.. Bed.. Keyboard... Hummmmmm....
    • Well, devices commonly say 10M range. My Logitech Bluetooth MX combo came in today and I managed 20M with the signal passing through two walls and metal clad doors. That's well beyond the useful range of a keyboard and mouse, the only way I knew it was working was that the scroll wheel still scrolled the screen.

  • Yes, but will this be enough? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Brain Stew ( 225524 ) <zackwag@@@verizon...net> on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:06PM (#9392721) Homepage
    With all the new wireless technologies coming out, (wireless USB, wireless IEEE 1394, etc.) will this be enough to save the failing bluetooth. I use a Microsoft BlueTooth keyboard and mouse and while it is the best keyboard and mouse combo I've ever used, the lack of market saturation cost me $160.
    • It's better to think of Bluetooth to date as fetal, not immature. This new spec might be it's birth, finally.

      I was explaining a file format to a friend recently. He said, "is that like bluetooth or something?" I was a bit stumped. After I explained what bluetooth was, he said, "why the hell would I want that? Can't the wifi I've got do all that?" And so on for about 5 minutes...

      Of course, it's not his fault, as much as the dubious packaging of blutooth-enabled products vendors...

    • More saturated than any other short-range wireless (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thefinite ( 563510 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:32PM (#9392915)
      I, for one, have yet to see *any* commercially available product with wireless USB. I first read about it quite a while ago. Wireless FireWire was just barely [techweb.com] approved. While people are optimistic about it, I imagine Bluetooth with still enjoy lower power requirements.

      I guess my point is that there is nothing else available right now that does what Bluetooth does. Market adoption is *increasing*, if slowly. Bluetooth is far from failing. The truth is that right now, it's the only game in town. More personally, I love it and use it every day. My heart wouldn't be broken if something better replaced it, but in the meantime, improvements like lower power and faster data transfer are welcome.

    • Bluetooth is dead. Long live bluetooth.

      As you said yourself the stuff rocks when it gets into actual products. I love my bluetooth headset and can't wait to get the just-anounced folding bluetooth keyboard that will work with my phone. So if everyone likes the actual bluetooth stuff and they keep producing and selling more of it, why is everyone busy using words like 'failing' to describe it?

      TW
      • So if everyone likes the actual bluetooth stuff and they keep producing and selling more of it, why is everyone busy using words like 'failing' to describe it?

        Because it didn't take over the world a week after it was announced. People are just impatient.
      • I don't understand it much either.

        Some people seem to act as if "everybody" has to have or have heard of something in order to consider that something successful. Even if 95% of any particular population have no use for something, the remaining 5% might find an indispensible use for which it can find a strong niche.

        Take Apple for example. We've gotten monthly predictions of their demise but somehow they still manage to mske a product that some people want and have a fair amount of liquid assets to boot.
    • You're lucky you got it to work. I couldn't get it running on two PCs, including the one it was bought for, before I finally got it to work on the third -- and because it's not compatible with anyone else's Bluetooth stack AND the BT stack only supports keyboard, mouse and modem I can't use it for any of my other BT devices, such as my N-Gage or headset.
    • "failing bluetooth"

      What's failing about bluetooth? It's the only technology out there that does what it does. It's small, low-power, and incredibly cheap to implement. It has been designed from the get-go as a mobile technology, to create the PAN (personal area network). Comparing it to wireless USB and wireless firewire (which are larger, more expensive and use more power) is ridiculous. It's like asking why we need desktop PCs when there are much more powerful supercomputers out there. Looking at s

  • Dig-dan-Dongiliy-arn it (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Oh man, I thought I was so slick getting BlueTooth built into my PowerBook... Now I need a dongle :-(

  • Good News... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Piranhaa ( 672441 )
    Good news for bluetooth for sure. The backwards compatibility is a really nice touch too. Bluetooth was lacking any upgrades for some time really, but reducing power consumption, while making it much faster was a really good change. One of the problems people faced with bluetooth was the data transfer speeds (excluding the range of it compared with wifi). This could allow bluetooth to become much more popular than it has been in the past...
    • Bluetooth isn't for the same use as wifi, so comparing them is pointless. You wont find a wifi implementation as small as bluetooth, nor using as little power. It's not meant to be blazingly fast, but accessible. People don't want non-network wireless data connectivity on their mobile phones if they have to be twice as large. Bluetooth is for voice, data and small documents, not for streaming media or backing up servers. Most people, like yourself, seem to completely miss the whole point. And, funnily

  • Great News, but how good? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by powera ( 644300 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:07PM (#9392727) Homepage
    By compressing more data per packet, do they just mean they are using a better compression algorithm, or larger packets? The first should only help a little and for some uses, the second could theoretically make a lot more of a difference. But the less-power usage will be good anyhow.
    • If they fiddle with the base protocols then there will be interoperability issues. They will want to maintain compatability with previous BT devices. This might mean that when you have a piconet with an old BT device, some of the high speed features might be unsupported (analagous to how my USB2 hub downgrades everything to USB1.1 as soon as you plug in a USB1.1 device).

      Of course they're still using 2.4 GHz which is the wild west of the radio spectrum. Still going to have issues headbutting Wifi etc.

      And no,

    • > By compressing more data per packet, do they just mean they are using a better compression algorithm, or larger packets?

      More like larger packets. Instead of Gaussian Frequency Shift Keying (GFSK), they'll use 8QDPSK (8ary Quadrature Differential Phase Shift Keying?) for transferring data. For compability the administration of the pico-net will still be handled by GFSK.

      Instead of 1 Bit per symbol, they can transfer 8. The symbol rate and the channel width stays the same.
      Theoretically the transfer-rate

  • Requires new hardware? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Karpe ( 1147 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:09PM (#9392738) Homepage
    Or can I just upgrade my Bluetooth dongle firmware?

  • The remote control iPod??? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi@yahoA ... inus threevowels> on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:09PM (#9392743) Journal
    Could this be the in the next-gen iPod, allowing you to control Airtunes....

    ???

    Only Steve knows for sure...

  • more bluetooth devices (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Da_Slayer ( 37022 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:11PM (#9392755)
    Now that bluetooth is considered a more mature specification since they managed to make a specification update without having to break backward compatability.

    Maybe it is time for more bluetooth enabled printers and external devices. I wouldn't mind keeping the printer in the other room.
    • Bluetooth isn't really designed for anything that uses much bandwidth at all and printers use a lot. Printers also use a crap load of power, so a totally wireless one doesn't make sense.

      802.11 on the other hand is perfect for this and HP sells some WONDERFUL 802.11 printer/fax/scanner/cappier/flash card readers pretty cheap. 802.11 is mainly for networks and printers fit onto networks perfectly.

    • Other room? Not going to work. Bluetooth is specifically for low bandwidth, low power, short range (think in feet not yards). There is already a solution for what you want, it's a 802.11b print server.
      • Bluetooth's range extends up to 100m; certainly enough to cover a few rooms away. Not all devices are designed for such feats, but my class 1 dongle and iPAQ seem to have similar range to my WiFi (signal strength drops about the same).

  • Nintendo (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Grey Ninja ( 739021 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:16PM (#9392795) Homepage Journal
    It should be well known by now that Nintendo is putting 802.11 and Bluetooth on the Nintendo DS. I am quite curious if this will make it there, as the DS would benefit from this GREATLY. Nintendo is downright vicious when it comes to defending battery life of their handhelds, so it's entirely possible.

    We can always hope, right?
    • It should be well known by now that Nintendo is putting 802.11 and Bluetooth on the Nintendo DS.

      It really shouldn't be that well known, because it's not true.

      DS users will be able to connect with a local wireless network of up to 16 players. Nintendo's guaranteed range is 30 feet, but will extend far beyond that depending on circumstances. It assures high response rates required for real time game play, and will make use of both

      IEEE 802.11 and Nintendo's proprietary communication protocol, which provid

  • Now what we need... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:18PM (#9392817)
    What we need is a truly wireless desktop. Bluetooth is nice, but there are still power cords everywhere, or lots of batteries to replace or recharge. I'd like to have a single DC power standard, and a transfer mechanism for getting that power to my peripherals. Some sort of pad that you sit things down on (your cell phone, mouse, keyboard, PDA, whatever) so they get charged when you aren't using them. Now that'd be something I'd pay for.

    • Re:Now what we need... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:30PM (#9392907)
      Imagine a hub for connecting power to devices....

      That standard is power bar thar runs 120V AC (or 220 or 240 depending on where you are).

      What this obsession about cordless and wireless for desktop ? I cannot understand the urge of adding cost, latency, batteries and junk to a desktop.
      • You're missing the point. I want to not have to plug things in and mess with big hulking transformers. All these peripherals run on DC power anyway, so the 120V AC standard with all the ugly power bricks is really an unnecessary mess. And can't we use some sort of conductive pad with activation mechanism to transfer DC power directly without requiring lots of little cords or plugs to get in the way?


        Is this too much to ask? Wouldn't it be nice to say goodbye to our messy desktops?

        • You want a pad that carries electricity?

          Let's say you charge up a flat conductive pad with DC +12v. Where are you going to direct the outgoing current? Now you're getting into the complexities of routing, and there's really no simple device that can make this happen for you.

          As for your concept of a single voltage, keep in mind: Those bricks you hate so much aren't just transformers, they also have voltage regulators. Unlike transformers, they're not exactly the most efficient things either; most of the
      • AC mains really suck for small electronics. Power over Ethernet exists, but that's still a bit expensive. It is about $45 for an active one port POE injector, and the cost of a POE device vs. the same device without POE is about $15.

        There's too many wires to go around. My computer has anywhere from seven to ten cables connected to it, and the mouse and keyboard wires tend to get in the way of other tasks. I have about eight power cables connected to the UPS & surge strip combined.

    • Re:Now what we need... (Score:4, Informative)

      by way2trivial ( 601132 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:35PM (#9392950) Homepage Journal
      something like this? [com.com]
      • Yes, something like that. Now a standards body needs to standardize it, and big name manufacturers need to get on board with it and it needs to be available to consumers.
    • They have it... showcased it last year(2) at a expo... it is a pad like 1.5' by 2' and lil whatevers put into pdas or cell phones charge while resting on the pad... cool tech.

  • What about Ultra-Wideband? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by amjacobs ( 769757 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:20PM (#9392829)
    The IEEE standard for Bluetooth is 802.15.3. The 802.15.3a standard is a revision for the standard using UWB signaling. It promises data rates of > 100Mbps plus lower power.
    • In a much, much larger form factor, and for a greatly increased price. You've missed why bluetooth is so good at what it does - it costs cents to include on a device, and takes up hardly any room. WIFI, WUSB, WFirewire and every other sort of wireless technology don't offer those features, which is why bluetooth is a great success, even if most of the US doesn't think so.
  • why is it that this sounds like an advert from The Bluetooth Special Interest Group? nothing like the slashdot geeks to drum up some preorders for usless technology

  • i-tought-bluetooth-was-already-dead dept. (Score:5, Funny)

    by mphase ( 644838 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:25PM (#9392870) Homepage
    Oh you tought that did you? Maybe you should tink again.

  • Bluetooth on 24/7 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by artlu ( 265391 ) <artluNO@SPAMartlu.net> on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:25PM (#9392872) Homepage Journal
    Maybe now I can leave bluetooth active on my cellphone 24/7 and not wake up with a dead battery. Although, people can hack into phones now with bluetooth and steal/change your address book. Scary.
  • In my opinion, Bluetooth has been much more plagued by lack of adoption than speed and power consumption. USB was immensily popular before it became fast. It's popularity is what spurred it to become faster. I would love to get a bluetooth phone or PDA, or wireless keyboard or wireless mouse to connect with the internal bluetooth in my powerbook, but options are limited, which is driving costs way up. We need more options, and we need costs to be driven down. Thats not going to happen until more manufactur

  • Phone companies don't like bluetooth (Score:5, Informative)

    by DrShasta ( 690288 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:31PM (#9392912)
    A friend of mine mentioned to me the other day that some phone companies (like sprint) are being very cautious about offering bluetooth support in their phones because bluetooth makes it so easy to share the internet connection on the phones. A lot of the phone companies (like sprint) are offering unlimited internet plans, and bluetooth phones would lead to a lot of abuse with people using the connections for their laptops instead of their cellphones. Anyway, it is one of the reasons that bluetooth adoption isn't taking off as fast as it should.
    • Gasp! Provide a useful feature such that people would actually be willing to pay money for added services? Who would have thunk?

      Really, I hadn't thought of that, but it sounds like a perfectly exploitable opportunity for cell service providers.

      I'm not sure what Sprint's problem would be since supposedly you can use your cell phone as a modem on their unlimited internet plan.
  • To really get BlueTooth accepted with the masses, it needs a Killer App. I don't think cell phone address book exchange is it.

    The killer app for BlueTooth will be a BlueTooth enabled key fob that you hang on your keychain. Lost your keys again? Just dial a magic key sequence on your cell phone, which then sends out a BlueTooth transmission. This wakes the key fob, which begins beeping loudly. Now you just walk to the sound and pick up your keys.

    The real thing which makes this a killer app is that any Bl

    • Why not take this a step further? Get rid of the keys entirely, and just have a Bluetooth device open your car/house door directly.

      That would be one hell of a killer app.
    • Your idea would work even better than you think. Because Bluetooth devices manually get paired before they do anything with each other, your phone/keychain would only cause your own keychain/phone to beep. I for one love this idea. You better get on it [uspto.gov].
    • The killer app for BlueTooth will be a BlueTooth enabled key fob that you hang on your keychain. Lost your keys again? Just dial a magic key sequence on your cell phone, which then sends out a BlueTooth transmission. This wakes the key fob, which begins beeping loudly. Now you just walk to the sound and pick up your keys. I'm sure that an auto manufacturer could build that sort of thing into existing keyless entry systems. The one on my pickup truck has a much better range than Bluetooth.

  • Pricing? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Erwos ( 553607 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:47PM (#9393051)
    The issue with regards to me adopting bluetooth has been more about the absurd pricing of said peripherals. The Linksys Bluetooth desktop (and not the fancy-shmancy Nuvo or whatever the hell it's called) runs like a hundred bucks, whereas the plain old wireless one runs for closer to $50. That's not an insubstantial difference.

    After a brief glance at Amazon, it also looks like you can't get BT phones unless they're for AT&T or T-Mobile. Considering that GSM coverage here in the USA seems to be kinda spotty compared to, say, TDMA, that's a serious drawback.

    The problem with BT right now is that it's an integration technology, yet it's difficult to use an integration technology that doesn't have wide-spread usage.

    -Erwos
  • Bluetooth is dead:

    EE Times [eetimes.com]

    eWeek [eweek.com]

    Slashdot [slashdot.org]

  • Article Text (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ANTRat ( 751579 )
    Bluetooth group preps 2.1Mbps spec By Tony Smith Published Thursday 10th June 2004 10:38 GMT Bluetooth communications are set to get rather faster with a new version of the specification that takes its data throughput 2.1Mbps in the offing. The new version, Bluetooth Enhanced Data Rate (EDR), is offered as a "prototype specification" by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG). The technology increases data transmission by compressing more data into each packet rather than by increasing the rate at which

  • 802.11 v Bluetooth (Score:5, Informative)

    by curator_thew ( 778098 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @05:59PM (#9393129)

    There's so much "crap" out there about "bluetooth is dead, long live 802.11", or "everything will be 802.11" or "elvis works at my local 711".

    They are complimentary, remember that Bluetooth was designed _specifically_ as (a) single chip solution, (b) low power, low cost, low size, (c) a short range point to point data replacement.

    Until I see true single-chip 802.11 devices that meet these criteria, there's still a space for Bluetooth.

    After all, you don't buy "dishwasher power" for your "washing machine".

    • Re:802.11 v Bluetooth (Score:2, Interesting)

      by CRC'99 ( 96526 )
      They are complimentary,

      Complimentary my backside! ever tried to use 802.11b /g and bluetooth together? See how complimentary they are... Having to use bluetooth *OR* wifi isn't very complimentary...

  • Hearing Impaired (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yonder Way ( 603108 ) on Thursday June 10, 2004 @06:20PM (#9393304)
    So when am I going to be able to get a Bluetooth-enabled hearing aid so I can interface with my PC, my cell phone and other devices? Hearing aids seem like one of the killer apps for Bluetooth yet they don't seem to exist yet.
    • Two reasons, off the top of my head, why they don't exist: 1) Current technology is quite capable at addressing correctable hearing problems (sound amplification isn't complicated or new), 2) Bluetooth doesn't have the capability (until the newer, higher bandwidth devices come out) to transmit uncompressed high-quality sound (why subject people to hearing the world at telephone quality if you don't have to).

      I would finally ask what you mean by "interfacing" between hearing aids and PCs? If you mean liste

      • I would finally ask what you mean by "interfacing" between hearing aids and PCs?

        IANAA (I am not an audiologist), but... I've been wearing a set of digital hearing aids for about five years. They do in fact interface with a PC though a small adapter that fits in the battery door. This allows my audiologist to adjust the frequency equalization curves & even draw down my last audiogram, which is stored in each hearing aid. Moreover, the hearing aids have my name & patient number recorded in them. I

  • ... are you implying that everyone's favourite seer is wrong [enderlegroup.com]?

    Dear lord, what's next? A bad review of his beloved Ferrari Laptiop [eweek.com]? SCO may loose in court [technewsworld.com]?

    My reality is crumbling ... dear god make this madness stop!

  • What I want to know is when will Verizon finally get a frickin' bluetooth phone. They are the only service that works in my house, but their phones are state-of-the-art 2001 phones.
  • This makes upgrading to the new standard effortless

    Every time I'm told this I cringe and wait for the obligatory "As long as you are not using [specification set including all current products]..."

Slashdot Top Deals

Real programmers don't bring brown-bag lunches. If the vending machine doesn't sell it, they don't eat it. Vending machines don't sell quiche.

Close