or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Bluetooth 3.0 arrives with promise of eightfold speed increase
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bluetooth 3.0 arrives with promise of eightfold speed increase

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
The next version of the Bluetooth short-range wireless protocol officially launched this week, promising an eightfold speed increase to boost the low power protocol into the same performance range as WiFi wireless networking, while allowing Bluetooth 3.0 devices to fall back to lower power mode when not actively transferring data.

Presenting at its annual All Hands Meeting in Tokyo this week, the Bluetooth SIG -- the special interest group that oversees the development of Bluetooth standards and licensing -- formally adopted Bluetooth Core Specification Version 3.0 High Speed (HS), or Bluetooth 3.0.

In addition to better power savings and unicast connectionless data, the new specification features the ability to use alternative radio antennas, including an 802.11 Protocol Adaptation Layer (PAL) that will increase throughput of Bluetooth data transfers to approximately 24 Mbps, up from 3Mbps in the current 2.1 EDR version. The extra speed comes from using the much faster but less power efficient 802.11 radio available in devices that support both Bluetooth and WiFi wireless networking.

Put more simply, any two devices that feature both Bluetooth 3.0 and an 802.11 wireless chip will pair with each other over Bluetooth but then perform the bulk of their data transfers over the faster WiFi protocol using a specialized 802.11 connection. When the speed of a transfer becomes overkill, the connection will drop down to normal operation on a Bluetooth radio for optimal power management and performance.

"This is the wireless technology equivalent of 'low hanging fruit,'" said Michael Foley, Ph.D., executive director, the Bluetooth SIG. "What we’re doing is taking classic Bluetooth connections -- using Bluetooth protocols, profiles, security and other architectural elements -- and allowing it to jump on top of the already present 802.11 radio, when necessary, to send bulky entertainment data, faster."

This move will be a boon to traditional phone makers who have built their devices around the low power, limited range Bluetooth, with the protocol's support for device profiles for sync and peripheral connections. Using Bluetooth 3.0, those makers will be able to take advantage of 802.11 radios to expand their data throughput without having to implement support for WiFi networking, something even many popular or prominent phones continue to lack.

Bluetooth 3.0 vs iPhone 3.0

In contrast, Apple's computer-centric background resulted in the iPhone being primarily a WiFi device, with Bluetooth added on the side and only supporting basic features such as support for mono headsets and hands free operation. Apple supports file transfers, A2DP stereo headphones, and other Bluetooth features on the Mac desktop, but the iPhone and the latest iPod touch make so little effective use of Bluetooth that many users simply turn it off to save battery power.

In iPhone 3.0, Apple is doing essentially the opposite of the new Bluetooth 3.0 specification: bringing PC networking features down to Bluetooth instead. The biggest new feature will be activating Bluetooth as a secondary networking protocol designed to discover other nearby devices using Bonjour. This will enable games and other software titles to connect with nearby users for interaction without having to attach all those mobile devices to the same WiFi network or to create an ad hoc WiFi network to support this.

Apple is also expanding support for classic Bluetooth features in iPhone 3.0, including A2DP stereo headphones and device tethering, which allows a user to share mobile network Internet access over WiFi or Bluetooth. It's not clear if iPhone 3.0 will focus much effort on device transfers, printing, and other common Bluetooth profiles, as these are already potentially available over WiFi.

Relative speed

While theoretical speed maximums touted by specification bodies don't always ring true in real world situations, Foley maintains the users will routinely see Bluetooth 3.0 transfers sustain rates at or above 22Mbps.



"Like Ricky Bobby in Talladega Nights, this latest version was ‘born to go fast,’" he said. "Utilizing the 802.11 radio was a natural choice as it provides efficiencies for both our members and consumers -- members get more function out of the two radios they are already including in devices, and consumers with Bluetooth v3.0 HS products will get faster exchange of information without changing how they connect."

As with all versions of the Bluetooth specification, Bluetooth 3.0 HS is backwards compatible with earlier versions. Already, Bluetooth SIG member companies and Apple partners like Atheros, Broadcom, CSR, and Marvell are working on chips to support the new specification. Those chips should begin turning up in consumer products within the next 9 to 12 months.

While Bluetooth 3.0 will deliver a big boost by making use of an available 802.11 radio, Apple's mobile devices already support the faster 802.11b/g, and the forthcoming iPhone models expected in June appear set to use 802.11n technologies to deliver even faster speeds. That means that while Bluetooth 3.0 will begin to reach parity with the old USB 1.1, the iPhone and iPod touch should begin to achieve wireless networking speeds that might make wireless sync with iTunes a reasonable alternative to USB 2.0.

Wireless positioning

The downside to wireless sync is that it consumes lots of battery, requiring that the device be plugged in to power more often. For that reason, Microsoft's highly touted wireless sync feature on its second generation Zune devices actually recommends that users plug the unit in while performing a "wireless sync," defeating the purpose of giving up wires in the first place. Wireless sync over WiFi also continues to be around ten times slower than plugging into USB 2.0 directly.

Apple has focused on making the wireless connections of its mobile more useful, not just an alternative to USB. The existing iPhone and iPod touch use WiFi primarily for web browsing, email with push messaging, and other desktop-style applications. Apple primarily positions Bluetooth as an accessory connection, which will become significantly more useful in iPhone 3.0 as support is extended to peripheral devices and Bonjour wireless collaboration and gameplay.
post #2 of 48
I suppose this means we're still going to be wired for iPhone 3.0

Oh well... It's not the end of the world.
post #3 of 48
I don't know why we're even bothering to talk about iPods/iPhones and Bluetooth 3 when none of Apple's devices even make proper use of stereo Bluetooth headset (and headphone, and speaker) support that's been in the Bluetooth standard for ages already.
post #4 of 48
i have a subscription podcast, must access itunes, download then sync my iphone
wish itunes on the iphone could handle these so i don't have to be home to do it.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #5 of 48
I just wish that my 1st-gen MacBook didn't lose its bluetooth capability randomly for hours at a time...
post #6 of 48
"paves way for iPhones, iPods that sync wirelessly"

Um... the iPhone already has 3, count them, 3 wireless technologies built in.

Wireless syncing is already possible, just not implemented. A new hardware standard is not what wireless syncing is waiting on.

Edit: I should have said "bluetooth" instead of "hardware" because it is piggy-backing on top of the 802.11 hardware already present.
post #7 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

"paves way for iPhones, iPods that sync wirelessly"

Um... the iPhone already has 3, count them, 3 wireless technologies built in.

Wireless syncing is already possible, just not implemented. A new hardware standard is not what wireless syncing is waiting on.

A new wireless standard is needed to make it sync at an acceptable speed wirelessly. This is still not it, unless you don't care how fast or slow it goes. It looks like Bluetooth 3 is about good enough to match USB 1.1 in actual speed.
post #8 of 48
i was under the impression that bluetooth can be easily "hijacked" because it has a relatively light security protocol. so if bluetooth can easily use the 802.11 network, then could this possibly mean an "open door"? YES/NO?

if you have any insight, would help clarify the relationship between bluetooth and 802.11, and the possible ramifications? i'd like to know. i think this is interesting.
post #9 of 48
Why can't an iphone connect to a wireless network, then search for it's home computer to sync to over the network with existing wireless technology? I don't think that current technology is the limiting factor here if they wanted it to happen. This new technology just allows for a more direct connection, which is sounded more like a glorified adhoc 802.11 network connection
post #10 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalG View Post

Why can't an iphone connect to a wireless network, then search for it's home computer to sync to over the network with existing wireless technology? I don't think that current technology is the limiting factor here if they wanted it to happen. This new technology just allows for a more direct connection, which is sounded more like a glorified adhoc 802.11 network connection

battery life, people...Apple has shown on numerous occasions that better battery life trumps certain features which *should" otherwise be available.
post #11 of 48

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #12 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

A new wireless standard is needed to make it sync at an acceptable speed wirelessly. This is still not it, unless you don't care how fast or slow it goes. It looks like Bluetooth 3 is about good enough to match USB 1.1 in actual speed.

Any idea what speed differences will be between WiMax and Bluetooth 3.0? I know what the technical differences are in the technology, but not the speeds.

(edit)
Hmm... I found this on Wikipedia:

Quote:
The 3.0 specification[12] was adopted by the Bluetooth SIG on April 21st, 2009. Its main feature is AMP (Alternate MAC/PHY), the addition of Wi-Fi as a high speed transport. Two technologies had been anticipated for AMP: Wi-Fi and UWB, but UWB is missing from the specification[17].
Alternate MAC PHY: enables the use of alternative MAC and PHY's for transporting Bluetooth profile data. The Bluetooth Radio is still used for device discovery, initial connection and profile configuration, however when lots of data needs to be sent, the high speed alternate MAC PHY (802.11, aka Wi-Fi) will be used to transport the data. This means that the proven low power connection models of Bluetooth are used when the system is idle, and the low power per bit radios are used when lots of data needs to be sent.

So it sounds like Bluetooth 3.0 still would be no faster than 802.11, is this correct?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #13 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTL215 View Post

battery life, people...Apple has shown on numerous occasions that better battery life trumps certain features which *should" otherwise be available.

Apple won't use this for syncing even if they do utilize it. They don't use the 802.11g that the iPhone has to sync all your data. At the 8, 16 and 32GB sizes I can't see why anyone would want Bluetooth syncing or WiFi. If you need dynamic contacts and calendar syncing there are couple ways to do that. I find MobileMe very useful for this.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #14 of 48
lol@ the ricky bobby comment. I can't believe he said that.

As far as bluetooth stereo on ipods go, don't the wired connections carry song information and allow people to fast forward and rewind? Right now the bluetooth on my WM phone lets me skip to the next song, go back to the previous song, and pause the current song, all while never showing me song information. It's really nice being wireless, but seeing as how Apple's always gotta "revolutionize" the industry with things that "just work" I bet they are waiting until you can copy the wired functionality wirelessly. I know I'd really like to be able to fast forward and rewind and see song information on my head unit.
post #15 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The next version of the Bluetooth short-range wireless protocol officially launched this week, promising an eightfold speed increase that could help device makers like Apple offer true wireless syncing on their handheld products in about a year's time.

Why would it take a year? Microsoft's Zune has offered wireless syncing for well over a year now. That's the only thing I miss from going from a Zune 30 to my current iPod touch 2G.

The current hardware is definitely capable of doing it, Apple probably just doesn't care to implement it. And then when it finally does, everyone will act like it's some big revelation.
post #16 of 48
Quote:
For end users, this will mean the ability to synchronize bulky music libraries at high speeds between an iPhone (or iPod) and a Mac (or PC) without having to tether the devices with a USB cable or sign onto a WiFi network.

Yes, I can see it now. The year is 2040, and a father and his young son are talking.


SON: Tell me again about the primitive iPod you had when you were my age and how difficult it was to use.

FATHER: Well, son, I know this is hard for you to believe, but there was a time when iPods didn't sync wirelessly.

SON: Didn't synch wirelessly, father. What did you do? Was it something awful?

FATHER: Yes, son, it was something quite awful. We had to tether our iPods with a strange device called a USB cable.

SON: No, you didn't!

FATHER: Yes, we did. And sometimes we had to walk across the room to do that. The cords were often short. Connecting it could take 5 or 10 seconds. You see we had to line the connector up just right. It wouldn't connect any old way. But that sort of thing is so complicated, I'm not sure you want to hear about it.

SON: You're right. It does sound terribly complicated.

FATHER: Yes son. You know, sometimes I don't think you realize just how good you have it. Things were more difficult when I was young. Much more difficult.

SON: Now tell me what driving a car was like when you were young. Johnny tells me that you had to steer, and control the speed and brake and put on turn signals as you drove. I can't see how anyone could do all of those things...
post #17 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTL215 View Post

battery life, people...Apple has shown on numerous occasions that better battery life trumps certain features which *should" otherwise be available.

This is not necessarily the whole story though.

The fact is there are numerous situations wherein the ability to sync wirelessly would be a great boon, even though at other times it would suck because of slowness and battery life. The *real* story is that Apple is denying us the ability to sync wirelessly when it *would* be effective and prudent, because if they turn it on, the average Joe idiot will try to use it in the *inadvisable* scenarios and make the iPhone "look bad."

For instance you cannot use an iPhone as an alarm clock effectively unless you sleep in the same room as your computer, because all the overnight syncing of podcasts and other data won't happen until you put the thing in it's little dock by your main computer. It's likely that there is a wireless signal in your bedroom however and one usually has it sitting in some kind of powered dock when using it as an alarm clock. There is no reason at all that my iPhone could not be in my bedroom and sync wirelessly throughout the night. In fact it might be the very best time and the very best way to sync it.

For me, this has been a major set-back and the one and only reason I still have my crappy flip-phone. I am used to using my phone as my alarm clock for years, as it just makes more sense than buying an alarm clock. A lot of people do this. People who have separate dedicated "alarm clocks" by their beds are becoming as scarce as those who still wear those "wristwatch" things.

Until Apple enables syncing wirelessly or some kind of ethernet enabled dock, I still have to hang on to the dopey flip-phone and that's a shame.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #18 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

Yes, I can see it now. The year is 2040, and a father and his young son are talking.


SON: Tell me again about the primitive iPod you had when you were my age and how difficult it was to use.

FATHER: Well, son, I know this is hard for you to believe, but there was a time when iPods didn't sync wirelessly.

SON: Didn't synch wirelessly, father. What did you do? Was it something awful?

FATHER: Yes, son, it was something quite awful. We had to tether our iPods with a strange device called a USB cable.

SON: No, you didn't!

FATHER: Yes, we did. And sometimes we had to walk across the room to do that. The cords were often short. Connecting it could take 5 or 10 seconds. You see we had to line the connector up just right. It wouldn't connect any old way. But that sort of thing is so complicated, I'm not sure you want to hear about it.

SON: You're right. It does sound terribly complicated.

FATHER: Yes son. You know, sometimes I don't think you realize just how good you have it. Things were more difficult when I was young. Much more difficult.

SON: Now tell me what driving a car was like when you were young. Johnny tells me that you had to steer, and control the speed and brake and put on turn signals as you drove. I can't see how anyone could do all of those things...

great SCOTT
post #19 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

Yes, I can see it now. The year is 2040, and a father and his young son are talking.


SON: Tell me again about the primitive iPod you had when you were my age and how difficult it was to use.

FATHER: Well, son, I know this is hard for you to believe, but there was a time when iPods didn't sync wirelessly.

SON: Didn't synch wirelessly, father. What did you do? Was it something awful?

FATHER: Yes, son, it was something quite awful. We had to tether our iPods with a strange device called a USB cable.

SON: No, you didn't!

FATHER: Yes, we did. And sometimes we had to walk across the room to do that. The cords were often short. Connecting it could take 5 or 10 seconds. You see we had to line the connector up just right. It wouldn't connect any old way. But that sort of thing is so complicated, I'm not sure you want to hear about it.

SON: You're right. It does sound terribly complicated.

FATHER: Yes son. You know, sometimes I don't think you realize just how good you have it. Things were more difficult when I was young. Much more difficult.

SON: Now tell me what driving a car was like when you were young. Johnny tells me that you had to steer, and control the speed and brake and put on turn signals as you drove. I can't see how anyone could do all of those things...

Was Bluetooth part of the Singularity?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #20 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

Why would it take a year? Microsoft's Zune has offered wireless syncing for well over a year no.

"The next version of the Bluetooth short-range wireless protocol" will take about a year to get into products. I think the article falsely points to Apple wanting to include this. While BT would allow the handset to connect directly with the machine, using WiFi over a network would be much faster. It still doesn't resolve the issue of having to still plug in the device from a draining battery or the much slower speeds you get from not using USB2.0.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #21 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

For instance you cannot use an iPhone as an alarm clock effectively unless you sleep in the same room as your computer, because all the overnight syncing of podcasts and other data won't happen until you put the thing in it's little dock by your main computer.

Have you thought about a bunch of USB cables and a bunch of powered USB hubs?

You do describe a situation that is a legitimate issue with the iPhone, but I can't see Apple caring about that in lieu of the potential pitfalls from including it.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #22 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

"The next version of the Bluetooth short-range wireless protocol" will take about a year to get into products. I think the article falsely points to Apple wanting to include this. While BT would allow the handset to connect directly with the machine, using WiFi over a network would be much faster. It still doesn't resolve the issue of having to still plug in the device from a draining battery or the much slower speeds you get from not using USB2.0.

I think the assumption that Bluetooth would be used for synching is the problem, when either WiFi or cable would be better.

Bluetooth will likely become the favored way to play against others for games or exchange information when one is face-to-face with another iPhone/iPod touch owner, and synching MAY be done over Bluetooth if no other alternative is available.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #23 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTL215 View Post

battery life, people...Apple has shown on numerous occasions that better battery life trumps certain features which *should" otherwise be available.

Speaking of which- does anybody know what the average charging cycle for an iPhone is? Is it once a day- twice a day? I swear I charge my iPod Touch every other day and it doesn't even have phone useage. Just wondering.
post #24 of 48
... not so sure. I'm perfectly satisfied with my bluetooth as is. Other than gaming - who cares?
On another note I can't wait til bluetooth gets unlocked on my Touch for 3.0.
post #25 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Speaking of which- does anybody know what the average charging cycle for an iPhone is? Is it once a day- twice a day? I swear I charge my iPod Touch every other day and it doesn't even have phone useage. Just wondering.


I charge my iphone every night. If I am online a lot all day I will have to charge it after work.
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
Forgo Looking At The Past As A Judge; Instead Be a Student.
Reply
post #26 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I think the assumption that Bluetooth would be used for synching is the problem, when either WiFi or cable would be better.

Bluetooth will likely become the favored way to play against others for games or exchange information when one is face-to-face with another iPhone/iPod touch owner, and synching MAY be done over Bluetooth if no other alternative is available.

Gaming and sending files to others will be great, which is why I don't understand the articles mention of wireless syncing. I just hope we'll be able to send and receive audio and video files from within our iPod app. Unprotected ones, of course.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #27 of 48
I wirelessly BT synced my phone -- a Sony Ericsson -- with Mac OS from 2003-2008.

Then in 2008 I got an iPhone and lost this capability because Apple saw fit to disable BT sync.
post #28 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

A new wireless standard is needed to make it sync at an acceptable speed wirelessly. This is still not it, unless you don't care how fast or slow it goes. It looks like Bluetooth 3 is about good enough to match USB 1.1 in actual speed.

Definitely true for the initial sync. Beyond that, people tend to only sync an album of music or a couple photo rolls during each sync. So wifi is fast enough for the vast majority of syncing. I suppose the conundrum is whether to implement the feature when at times it would result in an unacceptably long sync time.


Apple's strategy with app updates could be applied to syncing as well. Granted, not a perfect solution. But one that could be solved by upgrading to an already existing wifi standard. My point was that bluetooth 3.0 isn't "paving the way" to wireless syncing. The road already exists.
post #29 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Have you thought about a bunch of USB cables and a bunch of powered USB hubs?

You do describe a situation that is a legitimate issue with the iPhone, but I can't see Apple caring about that in lieu of the potential pitfalls from including it.

Well, yeah. I know that I can drill holes in the ceiling of my office and run cables up to the attic and down again to my bedroom, but I haven't got around to running the new conduits for the TV cable for the last year, so the odds of me getting around to that just for an alarm clock are slim to none.

I also know I can just sync it before I leave in the morning, but I don't always have time for the transfer. I'm a "get up and leave the house right away" kind of person.

Even though I'm sure the number of people this bothers is tiny, it just seem funny to me that the iPhone can't be used in that way even though all my previous phones could. I have to sleep bathed in the wireless signal from my Time Capsule, yet if the iPhone was on the stand right next to my bed, it still couldn't sync even though it has 6 hours or so to do it, is plugged in to power, both devices are wirelessly capable, and is within twelve feet or so of the Time Capsule in absolute terms.

I'm still hopeful that they will enable a "sync wirelessly when plugged in" mode, but I'm certainly not counting on it.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #30 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

Even though I'm sure the number of people this bothers is tiny, it just seem funny to me that the iPhone can't be used in that way even though all my previous phones could.

i understand your point and I think it's legitimate I want to point out that your previous phones only had to sync KBs of data, not GBs. I have podcasts that are quite large, especially video podcasts. But you know all this because your initial post pointed out the logistical issues, so I'll stop.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #31 of 48
The benefit of BT over WiFi is specifically the shorter range-- you don't have to fight a neighbor's signal. Shorter range is also lower power.

My guess on wireless sync is that there are too many variables to make it "just work." It's a shame, but the problem and permutations are not trivial. You could use zeroconf where it works, but what about all the other times?
post #32 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionGrey View Post

I charge my iphone every night. If I am online a lot all day I will have to charge it after work.

Thanks.
post #33 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleswitcher.com View Post

I wirelessly BT synced my phone -- a Sony Ericsson -- with Mac OS from 2003-2008.

Then in 2008 I got an iPhone and lost this capability because Apple saw fit to disable BT sync.

You still have it- only now it's called MobileMe and costs $99!
post #34 of 48
Disable implies that at some point it was able.

Quote:
Originally Posted by appleswitcher.com View Post

Then in 2008 I got an iPhone and lost this capability because Apple saw fit to disable BT sync.
post #35 of 48
While we're on the sync subject...

I've always been downright baffled, completely perplexed, outright dumbstruck... that mobile phones don't back up (sync) their contacts over their digital phone connection.
post #36 of 48
I remember when Bluetooth was first announced. This was during the dark days of Apple, and I remember thinking, "great, one more technology that PC users will have that will make it harder to be a Mac user". Then, funny enough, Apple embraced it (along with USB, WiFi and other tech)...and even embraced Bluetooth more than it was found in the PC world. Then, damn the Motorola phone with iTunes came out and iTunes couldn't synch via Bluetooth. The iPhone came out and it was missing all kinds of Bluetooth functionality. Now with iPhone 3.0 and potential things available with Bluetooth 3.0, it seems like Apple is going to embrace all of the goodness (and leave the silly stuff alone).
post #37 of 48
24mbps using wifi? I guess using a wifi radio is convenient since it is already present in the device, but Whatever happened to UWB with speeds of 400mbps?? I know wireless USB was using it but ithough it was being integrated into the next version of bluetooth?!

Also, what good is this really? Simple things like headsets and speakers don't need more speed, and in more complex uses all the devices with Bluetooth 3.0 will have WiFi anyways right? I guess I can see future applications where a universal authentication/pairing service is necessary, but couldn't the same type of pain-free pairing be done with WiFi by itself?
post #38 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

24mbps using wifi? I guess using a wifi radio is convenient since it is already present in the device, but Whatever happened to UWB with speeds of 400mbps?? I know wireless USB was using it but ithough it was being integrated into the next version of bluetooth?!

Also, what good is this really? Simple things like headsets and speakers don't need more speed, and in more complex uses all the devices with Bluetooth 3.0 will have WiFi anyways right? I guess I can see future applications where a universal authentication/pairing service is necessary, but couldn't the same type of pain-free pairing be done with WiFi by itself?

The only reason I see would be a timing issue for response purposes- in other words gaming.
ATV synchs large files fine over Wifi already.
post #39 of 48
All of this talk about syncing has me thinking - Are the iPhone APIs rich enough to allow a 3rd party alternative to MobileMe?

Most of what people are asking for in this thread can already be done over WiFi using MobileMe and iTunes for iPhone, but I agree $99/year forever is a bit much to ask for that.

But if a third party could sell a set of apps for PCs, Macs, and iPhones that kept calendars, contacts, photos and iTunes libraries synchronized, I'd pay for that.

Do any developers reading the thread know if the APIs support access to the data stores for this?
post #40 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtrmtrk View Post

All of this talk about syncing has me thinking - Are the iPhone APIs rich enough to allow a 3rd party alternative to MobileMe?

Most of what people are asking for in this thread can already be done over WiFi using MobileMe and iTunes for iPhone, but I agree $99/year forever is a bit much to ask for that.

But if a third party could sell a set of apps for PCs, Macs, and iPhones that kept calendars, contacts, photos and iTunes libraries synchronized, I'd pay for that.

Do any developers reading the thread know if the APIs support access to the data stores for this?

1) MobileMe doesn't sync your media, only your contacts and calenders. All your media and personal iPhone settings are done through iTunes.

2) The APIs do allow for accessing contacts but I doubt that Apple would allow an app that wants to constantly sync all your data and media.

3) MobileMe can be had for $69, but even that would be pricey if dynamic contact syncing is all you need it for. For even the $99 price what you get is very competitive, but again, if you won't use all those features then it becomes a waste.

4) You can already setup Exchange on your iPhone and have that data synced dynamically. It's cheap, and possibly free. It just won't sync your media, but then again, neither will MobileMe.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Bluetooth 3.0 arrives with promise of eightfold speed increase