Maybe they don't work well because they are just using the standard bluetooth headset profile, not a2dp?
You are fine to live in your little dream world of your perfect device, I don't mind, if you want to think you have bluetooth device, that is fine by me.
No, I was using the stereo supported headphones on a Motorola V3XX, SonyEricsson K800 and a Nokia N82 with the correct profiles set up, mono sound sucks more than the stereo.
Cross body interference is a real issue with A2DP bluetooth, with voice calls it's not so important but with music it is, because there is a lot more data being transmitted.
The only way to get a consistent good sound is to keep your phone in a shirt top pocket, when the phone is in a pants pocket it would often cut out when walking.
Like I said before for the same money you can get a very decent set of wired headphones with much higher sound quality.
Bluetooth on my iPhone is serving me very well within the limitations of the technology (referring to BT tech in general, not the iPhone's implementation of it).
- BT sucks battery power too much for my taste
- I'd never use a2dp because the sound quality is insufficient for me, I'll use ear buds
- I don't use it for file transfer, I connect via WiFi and USB for that
- It connects well with my Motorola headset
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Oh? You mean you don't have bluetooth support comparable to the most advanced models in that category? Oh, that would mean the iPhone isn't full featured wouldn't it???
No . . . it means that the iPhone is full featured because it provides for all the functions with appropriate technology. Good stereo sound - ear buds. File transfer - WiFi or USB. BT for handsfree with my BT headset.
Don't forget that not there are different touchscreen technologies. I think Apple is the sole owner and the only one using capacitance touchscreens.
BIN-F..-GO!!
Exactly and because most people dont understand technology it is so hard to get this point across.
Repeat after me: Apple is the ONLY manufacturer of capacitance touchscreens.
Why this is important: because it is much more precise than any other touchscreen. It allows you to type correctly in a 3.5 inch screen while all other phones have trouble, just to give you ONE example.
It it the same with everything else: people go to COSTCO and buy descent $15 wine bottles and think: well why pay $30? Well there is a difference, believe me. Same thing with cars: A BMW 335i and a Nissan 350z both have 4 wheels and 300 horsepower, but one costs $20k more than the other, why? The 350z is a descent car, but the 335i is just sublime.
In short: people are fixated by features when they should be fixated by the implementation.
I do wonder sometimes why Apple has so few of the Bluetooth profiles/so little BT functionality active on the iPhone. Last I checked anyway.
I mean, some of us are going to say, "Aww, BT sucks anyway, I don't need it" yadda yadda yadda, but that still doesn't answer the Q.
Just wondering. After all, a lot of ppl used to slam Verizon for having most of the BT profiles disabled in nearly all of their handsets, until VZW finally started to ease up on that recently. \
You can think that all you want, you gave me a definition that you were happy with, I could still prove that the device doesn't meet that definition, and you still will not accept it. If you want to continue living in a fantasy world, you are more than welcome.
I haven't mentioned a "perfect device" as you put it, you are the one that brings that continues to bring that up.
There was about the same definition given by a well established magazine shown here. A definition, that I'm sure if you really wanted to, would be seen to be repeated many other places.
Also, you don't remember what you post a short time after you post it.
You are now saying that: "I haven't mentioned a "perfect device" as you put it, you are the one that brings that continues to bring that up."
Well, this is where I have the right to demand that you go back over every one of my posts to the thread, and find one single instance where I said "perfect device".
Despite your denial, YOU are the one who mentioned "perfect device" in YOUR post just before your one I'm responding to now! You are the one expecting a device that meets your odd description to be perfect.
Here is the quote from YOU:
"You are fine to live in your little dream world of your perfect device, I don't mind, if you want to think you have bluetooth device, that is fine by me."
That is where the first mention of a "perfect device" came up.
Don't forget your own poor attempt at defining what full featured means: Every feature that is possible, which, is, of course, impossible.
You are looking for the prefect device, not me. That's pretty clear.
I do wonder sometimes why Apple has so few of the Bluetooth profiles/so little BT functionality active on the iPhone. Last I checked anyway.
I mean, some of us are going to say, "Aww, BT sucks anyway, I don't need it" yadda yadda yadda, but that still doesn't answer the Q.
Just wondering. After all, a lot of ppl used to slam Verizon for having most of the BT profiles disabled in nearly all of their handsets, until VZW finally started to ease up on that recently. \
...
It answers the question very nicely.
Apple rarely likes to make a function available that works poorly.
Most BT functions work poorly, or are bettered by other functions.
Why offer something that is more trouble than it's worth?
Can you name one single function of BT that Apple left out, that does better than other functions that ARE built into the iPhone/iTouch?
jfanning seems to think that not adding badly thought out functionality that barely works at all is a bad thing in itself. I disagree.
If BT ever does some of these things properly, and as well, or better than what's available now, then it's likely Apple will include them. After all, it's mostly software. It's not like building another port into the device as with FW.
There was about the same definition given by a well established magazine shown here. A definition, that I'm sure if you really wanted to, would be seen to be repeated many other places.
Also, you don't remember what you post a short time after you post it.
You are now saying that: "I haven't mentioned a "perfect device" as you put it, you are the one that brings that continues to bring that up."
Well, this is where I have the right to demand that you go back over every one of my posts to the thread, and find one single instance where I said "perfect device".
Despite your denial, YOU are the one who mentioned "perfect device" in YOUR post just before your one I'm responding to now! You are the one expecting a device that meets your odd description to be perfect.
Here is the quote from YOU:
"You are fine to live in your little dream world of your perfect device, I don't mind, if you want to think you have bluetooth device, that is fine by me."
That is where the first mention of a "perfect device" came up.
Don't forget your own poor attempt at defining what full featured means: Every feature that is possible, which, is, of course, impossible.
You are looking for the prefect device, not me. That's pretty clear.
I hope you find one.
In the end, isn't this quibbling more than a little silly?
I couldn't care less about the exact definition of a "perfect device." This argument is so AI, and not in a good way.
You both could be discussing matters of much greater import.
Apple rarely likes to make a function available that works poorly.
Most BT functions work poorly, or are bettered by other functions.
Why offer something that is more trouble than it's worth?
Can you name one single function of BT that Apple left out, that does better than other functions that ARE built into the iPhone/iTouch?
jfanning seems to think that not adding badly thought out functionality that barely works at all is a bad thing in itself. I disagree.
If BT ever does some of these things properly, and as well, or better than what's available now, then it's likely Apple will include them. After all, it's mostly software. It's not like building another port into the device as with FW.
Not sure I really buy into the "don't include poor or hard-to-use functionality" argument. After all, that's been used as an argument as to why there's no MMS on the iPhone, when in actuality MMS is very easy, useful, and quite popular. I think that argument has sort of become a generic 'get out of jail free' card for Apple when they omit features or functionality. Not that I think that every feature must be included, or is particularly useful... just that I think Apple does go too far sometimes in its features/functionality omissions. Steve's a bit too aggressive in his love of minimalism at times, this is true of most ideological types.
In any case, here's a list of BT profiles. I'll leave it to others to debate whether the inclusion of any of these (beyond the two already supported, Headset and Hands-Free) would be a good idea on the iPhone:
1.1 Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP)
1.2 Audio/Video Remote Control Profile (AVRCP)
1.3 Basic Imaging Profile (BIP)
1.4 Basic Printing Profile (BPP)
1.5 Common ISDN Access Profile (CIP)
1.6 Cordless Telephony Profile (CTP)
1.7 Device ID Profile (DID)
1.8 Dial-up Networking Profile (DUN)
1.9 Fax Profile (FAX)
1.10 File Transfer Profile (FTP)
1.11 General Audio/Video Distribution Profile (GAVDP)
I have never argued with anyone who simply did not like the iPhone or anyone who felt it did not meet their needs. Recently I suggested to a friend he get the BlackBerry Bold over the iPhone based on what he needed.
When people criticize the iPhone and complain about Apple's choices. I never deny them their right to criticize or complain. I challenge them to provide evidence outside of their personal opinion. A supporting example of how Apple and the iPhone would benefit from what they feel is missing or Apple doing wrong.
Few people provide this supporting evidence. Instead of debating on the facts more often than not they resort to fanboy accusations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
I think some of the hostility and dismissiveness comes from the perceptions/attitudes of the posters who respond that way. Too many of them tend to mistake honest critiques for attacks or trolling. ...
When people criticize the iPhone and complain about Apple's choices. I never deny them their right to criticize or complain. I challenge them to provide evidence outside of their personal opinion. A supporting example of how Apple and the iPhone would benefit from what they feel is missing or Apple doing wrong.
Few people provide this supporting evidence. Instead of debating on the facts more often than not they resort to fanboy accusations.
Sure, T. The prob is, ppl can provide you with tons of evidence outside of their personal opinion, and you still tend to deny it all, in favor of some sort of 'Apple is always' right ethic that you seem to have. I've at times said that arguing with you is like debating a rock, and while I'm joking a tiny bit, there's some truth to that.
I contrast this with someone like Mel, who thinks Apple is usually right, but who will candidly admit things like, "Yeah, Steve probably did take away Firewire too early."
You're not quite as open-minded as you seem to think, T. That said, I do respect your intelligence and the interest you take in the various discussions. I just don't think you're as interesting to debate as many others here, because I already know what you're going to say before you say it, pretty much. It's like debating a conservative over tax policy.
Sure, T. The prob is, ppl can provide you with tons of evidence outside of their personal opinion, and you still tend to deny it all, in favor of some sort of 'Apple is always' right ethic that you seem to have. I've at times said that arguing with you is like debating a rock, and while I'm joking a tiny bit, there's some truth to that.
Their are some critical flaws in the evidence provided as I said above. People show other phones that do things they want the iPhone to do. The crucial part is the evidence that Apple would improve sales if the iPhone were more like these other phones. Their is never any evidence of that. Mostly because no other smartphone by itself is selling better than the iPhone.
I am not saying that Apple does everything right. I'm looking at the fact that the iPhone is one of the best selling smartphones in the world. From this evidence Apple has made some pretty good choices. I am saying their is little to no evidence that Apple should follow its competitors choices. Because none of them have a singular phone model that sells as well.
Quote:
I contrast this with someone like Mel, who thinks Apple is usually right, but who will candidly admit things like, "Yeah, Steve probably did take away Firewire too early."
Early in the firewire debate. I said I wished Apple would hold on to firewire until USB 3 is available, but I can understand why they are letting it go.
In fact I said I would prefer firewire had beat USB. But unfortunately that is not the reality.
Quote:
You're not quite as open-minded as you seem to think, T. That said, I do respect your intelligence and the interest you take in the various discussions. I just don't think you're as interesting to debate as many others here, because I already know what you're going to say before you say it, pretty much. It's like debating a conservative over tax policy.
...
I don't think you were around when I criticized Apple for the way it was rejecting apps from the app store and its uneven approval of apps. I felt that Apple was risking a developer backlash.
Mel and Solpism disagreed with me. So far their has been no developer backlash and the submission of apps has gone on uninterrupted. I'm sure presenting apps in iPhone commercials go a long way to making developers happy.
In the end, isn't this quibbling more than a little silly?
I couldn't care less about the exact definition of a "perfect device." This argument is so AI, and not in a good way.
You both could be discussing matters of much greater import.
...
I'm not the one who brought it up. I'm saying that talking about a perfect device, a term he brought up, is silly, because there will never be such a thing.
What he's saying, apparently, is that unless some device has every feature that is even remotely possible, it isn't a perfect device, and it must be, in order to qualify it's being described as "full featured".
I don't know of anyone else who brought up anything similar here, in this discussion about "full featured" devices. Just him.
Not sure I really buy into the "don't include poor or hard-to-use functionality" argument. After all, that's been used as an argument as to why there's no MMS on the iPhone, when in actuality MMS is very easy, useful, and quite popular. I think that argument has sort of become a generic 'get out of jail free' card for Apple when they omit features or functionality. Not that I think that every feature must be included, or is particularly useful... just that I think Apple does go too far sometimes in its features/functionality omissions. Steve's a bit too aggressive in his love of minimalism at times, this is true of most ideological types.
In any case, here's a list of BT profiles. I'll leave it to others to debate whether the inclusion of any of these (beyond the two already supported, Headset and Hands-Free) would be a good idea on the iPhone:
1.1 Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP)
1.2 Audio/Video Remote Control Profile (AVRCP)
1.3 Basic Imaging Profile (BIP)
1.4 Basic Printing Profile (BPP)
1.5 Common ISDN Access Profile (CIP)
1.6 Cordless Telephony Profile (CTP)
1.7 Device ID Profile (DID)
1.8 Dial-up Networking Profile (DUN)
1.9 Fax Profile (FAX)
1.10 File Transfer Profile (FTP)
1.11 General Audio/Video Distribution Profile (GAVDP)
1.12 Generic Access Profile (GAP)
1.13 Generic Object Exchange Profile (GOEP)
1.14 Hard Copy Cable Replacement Profile (HCRP)
1.15 Hands-Free Profile (HFP)
1.16 Human Interface Device Profile (HID)
1.17 Headset Profile (HSP)
1.18 Intercom Profile (ICP)
1.19 LAN Access Profile (LAP)
1.20 Object Push Profile (OPP)
1.21 Personal Area Networking Profile (PAN)
1.22 Phone Book Access Profile (PBAP)
1.23 Serial Port Profile (SPP)
1.24 Service Discovery Application Profile (SDAP)
1.25 SIM Access Profile (SAP, SIM)
1.26 Synchronisation Profile (SYNCH)
1.27 Video Distribution Profile (VDP)
1.28 Wireless Application Protocol Bearer (WAPB)
...
Certainly, at this time, I can't see the virtue in most of those for an iPhone, do you?
Some of them don't even work properly, and most of the others are done better in other ways.
Often, when some "standard" come out, they try to put the old kitchen sink in to see whether that give it a better chance of surviving, hoping that someone, somewhere, will find a use for at least one of the uses, and that if enough do it, it will "make it".
But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea.
The biggest thing here seems to be the idea of stereo headphones, I wish it were possible, in a reliable way. But it isn't?yet. Possibly, in the next incarnation of BT, they will fix the problems, but until then, it's not much of a feature, as it's broken.
Certainly, at this time, I can't see the virtue in most of those for an iPhone, do you?
Some of them don't even work properly, and most of the others are done better in other ways.
Often, when some "standard" come out, they try to put the old kitchen sink in to see whether that give it a better chance of surviving, hoping that someone, somewhere, will find a use for at least one of the uses, and that if enough do it, it will "make it".
But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea.
The biggest thing here seems to be the idea of stereo headphones, I wish it were possible, in a reliable way. But it isn't?yet. Possibly, in the next incarnation of BT, they will fix the problems, but until then, it's not much of a feature, as it's broken.
Personally the way I used bluetooth was something I had to weigh up carefully before purchasing an iPhone.
A2DP was only part of that decision, the other bluetooth features I mainly used or tried to use were:-
Voice dialing:- I have never used a phone that could get this right, no matter how clearly I tried to enunciate it would never work properly, (e.g. I'd try to call Sam it would call Shane.)
File transfer this was something I used on a regular basis, the ability to quickly share contact information or a photo with another handset, downside when you do it in a busy area and your phone retrieves a list of in-range devices it could take a long time for it to resolve device names, (especially if some of them moved out of range) until you found the one you wanted
now I use email or Facebook to share photo's (the ability to attach more than one at a time would be nice) and iBeam for contacts.
Tethering (using as a modem attached to a PC via bluetooth) I used to use this a lot when I didn't have a phoneline, with Windows once it was installed and set up it worked well, with Linux it was a nightmare, since moving and getting a phoneline and ADSL I no longer need it.
One of the things I have found is since getting an iPhone I hardly ever use a PC for email, it's only when I want to send attachments (aside from photo's) that I fire up my email client.
My 2c no technical merit merely a relation of my personal experiences.
Personally the way I used bluetooth was something I had to weigh up carefully before purchasing an iPhone.
A2DP was only part of that decision, the other bluetooth features I mainly used or tried to use were:-
Voice dialing:- I have never used a phone that could get this right, no matter how clearly I tried to enunciate it would never work properly, (e.g. I'd try to call Sam it would call Shane.)
File transfer this was something I used on a regular basis, the ability to quickly share contact information or a photo with another handset, downside when you do it in a busy area and your phone retrieves a list of in-range devices it could take a long time for it to resolve device names, (especially if some of them moved out of range) until you found the one you wanted
now I use email or Facebook to share photo's (the ability to attach more than one at a time would be nice) and iBeam for contacts.
Tethering (using as a modem attached to a PC via bluetooth) I used to use this a lot when I didn't have a phoneline, with Windows once it was installed and set up it worked well, with Linux it was a nightmare, since moving and getting a phoneline and ADSL I no longer need it.
One of the things I have found is since getting an iPhone I hardly ever use a PC for email, it's only when I want to send attachments (aside from photo's) that I fire up my email client.
My 2c no technical merit merely a relation of my personal experiences.
Personal experiences are as important as technical ones.
From what I've seen, Blackberrys are a good business phone. Business phones are a very small percentage of the mobile phone market. Most of the market is home users: mums, dads, teenagers and everyone in between. They want a phone which has a decent camera (the iPhone's main weak spot IMO) and makes calls, but increasingly they DO want one with great games, and fun apps.
Most importantly, a lot of users desire something 'easy to use' with 'large writing' and big buttons. I know a few older people who have iPhones purely because of the big dialling buttons.
I want Nokia, Sony Ericsson, and the others to succeed, Apple needs competition, but at the moment they don't have any.
And if you think MMS and forwarding SMS's matter, they've probably been left out on purpose to get users onto email with full inline attachments.
Comments
Maybe they don't work well because they are just using the standard bluetooth headset profile, not a2dp?
You are fine to live in your little dream world of your perfect device, I don't mind, if you want to think you have bluetooth device, that is fine by me.
No, I was using the stereo supported headphones on a Motorola V3XX, SonyEricsson K800 and a Nokia N82 with the correct profiles set up, mono sound sucks more than the stereo.
Cross body interference is a real issue with A2DP bluetooth, with voice calls it's not so important but with music it is, because there is a lot more data being transmitted.
The only way to get a consistent good sound is to keep your phone in a shirt top pocket, when the phone is in a pants pocket it would often cut out when walking.
Like I said before for the same money you can get a very decent set of wired headphones with much higher sound quality.
So how is that bluetooth support treating you?
Bluetooth on my iPhone is serving me very well within the limitations of the technology (referring to BT tech in general, not the iPhone's implementation of it).
- BT sucks battery power too much for my taste
- I'd never use a2dp because the sound quality is insufficient for me, I'll use ear buds
- I don't use it for file transfer, I connect via WiFi and USB for that
- It connects well with my Motorola headset
Oh? You mean you don't have bluetooth support comparable to the most advanced models in that category? Oh, that would mean the iPhone isn't full featured wouldn't it???
No . . . it means that the iPhone is full featured because it provides for all the functions with appropriate technology. Good stereo sound - ear buds. File transfer - WiFi or USB. BT for handsfree with my BT headset.
peace,
Grant
Don't forget that not there are different touchscreen technologies. I think Apple is the sole owner and the only one using capacitance touchscreens.
BIN-F..-GO!!
Exactly and because most people dont understand technology it is so hard to get this point across.
Repeat after me: Apple is the ONLY manufacturer of capacitance touchscreens.
Why this is important: because it is much more precise than any other touchscreen. It allows you to type correctly in a 3.5 inch screen while all other phones have trouble, just to give you ONE example.
It it the same with everything else: people go to COSTCO and buy descent $15 wine bottles and think: well why pay $30? Well there is a difference, believe me. Same thing with cars: A BMW 335i and a Nissan 350z both have 4 wheels and 300 horsepower, but one costs $20k more than the other, why? The 350z is a descent car, but the 335i is just sublime.
In short: people are fixated by features when they should be fixated by the implementation.
I mean, some of us are going to say, "Aww, BT sucks anyway, I don't need it" yadda yadda yadda, but that still doesn't answer the Q.
Just wondering. After all, a lot of ppl used to slam Verizon for having most of the BT profiles disabled in nearly all of their handsets, until VZW finally started to ease up on that recently.
...
You can think that all you want, you gave me a definition that you were happy with, I could still prove that the device doesn't meet that definition, and you still will not accept it. If you want to continue living in a fantasy world, you are more than welcome.
I haven't mentioned a "perfect device" as you put it, you are the one that brings that continues to bring that up.
There was about the same definition given by a well established magazine shown here. A definition, that I'm sure if you really wanted to, would be seen to be repeated many other places.
Also, you don't remember what you post a short time after you post it.
You are now saying that: "I haven't mentioned a "perfect device" as you put it, you are the one that brings that continues to bring that up."
Well, this is where I have the right to demand that you go back over every one of my posts to the thread, and find one single instance where I said "perfect device".
Despite your denial, YOU are the one who mentioned "perfect device" in YOUR post just before your one I'm responding to now! You are the one expecting a device that meets your odd description to be perfect.
Here is the quote from YOU:
"You are fine to live in your little dream world of your perfect device, I don't mind, if you want to think you have bluetooth device, that is fine by me."
That is where the first mention of a "perfect device" came up.
Don't forget your own poor attempt at defining what full featured means: Every feature that is possible, which, is, of course, impossible.
You are looking for the prefect device, not me. That's pretty clear.
I hope you find one.
Repeat after me: Apple is the ONLY manufacturer of capacitance touchscreens.
Actually, this simply isn't true!
There are a number of manufacturers that make capacitance touch screens. It's nothing new.
Apple holds patents in the use of Multi-Touch technologies that work on cap screens. That's very different.
I was going to mention this when it first came up, but left it alone. But as it's getting more life, I'd like to correct it.
A quick Google search turns up a number of manufacturers of these screens. Just type in "capacitance touch screens".
I do wonder sometimes why Apple has so few of the Bluetooth profiles/so little BT functionality active on the iPhone. Last I checked anyway.
I mean, some of us are going to say, "Aww, BT sucks anyway, I don't need it" yadda yadda yadda, but that still doesn't answer the Q.
Just wondering. After all, a lot of ppl used to slam Verizon for having most of the BT profiles disabled in nearly all of their handsets, until VZW finally started to ease up on that recently.
...
It answers the question very nicely.
Apple rarely likes to make a function available that works poorly.
Most BT functions work poorly, or are bettered by other functions.
Why offer something that is more trouble than it's worth?
Can you name one single function of BT that Apple left out, that does better than other functions that ARE built into the iPhone/iTouch?
jfanning seems to think that not adding badly thought out functionality that barely works at all is a bad thing in itself. I disagree.
If BT ever does some of these things properly, and as well, or better than what's available now, then it's likely Apple will include them. After all, it's mostly software. It's not like building another port into the device as with FW.
There was about the same definition given by a well established magazine shown here. A definition, that I'm sure if you really wanted to, would be seen to be repeated many other places.
Also, you don't remember what you post a short time after you post it.
You are now saying that: "I haven't mentioned a "perfect device" as you put it, you are the one that brings that continues to bring that up."
Well, this is where I have the right to demand that you go back over every one of my posts to the thread, and find one single instance where I said "perfect device".
Despite your denial, YOU are the one who mentioned "perfect device" in YOUR post just before your one I'm responding to now! You are the one expecting a device that meets your odd description to be perfect.
Here is the quote from YOU:
"You are fine to live in your little dream world of your perfect device, I don't mind, if you want to think you have bluetooth device, that is fine by me."
That is where the first mention of a "perfect device" came up.
Don't forget your own poor attempt at defining what full featured means: Every feature that is possible, which, is, of course, impossible.
You are looking for the prefect device, not me. That's pretty clear.
I hope you find one.
In the end, isn't this quibbling more than a little silly?
I couldn't care less about the exact definition of a "perfect device." This argument is so AI, and not in a good way.
You both could be discussing matters of much greater import.
...
Apple rarely likes to make a function available that works poorly.
Most BT functions work poorly, or are bettered by other functions.
Why offer something that is more trouble than it's worth?
Can you name one single function of BT that Apple left out, that does better than other functions that ARE built into the iPhone/iTouch?
jfanning seems to think that not adding badly thought out functionality that barely works at all is a bad thing in itself. I disagree.
If BT ever does some of these things properly, and as well, or better than what's available now, then it's likely Apple will include them. After all, it's mostly software. It's not like building another port into the device as with FW.
Not sure I really buy into the "don't include poor or hard-to-use functionality" argument. After all, that's been used as an argument as to why there's no MMS on the iPhone, when in actuality MMS is very easy, useful, and quite popular. I think that argument has sort of become a generic 'get out of jail free' card for Apple when they omit features or functionality. Not that I think that every feature must be included, or is particularly useful... just that I think Apple does go too far sometimes in its features/functionality omissions. Steve's a bit too aggressive in his love of minimalism at times, this is true of most ideological types.
In any case, here's a list of BT profiles. I'll leave it to others to debate whether the inclusion of any of these (beyond the two already supported, Headset and Hands-Free) would be a good idea on the iPhone:
1.1 Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP)
1.2 Audio/Video Remote Control Profile (AVRCP)
1.3 Basic Imaging Profile (BIP)
1.4 Basic Printing Profile (BPP)
1.5 Common ISDN Access Profile (CIP)
1.6 Cordless Telephony Profile (CTP)
1.7 Device ID Profile (DID)
1.8 Dial-up Networking Profile (DUN)
1.9 Fax Profile (FAX)
1.10 File Transfer Profile (FTP)
1.11 General Audio/Video Distribution Profile (GAVDP)
1.12 Generic Access Profile (GAP)
1.13 Generic Object Exchange Profile (GOEP)
1.14 Hard Copy Cable Replacement Profile (HCRP)
1.15 Hands-Free Profile (HFP)
1.16 Human Interface Device Profile (HID)
1.17 Headset Profile (HSP)
1.18 Intercom Profile (ICP)
1.19 LAN Access Profile (LAP)
1.20 Object Push Profile (OPP)
1.21 Personal Area Networking Profile (PAN)
1.22 Phone Book Access Profile (PBAP)
1.23 Serial Port Profile (SPP)
1.24 Service Discovery Application Profile (SDAP)
1.25 SIM Access Profile (SAP, SIM)
1.26 Synchronisation Profile (SYNCH)
1.27 Video Distribution Profile (VDP)
1.28 Wireless Application Protocol Bearer (WAPB)
...
I have never argued with anyone who simply did not like the iPhone or anyone who felt it did not meet their needs. Recently I suggested to a friend he get the BlackBerry Bold over the iPhone based on what he needed.
When people criticize the iPhone and complain about Apple's choices. I never deny them their right to criticize or complain. I challenge them to provide evidence outside of their personal opinion. A supporting example of how Apple and the iPhone would benefit from what they feel is missing or Apple doing wrong.
Few people provide this supporting evidence. Instead of debating on the facts more often than not they resort to fanboy accusations.
I think some of the hostility and dismissiveness comes from the perceptions/attitudes of the posters who respond that way. Too many of them tend to mistake honest critiques for attacks or trolling. ...
When people criticize the iPhone and complain about Apple's choices. I never deny them their right to criticize or complain. I challenge them to provide evidence outside of their personal opinion. A supporting example of how Apple and the iPhone would benefit from what they feel is missing or Apple doing wrong.
Few people provide this supporting evidence. Instead of debating on the facts more often than not they resort to fanboy accusations.
Sure, T. The prob is, ppl can provide you with tons of evidence outside of their personal opinion, and you still tend to deny it all, in favor of some sort of 'Apple is always' right ethic that you seem to have. I've at times said that arguing with you is like debating a rock, and while I'm joking a tiny bit, there's some truth to that.
I contrast this with someone like Mel, who thinks Apple is usually right, but who will candidly admit things like, "Yeah, Steve probably did take away Firewire too early."
You're not quite as open-minded as you seem to think, T. That said, I do respect your intelligence and the interest you take in the various discussions. I just don't think you're as interesting to debate as many others here, because I already know what you're going to say before you say it, pretty much. It's like debating a conservative over tax policy.
...
...
Sure, T. The prob is, ppl can provide you with tons of evidence outside of their personal opinion, and you still tend to deny it all, in favor of some sort of 'Apple is always' right ethic that you seem to have. I've at times said that arguing with you is like debating a rock, and while I'm joking a tiny bit, there's some truth to that.
Their are some critical flaws in the evidence provided as I said above. People show other phones that do things they want the iPhone to do. The crucial part is the evidence that Apple would improve sales if the iPhone were more like these other phones. Their is never any evidence of that. Mostly because no other smartphone by itself is selling better than the iPhone.
I am not saying that Apple does everything right. I'm looking at the fact that the iPhone is one of the best selling smartphones in the world. From this evidence Apple has made some pretty good choices. I am saying their is little to no evidence that Apple should follow its competitors choices. Because none of them have a singular phone model that sells as well.
I contrast this with someone like Mel, who thinks Apple is usually right, but who will candidly admit things like, "Yeah, Steve probably did take away Firewire too early."
Early in the firewire debate. I said I wished Apple would hold on to firewire until USB 3 is available, but I can understand why they are letting it go.
In fact I said I would prefer firewire had beat USB. But unfortunately that is not the reality.
You're not quite as open-minded as you seem to think, T. That said, I do respect your intelligence and the interest you take in the various discussions. I just don't think you're as interesting to debate as many others here, because I already know what you're going to say before you say it, pretty much. It's like debating a conservative over tax policy.
...
I don't think you were around when I criticized Apple for the way it was rejecting apps from the app store and its uneven approval of apps. I felt that Apple was risking a developer backlash.
Mel and Solpism disagreed with me. So far their has been no developer backlash and the submission of apps has gone on uninterrupted. I'm sure presenting apps in iPhone commercials go a long way to making developers happy.
In the end, isn't this quibbling more than a little silly?
I couldn't care less about the exact definition of a "perfect device." This argument is so AI, and not in a good way.
You both could be discussing matters of much greater import.
...
I'm not the one who brought it up. I'm saying that talking about a perfect device, a term he brought up, is silly, because there will never be such a thing.
What he's saying, apparently, is that unless some device has every feature that is even remotely possible, it isn't a perfect device, and it must be, in order to qualify it's being described as "full featured".
I don't know of anyone else who brought up anything similar here, in this discussion about "full featured" devices. Just him.
You're impossible to deal with.
Now you talk about a "perfect device" when no one means that at all, which you very well know.
But you want to up the ante so to speak.
If you can't get your way, then you change it.
Not good debating technique.
That's why it really does look as though you are trolling.
will you please stop feeding it?
Not sure I really buy into the "don't include poor or hard-to-use functionality" argument. After all, that's been used as an argument as to why there's no MMS on the iPhone, when in actuality MMS is very easy, useful, and quite popular. I think that argument has sort of become a generic 'get out of jail free' card for Apple when they omit features or functionality. Not that I think that every feature must be included, or is particularly useful... just that I think Apple does go too far sometimes in its features/functionality omissions. Steve's a bit too aggressive in his love of minimalism at times, this is true of most ideological types.
In any case, here's a list of BT profiles. I'll leave it to others to debate whether the inclusion of any of these (beyond the two already supported, Headset and Hands-Free) would be a good idea on the iPhone:
1.1 Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP)
1.2 Audio/Video Remote Control Profile (AVRCP)
1.3 Basic Imaging Profile (BIP)
1.4 Basic Printing Profile (BPP)
1.5 Common ISDN Access Profile (CIP)
1.6 Cordless Telephony Profile (CTP)
1.7 Device ID Profile (DID)
1.8 Dial-up Networking Profile (DUN)
1.9 Fax Profile (FAX)
1.10 File Transfer Profile (FTP)
1.11 General Audio/Video Distribution Profile (GAVDP)
1.12 Generic Access Profile (GAP)
1.13 Generic Object Exchange Profile (GOEP)
1.14 Hard Copy Cable Replacement Profile (HCRP)
1.15 Hands-Free Profile (HFP)
1.16 Human Interface Device Profile (HID)
1.17 Headset Profile (HSP)
1.18 Intercom Profile (ICP)
1.19 LAN Access Profile (LAP)
1.20 Object Push Profile (OPP)
1.21 Personal Area Networking Profile (PAN)
1.22 Phone Book Access Profile (PBAP)
1.23 Serial Port Profile (SPP)
1.24 Service Discovery Application Profile (SDAP)
1.25 SIM Access Profile (SAP, SIM)
1.26 Synchronisation Profile (SYNCH)
1.27 Video Distribution Profile (VDP)
1.28 Wireless Application Protocol Bearer (WAPB)
...
Certainly, at this time, I can't see the virtue in most of those for an iPhone, do you?
Some of them don't even work properly, and most of the others are done better in other ways.
Often, when some "standard" come out, they try to put the old kitchen sink in to see whether that give it a better chance of surviving, hoping that someone, somewhere, will find a use for at least one of the uses, and that if enough do it, it will "make it".
But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea.
The biggest thing here seems to be the idea of stereo headphones, I wish it were possible, in a reliable way. But it isn't?yet. Possibly, in the next incarnation of BT, they will fix the problems, but until then, it's not much of a feature, as it's broken.
will you please stop feeding it?
Yeah, I'm going to let jfanning have the last word on this. I no longer care what he says, as he simply repeats the same thing over and again.
Certainly, at this time, I can't see the virtue in most of those for an iPhone, do you?
Some of them don't even work properly, and most of the others are done better in other ways.
Often, when some "standard" come out, they try to put the old kitchen sink in to see whether that give it a better chance of surviving, hoping that someone, somewhere, will find a use for at least one of the uses, and that if enough do it, it will "make it".
But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea.
The biggest thing here seems to be the idea of stereo headphones, I wish it were possible, in a reliable way. But it isn't?yet. Possibly, in the next incarnation of BT, they will fix the problems, but until then, it's not much of a feature, as it's broken.
Personally the way I used bluetooth was something I had to weigh up carefully before purchasing an iPhone.
A2DP was only part of that decision, the other bluetooth features I mainly used or tried to use were:-
Voice dialing:- I have never used a phone that could get this right, no matter how clearly I tried to enunciate it would never work properly, (e.g. I'd try to call Sam it would call Shane.)
File transfer this was something I used on a regular basis, the ability to quickly share contact information or a photo with another handset, downside when you do it in a busy area and your phone retrieves a list of in-range devices it could take a long time for it to resolve device names, (especially if some of them moved out of range) until you found the one you wanted
now I use email or Facebook to share photo's (the ability to attach more than one at a time would be nice) and iBeam for contacts.
Tethering (using as a modem attached to a PC via bluetooth) I used to use this a lot when I didn't have a phoneline, with Windows once it was installed and set up it worked well, with Linux it was a nightmare, since moving and getting a phoneline and ADSL I no longer need it.
One of the things I have found is since getting an iPhone I hardly ever use a PC for email, it's only when I want to send attachments (aside from photo's) that I fire up my email client.
My 2c no technical merit merely a relation of my personal experiences.
Personally the way I used bluetooth was something I had to weigh up carefully before purchasing an iPhone.
A2DP was only part of that decision, the other bluetooth features I mainly used or tried to use were:-
Voice dialing:- I have never used a phone that could get this right, no matter how clearly I tried to enunciate it would never work properly, (e.g. I'd try to call Sam it would call Shane.)
File transfer this was something I used on a regular basis, the ability to quickly share contact information or a photo with another handset, downside when you do it in a busy area and your phone retrieves a list of in-range devices it could take a long time for it to resolve device names, (especially if some of them moved out of range) until you found the one you wanted
now I use email or Facebook to share photo's (the ability to attach more than one at a time would be nice) and iBeam for contacts.
Tethering (using as a modem attached to a PC via bluetooth) I used to use this a lot when I didn't have a phoneline, with Windows once it was installed and set up it worked well, with Linux it was a nightmare, since moving and getting a phoneline and ADSL I no longer need it.
One of the things I have found is since getting an iPhone I hardly ever use a PC for email, it's only when I want to send attachments (aside from photo's) that I fire up my email client.
My 2c no technical merit merely a relation of my personal experiences.
Personal experiences are as important as technical ones.
Most importantly, a lot of users desire something 'easy to use' with 'large writing' and big buttons. I know a few older people who have iPhones purely because of the big dialling buttons.
I want Nokia, Sony Ericsson, and the others to succeed, Apple needs competition, but at the moment they don't have any.
And if you think MMS and forwarding SMS's matter, they've probably been left out on purpose to get users onto email with full inline attachments.