I think it should be standard, especially with all the phones that support in now, not to mention input devices, printers, etc. The weak points are definitely speed & range. What better feeling than to get a new device and not have to worry about if your hardware supports it.
Why do you people say that Bluetooth isn't needed for most customers? Thats like saying that Superdrives wheren't needed or that its enough with 640K of memory (remember that one?).
If all Macs have BT and Apple work closely with say... Motorola and Ericsson and Apple integrates support for automagic syncing into Tiger then suddenly everyone needs bluetooth. Just think about all those phones with cameras (which are getting better and better), hint->iPhoto [import from phone] and about Adressbook and iCal [Sync your life!].
Say no more.
It's the easy way out to assume that all new technology is useful enough to warrant adoption. WiFi is a technology that addresses a common need and is flourishing. Bluetooth is a technology in search of a problem to tackle. Those of us raining on the bluetooth parade aren't techno-phobic. Many of us are actually bluetooth toting gadget weenies.
It's not too common to hear people complaining about something that could be fixed by bluetooth. It also isn't common for tasks, which bluetooth could address, to take up very much time in someone's job or personal life.
So far, phones are the only pocket gadget needed/wanted by the vast majority of people. PDAs, outside of geek social circles, are only used by a few professions. These professional PDAs typically use something faster and longer range than bluetooth.
If people are really in need of a phone synching feature, these phones already have a built in wireless connection. This could be used to efficiently backup everyone's contacts to a webpage accessible through their service provider. Must be that there isn't a pent up demand for this feature. If someone has already lost their phone, re-keying in their contacts from paper backup generally takes less time than spent on purchasing a replacement.
Bluetooth is 'neat' but useful to very few other than gadget toting techno-weenies like us.
Bluetooth is 'neat' but useful to very few other than gadget toting techno-weenies like us.
So is optical audio out, or audio in, for that matter-- very few people use it, and it would make the machine (marginally) cheaper to exclude them. I haven't heard large a hue & cry about Apple including such "useless" stuff since the early '90s.
I say include it-- it should be cheap enough (<$6 at last count), and if you don't need it, ignore it, like the audio inputs/outputs, firewire, the highspeed aspects of USB2, or the modem. Big deal.
you don't leave out or make users pay for peripheral interfaces. it's stupid, and poor business and showing apple really isn't that much of a visionary.
you don't pay extra for USB or Firewire or Ethernet or audio out......Bluetooth (and even Airport) are the same. There is no reason for them to be considered otherwise. I'm sure there are a fair number of people who never use firewire or never use Ethernet because they use dial-up or never use the modem because they have broadband and the modem will forever be useless to them.
the same thing with firewire 800. apple is only hurting its adoption by making it an elitist connection.
I am on the "99% of users don't need it" side of the issue. Those that do, can BTO a machine with it.
There are only three reasons I can think of to use BT: Phones w/ BT, and wireless keyboards and mice w/ BT. Since most users have 0/3, including a standard that is on it's way out seems pointless (see stories on Sony Ericsson pulling out of BT consortium). Reminds me of the IRDA port on my old Wallstreet... nobody ever used those things except Palm-using Mac users... a niche of a niche.
If Apple decides to include wireless KB/Mice as standard, which IMHO is a bad idea, THEN I could see including BT as standard. In the meantime, it's pretty useless, and to be frank, keying contacts into a phone really isn't that much of a chore.
BT is kinda like 802.11a... f@#$ing useless to 99% of the people out there.
Okay so I ordered my Dual 2.0 last year with a Blue Tooth module from Apple. This year I ordered a Dual 2.5 with out, I have no idea why they don't sell the OEM module. I simple removed two screws and put it into the 2.5 plugged the wire for the anntenna.
It works fine, there is no difference and it took about 5 minutes tops. If only someone could get there hands on the modules. I don't know why they wouldn't let apple tech install them other than maybe the module is in limited supply.
Count my YES vote! As well as everything being easier (and better) for the consumer, Apple's price per part would go down (I'd imagine it to be in the region of $15 per machine at most), as well as simplifying the BTO system - thus reducing costs as well. Add to this the publicity for their whole range if this was announced (esp mid-life ones), and I think that they would recoup any losses.
I imagine that Bluetooth (along with Airport cards) will eventually become like automatic transmissions, air conditioning and even power windows. Much more common as "standard" features on many cars these days. In fact it is sometimes hard to get a car without these...unless you are buying really low-end. BT will be there...but for now it is not. If you want it, you pay for it, if you don't, you don't.
I think when Apple makes its version 2 of the wireless keyboard and mouse, then we will see an adoption of bluetooth as a standard. This is all in accordance to Negroponte's Flip (I think I misspelled his name), which is "What is wireless, will become wired. What is wired will become wireless." What that means is things like your TV, which was wireless (bunny ears, people), have become wired because of cable. Things like your computer, is slowly becoming wireless (802.11, Bluetooth, etc).
That all being said, because of how little it would cost Apple to include it, and the marginal time it would take to include it, I do not see a reason for them not to include it.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
I voted no. Although you have a desire to have BT at this time I do not and I would rather not pay for technology that I may or may not use. BT in many ways is rather useless. So I can sync my phone contacts wirelessly...not that big of deal. I'd rather keep it an option as BT is never really going to reach a critical mass that will lower its cost to pennies.
I disagree. Bluetooth will get there, in the form of a wireless connection for your low speed devices, like keyboards and mice. I really feel that once Apple makes its keyboards and mice rechargeable, instead of battery operated, then you will see a real need for bluetooth to become standard. Almost everyone will want it, or the wireless mice and keyboards become the standard devices.
Many people say that they cant think of anything they would do with BT. This is true now, and will remain so if the number of computers that can use it is small. Peripherals will only be produced if there is a market to sell them to. If Apple made BT a standard feature then the market for BT peripherals would be much improved. We saw exactly the same thing happen with USB, Apple kick started the market, and now many peripherals are available for USB. They could do the same for BT.
However, it remains to be seen if BT is the appropriate for low bandwidth wireless. USB will soon be wireless, and may well be a more attractive option. BT is also getting upgrades. Then there are other systems as well.
My take on the wireless front is that Apple sees BT as being used pretty much exclusively for phones, and early adopters of keyboards/mice ( it is telling that most wireless mice still arent BT ). To that end they dont see that BT is worth the cost of including in all machines. I believe that they have examined the available and future technology and decided to adopt something which isnt here yet - wireless usb or firewire perhaps.
When it is released they will adopt it widely ( just like they did with Airport ) and kickstart a new peripheral industry.
I agree that any statement to the effect of "I can't see what anyone would ever do with Bluetooth" is dangerous. Nevertheless, that question has dogged Bluetooth for a long time now, and I don't think it's there yet. Why? Because nobody's really answered that question yet.
I bought my brother a Griffin iCurve and Apple's bluetooth keyboard and mouse for his birthday, and set them up. Having done that, I can see why they're not standard yet. It was the closest thing I've seen on OS X to the XP experience: You're in a wizard — excuse me, assistant, the screens vary between insultingly obvious and needlessly obscure, the interface doesn't recover well if you miss a step, and the whole affair is laughably more involved than plugging in a USB cable — even granting that you only need to do it once. The payoff is that he doesn't have to plug in a keyboard that will always be within range of a cord anyway. And he has to "wake up" the mouse regularly. Don't get me wrong: he loves the stuff, especially since he didn't have to set it up. But it's not ready for prime time. Setup should be no harder than plugging in a USB cable.
As for other Bluetooth devices: Printers are beginning to appear. BT phones are still these exotic, pricey things that only gadget freaks buy, and iSync support is still lagging at any rate. Apple's pushing BT harder than just about anyone else, but I can see why they're not about to pull a USB and mandate it.
Finally, major customers and prospective customers in government and in enterprise tend to be wary of wireless anything because of security issues (not to mention consumers who are wary of microwave radio emissions for health reasons), so there would have to be some way to order Macs without 802.11x and BT support, or Apple would lose major institutional interest from those organizations that are interested in Macs precisely because of their security (e.g., the FBI, NASA, the Pentagon).
Apple usually sets standards way before many other computer comapnies. It is odd that they haven't made bluetooth standard. Price really isn't too much of an issue here. Apple can buy at bulk rates, athough not as large as Dell or HP. It wouldn't be that expensive to make it standard. Unless you are gowging the customer, it shouldn't be more than 5 USD a unit.
I can see though the point that soon enough something better will come along that will be better than Bluetooth. There is a small Wi-Fi chip set, that uses little batter life, out there. It is just time before it starts getting used.
What bothers me though, they made USB and Firewire a standard a long time ago, before many other computer manufactures did. It just makes sense to set a standard like Bluetooth. You can then say, that every Mac comes with it. No set up later. It is just there. I thought that was what Apple was aiming for.
I think the difference here is that Apple chooses to adopt standards for reaons other than simply being 'standards compliant'. USB and firewire both had compeling immediate uses for many users. The connectivity they replaced were fairly non-standard and not hot swapable. Sure enough, there were thousands of devices quickly released for USB and firewire.
If you explain to your average computer user what bluetooth can do. They will likely say neat but inquire no further. They simply aren't in need of what bluetooth has to offer.
On the other hand, go back to the early days of USB and ask a similar question. Chances are more likely that the this person would be interested in what USB had to offer. For example, USB scanners, zip drives, printers, camera connnection kits, etc were all immediately popular.
Bluetooth has been around for a while and is still in search of a compelling use for most users. Not that it doesn't fasciliatate any task. Rather, the tasks it does fascilitate aren't critical, common, or aren't in drastic need of improvement.
No, BlueTooth should not be standard on all Macs. Many businesses and Government institutions would view the inclusion of BlueTooth on their machines as a security risk and these organizations would be unable to consider any Macs for use in their facilities.
No it should be standard. CTO or BTO orders could exclude them in the same way that modems are standard but if you go to the Apple store you can opt to remove them.
No, BlueTooth should not be standard on all Macs. Many businesses and Government institutions would view the inclusion of BlueTooth on their machines as a security risk and these organizations would be unable to consider any Macs for use in their facilities.
you mean the usb ports on the front just about all computers are not a security risk?
Bluetooth is nothing spectacular, but it's very useful in the few obvious uses - peripherals, simple phone/PDA syncing, and GPRS phone connectivity. This is all the more important for Apple because they have very usable BT support and I hear Microsoft doesn't. They should show off these kinds of differences to get people to switch.
At the very least, BT should be standard on iBooks! On the desktop it doesn't matter as much if there is a USB dongle.
Also, I find this is a bit like the missing DVI connector on iBook - why wouldn't they want people buying the Bluetooth keyboard and Bluetooth mouse? Or their own displays?
BT is one of those things, from my perspective anyway, that's kinda cool, but not essential. It makes life a tad better...it eliminates cables. The idea of setting a phone near my computer and having them talk to one another is pretty nifty. It eliminates clutter.
Same story with thinks like keyboards and mice. With those, however, there is the obvious trade-off of now having to deal with batteries.
In the end, the most compelling usage situation seems to be the traveler w/BT mobile phone (or other PDA-like device) and Apple laptop. One less cable to mess with (or even carry). Syncing is easily done with the PDA/phone still stowed in the briefcase while working on my laptop in the airport (or plane).
For desktop machines it seems like a "wow"/"neat" but non-essential feature. I mean...who really NEEDS a wireless keyboard and mouse, especially for a desktop machine?
I have an iBook and I have considered replacing my MS optical, wired mouse so that when I am sitting on the couch I needed worry about cables. But the (ugly!) BT "dongle" for $40 PLUS the BT (Apple) mouse for $70 make the price of admission ($110) for this (minor) annoyance way too much for me.
If it were possible to add the factory bluetooth module after you've purchased the machine, I'd say leave it as an option. Using a USB dongle might be acceptable for desktops, but it's not for laptops. too easy for the thing to snap off. It'd be ideal if Apple had an internal bluetooth module that was about 1/4 the size of the Airport Extreme card, and simply slid into a little socket, flush with the case (or better yet, behind a panel). It'd be entirely user upgradable after the fact, isn't at risk for being snapped off like a USB dongle, and would possibly be upgradable to a faster wireless standard like Bluetooth 2.0 (or 1.2? whatever the faster as-yet-to-be-released standard is...) or wireless USB.
There used to be rumours, before internal BT became an option on Macs, that Apple would include the functionality in the airport card. The reason for this idea was that it was assumed that BT and Airport would have a high component correlation (antenna, DSP, ect), and would appeal to much the same markets.
I don't see why they didn't do this. It seems reasonable that anyone forking out for an airport card wouldn't mind paying a $3 premium to get Bluetooth into the bargain, even if they didn't need it.
Comments
Originally posted by Backwards
Why do you people say that Bluetooth isn't needed for most customers? Thats like saying that Superdrives wheren't needed or that its enough with 640K of memory (remember that one?).
If all Macs have BT and Apple work closely with say... Motorola and Ericsson and Apple integrates support for automagic syncing into Tiger then suddenly everyone needs bluetooth. Just think about all those phones with cameras (which are getting better and better), hint->iPhoto [import from phone] and about Adressbook and iCal [Sync your life!].
Say no more.
It's the easy way out to assume that all new technology is useful enough to warrant adoption. WiFi is a technology that addresses a common need and is flourishing. Bluetooth is a technology in search of a problem to tackle. Those of us raining on the bluetooth parade aren't techno-phobic. Many of us are actually bluetooth toting gadget weenies.
It's not too common to hear people complaining about something that could be fixed by bluetooth. It also isn't common for tasks, which bluetooth could address, to take up very much time in someone's job or personal life.
So far, phones are the only pocket gadget needed/wanted by the vast majority of people. PDAs, outside of geek social circles, are only used by a few professions. These professional PDAs typically use something faster and longer range than bluetooth.
If people are really in need of a phone synching feature, these phones already have a built in wireless connection. This could be used to efficiently backup everyone's contacts to a webpage accessible through their service provider. Must be that there isn't a pent up demand for this feature. If someone has already lost their phone, re-keying in their contacts from paper backup generally takes less time than spent on purchasing a replacement.
Bluetooth is 'neat' but useful to very few other than gadget toting techno-weenies like us.
Bluetooth is 'neat' but useful to very few other than gadget toting techno-weenies like us.
So is optical audio out, or audio in, for that matter-- very few people use it, and it would make the machine (marginally) cheaper to exclude them. I haven't heard large a hue & cry about Apple including such "useless" stuff since the early '90s.
I say include it-- it should be cheap enough (<$6 at last count), and if you don't need it, ignore it, like the audio inputs/outputs, firewire, the highspeed aspects of USB2, or the modem. Big deal.
you don't pay extra for USB or Firewire or Ethernet or audio out......Bluetooth (and even Airport) are the same. There is no reason for them to be considered otherwise. I'm sure there are a fair number of people who never use firewire or never use Ethernet because they use dial-up or never use the modem because they have broadband and the modem will forever be useless to them.
the same thing with firewire 800. apple is only hurting its adoption by making it an elitist connection.
There are only three reasons I can think of to use BT: Phones w/ BT, and wireless keyboards and mice w/ BT. Since most users have 0/3, including a standard that is on it's way out seems pointless (see stories on Sony Ericsson pulling out of BT consortium). Reminds me of the IRDA port on my old Wallstreet... nobody ever used those things except Palm-using Mac users... a niche of a niche.
If Apple decides to include wireless KB/Mice as standard, which IMHO is a bad idea, THEN I could see including BT as standard. In the meantime, it's pretty useless, and to be frank, keying contacts into a phone really isn't that much of a chore.
BT is kinda like 802.11a... f@#$ing useless to 99% of the people out there.
Okay so I ordered my Dual 2.0 last year with a Blue Tooth module from Apple. This year I ordered a Dual 2.5 with out, I have no idea why they don't sell the OEM module. I simple removed two screws and put it into the 2.5 plugged the wire for the anntenna.
It works fine, there is no difference and it took about 5 minutes tops. If only someone could get there hands on the modules. I don't know why they wouldn't let apple tech install them other than maybe the module is in limited supply.
Just my 2 pence!
David
That all being said, because of how little it would cost Apple to include it, and the marginal time it would take to include it, I do not see a reason for them not to include it.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I voted no. Although you have a desire to have BT at this time I do not and I would rather not pay for technology that I may or may not use. BT in many ways is rather useless. So I can sync my phone contacts wirelessly...not that big of deal. I'd rather keep it an option as BT is never really going to reach a critical mass that will lower its cost to pennies.
I disagree. Bluetooth will get there, in the form of a wireless connection for your low speed devices, like keyboards and mice. I really feel that once Apple makes its keyboards and mice rechargeable, instead of battery operated, then you will see a real need for bluetooth to become standard. Almost everyone will want it, or the wireless mice and keyboards become the standard devices.
However, it remains to be seen if BT is the appropriate for low bandwidth wireless. USB will soon be wireless, and may well be a more attractive option. BT is also getting upgrades. Then there are other systems as well.
My take on the wireless front is that Apple sees BT as being used pretty much exclusively for phones, and early adopters of keyboards/mice ( it is telling that most wireless mice still arent BT ). To that end they dont see that BT is worth the cost of including in all machines. I believe that they have examined the available and future technology and decided to adopt something which isnt here yet - wireless usb or firewire perhaps.
When it is released they will adopt it widely ( just like they did with Airport ) and kickstart a new peripheral industry.
I bought my brother a Griffin iCurve and Apple's bluetooth keyboard and mouse for his birthday, and set them up. Having done that, I can see why they're not standard yet. It was the closest thing I've seen on OS X to the XP experience: You're in a wizard — excuse me, assistant, the screens vary between insultingly obvious and needlessly obscure, the interface doesn't recover well if you miss a step, and the whole affair is laughably more involved than plugging in a USB cable — even granting that you only need to do it once. The payoff is that he doesn't have to plug in a keyboard that will always be within range of a cord anyway. And he has to "wake up" the mouse regularly. Don't get me wrong: he loves the stuff, especially since he didn't have to set it up. But it's not ready for prime time. Setup should be no harder than plugging in a USB cable.
As for other Bluetooth devices: Printers are beginning to appear. BT phones are still these exotic, pricey things that only gadget freaks buy, and iSync support is still lagging at any rate. Apple's pushing BT harder than just about anyone else, but I can see why they're not about to pull a USB and mandate it.
Finally, major customers and prospective customers in government and in enterprise tend to be wary of wireless anything because of security issues (not to mention consumers who are wary of microwave radio emissions for health reasons), so there would have to be some way to order Macs without 802.11x and BT support, or Apple would lose major institutional interest from those organizations that are interested in Macs precisely because of their security (e.g., the FBI, NASA, the Pentagon).
I can see though the point that soon enough something better will come along that will be better than Bluetooth. There is a small Wi-Fi chip set, that uses little batter life, out there. It is just time before it starts getting used.
What bothers me though, they made USB and Firewire a standard a long time ago, before many other computer manufactures did. It just makes sense to set a standard like Bluetooth. You can then say, that every Mac comes with it. No set up later. It is just there. I thought that was what Apple was aiming for.
If you explain to your average computer user what bluetooth can do. They will likely say neat but inquire no further. They simply aren't in need of what bluetooth has to offer.
On the other hand, go back to the early days of USB and ask a similar question. Chances are more likely that the this person would be interested in what USB had to offer. For example, USB scanners, zip drives, printers, camera connnection kits, etc were all immediately popular.
Bluetooth has been around for a while and is still in search of a compelling use for most users. Not that it doesn't fasciliatate any task. Rather, the tasks it does fascilitate aren't critical, common, or aren't in drastic need of improvement.
Originally posted by Mojo the Monkey
No, BlueTooth should not be standard on all Macs. Many businesses and Government institutions would view the inclusion of BlueTooth on their machines as a security risk and these organizations would be unable to consider any Macs for use in their facilities.
you mean the usb ports on the front just about all computers are not a security risk?
if you don't want them to use it lock it down.
Bluetooth is nothing spectacular, but it's very useful in the few obvious uses - peripherals, simple phone/PDA syncing, and GPRS phone connectivity. This is all the more important for Apple because they have very usable BT support and I hear Microsoft doesn't. They should show off these kinds of differences to get people to switch.
At the very least, BT should be standard on iBooks! On the desktop it doesn't matter as much if there is a USB dongle.
Also, I find this is a bit like the missing DVI connector on iBook - why wouldn't they want people buying the Bluetooth keyboard and Bluetooth mouse? Or their own displays?
Same story with thinks like keyboards and mice. With those, however, there is the obvious trade-off of now having to deal with batteries.
In the end, the most compelling usage situation seems to be the traveler w/BT mobile phone (or other PDA-like device) and Apple laptop. One less cable to mess with (or even carry). Syncing is easily done with the PDA/phone still stowed in the briefcase while working on my laptop in the airport (or plane).
For desktop machines it seems like a "wow"/"neat" but non-essential feature. I mean...who really NEEDS a wireless keyboard and mouse, especially for a desktop machine?
I have an iBook and I have considered replacing my MS optical, wired mouse so that when I am sitting on the couch I needed worry about cables. But the (ugly!) BT "dongle" for $40 PLUS the BT (Apple) mouse for $70 make the price of admission ($110) for this (minor) annoyance way too much for me.
I don't see why they didn't do this. It seems reasonable that anyone forking out for an airport card wouldn't mind paying a $3 premium to get Bluetooth into the bargain, even if they didn't need it.