$59 Induction Headset to Kick Bluetooth While it's Down

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11653' target='_blank'>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11653</a><br /><br /></div>"AURA COMMS said it is ready to introduce a $59 wireless headset that seems set to give Bluetooth a run for its high price tag. The foneGEAR chord free headset "near field" magnetic communications – induction - supports 25 hours of talk time on one AA battery and runs on the low frequency 13.5MHz band. Bluetooth is on the 2.4GHz band which, according to the firm, seems to have the world+dog clogging up its space. The firm told the INQUIRER that you would have to get really close to someone using a similar device before you'd experience interference. Also, claimed Aura, the technology would have widespread application for MP3s and car phones. It also isn't as fiddly to set up as Bluetooth."<br /><br />Very interesting no? If they can do 25 hours of talk time on a single AA battery, and have the bandwidth for voice, I wonder what else they could do? Keyboard? Mouse? Headphones?

[phanprod]

I find the description here a bit confusing... isn't RF (radio frequency) technology based on electromagnetic induction? So, wouldn't this just be a low frequency, low power RF tranceiver system? From the information given, it sounds like an efficient AM radio broadcasting at extremely low power. It's late, and I may be confused, but that's what I gather here...

[Kaber]

I hope its encrypted somehow.

[heliod]

OK, guys, let's be serious.

Take a look at the Product sheet at http://www.auracomm.com/Downloads/DockerDatasheet.pdf .

The real question is not what we can do with 25 hours of talk time, but what we can do with 4-6 feet range ????

[Crash Biker]

This may turn out ti be a great product, I suspect that for me Bluetooth is here today and working fine so I don't see the point. Mind you that is impressive battery life but maybe that's linked to the very short range.

The thing that puzzles me is just how hostile the PPCThoughts team is towards Bluetooth. There's not much point in rehashing all the point/counterpoint that's been seen before, but I guess I'm just totally bemused that the editorial team feels the need to continually gripe about it at every opportunity on the front page. I've never seen another tech site carry such a grudge about a technology, not even arbitrary crusade of the week organs like the Register.

Use it or don't, it certainly has its problems as well as benefits and I'm sure we all hope v2 is better (as with all technologies.)

Maybe this is bait and I've just taken the hook (and line and sinker and rod.) Maybe you guys were all bullied by Bluetooth at school and it took your lunch money. :wink:

Cheers

Crash

[KAMware]

In response to Crash Biker, I certainly cannot speak for the staff of this site, but from my experiences with Bluetooth it has been a terrible technology in almost every respect.

I have tried Bluetooth technology several times and all with poor results. All from different manufactures. I have spent a lot of money trying it out in the hopes it would live up to the hype you get from other places and people. For me it has not lived up to the hype! I have to form my opinions from experience and until I get some good experiences from Bluetooth I will not have many positive things to say about it.

I would imagine that is the same with many who respond here. To say this site is hostile towards Bluetooth may just reflect their experiences with the technology.

I am glad your experience is so positive and I hope you continue to enjoy it. But until the technology becomes more stable and useful to more people you are going to hear more criticisms about it from here and else where.

[DubWireless]

Hi Crash Biker, I think you might have misappropriated the headline to the editors on this site, the wording is from the Inquirer site that first published the article though...

Although I'm with you that there are some editors *cough* Ed :mrgreen: *cough* who aren't all that impressed with Bluetooth (and let it be known... ;))

I think I've been lucky (and very patient!) with Bluetooth, but have seen my endeavours pay off on the whole. But I do understand where it has failed to live up to some people's expectations. Initial interoperability, implementations of hardware and software, together with the (less than adequate) support offered was not good, to say the least. And could easily have left people feeling disgruntled towards the technology.

There is an interesting tool called the hype curve, developed by a Gartner analyst (Jackie Fenn), that goes though 5 stages, they usually apply it to any new technology / product to show what happens when cutting-edge technologies are introduced

1] Technology trigger
2] Peak of inflated expectations
3] Trough of disillusionment
4] Slope of enlightenment
5] Plateau of productivity

It's been thought it's initially prohibitive high cost (comparing the price of kit from introduction in '01 to now) , complicated set-up (which still needs more work) and the misrepresentation (like the direct competition against WiFi) - so I’d be more of the opinion that at this stage the light at the end of the tunnel is getting brighter, maybe getting from stage 3 into stage 4 in some areas and even edging towards 5 in others....

It does try and be a "person of many trades" and this also leaves it open to attack, when a specific one doesn't work as well compared to another technology (e.g. the old Bluetooth Networking vs. WiFi debate). But that is also one of its strong points offering multiple connection types and applications.

For me, it has proved itself to be a robust and reliable technology (after a bit of tweaking). If it could just be a robust and reliable without the tweaking then it would be better...

[acronym]

I'm going to answer in complete contrast to kamware. bluetooth has worked wonderfully for me. sure, it has a few quirks, but in the end it has continually worked. bluetooth laptop (powerbook g4), 2 bluetooth pcs, a bluetooth phone (t68) and socket bluetooth in my pda. Syncing a ppc over bluetooth is a bit of a hassle, but that is Microsofts problem as I've set up half a dozen palm bluetooth syncs with both isync and palm desktop faster than setting up the wired connection. Using a bluetooth enabled gprs phone with my laptop or pda is something to marvel at - no cords, phone in pocket and I'm checking email. I will not buy another phone or pda without bluetooth unless something similar comes around - this is why I haven't bought the sidekick (what are they smoking?).

[DubWireless]

Hi kamware, in my time I have certainly come across some "show stoppers" for Bluetooth, and been left frustrated. But that's was very much down to the way particular vendors implemented the technology and then offered either support that was inadequate or indeed no support at all :cry:

Things are improving (but of course there is a room for a lot more), so I usually took the course of searching out the latest software drivers (that can be well hidden on some vendors sites!) was sometimes the key to unlocking the problems. Then there were some vendors that offered great support, sometimes sending out specific instructions (get this make/model of device working with this make/model) rather than their default non-specific instructions.

If you want to try again - and give Bluetooth a second (or tenth!) chance - ask in the Wireless Forum (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=21) on this site and I'm sure myself or others will try and offere assistance to get you up and running or at least identify what is causing the problem to try and go from there...

[DubWireless]

I'm going to answer in complete contrast to kamware. bluetooth has worked wonderfully for me. sure, it has a few quirks, but in the end it has continually worked. bluetooth laptop (powerbook g4...

Hi acronym, the Mac OS X impelmentation is great (although some issues exist they can usualy be traced to iSync etc...)

I did a Bluetooh presentation for the ClubMac.ie Irish Mac Users group earlier this month and it was amazing to see people's eyes light up when they saw what it was capable of. during the hour long demo part, we had configured from scratch:

- Bluetooth Internet connection over GPRS and HSCSD (High Speed Dial-up)
- Remote control with a Sony Ericsson handset (which I use to drive the presentation also!)
- Synchronisation of Palm and Pocket PC
- SMS send/recieve and Sending Contacts
- File transfers

Having Bluetooth integrated into the Operating System is the key in it's success on the Mac. They have also limited the profiles it supports making it more simple to understand, leaving Networking to Airport (WiFi) and using Bluetooth for Peripherials (e.g. Sync, DUN, File Swap, Keyboard/Mouse, Serial).

[DavidHorn]

Electromagnetic induction? Doesn't sound brilliant if you have a pacemaker. When you get a call you'll be able to have your heart beat along in time to your ringtone!

I think my toothbrush uses EM induction to charge the battery.

[Crash Biker]

I should have followed the link before shooting off at the mouth (keyboard) and seen that it was the inquirer that was having a poke this time.

Let me apologise unreservedly to Jason and the team for my comments above.

For what it's worth I have been using Bluetooth PPC (iPAQ 3870) to my phone (Ericsson R520m) for 2 years as a wireless link and it has been superbly reliable, a bluetooth headset to the phone works well and recently have trialled a bluetooth GPS receiver to my (now) iPAQ H3970 and that looks good. I firmly believe non of this would be nearly as convenient if it were based around ad-hoc RF links for different products. I also freely admit I use WiFi for net access around the house so I'm not so rabid that I won't admit bluetooth isn't a one size fits all sort prospect.

For me, bluetooth has improved my mobile experience significantly for a number of years and I'd prefer to appreciate what was right about it rather than focus on the bad stuff, same as we all did in the early days of WinCE 1.0/2.0 which were necessary transit points to get us to where we are now.

Having said that, none of this justifies having a poke at the team here (although it was intended to be good natured and I hope taken as such), I hope my apology will be accepted and I'll now slink off learn to pay more attention in future.

All the best,

Crash

[dhpss]

The OBH-0110 is a Bluetooth Stereo Headset that has Handsfree, PC Connectivity and Music Player. When linked wirelessly to a PC via a Bluetooth USB adapter, the user can control the headset and its contents from the PC. In disconnection mode, it functions as a standalone Music Player. The headset also supports handsfree communication with a Bluetooth enabled mobile phone.
http://www.openbrain.co.kr/e_site/e_products/e_products03.htm


Wireless! No more messy wires!
Wireless transmission of audio whithin 10m radius
when connected to PC/PDA

High Quality Stereo Sound!
Provides high quality stereo sound for music lovers

High Quality Hands-Free Function!
Enables the user to listen to high quality voice while communicating
with a Bluetooth enabled mobile phone

Portable MP3 Player!
Play high quality compressed music files(MP3, WMA)

Wireless Connection With PC!
Manipulate the headset remotely from the PC via the user interface browser
(Upload & download files, adjust volume, manage folder etc.)

Elegant Design!
Elegant design fit for any users / UFO-shaped charger

High Capacity Flash Memory!
Enables storage of many music files

Lithium Polymer Battery!
High density features provides long battery life
No risk of explosion

Removable Battery Pack!
Removable battery pack for easy charging

Length Adjustable Microphone!
The microphone can be pulled out to receive calls and pushed in to listen to music

[surur]

From the web site above:


High quality stereo audio decoding : MP3, WMA
Built in Flash Memory : 32 ~ 128MB
Upload & download to PC/PDA via Bluetooth : Up to 700Kbps
Rechargeable Battery Pack : Lithium-ion Polymer
Remote Control Search for music files saved in memory using the Mobile phone for selected reproduction


This is the kind of innovative product that can only happen when built upon a base of stable standards. Imagine being able to use any bluetooth device with an user interface to control any other device, e.g the rather gratuitous example of the model racing car controlled by the mobile phone, or the rather more practical example of using a mobile phone to provide the screen and processing power to do play-list manipulation etc.

That is why it would be a major step backwards to give up on bluetooth (now 2-3 years into the adoption process) and start with some-thing else completely different, incompatible, and without any user base.

I now have 6 bluetooth devices, and the newer the device, the better it works and the more it can do, and the better it plays with others. I think the future is bright for the technology, and in 2-3 years time you wont be able to find a e.g. wireless keyboard, mouse or pda, and especially mobile phone, without it.

Surur

[Jason Dunn]

The real question is not what we can do with 25 hours of talk time, but what we can do with 4-6 feet range ????

Why would I need my mouse, keyboard, headphones, or voice headset to be more than six feet away from the reciever? This product obviously won't replace the scenario of using your Pocket PC to surf the Web from 50 feet away, but for many things, it could do the trick. And they said the setup was simple, which is something Bluetooth is not yet very good at... :wink:

[Jason Dunn]

The thing that puzzles me is just how hostile the PPCThoughts team is towards Bluetooth. There's not much point in rehashing all the point/counterpoint that's been seen before, but I guess I'm just totally bemused that the editorial team feels the need to continually gripe about it at every opportunity on the front page. I've never seen another tech site carry such a grudge about a technology, not even arbitrary crusade of the week organs like the Register.

Well, as someone pointed out, that headline was from the article I was linking to. But I see you've already recanted to some degree, so I won't defend myself. :wink:

Bluetooth for me is utterly strange. I pride myself on being able to sit down and figure out any type of technology in a matter of minutes. It's part of what I'm paid to do as a consultant. Bluetooth, on the other hand, is the most mixed-up, messy, hostile technology I've encountered in years. It reminds me of the days when you'd need to configure IRQ and Memory ranges. If I sit down with a product and can't get it to work in a matter of minutes, then that's a poorly designed product. If someone who eats and breathes technology, like myself, can't get a product to work quickly and easily, what hope is there for my parents to use something like this?

Bluetooth seems like a brilliant technology on one level, but at the same time it seems horribly crippled. I haven't had to worry about COM ports for 2+ years - and now I have to think about them again? I feel like Bluetooth is two steps forward and one step back - it has so much potential, but there are still so many glitches to be worked out yet.

I will say, however, that I've managed to get my iPAQ 2215 to sync and have Internet access over Bluetooth, and I'm QUITE impressed. I just mihgt do an "I Love Bluetooth" post this week. ;-)

[Janak Parekh]

This is the kind of innovative product that can only happen when built upon a base of stable standards. Imagine being able to use any bluetooth device with an user interface to control any other device, e.g the rather gratuitous example of the model racing car controlled by the mobile phone, or the rather more practical example of using a mobile phone to provide the screen and processing power to do play-list manipulation etc.
Bingo!

This is why I won't buy a headset like this. What if I want to use the headset with my mobile phone? Am I going to need an adaptor? Am I going to get mobile headsets with support for 5 different RF technologies? In short, no. ;)

--janak

[QYV]

You'll have to forgive me my bitterness about Bluetooth.

Last night - yes, less than a day ago - was my very first experience with Bluetooth. I had purchased a Socket Bluetooth CF card for my Axim already, and my T68i finally arrived in the mail. Dell Axim, Socket card, T68i - all well-known devices with good reputations, which is always something I try to do when buying computer-related equipment (I know how testing coverage goes; I work at a software company! :twisted: ). You'd think I'd have had a great experience, right? All I was trying to do was bond (pair?) the Axim to the T68i using the Socket card in order to use my phone's GPRS connection for getting mail on the Axim. Heck, the Socket software even has a T68i setting built right in! How hard can it be?

I'm a pretty tech-savvy guy - not Janak, maybe, but not a total newb. When I started at 8pm or so last night, I was quite confident that I'd have things up and running in no time. Five hours and much swearing later, I had to admit defeat. I tried using the Socket WM 2003 software as well as the built-in WM 2003 Bluetooth app, and could not get the devices to bond properly no matter what I tried. The Axim with the Socket card never was able to discover the phone, despite putting the T68i into its 3-minute "Discoverability" mode about a million times and then searching for it with the Axim. Using the T68i to discover the Axim did work...sort of. The phone seemed to make the pairing fine, but the Axim refused to acknowledge that the T68i existed when I went to create a new GPRS connection, even though the bonding showed up just fine in the Bluetooth settings.

How frustrated was I? Well, repeatedly hard-resetting the Axim should give you some idea - and I sync with two computers, so a hard-reset invariably results in horrible nastiness when setting up the partnership again with the second PC. But I wanted to make sure it wasn't some tweak I'd done to the Axim that was causing the problem. Nope, even with all factory settings it wouldn't work.

It doesn't help that "Bluetooth Phone" in the Socket settings is apparently stuck on COM5 with my device - the checkbox is grayed out, which means I can't switch it to anything else. I don't even know if that's the problem, but it's one more arcane Bluetooth thing that I can't figure out.

I was hoping that I could get a Bluetooth headset to go with my T68i, but after this experience I'm about ready to chuck the whole thing. If this new technology is simpler to set up than Bluetooth - particularly for pairings with a phone - I'll be all over it.

[shawnc]

Bluetooth for me is utterly strange. If someone who eats and breathes technology, like myself, can't get a product to work quickly and easily, what hope is there for my parents to use something like this?

This point can not be overstated. I realize that the technical skill of most of this site's regulars is very high. However, no technology will thrive if the market only consist of the "technically savvy". It must work for the rest of us. This applies to Bluetooth as well as other bells and whistles within the PPC. I am probably at the high-end in terms of technical skill for a non IS person and I have also been itching to venture into Bluetooth as it seems like a perfect tool to connect my myriad devices (desktop pc, laptop, printer, Axim, cell phone). But I have read the horror stories from some very technical folks on this site and there is no way I'm going to venture down that road.

Potential is one thing, but until this (or any technology) works for the non-technical person (without the need to hire a consultant), it will remain a niche product with a very limited market. Regardless of the success of a few, Bluetooth remains an overhyped, underperforming technology. It is no surprise to me that people are presenting consumers with alternatives to wireless connectivity.

[DubWireless]

hmm... looks like this tech is starting to catch the headlines:

Magnets attracting wireless attention (http://news.com.com/2100-1039_3-5079564.html) (news.com)

and it's spurred a discussion on slashdot Magnets To Replace Bluetooth? (http://science.slashdot.org/science/03/09/20/1343257.shtml?tid=126&tid=137&tid=193)

[acronym]

Bluetooth for me is utterly strange. I pride myself on being able to sit down and figure out any type of technology in a matter of minutes. It's part of what I'm paid to do as a consultant.

I really have to defend bluetooth here. oooOOOO! maybe I'll become a bluetooth mvp!

I can't believe bluetooth is the problem, we really should be chalking the problems up to microsoft. I hate to say it, but yes - bluetooth on the mobile phones, palms and on the Macintosh is a complete no-brainer. discover, pair fileshare. really. adding either a windows pda or windows computer into the mix and thing really get frustrating. As I've pointed out in other threads, I have to change my pda from windows driver to push files to the mac then back to the socket drivers to use gprs and my t68. I think dub wireless hit the nail on the head - macs, palms and phones only allow specific useful protocols for bluetooth, win desktops and pdas try to incorporate everything.

[shawnc]

I can't believe bluetooth is the problem, we really should be chalking the problems up to microsoft. I hate to say it, but yes - bluetooth on the mobile phones, palms and on the Macintosh is a complete no-brainer. discover, pair fileshare. really. adding either a windows pda or windows computer into the mix and thing really get frustrating. As I've pointed out in other threads, I have to change my pda from windows driver to push files to the mac then back to the socket drivers to use gprs and my t68. I think dub wireless hit the nail on the head - macs, palms and phones only allow specific useful protocols for bluetooth, win desktops and pdas try to incorporate everything.

acronym,

Very interesting. I just assumed that the problem was with the technology and never considered that the problem may lie with microsoft. Thanx for the correction (in my thinking).

[Jason Dunn]

I can't believe bluetooth is the problem, we really should be chalking the problems up to microsoft. I hate to say it, but yes - bluetooth on the mobile phones, palms and on the Macintosh is a complete no-brainer. discover, pair fileshare. really. adding either a windows pda or windows computer into the mix and thing really get frustrating.

I don't know that Microsoft has to take all the blame here, but I think two things need to happen in order for Bluetooth to succeed on the Windows platform:

1) Microsoft needs to add full support for Bluetooth at the OS level.

2) The myriad of vendors offering Bluetooth solutions need to get their act together and create consumer-friendly implementations, instructions, and software.

[freitasm]

And going back on topic... As someone noted on /. magnetic field is not the best friend computers can have. I don't want anyone with a headset like this close to my computer.

Just FYI I work for a company providing voice mail services to a big telco. During months one of the mainframes (yes, big machines) was having memory dumps every day at the same time. Field engineers, plant engineers, systems developers, OS developers, no one could figure what was the problem.

Until we found out the security guard used his mobile phone to call in every day at the same time to report "All ok".

Since them mobile phones are banned from inside any server room in this company.

No joking. Bluetooth and wi-fi are one thing, but eletromagnetic fields are going to cause havoc.

[DubWireless]

Microsoft's decision not to include support for the release of XP really rasied the eyebrows of many in the Bluetooh Industry, but at the time their wireless architect (Mike Fole) had a good point, there wasn't enough stable (interoperable) hardware available

when Microsoft did release an update to XP they only supported a sub-set of profiles to allow Dial-Up, Printing and Keyboard/Mouse. The glaring omission was for the Serial Port, which lost me as their own Pocket PC products would have benefited so much from it!

if they provided an update that supported dongles from multiple vendors (plug-and-play) with a subset of profiles (including Serial Port) many people would be in a much happier place today

currently the reliance on third party developers to provide the solutions adds a major problem, factor in all the differnet Bluetooth software clients available for the PC depending on which manufacturer you have purchased harware from

on the test Windows box here I'm continuously swapping between versions from Widcomm, Extended Systems, DigiAnswer, IVT Corp, and others..

and then depending on the vendor they may provide different versions of the above with their hardware - and they definatley offer varying levels of support (with some offering almost zero :()

the Pocket PC also has a few different Bluetooth software clients depending on what the manufacturer supplied

that all adds up to a very challenging (that's me being diplomatic ;)) situation to resolve problems, but, when it works it does it's job very well

[shawnc]

I can't believe bluetooth is the problem, we really should be chalking the problems up to microsoft. I hate to say it, but yes - bluetooth on the mobile phones, palms and on the Macintosh is a complete no-brainer. discover, pair fileshare. really. adding either a windows pda or windows computer into the mix and thing really get frustrating.

I don't know that Microsoft has to take all the blame here, but I think two things need to happen in order for Bluetooth to succeed on the Windows platform:

1) Microsoft needs to add full support for Bluetooth at the OS level.

2) The myriad of vendors offering Bluetooth solutions need to get their act together and create consumer-friendly implementations, instructions, and software.

Could be my lack of technical expertise, but if the technology works flawlessly with Apple and Palm, but is a pain in the a&* with Windows and PPC, then it seems like fairly obvious to me (assuming all this is true). Problem lies with Microsoft.

[rbrome]

Very interesting no? If they can do 25 hours of talk time on a single AA battery, and have the bandwidth for voice, I wonder what else they could do? Keyboard? Mouse? Headphones?

Ah - but who said it's digital? If I were going to come up with new wireless headset solution where the goal was lost-cost, it would not be digital.

[heliod]

Jason Dunn wrote:

Why would I need my mouse, keyboard, headphones, or voice headset to be more than six feet away from the reciever? This product obviously won't replace the scenario of using your Pocket PC to surf the Web from 50 feet away, but for many things, it could do the trick. And they said the setup was simple, which is something Bluetooth is not yet very good at... :wink:

This is right. But the product they are announcing is still a headset. And a headset with 4-6 feet range is good only to get you a sour neck and need for some months of physiotherapy. Even while driving you are in danger of going out of range, depending on where you place your phone.

[freitasm]

Jason Dunn wrote:

Why would I need my mouse, keyboard, headphones, or voice headset to be more than six feet away from the reciever? This product obviously won't replace the scenario of using your Pocket PC to surf the Web from 50 feet away, but for many things, it could do the trick. And they said the setup was simple, which is something Bluetooth is not yet very good at... :wink:

This is right. But the product they are announcing is still a headset. And a headset with 4-6 feet range is good only to get you a sour neck and need for some months of physiotherapy. Even while driving you are in danger of going out of range, depending on where you place your phone.

And if the technology provides support for headset only, then it's clear the "easy setup" is a 2.5" plug to insert in the bottom of your mobile phone.

[surur]

Very interesting no? If they can do 25 hours of talk time on a single AA battery, and have the bandwidth for voice, I wonder what else they could do? Keyboard? Mouse? Headphones?

Ah - but who said it's digital? If I were going to come up with new wireless headset solution where the goal was lost-cost, it would not be digital.

It never occurred to me, but this device is probably analog! I thought we left that behind in the stone age :)

BTW, I think the reason why we have so much frustration with bluetooth is because the level of control provided by the software and hardware is so little. Its always either it works, or it doesn't. If we did have IRQ's to fiddle with, were able to assign com ports, type in device ID's manually etc we (as geeks) would probably be alot happier.

Just my theory in any case

Surur

[hollis_f]

2) The myriad of vendors offering Bluetooth solutions need to get their act together and create consumer-friendly implementations, instructions, and software.
This is the real biggie. My first ever experience with BT was a TDK Blupak (for my 3850) and a TDK USB dongle for the laptop. They worked together flawlessly. Only later did I try other BT devices (Nokia, Loox and Sony) with the frustration that many others have experienced. As a result Nokia and Fujitsu-Siemans will never have my custom in the future.

Now I have a set of BT hardware (3970, TDK and Belkin adaptors for desktop and laptop, Ericsson T39m, Emtac GPS and Jabra headset) that really work.

[SassKwatch]

Potential is one thing, but until this (or any technology) works for the non-technical person (without the need to hire a consultant), it will remain a niche product with a very limited market. Regardless of the success of a few, Bluetooth remains an overhyped, underperforming technology.
Overhyped and don't forget....OVERPRICED as well.

From the start, supporters have touted BT for such things as keyboards and mice. Why? We've had wireless keyboards/mice for years. And they come in at roughly half the price of a BT combo. Personally, I couldn't care less which wireless technology is used for such things....as long as it works, is easy to set up, and is reasonably priced. If 2 candidates accomplish both the first 2 of those equally well, then the better priced one will get my $$.

[danielzr]

I emailed the contact address -- here is some more info:

===
The headsets will be in major US retail stores by Xmas.
Please contact the following two companies who make headsets with our
technology:

foneGEAR: [email protected]
Reason Products: www.reasonproducts.com

Dan

---------------------
Dan C. Cui
Vice President of Sales
Aura Communications, Inc.
187 Ballardvale Street
Wilmington, MA 01887
------------------------------
Direct NH Office: 603.335.1820
Mobile: 978.397.3022
Direct Main Office: 978.527.4127
Fax: 978.988.3977
www.auracomm.com &lt;http://www.auracomm.com/>

[Janak Parekh]

From the start, supporters have touted BT for such things as keyboards and mice. Why? We've had wireless keyboards/mice for years. And they come in at roughly half the price of a BT combo. Personally, I couldn't care less which wireless technology is used for such things....as long as it works, is easy to set up, and is reasonably priced. If 2 candidates accomplish both the first 2 of those equally well, then the better priced one will get my $$.
BT keyboards/mice are a little ahead of their time. The idea is that as we have increasing #s of wireless things, we'd like to reduce the number of dongles we have -- one transmitter on a PC would be ideal. They'll come down in price, eventually.

--janak

[grobin]

:cry:
Frankly, I will NOT rush out get one of Aura'ss
new headsets. I have been involved with
communications for nearly my whole life and
an Amateur Radio Operator for forty
years -- and putting this headset on 13.5
mhz is not a great idea.

Got a Ham operator nearby? The headset
may only have a range of a few feet ...
BUT the Ham a few houses away with up
to 12,000 watts erp will send your headset
into orbit. Especially with allocated Ham
frequencies at 14.0-14.350 mhz and 7.0-
7.3 mhz (first harmonic is 14 mhz).

I wouldn't waste my money on it. Most
wireless is on 900mhz and above for a
good reason -- much much less prone to
interference -- no matter what mode of
tranmission is used.

I'd let this one slide ... big time.

[DubWireless]

From the start, supporters have touted BT for such things as keyboards and mice. Why? We've had wireless keyboards/mice for years. And they come in at roughly half the price of a BT combo. Personally, I couldn't care less which wireless technology is used for such things....as long as it works, is easy to set up, and is reasonably priced. If 2 candidates accomplish both the first 2 of those equally well, then the better priced one will get my $$.

there were two announcments last week of new Keyboard & Mouse offerings, posted info over on bluetoothnews.com (links there to save re-posting it all out here again)...

Apple Wireless (Bluetooth) Keyboard and Mouse (http://www.bluetoothnews.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=107)

Logitech Bluetooth Keyboard & Mouse, and Hub (Dongle) (http://www.bluetoothnews.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=108)

.

[SassKwatch]

there were two announcments last week of new Keyboard & Mouse offerings, posted info over on bluetoothnews.com (links there to save re-posting it all out here again)...

Apple Wireless (Bluetooth) Keyboard and Mouse (http://www.bluetoothnews.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=107)

Logitech Bluetooth Keyboard & Mouse, and Hub (Dongle) (http://www.bluetoothnews.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=108)
And the Logitech version is going to sell for $179.95. They have a non-BT combo available for $99.95.

Why would one choose the BT version? Unless the included BT dongle is able to support devices other than the Logitech keyboard & mouse, then it offers no significant advant..... at almost double the cost.

Believe me, I'm not anti-BT just for sake of being anti-BT. I just don't see many available 'practical' applications of the technology after 4-5 yr of 'This is the year of BT' proclomations. If I could buy a BT 'dongle', plug it into my pc like I do a USB hub, be confident it would work with multiple differing device types, and have it be competitively priced, I'd be all over it. IMO, it isn't there yet, and actually has some way to go to achieve it.

[DubWireless]

And the Logitech version is going to sell for $179.95. They have a non-BT combo available for $99.95.

emm.. it was just an FYI on new products announced :)

they are the manufacturer's (Logitech) "suggested" retail price so there should be some flexibility after they actually appear in retail - plus their Bluetooth USB adapter (dongle/hub) does offer support for use with other Bluetooth devices

hopefully with more manufacturers entering the market with them (bluetooth keyboards/mice) a bit of comeptition will be a good thing for prices and choice...