Bluetooth 4.0 Standard Finalized

[Ed Hansberry]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/17/bluetooth-4-0-finally-rolls-low-energy-tech-into-a-shipping-stan/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/17/...-shipping-stan/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Bluetooth low energy and its predecessors (think Wibree) have been in the pipe for ages now, but we might actually see this tech take off en masse for the first time now that the Bluetooth SIG has officially added it into a release: 4.0. While Bluetooth 3.0 was all about high energy with the introduction of WiFi transfer, 4.0 takes things down a notch by certifying single-mode low energy devices in addition to dual-mode devices that incorporate both the low energy side of the spec plus either 2.1+EDR or 3.0."</em></p><p>Beyond Bluetooth headsets, and in some cases stereo headphones, I just don't see much in the way of Bluetooth devices. I know that is all the average consumer thinks of when they hear Bluetooth. I know that BT 3.0 specs were released a while back, but i couldn't name a single 3.0 device. Heck, I don't even know if my phone is 2.x or not. It works with my headset, that is all I care about. Any of you have a BT 3.0 device?</p>

[jadesse]

I believe that most of the newer phone & headsets are all BT 2.0. I didn't know there was a 3.0 standard

[jmjstandin]

Apart from headphones, I sometimes transfer contact information from my phone to my wife's via Bluetooth. Occasionally I use it for an Activesync connection although a cable is usually a lot quicker (and it charges too). That's about it. I think other forms of wireless connection have deprived Bluetooth of quite a lot of its raison d'etre in the last few years.

[kzemach]

... it might be huge. For instance, I use a Garmin exercise system (using wireless Ant+ technology) with a foot pod, heart rate monitor, watch, and you can get a bike module and GPS too. Of course, I also have to get a special USB stick to be able to transfer to my computer. Now, if all that were done via a bluetooth standard, then I:

a) wouldn't need a special USB stick which I could lose or forget to bring on trips
b) one could use their PDA/phone to pick up this data from these devices

The proliferation would be huge. LOTS of people use the wireless HR monitors working out now. Millions. Being able to have all that communicate with your phone and computer would enable a lot of cool stuff.

[Ed Hansberry]

Why can the current BT standard not meet those needs though? Just turn BT on the device on and start syncing. I'll tell you why. 1) AFAIK, no desktop comes with BT, so you have to buy a BT dongle and then possibly install software/drivers. Depends on the OS and the BT maker. 2) Few laptops come with it, though most can get it for $25 or so if you order it with it. Upgrade your OS though and you may be toast. i have a Dell 350 BT card in my Precision M65 that came with Vista but the driver doesn't work in Windows 7 and Dell isn't supporting that card with Win7, at least not yet, so no BT sans dongle. 3) pairing can be a pain in the butt.

that is why my portable mouse uses its own RF dongle and likely why garmin skipped BT altogether. i keep hearing the promise of universal data transfers over wireless connections - have since 2001, but nearly a decade later, BT continually fails to deliver.

[Sven Johannsen]

Yea Ed, we know your position on BT ;) For many things, for me, it just works, and isn't the power hog that WiFi is. Virtually every vehicle I have is equipped with BT handsfree, and onced paired, virtually every phone we have, we just get in the car and it connects. We just leave BT on the phones on all the time with no real noticeable battery affect. My biggest issue here is disconnecting in one vehicle. Two the BT are tied to the ignition, so the car goes off the BT disconnects. The last is a portable unit (Parrot) and the range is such that if I forget to turn it off, my next call is going to the car, when I'm in the living room. I notice my iPhone prompts for BT, phone, speaker with BT default, but my WM just routs to the BT if connected.

My BT mice and keyboards all work just fine. I love my MVP MoGo mouse, as it is very compact and just kicking out the stand turns it on and connects it to my Vaio. I have a little Dell BT travel mouse paird with my netbook that also has a little on-off switch that gets it hooked up.

I would likely use BT for AS/WMDC if it weren't for having to charge anyway, and one other thing. Why can't my WM device behave like a headset. When it is in range, connect. Would make sense to me that if I leave BT on anyway, when my WM and PC see each other they just hook up. That way I could charge where-ever, but keep myself sync'd much more consistantly and conviniently.

I just wish more media player OEMs (ZUNE!!!) would have included BT, even at the loss of WiFi, IMHO. I would use a BT stereo headset, way more often than I need WiFi. Consider that I could share with friends over BT, and sync over BT. Could even connect to an internet connected PC when a home to buy stuff from the device. What I would have trouble with is connecting to the web to surf or buy stuff when at Starbucks. Personnally i don't need to do that with my media player. For most though, no reason a media player couldn't have both WiFi and BT, and just let me turn the battery sucking WiFi off.

P.S. When I road my bike, my phone just stayed in the saddle bag and I pushed the big button on my Scala Rider Headset, using voice dialing (Voice Command) and one touch answering. Figured this might interest you ;)

[oids]

Both 3.0 & 4.0 bluetooth standards are new.

3.0 theoretically provides a 10x speed improvement over 2.1 (24 mb/s).
4.0 is for very low power devices (but slow speeds & short range).

4.0 is intended for use on sensors or other similar devices that need to provide hundreds of hours of operation on a single coin cell battery. One obvious use would be for something like a a Heart Rate Monitor.