iFixit digs deeper into iPod touch Bluetooth mystery -- discovers 802.11a

So you all remember that not-so-conclusive iFixit teardown of the iPod touch right? The one we all hoped would bring an end to those Bluetooth rumors once and for all. Well, they've updated their findings at our request with more information about the WiFi chipset. What they found was a Marvell W8686B22 802.11a/b/g WiFi system-on-chip inside. Yes, 802.11a according to iFixit, which on its own is interesting since Apple only claims b/g support. The iPhone you'll recall, has a similar Marvell W8686B13 for WiFi and separate CSR 41B14 BlueCore4ROM chip providing the Bluetooth. Of course others like Wi2Wi, have integrated the Marvell WiFi die with Bluetooth for their own single-chip solutions. However, in that case we'd expect to see Wi2Wi branding on the chipface. There are also a few unidentified chips sporting Apple logos which iFixit could not identify. So what's the answer? Nobody knows. As unlikely as it may be, iFixit contends that they, "cannot confirm nor deny the presence of Bluetooth in this device."

[Ellianth @ Sep 24th 2007 1:46AM]

yeah, and?

[Billy Fiul @ Sep 24th 2007 2:05AM]

The room of people who care is apparently nonexistent.

[Paul @ Sep 24th 2007 1:47AM]

Why couldn't Apple have been truthful about the iPod touch specs?

[Leonard Nimrod @ Sep 24th 2007 6:23PM]

Apple's Tech Specs only list what they officially support.
802.11a was incorporated and working on their notebook line long before they officially supported it.

[scott @ Sep 24th 2007 2:01AM]

makes me wonder... wireless a is on the 5.0ghz spectrum, does this mean that at some keynote Jobs is gonna go "BOOM! All your iPod Touch's have N WIFI!!!!!"

[Todd @ Sep 24th 2007 2:04AM]

JUST like that.

[Leonard Nimrod @ Sep 24th 2007 2:15AM]

No. 802.11n may work on both the 2.4 and 5GHz frequencies but that is a different chipset.

I wouldn't expect a 802.11a/b/g/n chipset until it's cheaper to use than the current chip.

[yahoo! Bluetooth! @ Sep 24th 2007 2:17AM]

i don't understand why its so hard to find if this thing has bluetooth. Engadget, don't you think that what with the increased traffic after a confirmation or denial of Bluetooth, it would be cost effective to buy one and rip it apart yourselves? you could surely make about five separate posts and update your review, and each would surely get about a couple million views (and 150 inane, bickering posts)

[Richard @ Sep 24th 2007 9:17AM]

Engadget is a gadget reporting site, not a site devoted to tearing down and reading chips.

If iFixit couldn't figure it out, then the only people who probably CAN are a group of electrical engineers who would have to desolder (SMT, natch!) the chips from the board and hook 'em up to a chip reader-type device.

Not for the faint of heart.

I'm pretty sure that Apple just got rid of BT on this one. It's clear that the two iPods are different boards, and use different chips. Why would they want you to have BT so you could use it as a VoIP phone? They're not that stupid.

[Wwhat @ Sep 24th 2007 11:29PM]

BT would enable it to turn into a GPS device.

[tweak @ Sep 24th 2007 3:22AM]

Still haven't told me when the F*** I'm getting AD2P on my damn iPhone.

[tweak @ Sep 24th 2007 3:26AM]

A2DP* my bad.

[Major Malfunction @ Sep 24th 2007 3:43AM]

Yah! *walks into doorframe*

[Alan Zeino @ Sep 24th 2007 3:35AM]

"What's the answer?"

THE ANSWER IS IT DOESN'T HAVE BLUETOOTH, SO STOP SPECULATING AND REBIRTHING THIS USELESS STORY.

[LordFarkward @ Sep 24th 2007 4:13AM]

i birth you

[Argot @ Sep 24th 2007 8:38AM]

If everyone just prays hard enough, it will!

In nomine Jobs et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

[Reg @ Sep 24th 2007 4:06AM]

Didn't Apple's Greg Joswiak say in an interview, "the iPod touch doesn't have frickin' bluetooth, all you conspiracy theorists are raving lunatics..."

Except, in a nice way. ;)

http://www.gearlog.com/2007/09/apples_joswiak_we_dont_hate_ip.php

[trumpton @ Sep 24th 2007 6:09AM]

Will Engadget being pulling apart every new consumer electronics release and aimlessly speculating about the undocumented functionality of its components, or is this an honour currently entirely reserved for Apple products?

[yoshi @ Sep 24th 2007 7:56AM]

It's not really aimless now, is it?

The Touch is very closely related to the iPhone. The iPhone has bluetooth. It is reasonable to speculate that they may have simply disabled the funcionality within the Touch. And, if they simply disabled that functionality, then it is reasonable to speculate that it might be possible to enable it with a hack. And, since bluetooth would be a really nice function for such a device, finding out whether the Touch is capable of that function is nowhere near an aimless effort.

[strider_mt2k @ Sep 24th 2007 6:55AM]

Crickets.

Tumble Weeds.

[huh? @ Sep 24th 2007 10:31AM]

you work better on jizzmodo. come back. we miss you.

[eEZER @ Sep 24th 2007 8:43AM]

I hope they'll make a movie based upon this intriguing mystery, preferably with Brad Pitt as the lead character - there is that "Apple-ness" about him.

[spammerblackhole-engadget @ Sep 24th 2007 8:44AM]

Keep in mind that "support" is not synonymous with "is capable of". Companies usually limit the capabilities they support in order to save money on testing and customer support.

[Davandron @ Sep 24th 2007 8:50AM]

One big gotcha: 11a (5GHz) requires a very different antenna pattern. If the iPod doesn't have the antenna, there is little hope of 11a.

I'm willing to bet it was a chip availability / discount issue. Apple only needed b/g but got the a/b/g chipset at no extra cost.

[Richard @ Sep 24th 2007 9:22AM]

Most likely the chipmaker doesn't even make b/g chips anymore, just a/b/g or b/g/n and just has their engineers flash the chips to enable 802.11a if paid for by the customer.

Happens all the time... look at all those digital cameras that you can "upgrade" by reflashing... same type of thing.

[Jason @ Sep 24th 2007 9:36AM]

Why does Apple think that everyone that buy their products has to be convinced with whatever they say or display to us? I totally believe there's Bluetooth in the iPod Touch, and I wouldn't doubt the existence of WiFi, with the findings iFixit just did.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/14/ipod-touch-ships-without-os-x/

This proves my point

[sandifop @ Sep 25th 2007 9:34AM]

WiFi?

[Geonerd @ Sep 24th 2007 9:22AM]

Not buying it without A2DP, period

[Al Most @ Sep 24th 2007 10:18AM]

do these news bloggers graduate highschool?

seperate???

come on dude, thats pathetic.

[blue @ Sep 24th 2007 10:38AM]

Did anyone else notice the nasty chipout on the lower edge?

[mike @ Sep 24th 2007 4:33PM]

i dont get the big ruckass - if the chip is a/b/g then doesnt that mean it has the capacity to run 802.11a? If the chip runs b/g ..then WHO CARES? Why is this news that it runs on something not even used anymore?

[Jazz110 @ Sep 24th 2007 6:38PM]

I purchased the iPod Touch knowing that there was no BT. If it turns out it does well that is a bonus. If a future one has BT, or any other feature I'll hand down the old one or sell it. If BT is hidden and gets turned on later in my BT well then that is one nice "Easter Egg" ;)

[Mike @ Sep 25th 2007 5:55AM]

WRONG! The iPhone has a BlueCore4 AudioFlash, with 6MB of on-board FLASH, or else, they lied in their Bluetooth certification documentation:

http://tech.am/2007/09/14/apple-is-against-bluetooth-but-why/

Are there pictures of the Bluetooth section?