Nokia intros the BH-101 Bluetooth earpiece
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted October 31st 2007 11:55AM
posted October 31st 2007 11:55AM
posted October 31st 2007 11:55AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Man, that $40 price tag is attractive.
I'll definitely wait for reviews, however. I once purchased a Motorola headset for $25 thinking it was a steal, and it turns out that the volume was absolutely horrible. If this one turns out to be all it's cracked up to be, I might have to buy it for my next cellphone (read: reverse-accessorizing).
I think that's the biggest bluetooth headset photo I've ever seen. It's like a skyscraper on the page.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Does it have DSP? New York City can be a noisy place.
Bluetooth earpieces aren't for gadget enthusiasts.
They aren't? I would say bluetooth headsets contribute to the addiction more than any other gadget these days. FINDING THE PERFECT HEADSET!
Nah, people wear them as status symbols, like shiny hi-tech earrings.
But what really annoys me is the people who think that they're reducing the chance of brain tumours by using a bluetooth headset. IT'S GOT A RADIO IN IT.
Yeah, but Bluetooth Power Class 3, which is used by headsets, has a MAX transmission power of 1 Milliwatt. While most modern handsets have SAR anywhere between 0.50 Watt and 1.80 Watt - so that's between 500 and 1800 times as much radiation energy sent into your brain.
So, I think it is perfectly save to say that using a Bluetooth headset lowers the (totally unproven, but that's beside the point) chance for a brain tumor by a HUGE factor compared to using the handset directly.
So, at least *try* to look up your facts before you go into red-alert mode...
@L,
Ok, fair point. Of course, it's all moot since it's non-ionizing radiation no matter whether it's the phone or the bluetooth module.
It's not what we buy that defines us as geeks/gadget enthusiasts, but HOW we buy it. Gadget enthusiasts buy toasters, they just select them after extensive forum-searching for units with the best heat output and the proper *ding* noise.
A status knucklehead buys the BT earpiece with the brightest little blue LED, so people can see it from space. Gadget people overspend on the Jawbone, because it's the best.
Wrong.
Nobody wears a bluetooth headset as a status symbol.
They're freaking cheap.
This is like the idiots who claim people go to Starbucks so they can carry around the cup as a status symbol.
What fantasy world do you live in where a cup of coffee or a headset you could buy with money you lose in your couch cushions is a status symbol?
Why is it that every idiot who has an irrational hatred for some product has to call everyone who uses it shallow? Seems it's the other way 'round.
A Bentley is a status symbol. A big house is a status symbol. A Bluetooth headset is a communication device.
so do "gadget enthusiasts" just not use handsfree headsets then?
I've got a Moto HS850 (with the flip-out mic piece) but I only wear it when I'm using it, which isn't that often.
I do agree though that many people do wear then as status symbols.
which really makes no sense. Maybe it did 5 years ago, but today it's not really any indication of status.
"Look at me, I'm wealthy and important. I'm using a $40 headset on my phone that came free with my calling plan."
wow, big spender...
Gadget enthusiasts are using stereo bluetooth headsets now.
Mono headset wearers are posers.
A2DP rocks! Well, not really but it does allow stereo. Still hardly a "gadget enthusiast" buy. Chumby. Now that's for the true gadget enthusiast. I still can't figure out why I'd want one.
Personally I've gone through about 10 headsets & just don't use them (even Jawbone). Speakerphone while driving is good enough for me (though my K850 is much quieter than the N95).
Screw status! Forty bones for a solid bluetooth headset? I'm sold.
Ugly!