CSR demonstrates Bluetooth low energy transfer

We know you're not really down with digesting any more catchphrases, but the technology formerly known as Ultra Low Power Bluetooth / Wibree is now being dubbed Bluetooth low energy. Now that we're clear on nomenclature, you may be thrilled to know that CSR showcased its recently unveiled BlueCore7 dual mode (Bluetooth low energy and Bluetooth v2.1) chip at a Bluetooth SIG Medical Working Group meeting. According to onlookers, the handset was able to transfer data to another nearby mobile using just 3 frequencies rather than 32, resulting in an unquantifiable decrease in power consumption. Sounds like a winner on the surface, but we have this weird feeling that mass adoption of this tech is like, years away.

[Tim @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:40AM]

If its unquantifiable, Whats the point?

[silverblackvoid @ Jul 23rd 2008 5:59AM]

the point is it used 3 frequencies instead of 32. so less bandwidth means lower power consumption.

[neofolklore @ Jul 23rd 2008 7:45AM]

I have this weird that engadget has no editors.

[snarky jerk @ Jul 23rd 2008 8:53AM]

no, they left yesteday.

[skulldriveshaft @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:47AM]

"but we have this weird that mass adoption of this tech is like, years away."

yeah, that's gonna be a weird for sure.

anyone else think that this will make a kludge for handset makers that will now force the secondary BT capability for your headset/symbiot only?

[Niz @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:49AM]

Will this not then interfere with wifi etc. Since the whole reason why it didn't interfere before is because it used all the frequencies so quickly that it did not interfere, that was my understanding all this time. 3 doesn't sound like enough. Unless i have it all wrong, that or there's something more to this.

[L @ Jul 23rd 2008 9:01AM]

Since BT v1.2 (I think, might be v2.0), BT detects if other senders (mainly WiFi) already use some channels in the 2.4GHz range and simply doesn't use them. So, if there's at least one WiFi channel free, BT and WiFi shouldn't interfere.

And if they do: BT uses channels with much less bandwith (1MHz instead of 20 like WiFi), and changes them 1600 times/sec, so it shouldn't pose a big problem in any case.

[jkr @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:50AM]

hmmm 3 channels vs 32, was the speed 1/11th of normal BT?

[rodman @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:50AM]

is it nokia 6300? i want that color

[nDee @ Jul 23rd 2008 4:18AM]

That is betalab / internal use version.
Or you can get the 6300 NFC version.

[L @ Jul 23rd 2008 9:01AM]

I think either the 6301 or the 6300*i* comes in that brown color - both are basically 6300's with WiFi, don't ask me what the other differences are...

[anarchism223 @ Jul 23rd 2008 4:35PM]

The 6301 uses Wifi for UMA, which is basically like VoIP for cell phones. Free calls over the internet. The 6300i, from my understanding of it, uses Wifi but only in the traditional browsing the web sense.

[LJKelley @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:04AM]

Not less power... I wanted Bluetooth that ate my whole battery just for one file transfer.

[gad get @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:16AM]

Well hey, that makes two of us.

[El Taco @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:21AM]

I, for one, welcome our battery-saving, teeth-after-eating-fun-dip colored overlords

[A.C.E.R. @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:49AM]

If by "years away" you mean "never" then I absolutely agree.

[Cassini @ Jul 23rd 2008 4:21AM]

So let me get this straight...

There is a low power BT mode that was referred to as "Ultra Low Power Bluetooth" aka "Wibree" and possibly aka "ULP-BT" (for those who prefer to just use initials), but now is known as "Bluetooth Low Energy" or maybe aka "BT-LE"?

What's the point of BT-LE? I thought that's what NFC (aka Near-Field Communication) was all about. I thought BT 2.1 was supposed to handle that. Or did the BT SIG decide to take that part of BT 2.1 and give it another name (BT-LE) in order to stir up more attention to BT 2.1's NFC capabilities? Is this just some sort of a PR stunt, or did the other names just not catch on for some reason?

Then again, perhaps BT-LE has little or nothing to do with BT 2.1 and its previously advertised NFC capabilities. Is it that BT-LE uses even less energy than BT 2.1 NFC - for use in environments more sensitive to wireless communications, such as medical facilities? After all, some Medical Working Group was witnessing this new BT feature. I just didn't think that's what Wibree - uh, I mean BT-LE - was limited to. I thought the hopes behind Wibree aka BT-LE had a wider scope of application (like peoples' homes) than just medical and other wireless-sensitive facilities.

I guess more of this will be cleared up later. But regardless of what it's called: "low-power", "near-field", or whatever else, I can see a lot of potential use for it in all sorts of environments where more complicated or "chat-heavy" pairing wouldn't be preferred or even needed.

So years away? Perhaps, but I'm not so sure about that. Any form of NFC could catch on quickly, especially in the context of mobile phones.

[BarmyFred @ Jul 23rd 2008 8:41AM]

NFC and BT low energy are different. An example of a BT low energy application would be a remote control, the sending of a short amount of data - a "volume up" command for example. It would need to send the data and switch itself off pretty quickly to save energy. NFC could probably do this but, given a range measured in a few centimeters, would be no good as a remote control.