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.
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.
"I'm looking to grab a new phone using a prepaid service. What's the best prepaid phone service in terms of overall price, phone selection and other bells / whistles. Thanks!"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
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.
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.
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.