Bluetooth 3.0 to use WiFi for high-speed file transfers

Sounds like the Bluetooth 3.0 announcement on April 21 is going to finally usher in the era of high-speed short-range data transfers -- as previously hinted, the new spec will actually negotiate a quick'n'dirty ad-hoc WiFi connection between devices if it needs to move bits in a hurry, and then turn off the spigot to save power when it's done. The idea is to leverage the speed of WiFi while keeping power usage low, and we'd say it's a pretty trick solution, since most Bluetooth-capable devices also have WiFi radios (cough, Storm). Since the ad-hoc WiFi connection is managed over Bluetooth, no actual wireless network is necessary, and the switch will appear seamless to the user -- except for the sudden increase in data transfer speeds. Yeah, it's definitely slick stuff -- we're looking forward to seeing the first devices in action next Tuesday.

[Via MocoNews]

[eggothewaffle @ Apr 13th 2009 9:51PM]

That's actually a seriously awesome idea for when I want to wirelessly transfer music and large files from my computer to my phone.

[boolean22 @ Apr 13th 2009 10:37PM]

Actually wasn't that a feature of the Zune???

Could MS hit the nail (in the wrong wood, but hit nonetheless)?

[Mmmm... Dohnuts. @ Apr 13th 2009 10:53PM]

@eggothewaffle

What, you don't have an iPhone? Me neither :D (contracts are the devil's plaything), but you can use any of about a hundred apps to do this between a computer and an iPod touch (or iPhone... *sighs*) already, and most of them are free. Also, a friend showed me how to do this on Windows Mobile, but there was no way I could remember all that stuff :P!

I want this more so I can take pictures and video on my phone/camera (using an Eye-Fi SD card) and send them to my iPod touch on the go (without a network). That'd be sweet for long road trips, plus then I could back them up online without a laptop on hand.

[Adam @ Apr 14th 2009 12:19AM]

the only issue i see with this, is your wifi radio is being used during transfer, so you can't be using the internet on your computer or phone or whatever, which could be an issue, especially for large transfers.

i guess its a worthwhile give and take though, depending on the situation.

[Kurian @ Apr 14th 2009 1:29AM]

Using the godlike speed of WiFi to its full advantage, you transfer all the files at the same time. This makes Bluetooth 1.2 and 2.0 useless. This is the Bluetooth Consortium's, Bluetooth 3.0.

[atc @ Apr 14th 2009 3:10AM]

FIREWIRE SUXX

[Sirius @ Apr 15th 2009 7:59AM]

@Kurian

Oh, good. Because at the moment it takes longer for me to transfer files over bluetooth than it does for me to just download it off the net over wifi directly. That's just wrong (bt speed, that is; I've no beef about my internet speed :P)

@atc

Used correctly, firewire most certainly does not suck. Unless you mean it sucks data, in which case, yea, it sucks quite well :)

[Super-sic @ Apr 13th 2009 9:52PM]

So do we have to get a hardware update?!
Or do we just upgraded software to handle the transfer to 3.0?

[Mmmm... Dohnuts. @ Apr 13th 2009 10:55PM]

Probably depends... Apple with make it free for iPhone owners and cost *just* $19 for iPod touch owners... Sad day.

[Jack Chance @ Apr 13th 2009 11:16PM]

get 'files lite' on the iphone.
let's you make your iphone a webdav server.
only limitation is that your iphone and machine have to be on the same wireless network for it to work.

[Joshua Walters @ Apr 13th 2009 11:21PM]

@ Mmmm... Dohnuts.
Mmmm... Dohnuts.

I dont think the iTouch has bluetooth, and its a hardware spec, not a software stack, so it wont be incorporated into current devices.

Although, Im not sure. Bluetooth 2.1 compatible devices may meet the required spec for 3.0

[ahha @ Apr 13th 2009 11:36PM]

@Joshua Walters,
http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/17/2g-ipod-touch-to-have-bluetooth-capability-unlocked-by-iphone-os/

[holycow @ Apr 13th 2009 11:57PM]

It's called the iPod Touch! I hate it when people call it the iTouch!

[who? @ Apr 14th 2009 12:36AM]

My iPod had bluetooth, you just need the 3.0 firmware to activate it. My headphones work fine, and they're letting the devs (like me and my friends) use it for developing apps. Second generation touch only.

[IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (BarCODE) @ Apr 14th 2009 12:55AM]

I think the PS3 could support 3.0 with just a simple firmware update.

[KyleC @ Apr 13th 2009 9:52PM]

HOT

[Alex @ Apr 13th 2009 9:53PM]

Now THAT is really, really cool.

[Sam Gross @ Apr 13th 2009 9:55PM]

Is it just me, or does this sound like what Apple announced for iPhone OS 3.0 but much much cooler?

[chris @ Apr 13th 2009 10:00PM]

@ Sam Gross

Lol, you are kidding right? All apple did was catch the iPhone upto where even the dumbest flip phones have been for over the past 2 years with their updates to bluetooth support on the iPhone and Ipod Touch.

[holycow @ Apr 13th 2009 9:56PM]

"most Bluetooth-capable devices also have WiFi radios (cough, Storm)"

most Bluetooth-capable devices also have the ability to transfer files through Bluetooth (cough, iPhone)

[Super-sic @ Apr 13th 2009 9:59PM]

Lol, that's why I can't wait for the 3.0 software to finally be here!

[Patriks7 @ Apr 14th 2009 4:58AM]

Hahaha
holycow gets the award for the comment of the year!
You hit Engadget where it hurts the most!

[Dries @ Apr 14th 2009 7:50AM]

Holycow is now nominated for the Engadget Awards 2009 for the category "Best commenter of 2009". :D

[chris @ Apr 13th 2009 9:57PM]

This paired with the new sdxc spec will make all of our smartphone purchases over the next 6months obsolete outdated hardware. Hopefully XDA at least keeps us winmo users up to date with hacked driver and OS updates. (They managed quite well to get older devices able to run sdhc where previously they could only run SD, and able to do things with bluetooth like A2DP, even though the devices were released previous to its release).

[Shank @ Apr 13th 2009 9:57PM]

oh how sweet it is,.wonder when pre,bb,wm,nokia,n rest of the followers will
Clone this.,.

[Super-sic @ Apr 13th 2009 10:04PM]

You seriously did not just say that; moron...
Bluetooth is used in all phones as a file transfer solution, and if your insinuating that the iPhone was the first to use it... Go to a psych ward!
I hope all phones do copy this new spec! That's what it was built for... ALL PHONES! (and other devices)

[murmermer @ Apr 13th 2009 11:43PM]

@Super-sic

The iPhone is the FIRST device to allow bluetooth file transfers!!! you POS!!!

[Colin @ Apr 14th 2009 2:18AM]

The iPhone is not the first device to offer bluetooth file transfer. In fact it does not offer bluetooth file transfer yet...
You sir have FAILED at life...

[SimbaDogg @ Apr 14th 2009 2:28AM]

@ mur mur mur
i love stupid people, like you. they make my often stressful life somewhat more entertaining and relaxing.

[Patriks7 @ Apr 14th 2009 5:01AM]

"The iPhone is the FIRST device to allow bluetooth file transfers!!!"
So are you telling me that the LG Prada (yeah, I know, iPhone clone! -_-') was just magically transferring files from my laptop when they were paired through bluetooth?
I've also been wondering why my iPhone can't do it yet, even though it obviously is "the FIRST device" to allow it.

[Cunthor @ Apr 13th 2009 10:03PM]

Great idea, possibly due to Wireless USB gaining some momentum which could render existing bluetooth obsolete on most new devices. BT 3.0 will be quicker and cheaper to implement, without the potential licensing fees from WUSB.

[wrabbit @ Apr 13th 2009 10:06PM]

I'm not quite up on the wifi/bluetooth tech but if bluetooth can use wifi to transfer data at faster speeds, why not do it all the time - i.e. use bluetooth as a "transparent wifi connection protocol" kinda thing? I understand that wifi transmitter requires more power but that's when its working, and with faster data transfer it will stay on for less time than bluetooth and in its idle state shouldn't take more power (should it?) - so maybe power consumption overall wouldn't rise much.

[Plothole @ Apr 13th 2009 11:42PM]

Many bluetooth applications demand a constant connection between devices. Headsets being the most obvious.

[The Fresh Panda @ Apr 13th 2009 10:12PM]

So to go from 2.0 to 3.0 is it just a software update or hardware update? I have bluetooth x61 tablet, mp3 player, and headphones. Doesn't seem like you software upgrade the headphones...

[Greg @ Apr 13th 2009 10:22PM]

Why would you need to do a high-speed wireless transfer to your headphones? :P

In actuality, I don't think anything that's in Bluetooth 3.0 is really needed for your headphones, or any for that matter, and I'm pretty sure things are backward compatible, so it seems that you would just leave your headphones and upgrade the rest... and everything will still work as intentioned.

[Dafrety @ Apr 13th 2009 10:56PM]

It would be a hardware update. Your tablet could probably get a new Bluetooth card, assuming the chip isn't soldered onto the motherboard.

[kingu @ Apr 13th 2009 11:07PM]

Only if you want to use extra energy _and_ have a pair of wifi headphones.

[pika2000 @ Apr 13th 2009 10:31PM]

This is interesting. Is it backward compatible? Does this mean the Bluetooth as we know it is "dead?" What will the wifi alliance think of this?

[Arian Kooshesh @ Apr 13th 2009 10:48PM]

How do you think this will affect the appearance of bluetooth internet sharing?
How about bridging connections with bluetooth on linux?
Did I give anyone a brain hard on?

[David @ Apr 13th 2009 10:47PM]

Any security risks with this new Bluetooth technology?

[AmyFan @ Apr 13th 2009 10:52PM]

So, will the Wi-Fi be intergrated within Bluetooth 3.0 or will the standard just use the Wi-Fi of devices that have it? For devices that don't have Wi-Fi what will be the increases in speed?

[Graeme Smith @ Apr 13th 2009 10:49PM]

Interesting idea - I wonder if this will actually work... It IS a little complicated...

[Joshua Walters @ Apr 13th 2009 11:22PM]

Why are people even mentioning Apple in here? This has NOTHING to do with them.

Oh, and for the record, most devices can transfer files over Bluetooth, but its relatively slow, since its limited to the current low bandwith spec.

[Super-sic @ Apr 14th 2009 12:03AM]

Because of shank...
I own a Mac and an iPhone, but I don't praise and claim that everything they have done is the first and only... Or the best.

@mermermer (who replied to my comment under shank's)
Really? I have a mac running 10.5.6 and an iPhone 3G running 2.2.1 and no I cannot transfer files without either jailbreaking/or installing 3rd party apps from the app store. Not to mention that the iphone is definatly not the first phone to file share over bluetooth.
It's been in winmo and symbian and bb phones since a few years ago!

[Mark @ Apr 13th 2009 11:25PM]

I've never understood why Wifi capable devices can't just install drivers for bluetooth. If they use the same frequency, shouldn't it be easy to just use the same radio to broadcast bluetooth protocols, or vice versa?

[Fara @ Apr 14th 2009 3:30AM]

Different radios, different protocols. You need separate hardware for each.

[chickenator @ Apr 13th 2009 11:39PM]

@Mmmm... Dohnuts.,
the upgrade will be available for $9.95

[greenlight @ Apr 14th 2009 5:50AM]

"since most Bluetooth-capable devices also have WiFi radios"
What. What. What. How could anyone even believe this is true.

[Barbaric @ Apr 14th 2009 9:35AM]

I have 3 Bluetooth phones in my family...2 different sonys, and a moto. None of which have wi-fi. I also have a Bluetooth dongle for my desktop, but no wi-fi.

I hate being in the minority all the time! I wish I could be like everyone else and have both!

[Kip HT @ Apr 14th 2009 10:26AM]

I think the author meant bluetooth capable phones have wifi.

I mean seriously, you'd have to be pretty stupid to buy a phone in 2009 that didn't have wifi. Nokia's have done it for years