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]
posted Apr 13th 2009 9:48PM
That's actually a seriously awesome idea for when I want to wirelessly transfer music and large files from my computer to my phone.
Actually wasn't that a feature of the Zune???
Could MS hit the nail (in the wrong wood, but hit nonetheless)?
@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.
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.
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.
FIREWIRE SUXX
@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 :)
So do we have to get a hardware update?!
Or do we just upgraded software to handle the transfer to 3.0?
Probably depends... Apple with make it free for iPhone owners and cost *just* $19 for iPod touch owners... Sad day.
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.
@ 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
@Joshua Walters,
http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/17/2g-ipod-touch-to-have-bluetooth-capability-unlocked-by-iphone-os/
It's called the iPod Touch! I hate it when people call it the iTouch!
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.
I think the PS3 could support 3.0 with just a simple firmware update.
HOT
Now THAT is really, really cool.
Is it just me, or does this sound like what Apple announced for iPhone OS 3.0 but much much cooler?
@ 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.
"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)
Lol, that's why I can't wait for the 3.0 software to finally be here!
Hahaha
holycow gets the award for the comment of the year!
You hit Engadget where it hurts the most!
Holycow is now nominated for the Engadget Awards 2009 for the category "Best commenter of 2009". :D
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).
oh how sweet it is,.wonder when pre,bb,wm,nokia,n rest of the followers will
Clone this.,.
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)
@Super-sic
The iPhone is the FIRST device to allow bluetooth file transfers!!! you POS!!!
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...
@ mur mur mur
i love stupid people, like you. they make my often stressful life somewhat more entertaining and relaxing.
"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.
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.
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.
Many bluetooth applications demand a constant connection between devices. Headsets being the most obvious.
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...
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.
It would be a hardware update. Your tablet could probably get a new Bluetooth card, assuming the chip isn't soldered onto the motherboard.
Only if you want to use extra energy _and_ have a pair of wifi headphones.
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?
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?
Any security risks with this new Bluetooth technology?
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?
Interesting idea - I wonder if this will actually work... It IS a little complicated...
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.
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!
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?
Different radios, different protocols. You need separate hardware for each.
@Mmmm... Dohnuts.,
the upgrade will be available for $9.95
"since most Bluetooth-capable devices also have WiFi radios"
What. What. What. How could anyone even believe this is true.
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!
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
No Kip you're wrong. Pretty much every current phone aside from the absolute cheapest ones have Bluetooth (and every mid-range phone for the past 5 years). Only smartphones and some new high-end dumbphones have WiFi.
Also I never got the Wi-fi craze. What would I use it for. Maybe it's more an american thing where you have slow, dreadful 3G coverage?
@ greenlight
"Also I never got the Wi-fi craze. What would I use it for. Maybe it's more an american thing where you have slow, dreadful 3G coverage?"
Or maybe it's a New Zealand thing where data costs you hand, foot, torso, and then some... Many a teenager have been reprimanded by shocked parents who receive mobile bills in the range of thousands of dollars because their poor teenager thought that mobile internet costs around the same as ADSL...
OTOH, I've always wondered why there are so many apps for WinMo that required a data connection instead of being usable offline (GPS maps, RSS aggregators..).. is data in America free or something?
All this is spiffing, but whilst Bluetooth is being discussed, I want to ask a question.
I'm not too hot on the tech side of things, but its something I thought about whilst in the underground.
Okay, imagine that every bluetooth enabled phone, once every, say 10 seconds (I know it is a drain on battery, but bear with me), checks its signal strength and sends a tiny bit of data to all other nearby phones detailing current signal strength.
Then, within reason, so I guess gps would have to be used to prevent chains getting too long, all these phones forward received data the next time they transmit, to phones they can connect to that the original sender can't.
So all the time, phones are exchanging data regarding their signal strength and their location.
Would it ever be possible with this sort of system, if implemented, if you were in a subway station, but between the huge throng of people coming in and out constantly, to make a call by carrying the data across bluetooth, hopping from phone to phone, to the nearest phone reachable that has a strong signal?
I guess its sort of similar to the mesh networking in the OLPC. I don't know.
Basically... why can't I use my phone in Glasgow subway stations?