Is Bluetooth finished?

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.bluetooth (More info?)

Gary Rall <garyrall@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It seems like very few new phones are coming out and the ones that do are
> not fully compatible. I have a new BMW that is equipped with Bluetooth
> capability but when I look for phones (I am on the Sprint network) I only
> find the Sony Erickson T608 listed, and that phone has not been available
> for a year. None of the new BT phones are fully compatible either.

I think the dearth of BT phones might be down to your provider. I've had
a look at Sprint's website and notice it offers hardly any BT capable
phones.

Elsewhere, BT phones are *very* common - for example, look at Vodafone
in the UK. Doing a search on BT capable phones turns up 21 handsets that
have that feature from 6 manufacturers.

Similarly, looking at Telstra's site in Australia and you'll find 52
matches.

So, it appears to be an issue with your provider not providing the
phones. I've also heard (and this is hearsay, so I may be wrong) that
quite a few of the network providers in the US cripple BT, limiting it
only to the headset profile. Could that have something to do with it?


>
> When I asked BMW they say that the phone manufactures are not following the
> BT specs. but since they work on some cars I wonder.
>

BT is a standard, although in the past Nokia and Motorola's
implementations have been a little eccentric. This might be what BMW was
referring to. Both have gotten a lot better in recent years, though.

As for newer phones - I've not had any problems with my BMW. I've a
645Ci with BT that works beautifully with a z600, p800, T610 (al Sony
Ericsson)and a Motorola Razr (which was promptly lost under the seats so
BT was a Godsend!).

The significant other has a Nokia 7610 and a Cooper S with the Bluetooth
stuff, (which I assume is similar, if not the same as that shipped in
'real' BMWs) which also works wondefully.


>
>
> My question is "Is there a testing group that independently certifies
> compatibility?"

Probably the BlueTooth Special Interest Group (SIG) - www.bluetooth.com

mark

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.bluetooth (More info?)

In <news:Zkybe.3747$Zi.2967@fed1read04> Gary Rall wrote:
> My question is "Is there a testing group that independently certifies
> compatibility?"

There's an open _German_ Bluetooth compability DB run by the German IT
magazine ct'
http://www.heise.de/mobil/bluetooth/db/
go there: select BMW as "Hersteller" (aka manufacturer) and click "Suchen"
(aka search).
Pick your BMW kit and look for the right "Gegenstellen" for your profile.
--
cheers
Oliver

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.bluetooth (More info?)

"Gary Rall" <garyrall@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zkybe.3747$Zi.2967@fed1read04...
> It seems like very few new phones are coming out and the ones that do are
> not fully compatible. I have a new BMW that is equipped with Bluetooth
> capability but when I look for phones (I am on the Sprint network) I only
> find the Sony Erickson T608 listed, and that phone has not been available
> for a year. None of the new BT phones are fully compatible either.
>
>
>
> When I asked BMW they say that the phone manufactures are not following
> the BT specs. but since they work on some cars I wonder.
>
>
>
> My question is "Is there a testing group that independently certifies
> compatibility?"
>
SNIP

Yes there is! It's the Bluetooth Organisation itself. Manufacturers are NOT
permitted to badge their products as "Bluetooth" without passing
qualification.

http://qualweb.bluetooth.org/Template2.cfm

GO here to check which devices conform to which BT Profiles.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.bluetooth (More info?)

"Dolphin Boy" <dolphin_boy_42DEATHTOSPAMMERS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a03d4$42709b95$5044201a$20713@datanet.co.uk...
> Yes there is! It's the Bluetooth Organisation itself. Manufacturers are
> NOT permitted to badge their products as "Bluetooth" without passing
> qualification.
>
> http://qualweb.bluetooth.org/Template2.cfm
>
> GO here to check which devices conform to which BT Profiles.

But networks can alter software to change the bluetooth functions purposely
to avoid losing money on ringtone downloads etc

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.bluetooth (More info?)

Yozzi wrote:

> "Dolphin Boy" <dolphin_boy_42DEATHTOSPAMMERS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a03d4$42709b95$5044201a$20713@datanet.co.uk...
>> Yes there is! It's the Bluetooth Organisation itself. Manufacturers are
>> NOT permitted to badge their products as "Bluetooth" without passing
>> qualification.
>>
>> http://qualweb.bluetooth.org/Template2.cfm
>>
>> GO here to check which devices conform to which BT Profiles.
>
> But networks can alter software to change the bluetooth functions
> purposely to avoid losing money on ringtone downloads etc

They might turn those functions on or off but altering operation of the ones
that they enable so that they are not standards-compliant would seem rather
pointless.

In any case one is not in general obligated to use a phone provided by the
carrier.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.bluetooth (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:58:49 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
> Yozzi wrote:

>> "Dolphin Boy" <dolphin_boy_42DEATHTOSPAMMERS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:a03d4$42709b95$5044201a$20713@datanet.co.uk...
>>> Yes there is! It's the Bluetooth Organisation itself. Manufacturers are
>>> NOT permitted to badge their products as "Bluetooth" without passing
>>> qualification.

>>> http://qualweb.bluetooth.org/Template2.cfm

>>> GO here to check which devices conform to which BT Profiles.

>> But networks can alter software to change the bluetooth functions
>> purposely to avoid losing money on ringtone downloads etc

> They might turn those functions on or off but altering operation of the ones
> that they enable so that they are not standards-compliant would seem rather
> pointless.

> In any case one is not in general obligated to use a phone provided by the
> carrier.

So long as one can unlock the phone so that it can be used with any carrier. A
process that can be a hassle in many cases.


--
Mike.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.bluetooth (More info?)

Thus spake J. Clarke:
>> But networks can alter software to change the bluetooth functions
>> purposely to avoid losing money on ringtone downloads etc
>
> They might turn those functions on or off but altering operation of
> the ones that they enable so that they are not standards-compliant
> would seem rather pointless.
>
> In any case one is not in general obligated to use a phone provided
> by the carrier.

I bet it's considerably cheaper doing so though. It's threads like this one
John that lead me to believe manufacturers need to implement BT with a bit
more alacrity & it was generally not widely used in the USA (& other places
where Sprint provides cellular services).

--
Thank people in advance? Thanking or cursing them afterwards at least
gives some feedback!

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.bluetooth (More info?)

Paul Busby wrote:

> Thus spake J. Clarke:
>>> But networks can alter software to change the bluetooth functions
>>> purposely to avoid losing money on ringtone downloads etc
>>
>> They might turn those functions on or off but altering operation of
>> the ones that they enable so that they are not standards-compliant
>> would seem rather pointless.
>>
>> In any case one is not in general obligated to use a phone provided
>> by the carrier.
>
> I bet it's considerably cheaper doing so though. It's threads like this
> one John that lead me to believe manufacturers need to implement BT with a
> bit more alacrity & it was generally not widely used in the USA (& other
> places where Sprint provides cellular services).

If Sprint doesn't provide the kind of phone you want then don't use Sprint.
They're not the only carrier in the world you know.

As for "the manufacturers" implementing BT "with a bit more alacrity", the
implementation by the manufacturers is not the problem, if there _is_ a
problem then it's that the carriers don't provide high discounts on
Bluetooth phones. I've certainly had no problem getting one when I wanted
it.



--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.bluetooth (More info?)

Thus spake J. Clarke:
> Paul Busby wrote:
>
>> Thus spake J. Clarke:
>>>> But networks can alter software to change the bluetooth functions
>>>> purposely to avoid losing money on ringtone downloads etc
>>>
>>> They might turn those functions on or off but altering operation of
>>> the ones that they enable so that they are not standards-compliant
>>> would seem rather pointless.
>>>
>>> In any case one is not in general obligated to use a phone provided
>>> by the carrier.
>>
>> I bet it's considerably cheaper doing so though. It's threads like
>> this one John that lead me to believe manufacturers need to
>> implement BT with a bit more alacrity & it was generally not widely
>> used in the USA (& other places where Sprint provides cellular
>> services).
>
> If Sprint doesn't provide the kind of phone you want then don't use
> Sprint. They're not the only carrier in the world you know.
>
> As for "the manufacturers" implementing BT "with a bit more
> alacrity", the implementation by the manufacturers is not the
> problem, if there _is_ a problem then it's that the carriers don't
> provide high discounts on Bluetooth phones. I've certainly had no
> problem getting one when I wanted it.

John, these links may interest you:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7733325/

http://networks.silicon.com/lans/0,39024663,39129756,00...
Reading between the lines & inaccuracies in this 2nd piece, it would seem
part of the problem for BT is its lack of revenue generation. Not a
technological issue but one of politics perhaps, so reinventing the wheel
may still happen:
http://www.nfc-forum.org/home
Quite what NFC brings to the party is beyond me. I can't see this proposed
technology generating extra ARPU, so why not stick to the wheel that has
already been built? This observer seems to think so:
http://www.expresscomputeronline.com/20050425/technolog...

--
Thank people in advance? Thanking or cursing them afterwards at least
gives some feedback!

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.bluetooth (More info?)

Thus spake Paul Busby:
<Snipped>
> Quite what NFC brings to the party is beyond me. I can't see this
> proposed technology generating extra ARPU, so why not stick to the
> wheel that has already been built? This observer seems to think so:
> http://www.expresscomputeronline.com/20050425/technolog...

Have been reading a bit more on NFC which appears to be based on RFID. The
buzzword seems to be "touching". At this stage of my understanding, I
presume this is a method of pairing rather having a pitiful range to get
security & once "touched", devices can be moved apart & still communicate.
On paper, it seems interesting & removes the often long-winded BT pairing
method by entering a code just by bringing 2 or more devices close together.
Also seems to borrow some of BT's protocols (which were adapted from the
IrDA, IIRC).

--
Thank people in advance? Thanking or cursing them afterwards at least
gives some feedback!