Poll: Apple Bluetooth Mouse/Keyboard - Important Feature? Useless Accessory.

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll: Apple Bluetooth Mouse/Keyboard - Important Feature? Useless Accessory. (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=222&ref=forums.macrumors.com)

[medea]

well with the introduction of bluetooth the statement was made "think of a world without wires..." and I can't think of a better step than a bluetooth keyboard and mouse.

[-hh]

Originally posted by medea
well with the introduction of bluetooth the statement was made "think of a world without wires..." and I can't think of a better step than a bluetooth keyboard and mouse.


The problem is that we still pragmatically need wires today to supply power.

So if they're there for power, why not use them for signal too?


Wireless has its niche, but particularly for a desktop machine, I can't think of a better step backwards than to have a G5 that you can't even boot up because the friggin AAA's in your keyboard and mouse are dead.

And sure, we can go to a iPod-like cradle, but that means that you have to have the discipline to "put away" your stuff every day. Somehow I suspect that the Mac-centric 'creative types' don't do this... "A clean desk is the sign of a sick mind..." :-)



YMMV.

-hh

[Mr. Anderson]

The power issue is a problem, but one I'm willing to deal with. I'd love to have a bluetooth mouse and keyboard.

One thing, though, is if you go and order a new G5 and opt to not get the Bluetooth, will you still get the blue tooth keyboard - or maybe they are both bluetooth and usb....;)

D

[Lanbrown]

They could use the http://www.mobilewise.com/ pad to recharge the mouse and have it power the keyboard. This would also allow them to offer a backlit keyboard like the 17" PB has. Eventually the iPod could be compatible and be recharged that way as well. Future notebooks as well could have this.

Only time will tell what Apple does. But with one peecee company already willing to use the pad, I don’t think Apple will want to let them get a jump.

[mymemory]

Ithink is useless because ¿how far can you be from your computer and monitor any way?

If you are gonna have a wireless mouse/keyboard you will need a wireless monitor too and a wireless superdrive to be away from you CPU and really accomplish the goal.

Otherwise you arev in the same position, the keyboard never moves any way unless you are going to clean up your desktop, the same with the mouse.

[Lanbrown]

The monitor is typically in the corner or at the very back of the desk. Having a wireless KB/mouse allows no wires to be running across the desk, at least for those two devices. You would only have wires running up the back of the desk for the monitor. Less clutter on the desk, which is the goal. Just like ADC cuts down on the cabling.

[Laslo Panaflex]

I really don't like the new apple keyboards they feel cheap. I hope they give us new keyboads, bluetooth or not. As for the mouse, I don't care unless it is a to button mouse (not likely). I will buy a new keyboard if they ship the new ones with my G5.

[MacManDan]

The Microsoft bluetooth keyboard and mouse are absolutely terrible (performance-wise). "Creative-professionals" wouldn't want a mouse that jerks and skips around the screen as they touch up photos in Photoshop. I hear this is due to Bluetooth's bandwidth limitation, not because MS didn't engineer it correctly. If Apple does come out with this sort of technology, I would hope that they address the issue by utilizing the bandwidth better. If not, I'm going to stick to my wired keyboard and mouse (no batteries to deal with, either). I voted that I don't care either way. :rolleyes:

[Lanbrown]

No way is it bandwidth related. Serial port mice are limited to the serial port speed, which the current maximum is 115200/230400; BT offers close to 1Mb. If you add in a compression algorithm that value could be even higher. The OS and hardware would both have to support it. Obviously the more BT devices you have, the slower it becomes. It is also in the unlicensed band as well, so it is subject to interference.

How much bandwidth do you think a PS2 port has?

When has MS ever followed a standard? They would rather create their own specification and license it.

[cyberddot]

What about the possibility of "fuel cell" powered bluetooth devices? This would be one way to address short battery life. I'm sure it might not be "soon", but it's certainly a possibility.

dot

[MacManDan]

Originally posted by Lanbrown
No way is it bandwidth related. Serial port mice are limited to the serial port speed, which the current maximum is 115200/230400; BT offers close to 1Mb. If you add in a compression algorithm that value could be even higher. The OS and hardware would both have to support it. Obviously the more BT devices you have, the slower it becomes. It is also in the unlicensed band as well, so it is subject to interference.

How much bandwidth do you think a PS2 port has?

When has MS ever followed a standard? They would rather create their own specification and license it.

Ah .. of course. I wasn't thinking. Bah .. what was I doing .. defending Microsoft :eek:
However .. you'd never get 1Mb from Bluetooth just like you never get 11Mb from Airport. You're most likely to get around the same bandwidth (or less) as Serial mice.

[Lanbrown]

You could get that much if you are in the middle of nowhere, but since BT is in the unlicensed band and cordless phones are also in that spectrum, you will never see it. The peecee side has had some real problems with BT, while Apple has had some great success with it. I have a BT headset and it works flawlessly with the BT phone. Compared to a mouse, a voice conversation should take much more bandwidth. Like I said, they could even deploy compression to cut down on the required bandwidth.

Do you think serial mice use the full bandwidth? Serial mice have been around before FIFO buffers were installed in computers, which was before 57600bps. I have been unable to find anything that says how much BW a PS2 port offers, but would think it is below 115200.

MS probably wanted to be one of the first out of the gate.

[Steamboatwillie]

Originally posted by cyberddot
What about the possibility of "fuel cell" powered bluetooth devices? This would be one way to address short battery life. I'm sure it might not be "soon", but it's certainly a possibility.

dot

Now if they can gt the fuel cells to use methane...

"Time to recharge my mouse >BRAP< Oh no, it's stuck in me arse again!" ;)

[macnews]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
The power issue is a problem, but one I'm willing to deal with. I'd love to have a bluetooth mouse and keyboard.

I know power is a concern with any wireless device, but isn't BT supposed to require less power than non-BT wireless devices?

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by macnews
I know power is a concern with any wireless device, but isn't BT supposed to require less power than non-BT wireless devices?

It would really depend on the device and how it is implemented.

[bigjohn]

Originally posted by medea
well with the introduction of bluetooth the statement was made "think of a world without wires..." and I can't think of a better step than a bluetooth keyboard and mouse.

What happened to the "1 wire" philosophy - did that come and go without telling me?

[DStaal]

Just wanted to say I voted for it being important, but not since I think wireless keyboards/mice are important for themselves.

Bluetooth currently has a chicken and egg problem: Not many devices support it since not many users have it and not many users have it since not many devices support it. A push from Apple, including putting out the option of wireless keyboard/mice supporting the standard would be a very good way to get the standard going.

In other words, it is not really important to Apple, but it is important (or could be) to Bluetooth. And Bluetooth is good tech I believe. :D

[macdong]

Originally posted by mymemory
Ithink is useless because ¿how far can you be from your computer and monitor any way?

If you are gonna have a wireless mouse/keyboard you will need a wireless monitor too and a wireless superdrive to be away from you CPU and really accomplish the goal.

Otherwise you arev in the same position, the keyboard never moves any way unless you are going to clean up your desktop, the same with the mouse.


some people use projector as their screen.

[MacFan25]

I think that it would be very nice to have a bluetooth mouse and keyboard. I can't stand lots of wires on my desk, and bluetooth could help solve that.

[Lanbrown]

That is true of any new technology. I am surprised that BT is not standard on the G5. If it were installed on every G5, the cost would be far cheaper then selling it separately. Nothing says it has to be activated, just there waiting to be activated. As other devices implement BT more, the costs continue to come down and eventually costs Apple less then a dollar to put it in, but every G5 would have it. Even when Apple redesigns systems, they should make it standard. When you get into the next generation products like the iPod, they could put BT in it and you could sync your contacts, etc. wirelessly, or play music on the desktop/laptop that is stored on the iPod all without wires. It would allow a seamless migration to it and the customer would have nothing to buy for the computer. It would make them the first computer company to implement across the board. I think we all know that more updated systems are coming. The 7457 is currently ahead of schedule and will be here this quarter. Apple will adopt it very quickly as it offers a performance increases, uses less power, has a larger on chip cache, costs less and is pin compatible. They could very well take the cost savings from the CPU and implement BT as a standard feature. Maybe even add FW800 on the platforms that don't and install Serial-ATA, USB 2.0 and newer graphic chipsets.

BT is going to grow and mature and the possibilities and uses are nearly limitless for it. Like controlling your iPod from a BT phone or other device. Using it in presentations to control the slides being shown, etc. The KB and mouse could very well be the first step.

[wdlove]

I would love to see a Bluetooth capable keyboard and mouse. Having 2 less wires would be great, saved from a tangeled web. I don't see the power issue as a problem. Rechargeable batteries would make it much easier!

[cyberddot]

Let me try again. Bluetooth YES.

Power supply...is it feasible to consider fuel cell technology to power these devices? These might make it even "easier" than rechargeable batteries. I haven't been up on the "latest", but maybe Apple wants a fuel cell company's tech for powering more than a laptop?

dot

[Billicus]

It's not at all important to me, so I voted useless. I could see a handful of advantages, but the pain in the @$$ of changing batteries or plugging it in either defiets the purpose of being wireless or is just a pain. :o

[scem0]

i would say it is important.

Well, its not really the bluetooth that is important. It is the fact that apple isn't going to ship a keyboard that doesn't match the G5 with the G5.

I don't want to buy a G5 with a keyboard that doesn't match.

I HATE the apple 'pro' mouse for the following reasons.
1. It is slow. At the highest speeds it is still too slow.
2. It is old. Is apple seeing how long they can keep a single mouse design?
3. No scroll wheel or right click. That is an absolute necessity to me and most consumers. Apple needs to realize that.
4. It doesn't match the G5.

the pro keyboards are ok, but I would rather them have buttons to control iTunes like my logitech elite keyboard:
http://www.insidemacgames.com/images/elitekb_002_s.gif
They are just too plain. Nothing innovative or eye-catching. They aren't bad though, just not good.

scem0

[sedarby]

Nothing more useless than a wireless keyboard and/or mouse. Just how far away do you need to be from your computer that using wires is such a bother?

[clonenode]

I don't think Bluetooth is as much of a key here as two buttons plus scroll gimmick. The industrial design is key. I can't see Apple allowing the new all metal exterior of the G5s to be paired up with white keyboards and mice. An alternate surface material is going to be a big part of the "Pro" look, regardless of whether or not wireless technology is involved.

[wdlove]

May I ask how the fuel cell would work?

I agree with scem0, that Apple should integrate the scroll wheel with the right click. Nice keyboard scem0. I actually have not seen the mouse or keyboard that Apple will use with the G5.

[cyberddot]

Originally posted by wdlove

May I ask how the fuel cell would work?

SURE! Then tell me if you find an answer. I was posting it as a question to any in the know, since I had seen somewhere here in the recent past that Apple might be pursuing fuel cell tech.

The only thing I really find so far, excluding the cell sizes necessary for a laptop, are uses as a portable charging technology...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/fuelcells990903.html

...but it's obviously going to be having an effect on portable and wireless devices in the, dare I say "near" future. I'm laden with NiMH cells as it is, t'would be nice to move into cells with longer lifespans.

Depending on desks, cable lengths, etc. that I'd find wireless input to be convenient, which is why I have a computer. "Need" to be far away doesn't enter into it, but leaning back in a chair or changing positions for marathons can be a bit easier with out a cable to hang. A keyboard that memorized my macros would be nice too, but....

dot

[Lanbrown]

You could have done a search at google. Fuel cells will replace most piston driven engines in passenger cars. They have other uses as well, like powering electronics and in the distant future, your house.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm

Tells you all about it. Obviously vehicle models will be larger, but the same principle applies. The furl used may also be different, but still result in the same thing, the production of electricity.

[cyberddot]

Yah mahn...did a google search for the above link (my last post), but was looking for smaller than laptop type cells and/or specifics on electronics applications.

Thanks for your link though! I took the question to mean "how it would work in a bluetooth keyboard/mouse."

dot

[-hh]

Originally posted by cyberddot
Let me try again. Bluetooth YES.

Power supply...is it feasible to consider fuel cell technology to power these devices?

In a word, "No."

The most basic thing that you need to realize is that fuel cell technology is really the pursuit of higher energy density levels than what can be achieved with battery chemistries.

IMO, it is going to be more than a decade until we have the fuel cell equivalent of a AA or C battery in terms of size, cost and energy density.

Fundimentally, fuel cells consist of two major components: the stack and the fuel supply. Both sides have major technological hurtles to overcome before they become cheap, small, practical, and all of the other mundane things that we expect from a simple battery.


There has been some recent progress made with liquid-based reactions, but there's been as much (if not more) progress made in going to lower-power components so that there is less demand for power.

Personally, I do like the idea of a fuel cell in a laptop, but from a logistical standpoint, I have some reservations about the idea of needing to run to the supermarket or liquor store for a bottle of rubbing alcohol or vodka to run the thing everywhere I go, because the TSA doesn't want me carrying a bottle of hydrogen (or flammable liquid) onboard my next airline flight.


-hh

[cyberddot]

thanks hh :D

On the plane? Vodka martini, hold the vermouth...no olive, thanks. Could I just have the bottle?

Some of the articles I've been reading make it sound much more promising for the "smaller" cells, but you've got the nod.

dot

[Lanbrown]

Fuel cell for consumer devices is not feasible yet and no electronics manufacturer is really going to say that they will or will not support it and when. For one, they would be saying when a new product comes out and that gives their competition information on their plans. Apple has announced that it is looking into FC for notebooks though. If they came out and said next year we will have a FC notebook, which is not keeping things a secret. Or even stating the iPod will go. This forces their competition to start to work now. The initial cost of FC products will be much higher as well. FC technology is currently used in submarines in place of the diesel and battery powered subs that some countries have.

When chips go to the 90nm and 65nm process, energy consumption will be lower. Some chips are still built on the 180nm process, like the G4. LED’s help reduce power consumption, as will organic displays. Using copper interconnect on the chips as well, among many, many others.

Fuel cells in vehicles and the ones that will be in electronics work on the same principle.

[-hh]

Originally posted by cyberddot
thanks hh :D
...
Some of the articles I've been reading make it sound much more promising for the "smaller" cells, but you've got the nod.


The DoD has been funding research in this field for years; I had a project that got me in to hear some of the briefings. Their catch was that they wanted a cell that would run on Diesel instead of a special fuel, like Hydrogen or Methanol...that's a logistics requirement.

FWIW, a competing technology was MEMS-based microturbine generators. Here, (http://www.mech.kuleuven.ac.be/pma/research/mpe/topics/turbine/default_en.phtml) and here (http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Assign/topics/mems.html) are some links on that technology.

Most of the news I've seen of late is small, low power stacks that rely on methanol, such as this one (http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=5719), which weighs nearly a pound and only delivers 18 watts. And iff you read these press releases carefully, they rarely if ever make any claims about the product's cost, reliability or life...or what happens if you contaminate the fuel supply. For example, there's a miniaturized jet engine that's been developed in the labs that's smaller than a coffee cup that reportedly runs great ... for all of its 5-10 minute lifespan!


-hh