iPod w/ Bluetooth?

[B. McKechnie]

I was surprised Apple did not build Bluetooth connectivity in the new iPods and now I know why.

I found this iPod case on the Apple Canada site and it mentions a Bluetooth adapter being able to connect to it.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/canadastore.woa/71403/wo/qz5A2uAXHnvK2MjWbmS1YQ2XEJX/5.3.0.6.10.3.30.1.15.0

Sorry if this is old news but it is new to me.

[musicpyrite]

The reason, I think, that Apple did not support BlueTooth is because:

1) It's extremely slow! Can you imagine transferring 40GB of data @ 400K a second? :eek: **
2) It would drain the battery like a fat boy on a milkshake. (No offense to overweight people of course :) )
3) Not everybody has BlueTooth, so Apple would have to include a BlueTooth adaptor, making the price go up.

Really, it's common sense.

** now that I think about it, 40GB is about 40,000,000K. So to fill up an entire 40GB iPod it would take 100,000 seconds. 100,000 seconds=1,667 minutes. 1,667 minutes=27.7 hours! Of course not every body updates their iPod 40GB at a time. When I update my iPod, I usually put about 300MB worth of new music on it.

If Apple is going to implement a wireless standard in the iPod it would probably have to be 802.11b, 802.11g, or 802.11a. But I seriously doubt it.

[Capt Underpants]

It could be one of Apple's secret features of the 4G iPod. Yes, bluetooth is slow. Why someone would need it, I don't know. It could be a typo. We'll just have to wait and see.

edit: Saying that if Apple sells a bluetooth adapter with the iPod, they would have to include a computer BT adapter is bogus. That's like saying you have to include a base station with every airport enabled computer....

[B. McKechnie]

I am a Bluetooth supporter and would love to see it added to the iPod (some people might not like USB 2.0 but it is still an option).

I have found that transferring large files via Bluetooth from a PowerBook to a desktop has been super fast. Plus using a cell phone to control Keynote or PowerPoint presentations is a nice little trick.

It might not be for everyone but it would still be a cool feature for the iPod IMO.

[musicpyrite]

edit: Saying that if Apple sells a bluetooth adapter with the iPod, they would have to include a computer BT adapter is bogus. That's like saying you have to include a base station with every airport enabled computer....

Well think about it, if Apple puts it's main selling point around built in BT, then that would be pretty stupid to not include an adaptor. What do you think the rest of the world will think that they can wirelessly transfer music without a BT device?

It's just like the Centrino commercials, pretending that they can get a signal anywhere.

You know that a BT iPod won't work on a computer that doesn't have BT, as do I , but your average joe shmo computer user doesn't.

To put it another way, what is the main selling point of cars?
The ability to go anywhere you want, when you want.
Now what would happen if somebody like Ford or Chevy stopped including tires with their cars, what do you think would happen?

[Capt Underpants]

/It might not be for everyone but it would still be a cool feature for the iPod IMO.

What could it be used for? AFAIK, BT doesn't have enough bandwidth to support stereo audio. The only thing it could be used for is syncing, and, if you are in BT range, you might as well walk a little further and plug it in for an über fast transfer.

[comictimes]

I have found that transferring large files via Bluetooth from a PowerBook to a desktop has been super fast.
IMO.

How fast are you talking about? Because, in general, large files are considerably smaller than a large music collection. I mean, the largest file I have is Unreal Tournament 2004, which is 6.6gb or something, but is actually a package with a bunch of considerably smaller files. However, my music collection is almost 15gb, while many people have collectioans considerably larger than that. So it seems to me that even if bluetooth can go faster than 400kb/s, it will still be far slower than firewire or USB 2.0, which are each (correct me if I'm wrong) over 6,000 kb/s.

But if you used firewire or USB 2.0 for the original transfer of the music collection, I have to say it would be really awesome to be able to use bluetooth after that, since updates, for me at least, generally aren't more than 200mb worth of music...

[Le Big Mac]

It could be one of Apple's secret features of the 4G iPod. Yes, bluetooth is slow. Why someone would need it, I don't know. It could be a typo. We'll just have to wait and see.

Who knows, maybe the vendor is just talking out its a$$. Bluetooth could be of minor usefulness, for example to receive remote signals or to turn off th eipod when your BT phone rings. But not much more--certainly not data transfer.

[destroyboredom]

I think it would be nice for (i)syncing personally. Not needed but just an added bonus.

[B. McKechnie]

I've seen a pair of Bluetooth headphones before but they were very expensive. It would be interesting to hear the sound on them.

It would make more sense if the iPod had WiFi capabilities for use with AirTunes.

[Koodauw]

Dont forget the patent apple received for Wireless Firewire a while back. :D

[comictimes]

wireless firewire would be sooo nice.... Of course, I'd have to get an adapter or something, but still, being able to transfer music without any wires would make me infinitely happy.

[strider42]

I am a Bluetooth supporter and would love to see it added to the iPod (some people might not like USB 2.0 but it is still an option).

I have found that transferring large files via Bluetooth from a PowerBook to a desktop has been super fast. Plus using a cell phone to control Keynote or PowerPoint presentations is a nice little trick.

It might not be for everyone but it would still be a cool feature for the iPod IMO.

bluetooth is more than 400 times slower than firewire and USB 2. its insanely slow. Even good old USB 1 is more than 11 times faster. bluetooth would take HOURS to transfer music collections, there's no way around it, sorry. No one in the right mind would use bluetooth to transfer anything to the iPod. You have to be within 30 feet anyway, so why not just go plug it in, take a few seconds to transfer and get it charged at the same time.

Now, built in 802.11g or something would be actually useful, but would totally sap battery life.

Bluetooth only makes sense for headphones, or integration to a car stereo or something.

[rendezvouscp]

I don't think that BlueTooth would really be something for transferring files. Apple wouldn't do that. They would expand on the iPod, not go backwards. So, imagine one day if the iPod could control your house, send small text info to and from your computer. It would be used for small things, and would be an extra. Imagine if you were in a business meeting, and you were wrapping up the meeting, and said "Oh, btw, all of those new documents are now available on your iPod." Everyone gets out their iPod, and downloads that from a computer, or someone else's iPod. Or maybe you could get your e-mail on your iPod over BlueTooth. The possibilities are endless, and I know that I would become more productive with things like this.
–Chase

[Westside guy]

What could it be used for? AFAIK, BT doesn't have enough bandwidth to support stereo audio. The only thing it could be used for is syncing, and, if you are in BT range, you might as well walk a little further and plug it in for an über fast transfer.

Simple. A Bluetooth-enabled iPod could be used as a remote control for AirTunes. The songs would be pulled off of iTunes, not your iPod - so the computer that your iPod syncs with would have to be on that network. But that's not exactly a limitation, since it's likely to already be the case.

That would rock.

[macmaniacttt]

this is certainly fishy:

http://themachq.com

2 instances...

something's definitely up...

--david