I've always been a big fan of Bluetooth. It's a shame it's never really been developed for nothing more than basic file transfer etc.
Airdrop doesn't require pairing, making it a bit more versatile in my mind. Plus, you can communicate with multiple computers via airdrop. Also, BT is generally too slow to make file sharing too useful. Even BT 3.0+HS uses Wi-Fi for it's increased throughput, but it still requires pairing. BT is designed for peripherals, nothing else.
USB 3.0 will show up when Intel adds native support for it in their chipset. Likely in Ivy Bridge, next year.Well this is something interesting, no USB 3 but this is even better.
Timing?Why didn't they put BT 4.0 into the MBPs & iMacs is my question.
What about simple connectivity? Is that improved? BT is a (somewhat) necessary annoyance these days. I hate reseting keyboards and handsfree devices. I want wireless to be as consistent as wired.Too bad Bluetooth 4.0's swiss cheese-like security is only marginally improved from earlier versions of the standard.
I would think it's simple that you have to do the connecting and it's not just going to be random connections. Only makes logical sense. But for those who want it, it would be very cool.
I find that to be such an absurd concern that I didn't even understand your question.
The technology can't do anything to your phone without your phone voluntarily reading the information. It's like being concerned that FM Radio is going to be pushed into your iPhone involuntarily. Could Apple make it that your iPhone will play any FM radio signal you walk by? Yes, it's possible... but it's not going to happen.
It isn't confusing. Previous macs have 2.1+EDR, while the mini and the air have 4.0. Apple skipped entirely over 3.0.
Longer lasting Bluetooth Headphones are all I want
I've always been a big fan of Bluetooth. It's a shame it's never really been developed for nothing more than basic file transfer etc.
Wow that's awesome!
wait does the cell battery only work 2 years and then need to be replaced or the battery last 2 years on a single charge? i am confused, how does this work
The watch battery, which is not rechargeable, lasts for two years, at which point it must be replaced. In comparison, my Casio FX91 battery lasted for 8 years, at which point I just bought a new Casio FX91, for about twice the price of a battery. I've had it now for 5 years, and it's still going strong.
Casio watches are brilliant - even the really cheap ones are tough (except the strap) and they last for ever, or thereabouts.
ah alright, but they are replaceable right?
am i the only one who thinks of a human cell when they hear cell battery?
I've logged about 14,000 miles using the Nike+ kit ever since it was introduced about 5 years ago. And I've burned through at least a dozen of the Nike+ sensors. Never did I have one whose battery lasted a full year.
Just sayin'...