Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bluetooth Enabled iPods?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
UWB
Samsung and Freescale demonstrate Ultra-Wideband-enabled cell phone at 3GSM World Congress
AUSTIN, Texas February 17, 2005 Furthering its Ultra-Wideband (UWB) market leadership and product innovation, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (NYSE:FSL, FSL.B) demonstrated the world's first UWB-enabled Samsung cell phone at the 3GSM World Congress. The UWB-enabled cell phone that Samsung and Freescale demonstrated connects wirelessly to a laptop and downloads MP3 files from the Internet or photos taken with the phone.
Working with a world leader such as Samsung on this exciting product concept showcases the tremendous possibilities for UWB in cellular products, said Franz Fink, senior vice president and general manager of Freescale's wireless business. Ultra-Wideband offers a cost effective, easy way for consumers to wirelessly transfer data, images or audio from their phone to another source, such as a laptop.
In the demonstration, the Samsung camera phone is used to take a picture, which is transferred in under one second to a nearby laptop where the photo is automatically displayed, showcasing the ease of use for consumers. Additionally, MP3 audio files or data from the phone's address book can be selected and transferred directly to a laptop.Â* These functions underscore the changing role of the cellular phone as new applications, such as cameras and video, require the ability for consumers to wirelessly connect their cell phone to other devices and transfer their data or images.
Ultra-Wideband provides a unique capability for cellular products, offering consumers more value and functionality with their mobile communications, said Kwan-Soo Lee, Executive Vice President and Head of Research and Development Center, Telecommunication Network Business at Samsung. Adding Freescale's UWB to our cell phone for this demonstration, we have created a unique product concept that showcases the possibilities for next generation mobile/cellular products.
At 3GSM, Freescale highlighted a variety of cellular product and prototypes including the UWB-enabled cell phone featuring its UWB wireless chipset. UWB is a wireless technology capable of full video transmission without cables. Freescale's commercial UWB chipset, the XS110, transmits multiple video streams and HDTV broadcasts, as well as photo, video and data transfers.
Samsung and Freescale demonstrate Ultra-Wideband-enabled cell phone at 3GSM World Congress
AUSTIN, Texas February 17, 2005 Furthering its Ultra-Wideband (UWB) market leadership and product innovation, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (NYSE:FSL, FSL.B) demonstrated the world's first UWB-enabled Samsung cell phone at the 3GSM World Congress. The UWB-enabled cell phone that Samsung and Freescale demonstrated connects wirelessly to a laptop and downloads MP3 files from the Internet or photos taken with the phone.
Working with a world leader such as Samsung on this exciting product concept showcases the tremendous possibilities for UWB in cellular products, said Franz Fink, senior vice president and general manager of Freescale's wireless business. Ultra-Wideband offers a cost effective, easy way for consumers to wirelessly transfer data, images or audio from their phone to another source, such as a laptop.
In the demonstration, the Samsung camera phone is used to take a picture, which is transferred in under one second to a nearby laptop where the photo is automatically displayed, showcasing the ease of use for consumers. Additionally, MP3 audio files or data from the phone's address book can be selected and transferred directly to a laptop.Â* These functions underscore the changing role of the cellular phone as new applications, such as cameras and video, require the ability for consumers to wirelessly connect their cell phone to other devices and transfer their data or images.
Ultra-Wideband provides a unique capability for cellular products, offering consumers more value and functionality with their mobile communications, said Kwan-Soo Lee, Executive Vice President and Head of Research and Development Center, Telecommunication Network Business at Samsung. Adding Freescale's UWB to our cell phone for this demonstration, we have created a unique product concept that showcases the possibilities for next generation mobile/cellular products.
At 3GSM, Freescale highlighted a variety of cellular product and prototypes including the UWB-enabled cell phone featuring its UWB wireless chipset. UWB is a wireless technology capable of full video transmission without cables. Freescale's commercial UWB chipset, the XS110, transmits multiple video streams and HDTV broadcasts, as well as photo, video and data transfers.
ryanw said:
No
Because Ipods currently can't replace my pocket pc. Those features I want are PIM features. It has nothing to do with ipod sales, and i never mentioned it did. :O There are no lines to read between!
Bill
"Waiting for a Pocket Mac"
Interview DOES confirm rumor
I speak and understand French, even if my mothertongue is Dutch ;-)
I just listened to the interview that you can find in real audio on this page: http://www.mactouch.com/breve.php?id_breve=0484 at the bottom
The Motorola guy says:
"Il y a des iPods qui vont sortir bientôt avec la technologie Bluetooth"
Translation: "There are Ipods that will come out soon with Bluetooth technology."
I speak and understand French, even if my mothertongue is Dutch ;-)
I just listened to the interview that you can find in real audio on this page: http://www.mactouch.com/breve.php?id_breve=0484 at the bottom
The Motorola guy says:
"Il y a des iPods qui vont sortir bientôt avec la technologie Bluetooth"
Translation: "There are Ipods that will come out soon with Bluetooth technology."
Well, I found these two products. Dont know if they have anything to do with this news, but Bluetooth interfaces and adaptors are already available.
http://www.scosche.com/pressroom.aspx?id=48
http://www.ipodlounge.com/reviews_more.php?id=P6231_0_6_0_C
http://www.scosche.com/pressroom.aspx?id=48
http://www.ipodlounge.com/reviews_more.php?id=P6231_0_6_0_C
And YOU know that NOT quoting a person and NOT writing a reply is a good way to indicate that you are NOT commenting about what they wrote.matticus008 said:
Cambatcolin originally wrote (incorrectly) that CDs play at 150K. I corrected them by writing the correct amount at which CDs play under the unit of measurement *usually* associated with CDs.
That was nice of you to show us all how you can divide by 8, but what was the point of it?
What part of "BITrates are pretty much usually referenced in BITS that's why it's called BITrates...as opposed to BYTErates" did you not understand?
That's B.S. Bits are usually the basis for the unit of measurement regarding data rates (transmission). Bytes are usually the basis for the unit of measurement regarding storage/space.
Again, when was the last time you heard the term "byterate"? We were specifically talking about the amount of data over a period of time from a CD (to be real-time) versus the capacity of Bluetooth where time was constant (seconds). Hence we were talking about data-rates and bitrate is the more commonly used/accepted term. See my previous post as to why that is.
No it wasn't, but thanks for using bitrate instead of byterate. The point was that someone erroneously stated what the bitrate of CDs were to begin with. Knowing the real-world performance of any transmission protocol ain't gonna help you evaluate what can be done if you significantly underestimate the level that is required...which is exactly what I was pointing out.
No, it's a misconception. A loose generalization would mean that audio CDs did average out to 1200 kbps or in the ballpark thereof. That is significantly wrong. Audio CDs are exactly 1411 kbps, not a bit more or less.
People get confused (misconception) and think audio CDs have the same data rate as 1X CD-ROMs. 1X CD-ROMs, as a loose generalization have a data rate of 150 KBps...yes, BYTES. Before responding, ask yourself what the difference is between CD-ROMs and audio CDs.
Of course, but that's not what I was talking about. Sending CD audio out at AS DATA in speeds less than that of the bit rate of the audio doesn't do much in terms of listening to the audio in real-time now does it?
This is why I specifically said "play audio CDs", instead of "rip audio from CDs".
"Digital audio extraction development" had nothing to do with it. Drives at the time (1X) could simply not rip data fast enough to support a CD audio stream PERIOD. While some machines may have had bus issues, hell, some do today, playing audio CDs through SCSI or IDE was not going to happen until 2X drives came out.
C'mon you guys. These "my encyclopedia is bigger than yours!" contests really shouldn't be discussed in this thread. Or any, if I could choose.MacSlut said:
Someone made a misconception in reading someone's post. That doesn't mean you need to write a freakin book!
MacSlut said:
Calm the hell down, dude. You can be as pissy as you want, but you fail to see the point on all of the issues. I never once said "byterate" and we were talking in meaningful units of data...not the bitrate of an audio CD. No one was arguing with you. Just because you got quoted in a reply doesn't mean it was directed at you. A good way to know this is to look at your PMs. Otherwise, it's a public forum, and you were being needlessly hostile against a guy who used a 1x CD speed instead of the exact bitrate of the audio WHICH DOESN'T MATTER. Then you had to be all aggressive and ridiculous about my comments. You were very much talking about ripping CD audio, go back and read your post, and DAE is a factor in that.
Nice straw man, though. Way to misrepresent completely.
EDIT: And just to inform you, no one is talking about playing CDs live over Bluetooth, so your confusion over bits and bytes and "real time" CD playback can just be skipped.
MacSlut switch to decaff mate.
I and many other people like to use Kbytes instead of Kbits as you can relate more easily to it.
And an audio CD does not need all the 150K transfer speed to work, somthing i remember from my Spectrum days when they were talking about hooking normal cd players to a spectrum and transfering the information that way.
Never did happen.
I and many other people like to use Kbytes instead of Kbits as you can relate more easily to it.
And an audio CD does not need all the 150K transfer speed to work, somthing i remember from my Spectrum days when they were talking about hooking normal cd players to a spectrum and transfering the information that way.
Never did happen.
Don't forget Griffin
I'm surprised no one has pointed out the similarities this story shares with the recently announced Griffin BlueTrip...
http://griffintechnology.com/products/bluetrip/index.php
Although their tech specs are not very enlightening, it sounds promising. Has anyone heard anything more on this? Anybody seen a photo of the transmitter?
_b
I'm surprised no one has pointed out the similarities this story shares with the recently announced Griffin BlueTrip...
http://griffintechnology.com/products/bluetrip/index.php
Although their tech specs are not very enlightening, it sounds promising. Has anyone heard anything more on this? Anybody seen a photo of the transmitter?
_b
possibly...
it says that the transmitter works with all dockable iPods up to 4G, but doesn't mention the mini. This - may be a confirmation that Apple intends to push BT 2.0 (don't forget, it has more bandwidth but consumes 40% less power) across the board starting with the mini 2G and next generation iPods. would also mean that the nine iPod automobile makers mentioned at the keynote can now have a standard BT receiver - instead of a dock for each generation, which saves costs.
Manowatt said:
it says that the transmitter works with all dockable iPods up to 4G, but doesn't mention the mini. This - may be a confirmation that Apple intends to push BT 2.0 (don't forget, it has more bandwidth but consumes 40% less power) across the board starting with the mini 2G and next generation iPods. would also mean that the nine iPod automobile makers mentioned at the keynote can now have a standard BT receiver - instead of a dock for each generation, which saves costs.
That's great that you like to use a unit of measurement that is imprecise at not what is used by any major media or print publication. Remember though that *I* was not the one trying to correct someone for using K versus k, I was correcting someone who was significantly off in what they thought the bit rate was for CDs.combatcolin said:
Matticus008, then quoted me and wanted to nitpick about having it in K, which was not only wrong for what value he used 176K/sec, but also if you're going to nitpick, it *should* be kbps for the bit rate of audio CDs.
No, no, no...an audio CD not only needs "150K" to work (in realtime) it needs significantly *more* than that. It needs exactly 1411kbps...not as an average, but a constant rate.
This is exactly the point I was making. If you can't synch to 1411kps, then you either need to buffer the data coming in (and delay play) or compress the data in real time.
Uh, no I wasn't. MSCONVERT originally posted that an audio CD was "1.4 Mbit/sec" and thus way too large for bluetooth 1.0. They were correct in the bitrate of an audio CD (rounded down). COMBATCOLIN tried to correct MSCONVERT by saying audio CDs were 150K/sec. All I did was post "no, audio CDs are 1411kbps". How was that being hostile? If "it doesn't matter" then why where either of you trying to correct MSCONVERT or myself who were entirely correct to begin with? You're argument is essentially, "we like using K instead of k and we like pretending that audio CDs have significantly lower data rates than 1411kbps". I'm sorry if the truth hurts your feelings.matticus008 said:
Yes they were. This was exactly what MSCONVERT was originally posting about when COMBATCOLIN erroneously tried to correct him on the bitrate of audio CDs. As far as "my confusion" over bits and bytes, I'm not the one trying to use the term contrary to every major media and print publication, nor am I the one who thinks 1411/8 = 150 or even exactly 176 for that matter.
BTW: when you eventually do discover a set of reference books, you might want to look up the term "straw man".
Wow, talk about making a big deal out of a little misunderstanding. It always amuses me how some people get their panties in a knot over things like this. Let it go, it's a small thing, build a bridge and get over it. Nonetheless, thanks for the entertainment MacSlut.
all i know is that I would be happy w/ a friggin' remote (bluetooh, RF, IR or gamma rays, i don't care) that can control my iTunes/Airpot XP so i don't have to keep running downstairs when i want to skip a track.
can one of you techie guys get to work on that? i'll make you a pretty logopackage design for it!
can one of you techie guys get to work on that? i'll make you a pretty logopackage design for it!
Airclick
like this -> http://griffintechnology.com/products/airclick/ ?
just found it. theres one to go into a usb port on ur mac/pc, then u can control itunes wirelessly away from ur computer. i would think it would work with ur Airport express wouldnt it?
sinisterdesign said:
like this -> http://griffintechnology.com/products/airclick/ ?
just found it. theres one to go into a usb port on ur mac/pc, then u can control itunes wirelessly away from ur computer. i would think it would work with ur Airport express wouldnt it?
BillHarrison said:
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Syncing an IPOD over bluetooth would be worse than watching paint dry.
Even bluetooth 2 is only about 230k. Can you imagine trying to Sync 40 GB of songs over a 230k link. Im not sure I would live long enough for that. hehe
qzak said:
obviously, I meant the 2G mini that apparently is to be released. Of course you'd need a bluetooth transmitter for previous generations to work with the BlueTrip. This device, the auto dock standardisation expected for April, the move to Bluetooth 2 in the powerbook, the slip by the motorola executive. There's more than innocent substantiation.
And, again - for those that complain about data transfer rate - Bluetooth 2 is actually marketed to stream uncompressed CD audio sound to compliant devices. You'd still synch and transfer large number of songs with the FireWire or USB2 cable - or, even better, you could buy a song or two on your iTunes mobile phone, save it on its flash memory, then synch to the iPod via BT 2.0. That's called interface leveraging.