http://www.expansys.com/product.asp?code=HOPBIT&asource=
Something for Apple to follow? Bluetooth on iPod anyone?
Something for Apple to follow? Bluetooth on iPod anyone?
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 HD - should the iPod follow?
- Thread starter will
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OMG! I want it right away. You're right, the iPod would benefit a LOT from BT. Imagine having your MP3s pop into a BT playlist in iTunes, like the demo Steve got me so excited about between Macs on a BT network.
If not, I want that HD.
Dan
If not, I want that HD.
Dan
The question is, what is the maximum throughput for a bluetooth device? If it's low, this bluetooth hard drive would be a horrible way for transfering a large files.
Re: Bluetooth HD - should the iPod follow?
Bluetooth has 721 kbps maximum one-way transmission rate. If Bluetooth's maximum rate could be sustained for the duration, it would take more than 16 hours to fill up even a 5 GB iPod. I am sure that there are productive uses for a Bluetooth-enabled wireless hard disk. For most of us, however, 802.11 would be a much better choice.
Re: Re: Bluetooth HD - should the iPod follow?
Just to put that in further perspective, bluetooth is 1/11th the max speed of USB. Its too slow to be of any use at all for file transfer. Absolutely useless for such things. There's a reason apple didn't use USB for the iPod, its much too slow. They certainly aren't going to use a connection type that isn't even 1/10th the speed of USB. Don't forget that bluetooth also only has a range of like 30 feet. Why not just walk it over and plug it in. You're gonna be in the same room anyway, and its not like the iPod is hard to carry around. wireless would be cool, but bluetooth is not. its only good for synching things like cell phones with contact lists. Its a technology that really is much more hype than it is useful in my opinion, at least at this point.
Just to put that in further perspective, bluetooth is 1/11th the max speed of USB. Its too slow to be of any use at all for file transfer. Absolutely useless for such things. There's a reason apple didn't use USB for the iPod, its much too slow. They certainly aren't going to use a connection type that isn't even 1/10th the speed of USB. Don't forget that bluetooth also only has a range of like 30 feet. Why not just walk it over and plug it in. You're gonna be in the same room anyway, and its not like the iPod is hard to carry around. wireless would be cool, but bluetooth is not. its only good for synching things like cell phones with contact lists. Its a technology that really is much more hype than it is useful in my opinion, at least at this point.
Thanks to everyone for bringing me back to reality. Forget ever ever showed an interest. I just get a bit of a buzz when I think wireless, ever since I got Airport running at home.
Dan
Dan
it would be fast enough for BT earphones though right?? like cellphones have BT earpieces now, how about an iPod in your bag with the headphones and possibly a remote, all wireless...i'd like that, a lot.
can someone work out how much bandwidth is needed for that? can BT cope?
can someone work out how much bandwidth is needed for that? can BT cope?
" Our Price: Not Announced
Availability:_Available for pre-order
"
Who is going to pre-order a product that doesn't even have a price?
Availability:_Available for pre-order
"
Who is going to pre-order a product that doesn't even have a price?
Assuming the speed of Bluetooth is 1.2Mbps at max, the following is the best possible scenario...
It would take a bit over 9 hours and 15 minutes to fill it up... That is ridiculous.
Considering wireless technology is greatly affected by even the slightest of interference, the actual transfer time would be a bit higher.
It would take a bit over 9 hours and 15 minutes to fill it up... That is ridiculous.
Considering wireless technology is greatly affected by even the slightest of interference, the actual transfer time would be a bit higher.
I would love having BT in an iPod for headphones. I want to get a BT cell phone and having my mp3 paused when i recieve a call would be sweet. Also, it would be cool if the headphones also had a microphone to make your call with, so you can be walking down the street, listening to music, and get a call, push a button on the headset start talking, and never even see your phone or iPod. That would be ideal IMO.
I just had an epiphony (sp?) - like the Bluetooth cellphone thing where it can do actions when you leave your computer (with your phone of course) you could set it to pause iTunes when you leave your computer, and play the same part of the same song on your iPod as soon as you are out of range of the computer. That seems possible, albeit hard to program (I assume, as i am not a programmer) Any ideas on this?
another thing, i remember that commercial a while back where a person walks up to a soda vending machine, pushes a few buttons on her cell phone and out pops a soda. I would love to do that.
I just had an epiphony (sp?) - like the Bluetooth cellphone thing where it can do actions when you leave your computer (with your phone of course) you could set it to pause iTunes when you leave your computer, and play the same part of the same song on your iPod as soon as you are out of range of the computer. That seems possible, albeit hard to program (I assume, as i am not a programmer) Any ideas on this?
another thing, i remember that commercial a while back where a person walks up to a soda vending machine, pushes a few buttons on her cell phone and out pops a soda. I would love to do that.
I would like to refer to another thread on this question. All this bandwidth thing has been descussed there
Bluetooth accessories
Bluetooth accessories
thanks filipp, i did a search before posting but never found that, interesting discussion, and i see what angle you're coming from, that is exactly what i was thinking....decoding, aiff, 128k x 10 etc etc. a raw aiff is 10x bigger than an mp3 (roughly) and this would not be able to go over BT...exactly what i was wanting answered but unsure of the figures myself.
I still think this BT-harddrive could be just perfect for storing files from your digital camera. Just think of running around, taking pictures of practically anything and not even counting how many you've taken.
On the other hand, storing big files over BT would take quite a while. But hey, cant we have both BT and FW on it?
What about integrating 802.11G into the iPod? That would give very reasonable transfer speeds for wireless.
i think there's size and cost factor with 802.11g(b) that is significantly less with bt.
bluetooth is designed to be small. and it is small. very small. and getting cheaper all the time
actually, someone... ibm? intel? has made a chip that has bt and wifi integrated. about $35 i think...
bluetooth is designed to be small. and it is small. very small. and getting cheaper all the time
actually, someone... ibm? intel? has made a chip that has bt and wifi integrated. about $35 i think...
Stupid bluetooth designers
Really, what were they thinking? Wireless transmissions measured in kilobytes? Or even worse, kilobits? Whoever designed bluetooth should have said let's have 100 Mbps over 30 feet. None of this ***** < 1 MBps ****. Otherwise I'm all for wireless iPod. How about a low overhead 802.11(b|g) iPod just for convenience?
Mike
Really, what were they thinking? Wireless transmissions measured in kilobytes? Or even worse, kilobits? Whoever designed bluetooth should have said let's have 100 Mbps over 30 feet. None of this ***** < 1 MBps ****. Otherwise I'm all for wireless iPod. How about a low overhead 802.11(b|g) iPod just for convenience?
Mike
For those who are complaining about the ridiculosity of the low bandwidth of Bluetooth, keep in mind that the makers of the Bluetooth didn't intend for their brainchild to compete with Wi-Fi or 802.11a
They purposely made Bluetooth have a 30-foot radius and low bandwidth because they wanted to be able to integrate it into small PAN devices (and they're doing this, look at the Sony T68i. There is no way WiFi could make its way into such a svelte phone). Some had a vision that Bluetooth could be used in busy consumer havens, such as airports and malls, where large ads would have Bluetooth transmitters built in, and when customers would wave their cell phone/PDAs near the ad, a small snippet of advertising goodness would be uploaded to their device. I think that Bluetooth was intended as a digital enhancement to physical interaction, not intended to compete with WiFi and Wireless-G in the long-range wireless wars.
They purposely made Bluetooth have a 30-foot radius and low bandwidth because they wanted to be able to integrate it into small PAN devices (and they're doing this, look at the Sony T68i. There is no way WiFi could make its way into such a svelte phone). Some had a vision that Bluetooth could be used in busy consumer havens, such as airports and malls, where large ads would have Bluetooth transmitters built in, and when customers would wave their cell phone/PDAs near the ad, a small snippet of advertising goodness would be uploaded to their device. I think that Bluetooth was intended as a digital enhancement to physical interaction, not intended to compete with WiFi and Wireless-G in the long-range wireless wars.