Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Drops Bluetooth API From Android 1.0

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the first-draft dept.

Cellphones 167

Ian Lamont writes "Google has dropped Bluetooth and the GTalkService instant messaging APIs from the set of tools for Android 1.0, but says that handsets using the Android OS will work with other Bluetooth devices such as headsets. According to a post on the official Android developer blog, Google dropped the Bluetooth API from the mobile OS because 'we plain ran out of time.' The GTalkService API was removed because of security concerns that included the possibility of applications revealing more details about users than they might want to let out, such as their real names and e-mail addresses."

cancel ×

167 comments

I think I've seen this before (4, Funny)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752607)

Google: The Microsoft of cell phones.

If they continue to follow the play book, next they'll drop several additional previously planned features and end by hiring a 90's sitcom star to convince people their product isn't as bad as they think.

Re:I think I've seen this before (2, Interesting)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752849)

Doesn't this make them the Apple of cell phones? Microsoft has been shipping an embedded OS for close to a decade. It was Apple who tried to claim a web browser was an "SDK" while they make a mad scramble to bring the real SDK to a beta state.

Re:I think I've seen this before (4, Informative)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752951)

Apple has in fact severely limited bluetooth on the iPhone, and that includes even specific profiles for external devices. As far as i know the headset is the ONLY thing that works with it.

Re:I think I've seen this before (3, Informative)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753843)

Apple has in fact severely limited bluetooth on the iPhone, and that includes even specific profiles for external devices. As far as i know the headset is the ONLY thing that works with it.

Handsfree Bluetooth devices work with the iPhone. Mine pairs with my car's stereo system.

However, that's not much different than a headset.

Re:I think I've seen this before (5, Informative)

justdaven (1238962) | more than 5 years ago | (#24754025)

Actually, no different. It uses the same profile

Re:I think I've seen this before (3, Informative)

Piranhaa (672441) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752873)

How? Okay maybe the Bluetooth API, but Gtalk was left out because of security. I highly doubt that Google would really want to leave out their own chat messenger from an OS they're releasing unless there was a pretty big reason to. That's like Microsoft leaving out Messenger. So, what did Microsoft leave out of Vista? WinFS That's pretty major in itself and was one of the most major marketing points originally. What else? Safe Delete, Start Menu action field.. And the list goes on. It's not like Google's marketing campaign was all about the bluetooth API anyways. Lots of companies drop out features before it's released fora variety of reasons or leave it as experimental (just look at ZFS in Leopard and its Read Only capability).

This is the Bluetooth API anyways, it means that people who make software can't communicate over bluetooth. It's crippled, but you can still use a bluetooth headset if you want to. That's quite a bit different than leaving the entire feature out.

Re:I think I've seen this before (2, Interesting)

andy9701 (112808) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753139)

Lots of companies drop out features before it's released fora variety of reasons or leave it as experimental (just look at ZFS in Leopard and its Read Only capability).

While I agree with your other points, in this case I don't think Apple has ever announced that ZFS would be in OS X - it was all rumors and hearsay, IIRC.

Re:I think I've seen this before (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24753453)

Gtalk was left out because of security. I highly doubt that Google would really want to leave out their own chat messenger from an OS they're releasing unless there was a pretty big reason to.

I'm not convinced that it was due to security concerns. I'd be willing to bet it's due to pressure from carriers. If Android's messenger were to catch on, carriers would say goodbye to text messaging revenue.

Re:I think I've seen this before (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24753919)

Hi, other A/C. I just wanted to say, "You're not convinced because you're not looking at the big picture."

This is an open phone, with a free, published SDK. The fact that they didn't do every detail of Open "just the way everyone else thought they should" is irrelevant. It's more than open enough to create whatever text messaging applications you want and forward your messages over Edge/Wifi. From release day forward there will be buggy little FOSS applications that do a poor job of this and they will get smoother and more polished over time.

If the little blue plastic clips on the bag of your store bought loaf of bread are too hard for you to operate, you can shake your fist at the sky and damn the bread companies for their obvious ploy to get you to waste bread... or you can think about the problem. No one can help you with that.

Re:I think I've seen this before (1)

rtechie (244489) | more than 5 years ago | (#24754069)

The problem is that the primary push behind Android is the ease of third-party development. Anything that reduces third-party functionality is a major blow from this perspective. I personally believe that Android will have major problems due to it's general lack of polish compared to Windows Mobile and iPhones. Also, the relatively small install base won't attract the third parties. I really believe that Android only has a future in Asia, where manufacturers will adopt it solely because it's cheaper than Symbian or Windows Mobile.

Re:I think I've seen this before (5, Funny)

volpe (58112) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752879)

Google: The Microsoft of cell phones.

You think Microsoft would drop a feature due to security concerns?

Re:I think I've seen this before (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753237)

>previously planned features and end by hiring a 90's sitcom star

I'm picturing Kathy Griffin annoyingly promoting Android. *shudder*

Perhaps Woz can make an awkward guest appearance.

Re:I think I've seen this before (1)

JazzHarper (745403) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753883)

Perhaps Woz can make an awkward guest appearance.

I think Kathy's dropped that feature from her set of tools.

Being pedantic (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24753281)

If this was MS, they would continue forward with the module and then either deny a security hole or call it a feature. MS does not include things that are absolute disasters, but they have included things that are known internally to be security disasters.

Re:I think I've seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24753613)

Go play on your Mac. Make a pretty video or something.

Re:I think I've seen this before (1)

SleepyHappyDoc (813919) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753795)

Uh, Push notifications? Dropping features is in Apple's play book lately, as well.

Re:I think I've seen this before (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24754379)

Not sure why you're complaining. This just means that a full release of Android will come sooner, and they can spend time ironing out the BT API while you're enjoying a bug-free release. They can always patch bluetooth in later with updates anyways.

As for Gtalk, even though I use gmail extensively, I hardly ever use gtalk, so it doesn't mean much to me. But as for your MS comparison, microsoft has no problem forcing you use win messenger no matter what the security implications behind it.

Huh? (4, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752619)

Google dropped the Bluetooth API from the mobile OS because 'we plain ran out of time.'

I don't get it. Aren't they going to Beta it for a couple of years?

Re:Huh? (2, Funny)

Piranhaa (672441) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752941)

I'm actually very surprised that Google has a version "1.0" now. I was afraid they would just add revisions to their v 0.9 and start calling it 0.9.445, 0.9.334454, 0.9.12314434, etc. Just pray they don't change it to b1.0 in the actual OS ;-)

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752969)

Seriously, they can afford to Beta hosted applications running on their website and claim that if it crashed it was in "Beta". But software running on consumer devices? I don't think so.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

ghoti (60903) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753259)

They have to get FCC approval to be able to run their OS on consumer devices, this isn't some little program that people download and run on their machines. The idea of an open source mobile OS is a neat one in theory, but in practice it's just not that simple. The potential for exploits is huge, and with very severe consequences. The way Apple has locked down the iPhone may look draconian, but it also protects its users from all kinds of stuff you really don't want to worry about on your phone.

Re:Huh? (5, Funny)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753405)

The way Apple has locked down the iPhone may look draconian, but it also protects its users from all kinds of stuff you really don't want to worry about on your phone.

Like reliable reception?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24753509)

They have to get government approval to be able to run their OS on computers, this isn't some little programmable timer on a VCR. The idea of an open source operating system is a neat one in theory, but in practice it's just not that simple. The potential for exploits is huge, and with very severe consequences. The way Microsoft has locked down Windows may look draconian, but it also protects its users from all kinds of stuff you really don't want to worry about on your PC.

Re:Huh? (0, Troll)

DittoBox (978894) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753595)

The potential for exploits is huge, and with very severe consequences.

You mean, more so than Windows Mobile? Diebold machines work on the same security from obscurity concept, and are also based on the closed source Windows CE. Just because something is locked down or is closed source doesn't make it any easier to crack open. Many would argue the opposite. Please don't spread your anti-FOSS FUD.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 5 years ago | (#24754209)

The idea of an open source mobile OS is a neat one in theory, but in practice it's just not that simple. The potential for exploits is huge, and with very severe consequences. The way Apple has locked down the iPhone may look draconian, but it also protects its users from all kinds of stuff you really don't want to worry about on your phone.

As taken from the DRM lovers textbook. OSS software has been on unsecure networks for decades and if anything it's been more secure than the locked down stuff.

Great... (1)

cl0s (1322587) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752625)

But is it coming in September or not? Last date I heard was November. I got an expired T-Mobile contract thats ready to get 'upgraded', for now I still got this ancient Sidekick III.

Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones... (0)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752635)

I guess I'm going to wait until Android 2.0 comes out, then.

Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones (1)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752717)

Yes, but headsets will still work, it's just the more advanced bluetooth applications that have been put on hold. Then again, if they completely dropped bluetooth I don't think I would miss it all that much. If I'm driving I just don't answer the phone.

Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones (4, Informative)

outZider (165286) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752753)

If you read the article, you'd see the API was for third party applications to extend bluetooth. Android phones will be able to connect to headsets just fine, and a software update will add further support.

Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753301)

Headsets are a tiny fraction of what makes Bluetooth useful. Actually, it's a fraction I don't care about at all. OBEX is essential, because it's how you give people your phone number (send them your personal vCard via Bluetooth OBEX) - it's about three button presses on any recent phone. File Transfer is not essential, but is nice since it lets you browse the phone from a computer and copy files on and off it easily (photos, music, a copy of a map for somewhere you're going).

Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones (1)

outZider (165286) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753437)

Yep. But note that in this posting, it doesn't say what core features are offered, only that developer access to the API has been taken away. It's very possible, and very likely that the core features of most mobiles are there -- OBEX, DUN, Headset.

Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones (1)

intangible (252848) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753735)

And don't forget A2DP

Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones (1)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753847)

File Transfer is not essential, but is nice

In my limited usage pattern file transfer is the essential feature. It let's me backup my phone, while, alas, not too fast, very reliably and convenient.

I'd call that kind of important.

Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#24754279)

If you have OBEX you can do pretty much everything you can with FT, but I'd agree that FT makes it easier (for one thing, you don't need to run so much of the software on the phone).

Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752767)

You should read the post link first.
"The 1.0 version of Android and the first devices will include support for Bluetooth; for instance, Android will support Bluetooth headsets."
So headset and I hope A2DP will be supported. I will also bet that some other other functionality like file transfers will be supported.

What will not be supported is direct access to the Bluetooth API to applications. So it will probably be impossible to write things like a bluetooth remote control for it :(. At least in the first release.
The thing is with APIs is if you don't get them right the first time you are left with supporting broken code forever OR you break a lot of apps.
See Windows for an example.

IM and bluetooth (0)

hey (83763) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752697)

Are not minor things for a smartphone.

Re:IM and bluetooth (-1)

nwf (25607) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752739)

IM is, IMHO, but Bluetooth is a killer. WIthout that, no one I know would even consider getting an Android phone. Sounds like Google can really only do search and nothing else.

Re:IM and bluetooth (4, Insightful)

Shade of Pyrrhus (992978) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753059)

Read the summary. It's going to be on the handsets, but not accessible via the API. In other words, you can't develop a program that specifically uses bluetooth.
This doesn't mean you won't be able to have something like Skype, and use a bluetooth headset - that's simply the audio input/output that the device will use.

Bluetooth isn't really that big of a deal in this instance. I'd be interested in seeing what applications people would make that need to communicate via bluetooth, though - maybe some interesting games or computer-sync apps...

Re:IM and bluetooth (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752747)

IM and bluetooth are not minor things for a smartphone.

Apple thought otherwise about IM as it wasn't included until recently and it's still not viable being that it doesn't run in the background -- yet. Seems like it's working for them although I am preparing to buy an iPhone and w/o notification/background support for applications, I'm not 100% sure at this point.

I was waiting for Android devices to come out a few months ago but with their release pushed back into October or later and with news like this, I'm not sure they are ready to compete either. Bah.

Re:IM and bluetooth (2, Informative)

Em Ellel (523581) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753835)

IM and bluetooth are not minor things for a smartphone.

You missed the point - the title of the article is completely misleading. Android will have IM AND Bluetooth, just not IM-over-BLUETOOTH-using-dedicated-api. Assuming there is another way of getting a functional IP stack to the world - is a really a minor thing and will not affect anything.

And also, please don't compare iPhone to a smartphone. iPhone is "a pretty but significantly mentally chalenged" phone.

-Em

Re:IM and bluetooth (3, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752843)

Exposing the Bluetooth API is. The phone supports things like bluetooth headsets.
You can still have an IM with this phone. What they did was take out an IM API! The idea was that other applications could use GTalk as a communication channel. If you read the blog you will see they have some pretty good privacy reasons to pull that API I am sorry to say.
Nothing would stop you form writing a jabber client for the phone.

Re:IM and bluetooth (1)

Warbothong (905464) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753887)

If you read the blog you will see they have some pretty good privacy reasons to pull that API I am sorry to say.

And here I was thinking that PGP was a security measure rather than a security hole. :P

So they say (5, Funny)

bockelboy (824282) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752729)

Plain ran out of time? ... or CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORY!?!

Re:So they say (2, Funny)

Otter (3800) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752811)

It's that mojo they lost yesterday... can't implement Bluetooth without it!

Re:So they say (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#24754373)

It's that mojo they lost yesterday... can't implement Bluetooth without it!

Mr. Morrison has his mojo rising, perhaps they should ask him if they could borrow some?

Re:So they say (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752901)

Considering that the 1st models are about to go to the market (HTC Dream?) out of time is a pretty good explanation.

The good news is that all of this seems to be about software, not hardware. You buy an android phone now, and your phone could have full bluetooth support and gtalk when they release it.

Re:So they say (1)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753523)

Considering that the 1st models are about to go to the market (HTC Dream?) out of time is a pretty good explanation.

Agreed. I'd rather they just come clean and say they ran out of time and not implement it rather than hack up a rush job just to fill a bullet point and have the users cry that it isn't working right. You don't get that with most companies these days.

Er... the not-implement-it part, I mean. That WAS a brutally-constructed phrase, now that I think about it. Maybe I shouldn't have rushed it out just to fill in my point. :-)

Re:So they say (1)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752967)

or CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORY!?!

I can believe it being simply time constraints for their first launch, but i definitely hope they intend to implement the full bluetooth api eventually. I'd hate to see google fall into the "Hey we can fail to implement bluetooth file transfers and force subscribers to send data only over our network with our happy fun usage fees (Subcribe for one of our BndOVR Packages to avoid RedEye)!" camp.

Re:So they say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24753043)

If you want the crazy conspiracy theory, you only have to look at Sprint. Sprint's one of the six cell service providers world-wide that's signed on to support Android. Sort of.

They complained that it was too open, that they couldn't control the apps that would be on "their network."

Losing Bluetooth sounds like Google deciding to betray openness and go the closed route to appease Sprint, who remains (for now) a larger provider in the US than T-Mobile.

There you go, a crazy conspiracy theory based on a fast and loose interpretation of the facts and without concern to what's actually happening.

(Sprint's quote could also be taken as meaning that Google wasn't working closely enough with them to provide support for Sprint-branded services, like their music and video streaming things. But no one likes Sprint, so I like the crazy version better.)

Re:So they say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24753687)

How many years ago was it that google purchased the company making android? How many years prior to that had said company been working on android? And finally, how long does it take to write a software API that is core to mobile devices?

huh, I guess they just ran out of time...because something like a application level bluetooth API that is almost entirely isolated from the rest of the phone isn't something you can just hire more people for to work on in a segregated fashion where they aren't impacting the rest of the phone. Oh wait, IT ACTUALLY IS.

What likely happened here is that the API was written but was totally screwed up. Thats where the running out of time comes in. They didn't run out of time to make one, they had the wrong people working on it and they messed it up. But admitting a mistake like that would mean Google is human.

How come developers never do this? (1, Interesting)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752755)

Why not put up a poll?

1. Delay launch but have x feature
2. Proceed with launch date and remove x feature.

That way you can get a feel of what the majority of buyers want, and their decision can be based on what the consumer wants.

Re:How come developers never do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24752797)

Customers have no idea what they want.

Re:How come developers never do this? (1)

extirpater (132500) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752895)

almost everybody will choose 1.
So they auto polled it.

Re:How come developers never do this? (1)

Nushio (951488) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753607)

Speak for yourself.

I'd rather have *something* now, with the promise that It'll "be better" in the future, than wait... and wait... and wait..... and wait......

Besides, every day they develop but not sell costs Google, I'm not saying they're rushing things (Or that they should've rushed things). I'm saying they should've had Android 1.0 to compete with that other FruitFone, even if it meant less features, but steadily adding new ones.

Re:How come developers never do this? (5, Insightful)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752953)

There's a reason companies don't just put up polls for decisions about how to develop products.

Customers don't know what they want, and most of the responders will not be people who have any intention of buying the product anyway.

Re:How come developers never do this? (1)

bgerlich (1035008) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753363)

Well, in this particular case (an API) one can safely assume that most of the people reading the news and responding to the polls have some intention of using the product.

You've got to be kidding (3, Insightful)

ghoti (60903) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753207)

This isn't some CowboyNeal nonsense, this is about getting a product out in time for the Christmas buying frenzy. They have to get things done on time or there won't be any sales. A few missing features can always be added later, but if they don't sell any of those phones, they're done.

Re:You've got to be kidding (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753781)

This isn't some CowboyNeal nonsense, this is about getting a product out in time for the Christmas buying frenzy. They have to get things done on time or there won't be any sales.

Absolutely! All these nay-sayers are acting like they did not know that Christmas 2008 is the last Christmas ever! I am being told that everyone who God is talking to daily in a loud voice (or even a chorus of voices) knows that there will be no sales after that, ever again!

Btw, ghoti, since this is Slashdot I gotta ask: do you have a modern LED "Repent! Nigh is near (2009 at the latest)!" sign to hold up on your lonely vigil at the street corner or are you still using the old but tried-and-true unintelligible scrawl on an unevenly ripped out cardboard-box side ever so fashionable amongst the true believers?

Re:You've got to be kidding (1)

ghoti (60903) | more than 5 years ago | (#24754013)

You obviously have no idea how a company works. They can't just say "oh too bad about this Christmas, maybe we'll get our stuff ready for next year. Happens. Let's just sit around for a year and hope Google can finish all those great features!" A real company needs to sell stuff, and needs to milk Christmas as much as possible to have money to spend on R&D, etc. Skipping Christmas will kill a company, even a large one.

Re:How come developers never do this? (1)

athakur999 (44340) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753251)

If it's easy to upgrade the OS on the phone after you bought it (meaning something I can easily do at home and not have to go into a store or send it somewhere to do it...), I'm all for option 2, especially in this case where both of these features are in the "nice to have" category instead of reguired features.

Not Google (2, Interesting)

Apoorv Khatreja (1263418) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752779)

Running out of time... doesn't seem very Google like to me. There certainly is something that Google is trying hard to bury here, possibly a leak. I think they'll rewrite it from scratch and include it in the next version.

Android *will* have Bluetooth+IM (5, Informative)

jsharkey (975973) | more than 5 years ago | (#24752789)

Android 1.0 phones *will* still have working Bluetooth and IM. This announcement is specifically referencing developer APIs that would allow hackers like us to do awesome stuff. Bluetooth headsets, etc and normal IM will work on Android just like we've always expected.

Re:Android *will* have Bluetooth+IM (2, Interesting)

jtolds (413336) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753007)

I think another good clarification is whether the first GPhone hardware (i.e. the G1 from T-Mobile) will allow software upgrades. I assume that's the case. Is it?

Re:Android *will* have Bluetooth+IM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24753013)

I was thinking about asking for a "badtitle" tag, but then I read it again and noticed that the word "API" is there... I don't know if the title can be better than it already is...

Offtopic: Free speech under Obama (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24752827)

Yeah, it's OT and all the Slashtard Obamatrons are going to hate it, but here it is:

Obama seeks to silence ad tying him to 60s radical [breitbart.com]

DENVER (AP) - Barack Obama is striking back fiercely and swiftly to stamp out an ad that links him to a 1960s radical, eager to demonstrate a far more aggressive response to attacks than John Kerry did when faced with the 2004 "Swift Boat" campaign.

Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William Ayers, but he sought to block stations the commercial by warning station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that continue to air the anti-Obama commercial.

Funny how the news article editorializes about Kerry's ordeal. Funny also how Kerry has NEVER denied or refuted any of the Swift Boat claims, just like Obama has repudiated his "good friend for several decades" Ayers.

CHANGE!

Re:Offtopic: Free speech under Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24752987)

Too bad, they had a nice platform so it's time to destroy it. Dave [rilysi.com]

iPhone doesn't have it either (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24753053)

Does the iPhone have a Bluetooth API? Nope. Whats the big deal?

Re:iPhone doesn't have it either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24754251)

That the iPhone is crap?

Re:iPhone doesn't have it either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24754303)

The big deal is that there are a lot of cool things you could program your phone to do if you had access to the Bluetooth API. You could get it to interact directly with other Bluetooth devices which may not be fully OS supported, see other devices near you (eg. everyone else in the same meeting), directly communicate with your computer when you are at home, etc. Whether the iPhone has a Bluetooth API is irrelevant.

No sexy bluetooths anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24753063)

Well nuts. We need a cell phone with Bluetooth Obex accessible to us, and we were hoping for an iPhone (unh-unh) or an Andriod (guess not) for something sexy.

Guess it's back to Crackberries...

Re:No sexy bluetooths anymore? (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753751)

What are you talking about? Several handsets support OBEX over Bluetooth. W960i, K850i, T650i, Nokia 6670, Nokia 6310i, Motorola e815 etc.. Why don't you people read up on stuff before you post junk?

I'll probably wait... (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753125)

...unless I get word that I can sync over Bluetooth. Cables are so yesterday, and IR is 90's...

Re:I'll probably wait... (2, Informative)

Beale (676138) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753263)

That'll probably come built into the Contacts app or whatever - the basic apps that come with the phone. It's only third party app developers who are affected by this.

Re:I'll probably wait... (1)

Nushio (951488) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753659)

Hmm... Wasn't Android's idea "all apps built the same"?

Re:I'll probably wait... (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#24754385)

Seeing as I was hoping to become a third-party app developer, it looks like core functionality will have to be addressed before the geegaws and doodads work.

Oh, wait, it's really mostly about geegaws and doodads.

You heard it here first - Google is just another corporation. Evil is intrinsic. Do no evil, do no business.

Wonderful news (1)

rmcd (53236) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753185)

It sounds as if the Android team is trying to meet a deadline and do so responsibly. This is a welcome departure for Google!

Now if only they could add a task list to Google Calendar as part of the Android rollout...

Verizon (5, Interesting)

zubikov (1172699) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753221)

Verizon has consistently limited Bluetooth capability in all of their devices up to date. They do not want you to send messages and transfer files to/from their devices without charging you every step of the way. It's that simple. Oh, Verizon also happens to be a major backer of Android and is in cahoots with Google. Does anyone think there's a chance that there are external influences to this decision?

Re:Verizon (1)

milamber3 (173273) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753379)

NO, not at all. The loss of the API's will not stop you from transferring files off of an android phone. I'm sure you will be able to email, ftp, or move them in 10 different ways through the wifi, 3G, or USB connections to any computer you want.

The IM is also not gone, just the API is delayed. I'm sorry that your friends wont get automatic IM's from all your programs, you might have to take the time to type something out. The Horror!

Re:Verizon (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753791)

Dude, have some empathy. It really pisses me off that i have a pocket PC that has one of its core functions severely crippled for profit only. Its really infuriating.

Re:Verizon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24753515)

Considering that HTC already has phones ready for Android, no. The same goes for other Android phones. Who cares about Verizon. If you're a normal schlep and buy into that non-sense of paying for stuff you already paid for or own then too bad. Choose a different carrier if you don't like them. You don't *have* to buy a phone directly from the carrier. If you do, unlock the phone simple as that. If you're not willing to get an unlocked phone then you deserve to pay out the arse for stuff on your phone. Me, I like my TNT cooked ROM for my HTC 8125 that I happily bought off ebay. In the process I learned a little bit about removing and adding ROMs to my phone.

Re:Verizon (1)

zubikov (1172699) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753765)

You're right, but HTC doesn't have billions to wash away, nor does it have rights to a highly-demanded wireless spectrum which Google lost. Maybe I'm wrong, but Verizon could be in this.

Re:Verizon (3, Informative)

louks (1075763) | more than 5 years ago | (#24754101)

On the contrary, Verizon has intentionally shunned Android and went with the LiMo Foundation.

References?

Here. [arstechnica.com]

The other articles you likely read are now old.

I left Verizon and went with my wife's T-Mobile account for two reasons: the one you mentioned about Verizon closing out everything they can to squeeze money out of their customers, and T-Mobile's founding support of the Open Handset Alliance.

Re:Verizon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24754219)

Verizon's smartphones that run WM5/6 are NOT crippled.

ha (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24753265)

cant have proper bluetooth. you might tether you phone to your laptop not pay $100 a MB for data.

stop thinking google is working in the consumers best interest.

Maybe Google wants to control data transfer? (1)

lordsegan (637315) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753315)

I know that Verizon kept bluetooth off of many of its phones because it wanted to force users to use its pay-to-play "get it now" system. Maybe Google is aiming for something similar?

Re:Maybe Google wants to control data transfer? (1)

intangible (252848) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753729)

I haven't seen Verizon do that in years... They seemed to have learned their lesson from all the backlash.
My LG VX8600 has pretty much full bluetooth support for just about everything (obex, a2dp, dun, headset, etc).

I'm guessing they're only dropping the new IM API that nothing else supports yet anyway.

What Bluetooth features... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753395)

Will be supported at launch? They mention handsets, but what of OBEX?

I'm kind of sad about the Bluetooth thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24753423)

Yes, I know that headsets (most of them anyway) will work okay. But you may not be able to do cool stuff with Bluetooth, like use or extend floaAt's Mobile Agent (http://fma.sourceforge.net/index2.htm). Also, if I find that my old Bluetrek G2 doesn't work as well as I'd like, will I be able to hack up the connectivity for it? I won't be able to turn a headset into a hidden microphone (hey, it looks like a Bluetooth headset, people won't expect it to be recording - hidden in plain, sight so to speak; this has a lot of cool applications - think jerk cops during traffic stops).

Honestly I've been holding off on a new phone purchase for years waiting for either OpenMoko or Android to catch my fancy. In the end I'll probably go with whichever one allows me to turn the stupid GPS off the most easily.

It's interesting (3, Informative)

greentshirt (1308037) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753507)

How many stupid "smart" people there are on here. Reading skills ftl. The API's have nothing to do with the base functionality, as has already been stated a dozen times.

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24753559)

Now how are we suposed to taunt the iPhone users about missing bluetooth capabilities and missing Instantmessaging...

JSR-82 (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753589)

Meanwhile, other manufacturers have been able to ship phones with a Bluetooth API [jcp.org] for six years or so... A reference implementation and test suite [motorola.com] is available under the APL, and has been for a very long time. Just shows how utterly stupid it is to create new standards when perfectly good ones already exist.

Re:JSR-82 (1)

Sonic McTails (700139) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753689)

Very very very few phones support JSR-82. Only a handful of Nokias do last time I went to look at developing things that work over Bluetooth. Blackberry's also have a bluetooth API, but you can only access the Serial Port Profile, and not publish new service records which is a very annoying limitation.

Re:JSR-82 (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753901)

You are wrong. Most mid to high-end handsets released in the last two years do support JSR-82. Find out for yourself at Nokia's site [nokia.com] or at Sony Ericsson's site [sonyericsson.com] or search for yourself [google.com] .

Re:JSR-82 (1)

Yokaze (70883) | more than 5 years ago | (#24754133)

> Only a handful of Nokias do last time I went to look at developing things that work over Bluetooth.

A handful? If I see it correctly all Symbian mobiles after S60 2nd Ed FP1 (without OBEX) and Nokia OS S40 3rd Ed seem to have JSR-82.The support must have been there from around 2004-2005, so I guess you looked to early.

A search today revealed a handful of pages with mobiles supporting JSR-82 [nokia.com]

It's all fine and good that they deliver on time (3, Interesting)

zullnero (833754) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753619)

But they're competing against mobile OS's like WinMob, Symbian, and Palm that have been around for about 10-14 years now. They've been doing Bluetooth for about 6-7 years. It's no longer a special, cutting edge feature...it's just expected by companies looking to port their applications. If it's not there, companies don't port their applications and don't support the phone. Customers of said company get marketed into buying the phone, find out that the app they need for their job doesn't work, they return the phone and are upset about it. I've seen this before years ago with the Motorola Q, when a company I worked for did not want to port their app to a non-touch screen device. They're going to have to deliver that Bluetooth API pretty quick if they don't want to tank their OS right out of the gate...some of the largest penetration of non-Apple smartphones are into vertical industries where the application provider really makes or breaks the success of a platform.

Re:It's all fine and good that they deliver on tim (1)

SilentTristero (99253) | more than 5 years ago | (#24753863)

They're going to have to deliver that Bluetooth API pretty quick if they don't want to tank their OS right out of the gate

Why? Which of these other OSes (WinMob, Symbian, and Palm) has a bluetooth API? None, I think. Of course they all support Bluetooth, but we're talking about a software API to it. Maybe Symbian does, I know next to nothing about it.

Re:It's all fine and good that they deliver on tim (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24754297)

They're going to have to deliver that Bluetooth API pretty quick if they don't want to tank their OS right out of the gate

Why? Which of these other OSes (WinMob, Symbian, and Palm) has a bluetooth API? None, I think. Of course they all support Bluetooth, but we're talking about a software API to it. Maybe Symbian does, I know next to nothing about it.

Actually both Symbian and Windows Mobile have relatively mature and full featured Bluetooth APIs, I've used them and they've been around for years. This is a big chunk of missing fundamental functionality for Android to have.

As stated a dozen times... (1)

Yogler (984129) | more than 5 years ago | (#24754339)

Bluetooth headsets work fine.

The Bluetooth API just isn't included for now.

Android handsets early next year (1)

wshwe (687657) | more than 5 years ago | (#24754075)

Android phones won't ship in quantity until early 2009. This is a sure sign that Android is behind schedule.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...