×

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!

Bluetooth 4.0 Spec Adopted

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the so-my-money's-wasted-on-nuclear-batteries dept.

Networking 59

adeelarshad82 writes "The Bluetooth SIG announced the formal adoption of Bluetooth Core Specification Version 4.0, which begins the qualification process for new, low-power devices. Bluetooth 4.0 [zipped PDF of the spec] was formally announced in April, and added a new, ultra-low-power aspect to the short-range personal-area-network technology. According to the SIG, the new 4.0 core specification should allow devices to run on coin-cell batteries for years with a new ultra-low-power duty mode."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

59 comments

Great (-1, Offtopic)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | more than 3 years ago | (#32832836)

But I think they should be coming up with ways on how to create abundant power. Coin-sized fusion reactors, that sort of thing.

Re:Great (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833004)

Yes, "they" should drop whatever disparate projects "they" are working on and unite as one to accomodate your priorities. Because after all, there's no way to work on both problems at once.

Re:Great (1)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833070)

I would imagine table-top nuclear fusion would be in your best interest also. But since "they" are ultimately the ones who get all the cash, it's only fair "they" do the job. Unlike this [bbc.co.uk] guy, who's doing it himself. Yes, I'm not a nuclear physicist.

Re:Great (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833190)

I want nuclear fusion that can fit in my pocket. That, combined with my Quasimodo-esque looks, will almost certainly guarantee that I never reproduce (which could only result further degradation of the planet's gene pool) ;-)

Re:Great (2, Informative)

bertok (226922) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833792)

I want nuclear fusion that can fit in my pocket. That, combined with my Quasimodo-esque looks, will almost certainly guarantee that I never reproduce (which could only result further degradation of the planet's gene pool) ;-)

You can get nuclear fission that'll fit in your pocket now, and safely generate electricity.

Look up betavoltaics [wikipedia.org] and the related optoelectric nuclear batteries [wikipedia.org]. You can also get lights that'll last for about a decade. [wikipedia.org]

All of those can be miniaturised, and use a radiation source that only emits beta particles, which won't penetrate through the case, so you won't have to sacrifice your looks for convenience.

Isn't science awesome?

Re:Great (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32841336)

Betavoltaics are not fission, they are radioactive decay. Fission is when one dense nucleus splits into smaller ones. Fusion is when two smaller ones combine to form another one. Decay is when one transmutes into another form, emitting radiation. In the case of betavoltaics, you have a neutron decaying into a proton and an electron (beta particle), and a neutrino that you can safely ignore. The electron is captured to generate power. No fission required.

Re:Great (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#32834086)

cf. Dilbert on asking users to help define product requirements:

User: I want free nuclear power that won't mutate me. Unless the mutation gives me x-ray vision.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32833246)

Since you're not a nuclear physicist, have you possibly thought that nobody actually knows how to make an economical fusion reactor? Have you also thought even though fusion power would be good, that doesn't mean that it is inevitable or even possible?

Warp engines would be good too. So would StarGates, food replicators, and holodecks.

Nope, of course you haven't thought about the scientific and technical issues. That would require understanding nuclear fusion. Instead you just make a conspiracy theory. Well done sir. You've earned your mod points.

Re:Great (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32833312)

Warp engines would be good too. So would StarGates, food replicators, and holodecks.

Holodecks? Are you insane? Do you even remember how many problems the damn thing caused on Startrek?

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32833398)

That's because they were beta tech, duh...

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32833500)

You've never been to one of Quark's holosuites have you?

Re:Great (1)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833608)

Yeah, but fusion IS possible. It's real science, none of this "OMG I CAN GET PERPETUAL MOTION!!!!ONEONE!!" nonsense. Fusion just has a bunch of problems that will be solved as technology progresses, there's no underlying concept that dooms it. It's a lot of "we don't have magnets that are more efficient" or "we can't contain a plasma stream of such a high temperature", things that are solved with new materials given some time.

Re:Great (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833906)

But since "they" are ultimately the ones who get all the cash, it's only fair "they" do the job. Unlike this [bbc.co.uk] guy, who's doing it himself.

Next you'll link to some guy playing with lasers, and claim he's building a death-star.

Bluetooth 3.0? (4, Insightful)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#32832864)

Did i miss something? The last i've heard of anything bluetooth was 2.2EDR

Re:Bluetooth 3.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32834804)

Apparently PC-Mag missed the original press release [bluetooth.com] too.
BELLEVUE, WA – December 17, 2009 – The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) today announced the adoption of Bluetooth® low energy wireless technology, which is the hallmark feature of the Bluetooth Core Specification Version 4.0.

Normally I wouldn't mind.. but is is the right there on google [google.com] when searching for "bluetooth 4"

Re:Bluetooth 3.0? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#32844958)

3.0 was announced a while back, and was basically about bluetooth protocol over wifi radio if both where available in the same device.

this so you get the obex profiles and such, but with wifi speeds.

thats one of the things i have always liked about bluetooth, the profiles. With wifi you first need to set up a hotspot or ad-hoc connection. then there is tcp/ip. And then you need to find some kind of protocol that both parties can use to share files over.

With bluetooth its basically a case of select file, select transfer by bluetooth, select device you want to send to, accept on said device.

And thats with the basic push profile (that any sane bluetooth device with file storage should support at minimum, tho i know some mobile carriers and apple do not). With the next step up, obex ftp, you can browse a paired device, and open its files, as if it was a locally connected device.

Sadly, thanks to the net being US centric in its tech news, and certain US telcos limiting what mobile phones sold under their contracts can do, most people seems to think bluetooth is only about that plug in the ear.

I think perhaps 3.0 also brought NFC pairing, tho i cant say for sure. So if one have two 3.0 compatible devices, one just put each party into pairing mode and have them get within a inch or two of each other. No entering of pins or similar.

Low-power douchebaggery? (0, Troll)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 3 years ago | (#32832954)

Great, all those earpiece douchebags can talk longer and louder, and Minivan Mommie can swerve around in traffic even longer.

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833078)

Great, all those earpiece douchebags can talk longer and louder, and Minivan Mommie can swerve around in traffic even longer.

That's actually not the kind of problem space the ultra-low-power form of the spec is aimed at. Rather, it's a competitor to ANT -- ya know, the protocol your bicycle's speedometer uses to talk to the sensor reading the magnet on the wheel, or that the pedometer in your shoes uses to tell your watch how far you're walking.

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (3, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833474)

This bit from TFA links has me a bit worried. With the mobility of these devices compared to WiFi, which is relatively non-mobile, what sort of walking interference (Bluetooth vs. WiFi) can we expect from 4.0 devices?

Moreover, an increased modulation index has actually increased the effective range from 30 feet or so, to beyond 200 feet.

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (1)

Another, completely (812244) | more than 3 years ago | (#32836470)

I expect the ultra-low-power messages to be so rare (small packets with long, asynchronous delays between) that you won't see significant interference from that. When they are not sending, they have no signal; when they are sending, they don't send much. That's how they save power. "Classic" Bluetooth uses adaptive hopping to avoid interference with local wireless signals by dropping channels from the sequence if they show unusually high error rates. You shouldn't have a problem using it next to a WiFi device.

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 3 years ago | (#32834326)

Rather, it's a competitor to ANT

This is one thing I've been wondering about. What is the advantage of "low-power bluetooth" versus ANT? Will you be able to combine both "low-power" and "regular" bluetooth together on one chip so that I can use my bluetooth headphones while my bluetooth pedometer tells me how many steps I'm taking?

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (1)

Another, completely (812244) | more than 3 years ago | (#32836440)

Yes. That's the idea. The low-power uses the same set of frequencies, just in a different way. I'm not sure whether you will be able to see the data from your pedometer on the phone while you are simultaneously having a conversation using a connected headset, but significant re-use of components is certainly designed in. There will be chips (such as those designed for phones) that support low-power as well as other modes. An often-cited scenario is to receive a call on your phone, read the caller name on your watch, then pick up the call with your headset; and your watch should still give wristwatch-like battery life.

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833222)

If it makes you feel better, sales of those earpieces is on the decline, and they're now considered to be a fashion faux pas in many circles. Thus, their use will probably continue to decline.

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833318)

I have and use one, mostly in the car... but I'm anti-social, so what do I care? :p

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#32838020)

Motorola (and a few other manufactures, I'm sure) sell a great speakerphone system that clips to the sunvisor in your car, and can be wired into the vehicle's power system.

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (5, Insightful)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833446)

Why do people insist on looking down at those who talk to their friends that just don't happen to be proximate?

I mean, jeez! There you go, yacking away with your homies and I can't do the same 'cause mine are not beside me?

What kind of technophobe are you?

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32834462)

I love how that's insightful instead of funny...

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32838510)

It's annoying and distracting. Convenient for the person talking but not for those around him.

Simple as that.

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (1)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 3 years ago | (#32841806)

How is it any more annoying or distracting than talking to someone who is present?

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32841998)

Two seconds of googling: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2010/05/21/other-peoples-cell-phone-conversations-really-.html

It's harder to tune out than two people talking to each other.

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32844564)

I shall remember to conduct my public phone conversations over speaker phone, then.

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32845852)

Reuters - Annoyed by cellphones? Scientists explain why [reuters.com]

Basically, people will subconsciously try to fill in the gaps in a half-conversation.

Re:Low-power douchebaggery? (1)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 3 years ago | (#32852700)

Well, screw them for eavesdropping, then.

Frankly, I don't buy that "study", either: are people working in call centers where they can overhear other one-sided conversations distracted by them? No.

Here's a test: would anyone be annoyed by a half-duplex bilingual conversation: one party speaking one language and the other speaking a different one? (Sometimes one comprehends better than one can speak, and their counterpart does as well in the exact opposite manner: this used to be common with English and French in some parts of Quebec, though over time it devolves into "Frenglish") I don't think so.

I think the people annoyed are because they are distracted by the novelty, more than anything else. Well, suck it up and get used to the technology. I can imagine the first television sets giving people headaches because they had to look as well as listen.

Hope it replaces zigbee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32832956)

Good, Bluetooth has been known to consume a lot of power. I hope this allows it to replace zigbee. Zigbee has outrageous licensing fees. It costs thousands of dollars to implement.

[citation needed] (1)

dtmos (447842) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833640)

Eh? If you want to use ZigBee in your wireless gizmo, you buy a ZigBee module just like you buy a Bluetooth module, and put it in.

If you want to sell ZigBee modules that you make yourself, your company joins the ZigBee Alliance for $3500/year [zigbee.org], a trivial amount if you're paying yourself a salary (and if you're serious about compliance to the specification and using the ZigBee logo in your advertising).

If you want to sell someone else's ZigBee modules, you don't pay anything.

These are all similar to Bluetooth, except that the lowest membership grade in the Bluetooth SIG is $7500/year [bluetooth.org].

Will this promote tech waste? (3, Interesting)

Irick (1842362) | more than 3 years ago | (#32832978)

Do you think people will just throw away most of the little bluetooth devices that use this new low power spec when the battery runs out rather then going out to replace the batteries, as is so often the case with small consumer electronics like cheep watches? Maybe this will promote planned obsolescence in those sort of accessory devices.

Re:Will this promote tech waste? (2, Insightful)

cduffy (652) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833118)

I don't throw out my bicycle's speed and cadence sensors or my heartrate monitor when their batteries wear out -- sure, the battery may be $2 after a hefty markup, but the device it goes in is $30-70.

This just makes Bluetooth a competitor in that field, rather than needing to join the "ANT Alliance" to build anything that can communicate with the wireless sensors. As someone with the occasional hobby-project idea, I'm all for that!

Re:Will this promote tech waste? (2, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833182)

With Bluetooth, you either had it or you didn't. After that, most users could give a rats rear end what the latest Bluetooth specifications are out there. If they get Bluetooth 4.0, it will be an "upgrade" when they replace their phone, buy a new car, or peripheral. Much in the same manor as cellphone camera. Meh, sure why not...

Re:Will this promote tech waste? (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835796)

I will throw out my bluetooth devices as soon as they develop stereo bluetooth headphones which don't have 1,000+ ms of lag!

Whoever designed bluetooth 2.2 must have had some strange use-cases under consideration. Next time consider the fact that people might like their sound to match their videos and games, buddy.

Re:Will this promote tech waste? (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#32836702)

Yours must be broken or just plain crap, cuz mine works just fine with most certainly under 100 ms of lag (or unnoticeable)... Any delay from pushing play on my phone to hearing audio is caused by the application, not the bluetooth A2DP connection.

Re:Will this promote tech waste? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#32845040)

could be poor battery at either end of the connection, or something nearby producing noise in the 2.4Ghz band.

Re:Will this promote tech waste? (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#32836676)

More likely the batteries will be lighter and smaller, and last a little longer... But not months or years, so I would not count on it anytime soon.

Wifi Direct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32833090)

It's a new competitor to bluetooth published by the wifi alliance.

It looks pretty cool, but so far I haven't been able to lay my hands on a copy of the spec.
Broadcom said at MWC they were publishing a bunch, but a search on their website brings up zilch.

If any helpful slashdotters have it, a copy emailed to ricosec@yahoo.com would be greatly
appreciated.

Islam? Only if your a retarded bitch. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32833380)

Islam is a barbaric lie and those who follow it are retards and bitches. Prove me wrong.

Re:Islam? Only if your a retarded bitch. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32833494)

Don't worry. Had you said this about Christianity you would have been modded +1 Insightful.

Bluetooth / WiFi incompatibilities (2, Interesting)

stavrica (701765) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833554)

That's nice, but are the interference issues between WiFi and Bluetooth fixed yet?

It would be nice to have the laptop connect to the stereo via Bluetooth while I'm lounging in the living room without cutting out while I'm watching YouTube.

(more info here: Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Coexistence [ce-mag.com])

Re:Bluetooth / WiFi incompatibilities (1)

dustman81 (1134599) | more than 3 years ago | (#32834158)

I'm using a stereo Bluetooth headset while on my laptop using 802.11g. I'm hearing the music clear as a bell and my internet surfing is going unimpeded.

Re:Bluetooth / WiFi incompatibilities (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32841894)

You're seriously citing an article from 2001? Really? Have you ever actually used WiFi or Bluetooth? Or even noticed that 802.11b (which your article talks about) was superseded a long time ago?

In answer to your question, yes these issues were solved almost a decade ago. Yes, I have just been trolled.

Re:Bluetooth / WiFi incompatibilities (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#32845086)

and it only really applied to devices that had both systems installed, and that would end up broadcasting at the same time.

more often then not the fix was a driver update that made sure only one tried to broadcast at any more moment.

heck, it would not surprise me if the problems came out of some lazy designer that attached both radios to the same antenna as they where on the same frequency anyways.

heart rate and power (1)

johnjones (14274) | more than 3 years ago | (#32833606)

this is a good thing when heart rate monitors and power (electricity) monitors can communicate via bluetooth

but they need a profile (standard way) of exporting this information i.e. ticks

does anyone know how the "smart" power monitors can communicate and dump information ?

regards

John Jones

Re:heart rate and power (2, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32834652)

Given that "smart meters" will inevitably end up being connected to billing, I wouldn't be too optimistic about there being any fully open standard for how they do their reporting. They will probably use some sort of mostly-standard transport(ie. bluetooth, wifi, TCP/IP over whatever is handy) for economic reasons and, for similar economic reasons, we might end up with some sort of "industry consensus" type standard, where the equipment is more or less interoperable; but the details are rather hush-hush/professionals only(if, probably, more transparent than they would like to anybody with hardware hacking chops and some guts).

If one is lucky, they would probably make mostly-standard use of the bluetooth serial profile, the way that bluetooth GPSes do, with some additional commands tacked on to allow for configuration, and (ideally) to make the device spit out a nicely formatted description of exactly what information it is providing.

Where are the devices with BT 3? (1)

nanoakron (234907) | more than 3 years ago | (#32834592)

Umm...who really cares? Bueller? Bueller?

Just bought myself a brand spanking new mobile phone - they're all still stuck on 2.1

Anyone seen a single device that uses bluetooth 3?

And now we're talking 4?

Sorry - I don't care.

Re:Where are the devices with BT 3? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32835016)

Samsung Wave and Samsung Galaxy S are the ones I know of.

Check for New 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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...