Slashdot Mirror


Bluetooth Gets Faster & Requires Less Power

An anonymous reader writes "The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (BSIG) has announced a new specification named "Enhanced Data Rate" or EDR for short. EDR aims to provide faster data transmission and reduce the power consumption from traditional Bluetooth technology. The data speeds will be roughly three times faster which means you could easily use multiple Bluetooth devices simultaneously. The reduced power consumption also means longer battery life and less heat generated. The new EDR standard will be backward compatible with the current standard Bluetooth devices. This makes upgrading to the new standard effortless."

121 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Neat... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... but I'm having to fight a little too hard to find neat things to do with Bluetooth. I made my laptop connecton the net once with my cell phone... but.. uh yeah.

    1. Re:Neat... by DarkHazard · · Score: 5, Informative

      With Bluetooth I'm able to also connect to the internet on trips but I'm also now sending wallpapers, ringtones etc to my phone.
      Another favourite feature is the Address Book sync. Its such a paint to enter full Address Book entries on the phone so instead I enter on the comp. and sync it with my phone. Bluetooth ain't so bad :P

    2. Re:Neat... by swordboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's lots of cool things to do with Bluetooth but nobody'll implement it because they're all dumb.

      1) Cell phone "submissiveness" - an establishment (like a movie theater or a school) installs a device that causes your BT-enabled phone to shutthehellup. When this happens, the phone beeps once to notify the user of the situation. The user can opt out if he/she wishes.

      2) Tire pressures - to go along with our RFID license plates, our tires could tell our cell phones (or the dashboard) if they are low on pressure.

      3) Coupons - a person's cell phone (once again) could be configured to receive (or not) coupons at the grocery store upon entering.

      4) Wireless peripherals - the biggest usability problem with PCs these days is the rats nest behind (or on top of, in front of) the damn things. Holy shit... Some of you know what I'm talking about. This is crazy.

      Sure - it was all a nice thought and some of it even made it (I have a wireless keyboard that could have used the BT standard but didn't for WHO KNOWS what reason) but now we've got wireless-serial-attached-SCSI and every other damn wireless specification coming. Great!

      What the industry needs is an independent board to regulate this stuff. Intel doesn't like Firewire so they codevelop USB. Great! If we had a board that could pick a standard, we wouldn't be stuck with this cruft. Don't get me wrong - I'm all about having freedom but it would be nice if the industry said, "we like this standard - go ahead and develop that other crap but we will only endorse this".

      Sure - Intel does have clout but you still have to buy a separate USB cable for that iPod (usually a second trip to the store, too).

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    3. Re:Neat... by System.out.println() · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What the industry needs is an independent board to regulate this stuff. Intel doesn't like Firewire so they codevelop USB.

      First of all, we have such a body - it's called the IEEE. And I'm sure a number of other bodies I've never heard of as well.

      As for Intel developing USB because it didn't like FW... I don't think that's accurate. Firewire and USB are good at different things (FW is better at sending video, for example, but would be less than ideal for a mouse or keyboard due to cost) and can+should happily coexist on your computer.

      I'm all about having freedom but it would be nice if the industry said, "we like this standard - go ahead and develop that other crap but we will only endorse this".


      I don't think you realize that's exactly what's happening. Bluetooth and Wifi have been accepted, and while the others may come, they'll likely be considered "extras". (Wifi and bluetooth, like USB and Firewire, are good at different things - power vs. range and bandwidth, in this case)

    4. Re:Neat... by abscondment · · Score: 3, Funny

      see, what you need is one of these:

      linked image

      I hear they fly, too.

    5. Re:Neat... by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      Most of these make sense, except...

      "3) Coupons - a person's cell phone (once again) could be configured to receive (or not) coupons at the grocery store upon entering."

      Stores do not issue coupons for your health and well being. You get coupons in the mail, newspaper, and flyers because the grocery store is trying to get you in there. It's called a "loss leader". You sell a few items at a loss, in the hopes that the customer will purchase many other items you will make profit on. It also encourages brand loyalty.

      If you are already *in* the store, the store no longer has any incentive to offer you discounts on items.

      Now, what *would* make sense is broadcasting sales / coupons to your phone when you walk into a common area, like a mall. One store broadcasting a good deal might entice you to go into that store and check it out, when otherwise you might not have.

    6. Re:Neat... by nathanh · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ... but I'm having to fight a little too hard to find neat things to do with Bluetooth. I made my laptop connecton the net once with my cell phone... but.. uh yeah.

      Some newer cars (eg, BMW 5) have bluetooth integration so your phone works directly without needing a car-kit or cradle. Kind of neat.

    7. Re:Neat... by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      That arguement works for USB 1.0/1.1, but what purpose does USB2 serve aside from dividing the market? Firewire had already proven its greatness for hard drives, scanners, and video. Here comes USB2, and guess what? It is only used for the exact same things!

      Firewire did it first and better.

      OTOH, now most devices support both, and Firewire 800 has shown up on a few Ath64 mobos, so I guess I'm bitching about nothing...

      Hey what happens if you attach a device compatible with both Firewire and USB2 to both ports on your PC?

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    8. Re:Neat... by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      2) Tire pressures - to go along with our RFID license plates, our tires could tell our cell phones (or the dashboard) if they are low on pressure.


      Already done

      4) Wireless peripherals - the biggest usability problem with PCs these days is the rats nest behind (or on top of, in front of) the damn things. Holy shit... Some of you know what I'm talking about. This is crazy.


      We are using Bluetooth-dongles here in the office. Just plug them in to a printer, and our Bluetooth-enabled laptops can print to them without any problems.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    9. Re:Neat... by System.out.println() · · Score: 2, Insightful

      USB gives combination decent speed + backward compatibility. A lot of PC's still don't have Firewire ports, unfortunately.

      Hey what happens if you attach a device compatible with both Firewire and USB2 to both ports on your PC?

      Depends on the drive, it'll either (1) ignore the second plug, or (2), mount twice, I'm guessing.

    10. Re:Neat... by sdpinpdx · · Score: 1
      If you are already *in* the store, the store no longer has any incentive to offer you discounts on items.


      Yet they do. I often see piles of the same flyers I'd get in the newspaper (if I still got my news on dead trees) at the store entrance. Then there are those coupon dispensers on the shelves with the flashing LEDs to get your attention. Those things already have batteries.
    11. Re:Neat... by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      But you've been able to do that all along with USB or, god forbid, serial connections.

      I don't mean to say that Bluetooth isn't a hundred times better than either of those -- it is, and my next phone will definitely be Bluetooth-enabled -- but Bluetooth is hardly responsible for this capability.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
  2. Finally... by DarkHazard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A faster Bluetooth. With my Sony Ericsson T616 speeds are laughable and slow and maybe now Bluetooth will finally be able to maximize its potential and actually start to compete with other wireless specs.

    And the power consumption. A gift from the heavens. Bluetooth lowers my cellphones standby to about a 8 hours with no calls.

    1. Re:Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Great!

      Now your phone can be hacked even quicker!

    2. Re:Finally... by iiioxx · · Score: 1

      With my Sony Ericsson T616 speeds are laughable and slow and maybe now Bluetooth will finally be able to maximize its potential...

      I doubt your speed issue is a result of the speed of the Bluetooth connection between your laptop and your phone, but rather the 9600-14.4kbps GPRS connection between your phone and your provider's network. I don't think EDR Bluetooth is going to help any with your cellular Internet connection. At least not until 3G becomes ubiquitous.

    3. Re:Finally... by DarkHazard · · Score: 1

      To clariffy what I meant it is not internet speeds. It is the speed of sync [i.e address book, emails, sending wallpapers and other content]

    4. Re:Finally... by plj · · Score: 1

      Sure, the data transfer speed of BT are laughable if you're just transmitting large amount of data between two devices, like uploading MP3s to your phone's memory card or something. But still, at least for me, my main use of BT has been using my phone's GPRS connection with my laptop, and for that usage BT speed is well enough - although EDGE- or WCDMA-connections could theoretically transfer faster than BT, but what I've heard they practically do hardly over 64 kbit/s...

      However, what I found laughable in this story is the phrase "less heat generated" - or at least I've never heard that the BT heat generation would've been even noticeable - even less an issue.

      The lower power consumption would be very good, though. Nowadays BT connections are a real battery hog, and I've 2 times even been unable to go online because my phone battery has dried, although my laptop has still had lots of power left!

      --
      “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
    5. Re:Finally... by iiioxx · · Score: 1

      Oh, sorry. I just assumed you meant Internet access. I use my SE Z600 for GPRS connectivity, and I also sync my address book, calendar, etc to it. I guess I just notice the GPRS speed more than the sync speed, because it never would have occured to me that it would be slow enough to complain. In fact, I think my Z600 syncs pretty fast. Before I had it, I used iSync to sync my stuff to my iPod. When I added the phone to the sync scheme, I only noticed an extra couple of seconds to complete the sync.

      My wife has an SE T616, she's never complained about it being slow to sync. I'll have to ask her about it.

      What kind of sync times are you seeing, and what OS/app are you using to sync?

    6. Re:Finally... by DarkHazard · · Score: 1

      I'm using a G4 Powerbook running Mac OS 10.3.4 and using iSync. The Sync can take anywhere between two minutes to 5 minutes.

    7. Re:Finally... by Tintivilus · · Score: 1

      what are you doing with it? is it an active bluetooth connection for those whole 8 hours, or is it just idling waiting for connections?

      On my phone activating bluetooth reduces the standby time from around 3 days to 2.5-ish -- it's not really a noticable difference. It's plenty fast for MIDI's and general data transfer, but mp3 transfers (2-4MB) take a bit too long to be practical. I'm told it has the fastest bluetooth stack currently in a mobile phone, but I've never seen any hard numbers to back that up.

      disclaimer: Yes, I like bluetooth, and I like 3G... so shoot me :)

    8. Re:Finally... by rwhamann · · Score: 1

      8 hours standby? I've got a T610 (TMobile version of same phone) and my BT is always on for my Jabra Freespeak. I charge my phone about every three days, same with the Freespeak.

      --
      seg fault
    9. Re:Finally... by vought · · Score: 1

      Yout T616 experience is a little different from mine, but I agree that using Bluetooth is a real battery hog.

      I added a bunch of contacts to my address book at work today - mostly business stuff. When I went to lunch, I set off iSync.

      Upon arriving home this evening, I used iSync on my home machine, synced my phone with my computer...and realized my phone was still in the car. Now that's cool.

      But if I could only hit the cell tower form home.

    10. Re:Finally... by WARM3CH · · Score: 1

      I use a Nokia 6310i and without bluetooth the standby is round 10 days and with bluetooth on, well, I don't see any difference. Usually it works 9 or even the same 10 days with the blutooth. I think it depends on the implementation and with a good implementation the consumption can be controlled like this case.

    11. Re:Finally... by iiioxx · · Score: 1

      Wow. That seems like a long time unless you have hundreds of contacts and calendar items or something. I also have a PBG4 running 10.3.4, and I iSync with .Mac, my iPod, and my Z600 all in under two minutes, with a decent number of bookmarks, contacts and calendar entries. My wife said that her experience syncing with her T616 is comparable to mine (she has the same notebook/OS). I wonder if you might just have a defective BT chipset in your phone (or your PB)?

  3. Excellent... by th1ckasabr1ck · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... now I can move my bed even farther away from my desk and still be able to use my wireless keyboard. Rock.

    1. Re:Excellent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh my!
      Geek.. Bed.. Keyboard... Hummmmmm....

    2. Re:Excellent... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Well, devices commonly say 10M range. My Logitech Bluetooth MX combo came in today and I managed 20M with the signal passing through two walls and metal clad doors. That's well beyond the useful range of a keyboard and mouse, the only way I knew it was working was that the scroll wheel still scrolled the screen.

  4. Well... by Inf0phreak · · Score: 5, Funny

    You could pick up toothing.

    --
    ________
    Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
    1. Re:Well... by SLiK812 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Toothing on 'multiple devices'. Iguess that would be called 'Group Toothing', or cyber-swinging for geeks.

    2. Re:Well... by klasikahl · · Score: 2, Informative

      After reading that article when it was published, I tried searching for BT devices within range while in a populated area and found nothing. I was disappointed, logically. :P

  5. Yes, but will this be enough? by Brain+Stew · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With all the new wireless technologies coming out, (wireless USB, wireless IEEE 1394, etc.) will this be enough to save the failing bluetooth. I use a Microsoft BlueTooth keyboard and mouse and while it is the best keyboard and mouse combo I've ever used, the lack of market saturation cost me $160.

    --
    "Here's a spoiler: You're will die alone."-Triumph the Insult Comic Dog
    1. Re:Yes, but will this be enough? by Total_Wimp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bluetooth is dead. Long live bluetooth.

      As you said yourself the stuff rocks when it gets into actual products. I love my bluetooth headset and can't wait to get the just-anounced folding bluetooth keyboard that will work with my phone. So if everyone likes the actual bluetooth stuff and they keep producing and selling more of it, why is everyone busy using words like 'failing' to describe it?

      TW

    2. Re:Yes, but will this be enough? by brettper · · Score: 2, Funny

      So if everyone likes the actual bluetooth stuff and they keep producing and selling more of it, why is everyone busy using words like 'failing' to describe it?

      Because it didn't take over the world a week after it was announced. People are just impatient.

    3. Re:Yes, but will this be enough? by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      You're lucky you got it to work. I couldn't get it running on two PCs, including the one it was bought for, before I finally got it to work on the third -- and because it's not compatible with anyone else's Bluetooth stack AND the BT stack only supports keyboard, mouse and modem I can't use it for any of my other BT devices, such as my N-Gage or headset.

    4. Re:Yes, but will this be enough? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand it much either.

      Some people seem to act as if "everybody" has to have or have heard of something in order to consider that something successful. Even if 95% of any particular population have no use for something, the remaining 5% might find an indispensible use for which it can find a strong niche.

      Take Apple for example. We've gotten monthly predictions of their demise but somehow they still manage to mske a product that some people want and have a fair amount of liquid assets to boot.

    5. Re:Yes, but will this be enough? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Bluetooth works fine for me. I have a Compaq notebook that has a Multiport Bluetooth module and I got it working in maybe five to ten minutes. It seems to have support for every device type I can think of, PDAs, networks, virtual serial devices, file transfer and so on.

    6. Re:Yes, but will this be enough? by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      And Bluetooth on my Fujitsu notebook is a joy, but the Microsoft Bluetooth Desktop specifically is a very incompatible product.

    7. Re:Yes, but will this be enough? by dave420 · · Score: 1
      "failing bluetooth"

      What's failing about bluetooth? It's the only technology out there that does what it does. It's small, low-power, and incredibly cheap to implement. It has been designed from the get-go as a mobile technology, to create the PAN (personal area network). Comparing it to wireless USB and wireless firewire (which are larger, more expensive and use more power) is ridiculous. It's like asking why we need desktop PCs when there are much more powerful supercomputers out there. Looking at sheer specs means you've missed half the whole point of it.

      Unlike WUSB and wireless firewire, bluetooth is here, now. It's in my phone. It's in my two computers. Now, I can sync my address book up with my phone still in my pocket. I can sit at my desk at work, and use my headphones and a microphone to make calls over my mobile, with it still in my pocket. I can send/get media files from it, and update the latest games. Saying bluetooth has failed shows you don't really know much about how widespread and used it is.

  6. Dig-dan-Dongiliy-arn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh man, I thought I was so slick getting BlueTooth built into my PowerBook... Now I need a dongle :-(

    1. Re:Dig-dan-Dongiliy-arn it by somethinghollow · · Score: 1

      Sad thing: I finally decided Bluetooth was useful enough to invest in. I got a Nokia 3660 (which required me to get new cell service) and a bluetooth module for my Mac. And I'll be damned. A month later, there is a new standard on the way. At least it's backward compatible. But I'll still feel less 31337. BluetoothEDR 0wnz m333!!! :( :( :(

  7. Good News... by Piranhaa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good news for bluetooth for sure. The backwards compatibility is a really nice touch too. Bluetooth was lacking any upgrades for some time really, but reducing power consumption, while making it much faster was a really good change. One of the problems people faced with bluetooth was the data transfer speeds (excluding the range of it compared with wifi). This could allow bluetooth to become much more popular than it has been in the past...

    1. Re:Good News... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Bluetooth isn't for the same use as wifi, so comparing them is pointless. You wont find a wifi implementation as small as bluetooth, nor using as little power. It's not meant to be blazingly fast, but accessible. People don't want non-network wireless data connectivity on their mobile phones if they have to be twice as large. Bluetooth is for voice, data and small documents, not for streaming media or backing up servers. Most people, like yourself, seem to completely miss the whole point. And, funnily enough, most are from the US where mobile phone handsets are lacking in general, though. Probably has something to do with it.

  8. Great News, but how good? by powera · · Score: 5, Interesting

    By compressing more data per packet, do they just mean they are using a better compression algorithm, or larger packets? The first should only help a little and for some uses, the second could theoretically make a lot more of a difference. But the less-power usage will be good anyhow.

    1. Re:Great News, but how good? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If they fiddle with the base protocols then there will be interoperability issues. They will want to maintain compatability with previous BT devices. This might mean that when you have a piconet with an old BT device, some of the high speed features might be unsupported (analagous to how my USB2 hub downgrades everything to USB1.1 as soon as you plug in a USB1.1 device).

      Of course they're still using 2.4 GHz which is the wild west of the radio spectrum. Still going to have issues headbutting Wifi etc.

      And no, of course I didn't RTFM, that would be cheating.

      --
      Engineering is the art of compromise.
    2. Re:Great News, but how good? by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      > By compressing more data per packet, do they just mean they are using a better compression algorithm, or larger packets?

      More like larger packets. Instead of Gaussian Frequency Shift Keying (GFSK), they'll use 8QDPSK (8ary Quadrature Differential Phase Shift Keying?) for transferring data. For compability the administration of the pico-net will still be handled by GFSK.

      Instead of 1 Bit per symbol, they can transfer 8. The symbol rate and the channel width stays the same.
      Theoretically the transfer-rate could be 8 times the old one,
      but due to the higher susceptibility to errors, they increased the error correction, which leaves the 2-3Mbit/s.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
  9. Bluetooth Growth Predicted to Increase - A Lot by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Funny

    but I'm having to fight a little too hard to find neat things to do with Bluetooth.

    Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the latest anonymous sex trend with Bluetooth nicknamed "toothing".

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  10. Requires new hardware? by Karpe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Or can I just upgrade my Bluetooth dongle firmware?

  11. The remote control iPod??? by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Could this be the in the next-gen iPod, allowing you to control Airtunes....

    ???

    Only Steve knows for sure...

    1. Re:The remote control iPod??? by brain159 · · Score: 1

      Not having a mac I don't have any links to hand, but you can already get an app for Symbian phones (don't know if it's for series60 or UIQ or both) to do various bits of Mac remote control by bluetooth. I'd *conjecture* (given the leetness of applescript) one should be able to control airtunes (as it's just new stuff in iTunes) using that sort of arrangement.

    2. Re:The remote control iPod??? by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt it. The wireless iPod (assuming it is going to exist soon) will control Airtunes via the AirPort Express, which is based on 802.11g and not Bluetooth of any sort.

      Maybe in a few years, but not this generation.

    3. Re:The remote control iPod??? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Not having a mac I don't have any links to hand, but you can already get an app for Symbian phones (don't know if it's for series60 or UIQ or both) to do various bits of Mac remote control by bluetooth. I'd *conjecture* (given the leetness of applescript) one should be able to control airtunes (as it's just new stuff in iTunes) using that sort of arrangement."

      There's a program for OS X that allows your Bluetooth enabled mobile phone to operate various things like change tracks in iTunes. Leo showed it on "Call for Help" about a month before the show was cancelled to make way for the merger between Comcast's G4 channel and TechTV. I doubt show notes that much in the past on the new g4techtv.com website yet, but you can probably find it on Leo's own site. I think its leoville.com or something.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    4. Re:The remote control iPod??? by gabebear · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep, people have been controlling iTunes(along with every other app) with their bluetooth phones/PDAs. It's one of the "Big" applications for bluetooth.

    5. Re:The remote control iPod??? by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      Look for something called "Sailing Clicker", I'm pretty sure that's what you're thinking of.

    6. Re:The remote control iPod??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Perhaps you are talking about Salling Cliker?

    7. Re:The remote control iPod??? by dave1212 · · Score: 1

      The Missing Sync is the app that lets any PocketPC or non-Apple supported phone or PDA work with iSync. (Address Book, Bookmarks, iCals)

      Salling Clicker is the one for using any bluetooth phone as an Applescriptable remote.

  12. more bluetooth devices by Da_Slayer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now that bluetooth is considered a more mature specification since they managed to make a specification update without having to break backward compatability.

    Maybe it is time for more bluetooth enabled printers and external devices. I wouldn't mind keeping the printer in the other room.

    --
    Push harder towards Open Media/Content
    1. Re:more bluetooth devices by gabebear · · Score: 1
      Bluetooth isn't really designed for anything that uses much bandwidth at all and printers use a lot. Printers also use a crap load of power, so a totally wireless one doesn't make sense.

      802.11 on the other hand is perfect for this and HP sells some WONDERFUL 802.11 printer/fax/scanner/cappier/flash card readers pretty cheap. 802.11 is mainly for networks and printers fit onto networks perfectly.

    2. Re:more bluetooth devices by radish · · Score: 1

      Other room? Not going to work. Bluetooth is specifically for low bandwidth, low power, short range (think in feet not yards). There is already a solution for what you want, it's a 802.11b print server.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    3. Re:more bluetooth devices by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      11.g miniPCI cards cost $20 for small shipments, so ofcourse a $60 printer wont have it, but id sure as hell pay $80 for a printer that has 11.g built in.

      Anyone listening? And no, dont put a $200 margin on it coz you think you can screw people.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    4. Re:more bluetooth devices by hitmark · · Score: 1

      in fact bluetooth works nicely for printers, its just that there have not been mutch asked for as 99% of the printers are hooked up to a network or a computer allready. my SE t610 can talk to a bluetooth enabled printer just fine. and the new bandwidth is compareable to usb1.

      bluetooth was never designed to be wifi competitor. it was designed to remove handsfree and other low bandwidth wires. and its perfect for small, personal networks. wifi is for pc to pc links. wusb is for pc to device links. bluetooth is for device to device links, and it realy gets interesting when you have pdas and cellphones that both are bluetooth enabled. check your mail, anywhere anytime and dont have to handle a bulky laptop or look for a wifi zone. jusk hope that you never get a gigantic html mail or attachment...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    5. Re:more bluetooth devices by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Bluetooth's range extends up to 100m; certainly enough to cover a few rooms away. Not all devices are designed for such feats, but my class 1 dongle and iPAQ seem to have similar range to my WiFi (signal strength drops about the same).

  13. Nintendo by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It should be well known by now that Nintendo is putting 802.11 and Bluetooth on the Nintendo DS. I am quite curious if this will make it there, as the DS would benefit from this GREATLY. Nintendo is downright vicious when it comes to defending battery life of their handhelds, so it's entirely possible.

    We can always hope, right?

  14. Now what we need... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What we need is a truly wireless desktop. Bluetooth is nice, but there are still power cords everywhere, or lots of batteries to replace or recharge. I'd like to have a single DC power standard, and a transfer mechanism for getting that power to my peripherals. Some sort of pad that you sit things down on (your cell phone, mouse, keyboard, PDA, whatever) so they get charged when you aren't using them. Now that'd be something I'd pay for.

    1. Re:Now what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imagine a hub for connecting power to devices....

      That standard is power bar thar runs 120V AC (or 220 or 240 depending on where you are).

      What this obsession about cordless and wireless for desktop ? I cannot understand the urge of adding cost, latency, batteries and junk to a desktop.

    2. Re:Now what we need... by way2trivial · · Score: 3, Informative

      something like this?

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    3. Re:Now what we need... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      You're missing the point. I want to not have to plug things in and mess with big hulking transformers. All these peripherals run on DC power anyway, so the 120V AC standard with all the ugly power bricks is really an unnecessary mess. And can't we use some sort of conductive pad with activation mechanism to transfer DC power directly without requiring lots of little cords or plugs to get in the way?


      Is this too much to ask? Wouldn't it be nice to say goodbye to our messy desktops?

    4. Re:Now what we need... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, something like that. Now a standards body needs to standardize it, and big name manufacturers need to get on board with it and it needs to be available to consumers.

    5. Re:Now what we need... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      AC mains really suck for small electronics. Power over Ethernet exists, but that's still a bit expensive. It is about $45 for an active one port POE injector, and the cost of a POE device vs. the same device without POE is about $15.

      There's too many wires to go around. My computer has anywhere from seven to ten cables connected to it, and the mouse and keyboard wires tend to get in the way of other tasks. I have about eight power cables connected to the UPS & surge strip combined.

    6. Re:Now what we need... by burns210 · · Score: 1

      They have it... showcased it last year(2) at a expo... it is a pad like 1.5' by 2' and lil whatevers put into pdas or cell phones charge while resting on the pad... cool tech.

    7. Re:Now what we need... by default+luser · · Score: 1

      You want a pad that carries electricity?

      Let's say you charge up a flat conductive pad with DC +12v. Where are you going to direct the outgoing current? Now you're getting into the complexities of routing, and there's really no simple device that can make this happen for you.

      As for your concept of a single voltage, keep in mind: Those bricks you hate so much aren't just transformers, they also have voltage regulators. Unlike transformers, they're not exactly the most efficient things either; most of the heat your brick gives off is waste from the linear regulator.

      Supplying one voltage to all devices means most devices would be bulkier and disappate more power, because the regulator would have to be on-board.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

  15. Re:Suspecious by chrisbro · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can't compare the two. Bluetooth uses a much lower power consumption and is meant for very low-range transfers (1 milliwatt and 30 ft, respectively) where Wi-Fi uses 100 milliwatts and goes up to 300 feet.

    They're used for different things; local/personal -area transfers vs. high-speed internet connections.

  16. What about Ultra-Wideband? by amjacobs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The IEEE standard for Bluetooth is 802.15.3. The 802.15.3a standard is a revision for the standard using UWB signaling. It promises data rates of > 100Mbps plus lower power.

    1. Re:What about Ultra-Wideband? by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a much, much larger form factor, and for a greatly increased price. You've missed why bluetooth is so good at what it does - it costs cents to include on a device, and takes up hardly any room. WIFI, WUSB, WFirewire and every other sort of wireless technology don't offer those features, which is why bluetooth is a great success, even if most of the US doesn't think so.

  17. free publicity? by __aaitqo8496 · · Score: 1, Troll

    why is it that this sounds like an advert from The Bluetooth Special Interest Group? nothing like the slashdot geeks to drum up some preorders for usless technology

    1. Re:free publicity? by Hexedian · · Score: 1

      Nonetheless, this seems like an interesting technology all in all, one that many people on slashdot will find worthwhile to know about.

    2. Re:free publicity? by __aaitqo8496 · · Score: 1

      oh, it's definately interesting, and could have a very legitimate use. however, compared to some other technologies, i would classify it as useless, literally, "lacking use"

    3. Re:free publicity? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Half the mobile phones I see sold these days support Bluetooth, which makes connectivity to laptops, wireless hands free kits (both personal and car-kits), and even one another much easier.

      So I'm having difficulty understanding why you see it as useless. It does what it does, and does it well.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  18. Too young to fail by ChozCunningham · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's better to think of Bluetooth to date as fetal, not immature. This new spec might be it's birth, finally.

    I was explaining a file format to a friend recently. He said, "is that like bluetooth or something?" I was a bit stumped. After I explained what bluetooth was, he said, "why the hell would I want that? Can't the wifi I've got do all that?" And so on for about 5 minutes...

    Of course, it's not his fault, as much as the dubious packaging of blutooth-enabled products vendors...

    1. Re:Too young to fail by Brain+Stew · · Score: 1

      Very true. I have had a hard time explaining the benefits of Bluetooth because of two reasons:

      1) The people behind the marketting have done a terrible job selling this spec. Everyone and their mother knows of 802.11(b or g) or as "Wi-Fi"
      2) Quite frankly due to the price, the use of Bluetooth is limited. I can setup a Wi-Fi print server, connect to other PCs through Wi-Fi or RJ-45 or IEEE 1394. Pretty much other than wireless keyboards or connecting to my cell phone bluetooth just isn't worth it.

      Too bad, considering that it is a real great specification :(.

      --
      "Here's a spoiler: You're will die alone."-Triumph the Insult Comic Dog
  19. i-tought-bluetooth-was-already-dead dept. by mphase · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh you tought that did you? Maybe you should tink again.

  20. Bluetooth on 24/7 by artlu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe now I can leave bluetooth active on my cellphone 24/7 and not wake up with a dead battery. Although, people can hack into phones now with bluetooth and steal/change your address book. Scary.

    --
    -------
    artlu.net
    1. Re:Bluetooth on 24/7 by stewart.hector · · Score: 1

      That is easily to solve... make your phone NOT discoverable.

      Problem solved.

      --
    2. Re:Bluetooth on 24/7 by artlu · · Score: 1

      But, then I cant go "toothing" in Britain (as someone mentioned above).

      --
      -------
      artlu.net
    3. Re:Bluetooth on 24/7 by stewart.hector · · Score: 1

      Ah, bluejacking, its called. Yes, and its fun!!

      I managed to Blue jack someone on the Toronto subway a few weeks ago :->

      --
    4. Re:Bluetooth on 24/7 by stewart.hector · · Score: 1

      You can still bluejack when your phone isn't discoverable.. BT is still enabled. .. with discoverable on, you never know, you just might be bluejacked!!

      --
  21. Speed wasn't my concern by DrShasta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In my opinion, Bluetooth has been much more plagued by lack of adoption than speed and power consumption. USB was immensily popular before it became fast. It's popularity is what spurred it to become faster. I would love to get a bluetooth phone or PDA, or wireless keyboard or wireless mouse to connect with the internal bluetooth in my powerbook, but options are limited, which is driving costs way up. We need more options, and we need costs to be driven down. Thats not going to happen until more manufacturers adopt it.

  22. Damn, have to upgrade my P-P-P-Powerbook mouse by mdrejhon · · Score: 1

    Dammmit, not another Bluetooth standard, now I have to upgrade my P-P-P-Powerbook.com Bluetooth mouse:

    Photo: www.p-p-p-powerbook.com/images/g4 resized/bluetoothmouse1.jpg

  23. Phone companies don't like bluetooth by DrShasta · · Score: 5, Informative

    A friend of mine mentioned to me the other day that some phone companies (like sprint) are being very cautious about offering bluetooth support in their phones because bluetooth makes it so easy to share the internet connection on the phones. A lot of the phone companies (like sprint) are offering unlimited internet plans, and bluetooth phones would lead to a lot of abuse with people using the connections for their laptops instead of their cellphones. Anyway, it is one of the reasons that bluetooth adoption isn't taking off as fast as it should.

    1. Re:Phone companies don't like bluetooth by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Gasp! Provide a useful feature such that people would actually be willing to pay money for added services? Who would have thunk?

      Really, I hadn't thought of that, but it sounds like a perfectly exploitable opportunity for cell service providers.

      I'm not sure what Sprint's problem would be since supposedly you can use your cell phone as a modem on their unlimited internet plan.

    2. Re:Phone companies don't like bluetooth by niabok · · Score: 1

      I can attest to the fact that Sprint doesn't like bluetooth because of the internet connection sharing thing. They had Sony Ericson make a bluetooth CDMA phone because so many sprint users wanted one, but only had them make 10,000. (I don't think Sony Ericson really wanted to make CDMA phones, anyway) You had to order them through their telesales dept. I think eBay is the only place to get one now. Anyway, I am a Sprint PCS customer and I use my Sanyo 4900 cellphone periodically to connect my PowerBook to the net. I had to purchase the USB accessory cable from Radio Shack. (Radio Shack guy insisted I need the software, too. I told him I was using a Mac and assured him that I didn't. He just gave me that typical I-know-absolutely-nothing-about-macs blank look.)

      Anyway, I talked to a number of people at Sprint
      before signing up and got very different answers regarding their "unlimited" PCS service. They once promoted the feature of using your phone as a modem, and even sold the kits, but after people started abusing the service, they pulled the kits and that feature became hush-hush. Basically, Sprint is more than happy to provide "unlimited" internet access on the cell phones themselves, because the browsers are too slow and memory too limited to really pull too much bandwidth. I was told by one Sprint representative that they could tell whether I was using my phone as a modem or not, and if so, I would be charged their business per/kb rates. I was also given assurances from another representative that I would be fine. I decided to try it and I haven't had any billing troubles yet. I only use my connection when I travel occasionally and I try to limit my usage even then.

      So yes, they are concerned about any technology that would make it even easier for users to suck more bandwidth out of their network.

  24. More saturated than any other short-range wireless by thefinite · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I, for one, have yet to see *any* commercially available product with wireless USB. I first read about it quite a while ago. Wireless FireWire was just barely approved. While people are optimistic about it, I imagine Bluetooth with still enjoy lower power requirements.

    I guess my point is that there is nothing else available right now that does what Bluetooth does. Market adoption is *increasing*, if slowly. Bluetooth is far from failing. The truth is that right now, it's the only game in town. More personally, I love it and use it every day. My heart wouldn't be broken if something better replaced it, but in the meantime, improvements like lower power and faster data transfer are welcome.

    --
    Boom Shanka
  25. Re:Suspecious by Morgahastu · · Score: 3, Informative

    How is this modded insightful? It should be rated ignorant or uninformed if there was one.

    You wouldn't "see" any bluetooth devices on your computer because it's not meant to broadcast to everyone far away. You want everyone walking by with a laptop or bluetooth pda to pickup and connect to your cell phone or laptop?

    Bluetooth is not supposed to compete with Wifi and won't. WiFi is for IP networks, Bluetooth is just a wireless connection for peripherals.

    It would be like comparing Wireless USB to Wi-Fi, they have different uses. Just because they are both wireless doesn't mean they should compete. It's like saying my remote control for my tv is slower than my wireless network so it's going to die off soon.

  26. BlueTooth needs a killer app. by pclminion · · Score: 1
    To really get BlueTooth accepted with the masses, it needs a Killer App. I don't think cell phone address book exchange is it.

    The killer app for BlueTooth will be a BlueTooth enabled key fob that you hang on your keychain. Lost your keys again? Just dial a magic key sequence on your cell phone, which then sends out a BlueTooth transmission. This wakes the key fob, which begins beeping loudly. Now you just walk to the sound and pick up your keys.

    The real thing which makes this a killer app is that any BlueTooth enabled device can be used to find your keys. A cell phone is simply the most convenient.

    It works the other way, too. Suppose you've lost your cell phone in your bedroom somewhere. Pick up your keychain, press the little button on the key fob, and your cell phone starts ringing.

    It might be kind of irritating on a bus or train, however, if some wanker walks in with an activator and all of a sudden 300 peoples' key chains start beeping! :-)

    1. Re:BlueTooth needs a killer app. by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      Why not take this a step further? Get rid of the keys entirely, and just have a Bluetooth device open your car/house door directly.

      That would be one hell of a killer app.

    2. Re:BlueTooth needs a killer app. by thefinite · · Score: 1

      Your idea would work even better than you think. Because Bluetooth devices manually get paired before they do anything with each other, your phone/keychain would only cause your own keychain/phone to beep. I for one love this idea. You better get on it.

      --
      Boom Shanka
    3. Re:BlueTooth needs a killer app. by djeaux · · Score: 1

      The killer app for BlueTooth will be a BlueTooth enabled key fob that you hang on your keychain. Lost your keys again? Just dial a magic key sequence on your cell phone, which then sends out a BlueTooth transmission. This wakes the key fob, which begins beeping loudly. Now you just walk to the sound and pick up your keys. I'm sure that an auto manufacturer could build that sort of thing into existing keyless entry systems. The one on my pickup truck has a much better range than Bluetooth.

      --
      "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
    4. Re:BlueTooth needs a killer app. by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      Of course, he could just call himself with another phone... :)

  27. Pricing? by Erwos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The issue with regards to me adopting bluetooth has been more about the absurd pricing of said peripherals. The Linksys Bluetooth desktop (and not the fancy-shmancy Nuvo or whatever the hell it's called) runs like a hundred bucks, whereas the plain old wireless one runs for closer to $50. That's not an insubstantial difference.

    After a brief glance at Amazon, it also looks like you can't get BT phones unless they're for AT&T or T-Mobile. Considering that GSM coverage here in the USA seems to be kinda spotty compared to, say, TDMA, that's a serious drawback.

    The problem with BT right now is that it's an integration technology, yet it's difficult to use an integration technology that doesn't have wide-spread usage.

    -Erwos

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
  28. That is impossible! by Omega1045 · · Score: 1
    Bluetooth is dead:

    EE Times

    eWeek

    Slashdot

    --

    Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

  29. Article Text by ANTRat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bluetooth group preps 2.1Mbps spec By Tony Smith Published Thursday 10th June 2004 10:38 GMT Bluetooth communications are set to get rather faster with a new version of the specification that takes its data throughput 2.1Mbps in the offing. The new version, Bluetooth Enhanced Data Rate (EDR), is offered as a "prototype specification" by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG). The technology increases data transmission by compressing more data into each packet rather than by increasing the rate at which packets are sent. Today's devices support speeds of up to 712Kbps. Bluetooth EDR will use existing Bluetooth 1.2 technology for connecting devices and sending data, so older devices will still be able to communicate with machines supporting EDR. The SIG says EDR will consume less power than the current version - it reckons EDR devices will eke out battery power for twice as long as Bluetooth units do today. And the new specification also provides improved facilities to use several functions or devices simultaneously, due to more available bandwidth. The Bluetooth SIG expects the EDR specification to be finalised this coming Autumn. Products based on the specification are set to ship some time in 2005. The SIG needs to come up with improved versions of the spec if it's to prevent Bluetooth becoming overshadowed by UWB-based technologies such as the 480Mbps Wireless USB. WUSB's first spec isn't due until the end of the year, and even if it's implemented quickly, Bluetooth has a considerable lead in terms of the number of devices that support it.

  30. 802.11 v Bluetooth by curator_thew · · Score: 4, Informative


    There's so much "crap" out there about "bluetooth is dead, long live 802.11", or "everything will be 802.11" or "elvis works at my local 711".

    They are complimentary, remember that Bluetooth was designed _specifically_ as (a) single chip solution, (b) low power, low cost, low size, (c) a short range point to point data replacement.

    Until I see true single-chip 802.11 devices that meet these criteria, there's still a space for Bluetooth.

    After all, you don't buy "dishwasher power" for your "washing machine".

    1. Re:802.11 v Bluetooth by CRC'99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They are complimentary,

      Complimentary my backside! ever tried to use 802.11b /g and bluetooth together? See how complimentary they are... Having to use bluetooth *OR* wifi isn't very complimentary...

      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
  31. that's neat, it really is by wooby · · Score: 1

    What I'm waiting for is a breakthrough in the way energy is stored; current batteries suck. Though the current generation of Bluetooth stuff is really nice, I don't think we're going to see the true mindbending utility of it all until someone figures out how to make a better battery. I've seen promising technologies featured on Slashdot and elsewhere, but nothing mindblowing.

    The wireless standards are here, but if currently if people aren't chained to wires they're chained to chargers.

  32. Hearing Impaired by Yonder+Way · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So when am I going to be able to get a Bluetooth-enabled hearing aid so I can interface with my PC, my cell phone and other devices? Hearing aids seem like one of the killer apps for Bluetooth yet they don't seem to exist yet.

    1. Re:Hearing Impaired by Babbster · · Score: 1
      Two reasons, off the top of my head, why they don't exist: 1) Current technology is quite capable at addressing correctable hearing problems (sound amplification isn't complicated or new), 2) Bluetooth doesn't have the capability (until the newer, higher bandwidth devices come out) to transmit uncompressed high-quality sound (why subject people to hearing the world at telephone quality if you don't have to).

      I would finally ask what you mean by "interfacing" between hearing aids and PCs? If you mean listen to them, you don't need a special Bluetooth device for that - a standard hearing aid for the hearing impaired is sufficient.

      Of course, the first reason is reason enough. :)

    2. Re:Hearing Impaired by djeaux · · Score: 1
      I would finally ask what you mean by "interfacing" between hearing aids and PCs?

      IANAA (I am not an audiologist), but... I've been wearing a set of digital hearing aids for about five years. They do in fact interface with a PC though a small adapter that fits in the battery door. This allows my audiologist to adjust the frequency equalization curves & even draw down my last audiogram, which is stored in each hearing aid. Moreover, the hearing aids have my name & patient number recorded in them. I don't think Bluetooth would be necessary for this sort of interfacing. I don't think such an interface would even be of much use to an audiologist.

      --
      "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
    3. Re:Hearing Impaired by Babbster · · Score: 1
      That's certainly understandable (and as you point out, not really a compelling need for Bluetooth there). I'd imagine that audiologists wouldn't want their patients to have access to the tuning of their hearing aids (through Bluetooth or otherwise) since there's every possibility their hearing could be damaged further if something was done incorrectly.

      On a slightly amusing note, imagine if pacemakers were Bluetooth compatible. "Hmmmm. I'd better check my Palm. I think my heart rate is dipping a little too low" - heart rate gets shocked up to 200 beats/minute - "Whoops" - {clunk}.

    4. Re:Hearing Impaired by djeaux · · Score: 1
      I do wonder if the original poster meant to suggest a Bluetooth enabled hearing aid that could interface with a cellphone, creating the ultimate "hearing aid compatible phone" & eliminating the need for hands-free headsets.

      I could also see a Bluetooth hearing aid being able to interface directly with a "deaf aid" P.A. system such as churches sometimes install.

      --
      "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
  33. DS will not use Bluetooth by dangermouse · · Score: 2, Informative
    It should be well known by now that Nintendo is putting 802.11 and Bluetooth on the Nintendo DS.

    It really shouldn't be that well known, because it's not true.

    DS users will be able to connect with a local wireless network of up to 16 players. Nintendo's guaranteed range is 30 feet, but will extend far beyond that depending on circumstances. It assures high response rates required for real time game play, and will make use of both IEEE 802.11 and Nintendo's proprietary communication protocol, which provides low battery consumption.

    Source: Nintendo. Emphasis: mine.

    1. Re:DS will not use Bluetooth by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Sorry. The Register says that USA Today originally reported that DS would have bluetooth. Since it was one of the first sources of information, I guess that the information I got was wrong.

      Another article can be found there. It details a little more about the mixup. Sorry again for the confusion.

  34. low cost ...? by Wooky_linuxer · · Score: 1

    I guess it didn't meet fully this design spec to this day.

    --
    Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
  35. Re:Suspecious by CRC'99 · · Score: 1

    Yeah - and we all know it's great when you try to co-exist 2.4Ghz WiFi with bluetooth. As Bluetooth uses the entire available 2.4Ghz spectrum, no matter what channel you're on, there's nowhere to hide.

    As WiFi does the right thing and holds off when it detects some kind of signal on the air, bluetooth walks all over 2.4Ghz wifi :|

    --
    Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
  36. Marketing GOLD! by the+darn · · Score: 1

    Good choice of acronym...now this new high-falutin' Bluetooth logo can be slapped on new devices so you can one-up adopters of the first incarnation.
    All you have to do is show them that your gadget is BEDR than theirs.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un post.
  37. Phones by Kaseijin · · Score: 1
    Linksys Bluetooth desktop
    Logitech?
    After a brief glance at Amazon, it also looks like you can't get BT phones unless they're for AT&T or T-Mobile.
    Bluetooth-capable phones are available for all common digital standards and from all major carriers.
    Considering that GSM coverage here in the USA seems to be kinda spotty compared to, say, TDMA, that's a serious drawback.
    GSM coverage is mostly tied to population density, and for many people it's good enough. Cingular and AT&T Wireless still have TDMA networks and sell or sold the Sony Ericsson T62u, a GAIT phone with an optional Bluetooth dongle.
  38. How can this be? RobEnderle said Bluetooth is RIP! by compactable · · Score: 2, Funny
    ... are you implying that everyone's favourite seer is wrong?

    Dear lord, what's next? A bad review of his beloved Ferrari Laptiop? SCO may loose in court?

    My reality is crumbling ... dear god make this madness stop!

  39. Re:omg by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 1
    "Bluetooth is using less power!"

    "And Leon's getting laaaaaaaaarger!!!"

    --

    There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
  40. Verizon by lorcha · · Score: 1

    What I want to know is when will Verizon finally get a frickin' bluetooth phone. They are the only service that works in my house, but their phones are state-of-the-art 2001 phones.

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  41. Mar[kete]rs Attacks! by awtbfb · · Score: 1

    This makes upgrading to the new standard effortless

    Every time I'm told this I cringe and wait for the obligatory "As long as you are not using [specification set including all current products]..."

  42. Where exactly did this story come from? by linuxprox · · Score: 1

    Looks like it came from: here but yet it links to another site.. oh well

  43. Those are different coupons. by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Those coupons are usually provided by the manufacturer. Their purpose is not to get you into the store, but to encourage you to buy their brand, in the hopes that you will like it and then later buy it at the normal price.

    1. Re:Those are different coupons. by sdpinpdx · · Score: 1

      Whoever is providing them, and whatever their motive is (as long as it means they need to get a coupon in your hands), they could do it over BT.

      It's not like it would require extensive infrastructure in the store. The coupon dispensers they have now (which already have power in order to get your attention with the blinking light, and run the little motor that spits out another paper coupon) could also dispense digital coupons.