Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Drops Bluetooth API From Android 1.0

Posted by timothy on from the first-draft dept.

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."

167 comments

  1. I think I've seen this before by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:I think I've seen this before by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:I think I've seen this before by Piranhaa · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:I think I've seen this before by volpe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Google: The Microsoft of cell phones.

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

    4. Re:I think I've seen this before by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:I think I've seen this before by andy9701 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:I think I've seen this before by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >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.

    7. Re:I think I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:I think I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    9. Re:I think I've seen this before by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Stasis is death. Embrace change.
    10. Re:I think I've seen this before by ptbarnett · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:I think I've seen this before by JazzHarper · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Woz can make an awkward guest appearance.

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

    12. Re:I think I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:I think I've seen this before by justdaven · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, no different. It uses the same profile

    14. Re:I think I've seen this before by rtechie · · Score: 1

      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.

    15. Re:I think I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:I think I've seen this before by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      Check this out, specifically the illustration halfway down the page. Axing features is sometimes the only way to avoid failure.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    17. Re:I think I've seen this before by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Funny

      But Apple didn't announce it and then drop it. So that would be different.

    18. Re:I think I've seen this before by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. The iPhone supports both the headset profile (HSP) and the hands-free profile (HFP). You are correct that many hands-free devices use the headset profile (or support both profiles), though.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:I think I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you honestly trying to pass of "Safe Delete" and "Start Menu Actions" as items that Microsoft cut from Vista? If so, you probably missed the joke.

      http://shellrevealed.com/blogs/shellblog/archive/2006/10/09/Features-that-didn_2700_t-make-the-cut.aspx

      While playing a rousing game of "Mimesweeper" does sound like fun, I don't think that incorporating a TECO prompt into the start menu is a terribly useful thing, unless you are some kind of masochist.

    20. Re:I think I've seen this before by jason.sweet · · Score: 1

      say goodbye to text messaging revenue

      I think the carriers have their sites set on revenue targets much higher than that. Have you seen some of these android apps?

      The bandwidth for text messages is minor league compared to this stuff, and they are not going to give the extra bandwidth away.

    21. Re:I think I've seen this before by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Sure - but it would be Will Smith, not Seinfeld ...

    22. Re:I think I've seen this before by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      They haven't dropped the feature if they haven't shipped it yet. What they did is disable it from the latest beta build!

      --

      GPL Deconstructed
    23. Re:I think I've seen this before by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      How is that congruent? You have to point to an instance where Apple removed a feature from a product before shipping, something Microsoft is known for doing.

      Apple has dropped features, btw, such as Quartz 2D Extreme or whatever it was called.

      --

      GPL Deconstructed
    24. Re:I think I've seen this before by DECS · · Score: 1

      I am compelled to point out that the premise of Google's Android being the "DOS of smartphones" was examined in:

      Will Google's Android Play DOS to Appleâ(TM)s iPhone?

      ... a followup to

      Will Windows Mobile Play DOS to Apple's iPhone?

    25. Re:I think I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lack of polish compared to Windows Mobile

      Mod parent funny!

    26. Re:I think I've seen this before by shitzu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Nobody said they will be "leaving out their own chat messenger" - they said they will not include GTalkService API. I.e. you can not code a program utilizing gtalk services easily. That does not mean THEY (Google) can not code a chat messenger.

    27. Re:I think I've seen this before by jopsen · · Score: 1

      that doesn't sound all crazy...
      Somebody please, mod parent up!

      But then again Google could always just ship Gtalk as a security update :)

    28. Re:I think I've seen this before by acecamaro666 · · Score: 1

      then why do most windows mobile phones ship with AOL / Yahoo / MSN chat clients?

    29. Re:I think I've seen this before by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      Make plenty sense to prevent using an Android device as a 3G access point or even an pseudo-SMSC.

      Sony allowed it back in the GPRS days, but they closed it.

    30. Re:I think I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it likely doesn't. HSP and HFP are different profiles. They do the same thing, but still.

    31. Re:I think I've seen this before by TJamieson · · Score: 1

      As far as i know the headset is the ONLY thing that works with it.

      True. The iPhone only supports HSP and HFP.

      Currently nothing there for: A2DP, OBEX, AVRCP, DUN, SPP, PAN. Though, there are groups working on adding those profiles.

      --
      For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
    32. Re:I think I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

      That is a headset as far as the bluetooth profile is concerned.

    33. Re:I think I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more than open enough to create whatever text messaging applications you want and forward your messages over Edge/Wifi.

      No it is not. Get off of Google's nuts, fan boy. Google FAILED. It's that simple. Powerless and incapable. There is no API because at Google, there is no humanity.

      No one can help you with that.

      No one can apparently help you remove Google's genitals from your mouth. Google always has, and always will bow down to Ma Bell. Get a life, creep.

    34. Re:I think I've seen this before by dfn_deux · · Score: 1

      Any links or info about these groups? I've recently been hacking around on my iphone and I've found virtually no reference anywhere to any active work towards enabling additional profiles or even documentation on the phone's existing tools for working with the 2 known supported profiles.

      --
      -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
    35. Re:I think I've seen this before by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 1

      Android hasn't shipped either.

      --
      Stasis is death. Embrace change.
    36. Re:I think I've seen this before by lokedhs · · Score: 1
      While Roughlydrafted is a very good, well-written and informative blog, you always have to remember that it's being written with an extremely pro-Apple mindset.

      I could write a lot about where a lot of his Android comparisons doesn't really work, but that would just make me seem like I don't like the blog, which I actually do.

    37. Re:I think I've seen this before by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Android hasn't shipped either.

      ...ever.

      Android isn't a product yet.

      The iPhone is second generation and moving rapidly to third generation.

    38. Re:I think I've seen this before by Zebedeu · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was removed temporarily:
      http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-information-on-apis-removed-in.html

    39. Re:I think I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD PARENT INFORMATIVE!

    40. Re:I think I've seen this before by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Then how can you claim Apple has dropped push notifications if they haven't shipped it yet?

      --

      GPL Deconstructed
    41. Re:I think I've seen this before by Troed · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I was very surprised by some of the statements around Android in the latest update (linked above) since they're either extremely biased or simply based on incomplete knowledge.

      Not what I expected. Too bad.

      --
      it's in my head
    42. Re:I think I've seen this before by TJamieson · · Score: 1

      http://www.theiphonewiki.com/ :-)

      --
      For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
    43. Re:I think I've seen this before by dfn_deux · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link, but the single page on bluetooth there has basically no information, is only 2 days old, and references a development project which AFAICT hasn't even managed to develop themselves a web site to detail their travails. Actually the page even leads me to believe these people haven't spent too much time actually looking at the iphone's existing native bluetooth stack, since the mention the want/need to code a program to talk to the chipset over the driver's provided serial interface; neglecting to notice that apple actually includes a program, bluetool, which appears to do exactly that although it doesn't appear to have any documentation available. Anyhow, I'd characterize the third party bluetooth development for the iphone as a speculation and hopeful thinking at this point since there is little evidence of anyone actually making any headway.

      --
      -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
    44. Re:I think I've seen this before by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Also, even die hard critics of iPhone like me understands what Apple targets and understand it. Of course it doesn't mean I agree with it.

      As a very long time, experienced J2ME/Symbian/Smart Phone of all sorts user, I couldn't still understand the point of Google Android. Why are they busy with it instead of giving a huge help to Linux,J2ME, Symbian and WinMo?

      Google classes/Framework Linux(embedded), J2ME, Symbian and Windows Mobile. Apple mobile OS X if Apple changes their mind. That is it. That is all needed!

      Is trying to re-invent wheel a known side effect of having too much cash and power and don't know what to do with them? MS Silverlight, Google Android and even Adobe Air comes to mind...

    45. Re:I think I've seen this before by thompson.ash · · Score: 1

      Surely that would be the Pipex of cellphones?

      Drastically reduce your performance and then bring in "The Hoff", produce a series of cathphrases and hope to hell this is enough to save you!

      --
      I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going blame you for it!
    46. Re:I think I've seen this before by MatthewHays · · Score: 1

      You can buy an A2DP dongle for your iPhone. I have an IO-Play kit [http://www.my-io.com/Products/iOPLAY.aspx] and it works pretty well in my car.

  2. Huh? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Huh? by Piranhaa · · Score: 2, Funny

      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 ;-)

    2. Re:Huh? by Van+Cutter+Romney · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
    3. Re:Huh? by ghoti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
    4. Re:Huh? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    5. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    6. Re:Huh? by DittoBox · · Score: 0, Troll

      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.

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    7. Re:Huh? by Lussarn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Huh? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Here it goes. It starting to sound a lot like Windows Longhorn development. Feature being removed step month by month. Until it becomes a sub standard product. And people realizing "Oh the reason it hasn't been implemented before is because it was a lot harder then it seems."

      Part of the problem with prerelease buzz about products is that people expect more by the time it comes out they get disappointed.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:Huh? by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      but it also protects its users from all kinds of stuff you really don't want to worry about on your PC.

      Like reliable computing?

      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?

      --
      signature is pants
    10. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's been largely debunked as not being the phones issue as much it is the lousy 3G coverage in some countries.

      The infrastructure of the cellular network needs to be protected and as we all know the smarter you make an O/S, and the more people are involved, the harder it is to cover every contingency that allows an exploit.

      This is not a Windows vs OS/X vs Linux vs Symbian argue but a true need to protect what is seen by many as a mission critical infrastructure.

      Before the phone is allowed on any network, they have to prove it does not provide for someone to take that design over and DOS the network.

    11. Re:Huh? by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      You mean electromagnetic death waves? I, for one, am glad Apple is looking out for us, protecting us from the alien technology in use by the KGB even today!

    12. Re:Huh? by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, can you point to an open-source mobile cellular client device that has been in widespread use on cellular networks for decades? or at all?

      OSS has been used on physical networks, sure, and wireless ones, but cellular networks are infrastructure. You can't just connect any random device to the cellular network unless it follows the applicable standards.

    13. Re:Huh? by lokedhs · · Score: 1
      How are users more protected in the iphone than they are on the Nokia phones (which happens to allow you run any applicaiton you want?).

      I happen to be using Skype, and various IM apps over the 3G network with my Nokia. The integrity of the mobile networks seems to hold up pretty well in spite of this.

    14. Re:Huh? by n3tcat · · Score: 1

      the iphone is a tin foil hat replacement?

    15. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, you little microsoft fanboy...I don't care if the iphone has crappy reception, doesn't run java or flash, and can't do much of anything it was designed to do.

      It surpasses all other phones in two areas...looking pretty and making me look cool. Does your phone do that? No? Then stfu.

    16. Re:Huh? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      So do you think Symbian OS will magically lose all DRM functionality when its open source?

      It won't happen. You can embed binary DRM frameworks to open source operating systems. Of course if you are Nokia, you have to be open about it, you just say "To protect content providers rights", you and your fans don't claim ridiculous things like the one you replied to.

      For security, the perfect example is "Symbian Signed" which is in fact a mixture of Java sandbox idea and "good side" of Windows ActiveX. It took years and years to come up with "best of worst" and Apple ignored it.

    17. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Among other things...

  3. Great... by cl0s · · Score: 1

    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.

  4. Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 0

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

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  5. IM and bluetooth by hey · · Score: 0

    Are not minor things for a smartphone.

    1. Re:IM and bluetooth by garcia · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:IM and bluetooth by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:IM and bluetooth by Shade+of+Pyrrhus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

    4. Re:IM and bluetooth by Em+Ellel · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    5. Re:IM and bluetooth by Warbothong · · Score: 1

      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

    6. Re:IM and bluetooth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would develop interesting training or whatever aids that connect to any phone (just not Apples and apparently not Googles either) and display their data on it ...

      Think Nike+ or a local weather station in your garden ...

  6. Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    We are the Borg...
  7. So they say by bockelboy · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:So they say by Otter · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    2. Re:So they say by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:So they say by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    4. Re:So they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.)

    5. Re:So they say by Captain+Spam · · Score: 1

      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. :-)

      --
      Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    6. Re:So they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    7. Re:So they say by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    8. Re:So they say by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 1

      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.

      First of all, you're making a random conjecture based on absolutely no knowledge of the situation.
      Secondly, even if they did screw up - as you suggest they did - they still ran out of time in the sense that they won't have time to fix it and therefore won't have a functional API ready for release. Even if your unlikely theory were true, I think anyone with even a glimmer of business intuition would agree that it would just be stupid to admit that they screwed up, given it's not even released.

      something you can just hire more people for to work on

      Because you think it doesn't cost more to go and hire more people? Like any project, they're on a budget, my friend. But I'm sure you're right - they hired a whole new team for the Bluetooth API and those guys screwed up. Ya right.

      "If they'd just hired a thousand engineers to code this, we would have had Android phones in January!"

      --
      This space up for sale.
    9. Re:So they say by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I tell you the crazy conspiracy theory. The Android's target is APPLE!

      Apple iPhone has some kind of bluetooth that only allows you stereo headsets and nothing else. So they are copying iPhone!

  8. Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones by outZider · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    - oZ
    // i am here.
  9. How come developers never do this? by Drakin020 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

    --
    The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
    1. Re:How come developers never do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Customers have no idea what they want.

    2. Re:How come developers never do this? by extirpater · · Score: 0

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

    3. Re:How come developers never do this? by jonnythan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:How come developers never do this? by athakur999 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    5. Re:How come developers never do this? by bgerlich · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:How come developers never do this? by Nushio · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
    7. Re:How come developers never do this? by ronin510 · · Score: 1

      Too many people have an agenda. If [insert Linux fansite] sees that Linux* is only at 5% popularity in a web vote asking what OS is preferred on a notebook, guess what's going to happen? The data can be easily skewed to represent the minority as the majority.

      *Linux was just an example. Please be kind.

  10. Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  11. Not Google by Apoorv+Khatreja · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    RutSum.com
  12. Android *will* have Bluetooth+IM by jsharkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Android *will* have Bluetooth+IM by jtolds · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

    2. Re:Android *will* have Bluetooth+IM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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...

  13. Re:Offtopic: Free speech under Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  14. iPhone doesn't have it either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:iPhone doesn't have it either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That the iPhone is crap?

    2. Re:iPhone doesn't have it either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    3. Re:iPhone doesn't have it either by Trojan35 · · Score: 1

      Because simply doing what the iPhone already does isn't newsworthy?

  15. No sexy bluetooths anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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...

    1. Re:No sexy bluetooths anymore? by bjourne · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Football Odds
  16. I'll probably wait... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

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

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:I'll probably wait... by Beale · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:I'll probably wait... by Nushio · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
    3. Re:I'll probably wait... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  17. Wonderful news by rmcd · · Score: 1

    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...

  18. You've got to be kidding by ghoti · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
    1. Re:You've got to be kidding by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      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?

    2. Re:You've got to be kidding by ghoti · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
    3. Re:You've got to be kidding by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      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.

      Right, because a typical well-run company depends on 100% of its revenue to come from an insane annual retail feeding frenzy, followed by 60% returns of opened items. And a particularly robust and well managed company would arrange things so that a singular occasion on which a flood of brainless posturing on TV desperately imploring the brainless masses to buy crap they never needed or wanted happens to fail to work would break such a company, surely?

      If you believe that this is how businesses out to be run then you have been thoroughly duped by the snake-oil salesmen running Wall Street and have absolutely no clue what makes a company survive long term. Hint: putting slow long-term growth ahead of a frenzied short term gain at the expense of exorbitant risks and no provisions for the future so that some idiot investment bankers, MBA VPs and the CEO's-of-the-week golfing buddies get theirs before it all inevitably falls apart is not the way to go.

      Speaking of Google, one of the key elements at the core of their success is the fact that their business is not seasonal and has no idiotic deadlines forcing them to release half-baked "products" only so that some ridiculous date was met.

  19. Verizon by zubikov · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Verizon by milamber3 · · Score: 1

      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!

    2. Re:Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    3. Re:Verizon by zubikov · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verizon isn't backing Android, they're backing Linux mobile. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080515-verizon-picks-linuxbut-not-androidfor-mobile-platform.html

    5. Re:Verizon by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Good-bye
    6. Re:Verizon by louks · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      References?

      Here.

      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.

    7. Re:Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    8. Re:Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither are the (newer) Blackberry Curves. I can (surprisingly!) BT-transfer files to and from pretty much everything I've tried so far.

      Now, Verizon's stance regarding built-in GPS, that's another story...

    9. Re:Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/Verizon/Sprint/g

      Right idea, wrong company.

  20. Being pedantic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

  21. Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  22. Maybe Google wants to control data transfer? by lordsegan · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:Maybe Google wants to control data transfer? by intangible · · Score: 1

      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.

  23. What Bluetooth features... by Junta · · Score: 1

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

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  24. I'm kind of sad about the Bluetooth thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  25. Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones by outZider · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    - oZ
    // i am here.
  26. It's interesting by greentshirt · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:It's interesting by dhall · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot.

      That's like saying you read Playboy to read the articles.

      It just doesn't happen...

    2. Re:It's interesting by zubikov · · Score: 1

      But isn't the whole point of opening up a mobile platform to expose the base functionality of the device?

    3. Re:It's interesting by webheaded · · Score: 1

      No kidding. At least if you don't RTFA read the fucking comments. People run into here to bitch without reading anything other than the title itself and even that they apparently don't read very well.

      Can't say I'm exactly surprised though. :p

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
  27. Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  28. JSR-82 by bjourne · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, other manufacturers have been able to ship phones with a Bluetooth API for six years or so... A reference implementation and test suite 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.

    --
    Football Odds
    1. Re:JSR-82 by Sonic+McTails · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      This signature was left intentionally blank.
    2. Re:JSR-82 by bjourne · · Score: 1

      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 or at Sony Ericsson's site or search for yourself.

      --
      Football Odds
    3. Re:JSR-82 by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      > 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

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    4. Re:JSR-82 by Sonic+McTails · · Score: 1

      This was back in early '06. I'm aware S60 phones though, but I was excluding smartphones since most people who code for a smartphone environment do it natively, and not via J2ME.

      --
      This signature was left intentionally blank.
  29. It's all fine and good that they deliver on time by zullnero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  30. Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones by intangible · · Score: 1

    And don't forget A2DP

  31. Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

  32. Re:It's all fine and good that they deliver on tim by SilentTristero · · Score: 1

    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.

  33. Android handsets early next year by wshwe · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Android handsets early next year by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      hello, and where did you see that?

      --
      Have a nice day!
  34. Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    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).

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  35. Re:It's all fine and good that they deliver on tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    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.

  36. As stated a dozen times... by Yogler · · Score: 1

    Bluetooth headsets work fine.

    The Bluetooth API just isn't included for now.

  37. Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones by isomeme · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    My all-time favorite software one liner:

    "Software is like sex -- make one mistake, support it for twenty years."

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
  38. More than they want to let out? by mweather · · Score: 1

    Why would you put your email address and real name onto your phone if you didn't wish to transmit that information to other people?

  39. XMPP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and replaces it with some really stupid XMPPoAIR api

  40. S60 does provide BT api by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check this for instance http://www.forum.nokia.com/info/sw.nokia.com/id/64a34a8d-e65b-4a42-b9ae-dfcf5fe00426/S60_Platform_Bluetooth_API_Developers_Guide_v2_0_en.pdf.html

  41. Re:It's all fine and good that they deliver on tim by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

    Symbian.. maybe... but WinMo, has either the MS stack, or the WIDCOMM stack. both are different. WIDCOMM has arguably more features, but the MS oneis more standard, a similar situation to what is happening on Windows PCs, except on windows PCs it is possible to use both WIDCOMM and MS Stacks, by assigning them to two different USB ports, and plugging yoru dongle into one or the other.

    In the end, most ' so called BT applications' just use the COM port exposed, and have been doing so for ages.

    --
    Have a nice day!
  42. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    I thought Google hired enough PhDs to do their dirty linen for them.

    >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."

    That IS the worst excuse ever. I thought that the point was to keep things secure while maintaining functionality. I would say it is a Google lock-in against free VoIP calls. No shit.

  43. But wasn't GTalkService "better" than XMPP? by ishmalius · · Score: 2

    When they dropped exposing XMPP service, they basically said that GTalkService was going to be better anyway. What now? IM as a transport is very important to 3d party apps.

  44. Re:It's all fine and good that they deliver on tim by sadida_333 · · Score: 2, Informative

    >Which of these other OSes (WinMob, Symbian, and Palm) has a bluetooth API? None, I think.

    Actually, they all do.

    Windows Mobile Bluetooth API
    Symbian Bluetooth API
    Palm Bluetooth API

  45. Re:It's all fine and good that they deliver on tim by SilentTristero · · Score: 1

    Wow, pretty cool! Thanks for the links!

  46. Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones by master5o1 · · Score: 1

    Maybe the Anroid versions will correlate with the BT versions:

    Android 1.0 [no bt as bt 1.0 is old now]
    Android 2.0 with Bluetooth 2.0
    Android 2.0 + EDR with Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR
    Android 3.0 with Pineapples.

    --
    signature is pants
  47. Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones by master5o1 · · Score: 1

    (regarding to API use of course)

    --
    signature is pants
  48. Gtalk Service by Krneki · · Score: 1

    The chat part is nothing new, the VOIP part, ... oh my.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  49. Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones by jrumney · · Score: 1

    If the API is not there in Android, it'll be up to the phone manufacturer which profiles they support with native code external to the Android VM.