Google Drops Bluetooth API From Android 1.0

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."

Comments

I think I've seen this before

[bigtallmofo]

Google: The Microsoft of cell phones.

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

Re:I think I've seen this before

[Piranhaa]

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

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

Re:I think I've seen this before

[volpe]

Google: The Microsoft of cell phones.

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

Re:I think I've seen this before

[mrsteveman1]

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

Re:I think I've seen this before

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Re:I think I've seen this before

[ptbarnett]

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

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

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

Re:I think I've seen this before

[justdaven]

Actually, no different. It uses the same profile

Re:I think I've seen this before

[Zebedeu]

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

Huh?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

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

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

Re:Huh?

[Van Cutter Romney]

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

Re:Huh?

[ghoti]

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

Re:Huh?

[Colonel Korn]

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

Like reliable reception?

Re:Huh?

[Lussarn]

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.

So they say

[bockelboy]

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

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

[outZider]

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

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

[LWATCDR]

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.

Android *will* have Bluetooth+IM

[jsharkey]

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

Re:IM and bluetooth

[LWATCDR]

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

Re:How come developers never do this?

[jonnythan]

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.

iPhone doesn't have it either

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:IM and bluetooth

[Shade of Pyrrhus]

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...

You've got to be kidding

[ghoti]

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.

Verizon

[zubikov]

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

Re:Verizon

[louks]

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.

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

[TheRaven64]

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).

It's interesting

[greentshirt]

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.

It's all fine and good that they deliver on time

[zullnero]

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.