Bluetooth 4.0 To Reach Devices In Fourth Quarter

angry tapir writes "The Bluetooth 4.0 wireless specification could start to appear in devices such as headsets, smartphones and PCs by the fourth quarter, said the Bluetooth Special Interest Group. The new specification will be able to be used in lower-power devices than previous versions of the technology, including watches, pedometers, smart meters and other gadgets that run on coin-cell batteries."

Comments

Time to retire IR for remotes

[Darth Sdlavrot]

My brand new TV and Blueray player still use IR remotes -- essentially the same tech as was used in the TV and VCR I bought 25 years ago - and it still sucks hind tit.

We've had BT for years now -- it's time for manufacturers to join the 21st century.

Re:Time to retire IR for remotes

[Fusen]

Even with BT 4.0, I'd love to see a power usage comparison, I'm sure IR would easily win.

Re:Time to retire IR for remotes

[baka_toroi]

I once posted about that (Not in Slashdot) and someone told me it wouldn't be feasible, because of the time it takes to do the pairing and because you'd have to have a constant link between the devices, even if the TV is off (because you wouldn't be able to turn it on). Please, someone with more knowledge, enlighten us.

Re:Time to retire IR for remotes

[HopefulIntern]

This is why I use my PS3 for media. Then I can cuddle up in my sleepingbag and still have full control from within toasty goodness.

Re:Time to retire IR for remotes

[maxwell demon]

What's so bad about IR? I mean, except for the fact that most companies make remote controls which have to be held in a very narrow angle towards the device. But that's not a problem of IR per se; my first TV had an IR remote control where I wouldn't even have to point it vaguely in the direction of the TV.

Re:Time to retire IR for remotes

[Vanderhoth]

As the following post to yours points out. PS3 controllers are Bluetooth enabled.

That being said, I know if my PS3 is not actually off when I press the PS button on the controller to turn it on. It goes into standby. Of course my TV goes into a standby mode too, so in theory I could have a similar setup for a TV remote.

Re:Time to retire IR for remotes

[cpicon92]

That's easy to solve:
Use IR to turn on the TV, have the TV and remote couple after they both turn on. This way you'd only have to point the remote at the TV to turn it on.

Re:Time to retire IR for remotes

[ircmaxell]

Well, what would be cool is if the spec allowed for dynamically powered devices. So the device would constantly modulate the power output to keep it just high enough to maintain connection. So if the default output is 2.5 mW (the actual output for a class 2 device), it could scale that back to save on power. So if the connected device is close enough, it could run at 0.25 mW as long as the connection is maintained. This would only work well if the modulation circuit was fast enough (otherwise if you increased the power needed faster than it could respond it would simply lose connection).

There are 2 main reasons (as far as I can see) that bluetooth will always use more power than IR. First, is that turning electrical impulses to IR is a lot more efficient (using a LED) than turning electrical impulses into a EMF via an antenna (2.4 ghz has a wavelength of 12.5 cm. So the antenna needs to be either a 1/4 wavelength or a folded design to fit in a portable device). Second, is that unlike IR, bluetooth has frequency hopping built right in. So bluetooth has to have an extra layer of active processing to watch for interference on a channel, and jump to another one (this happens at around 1.6khz)... IR takes no measures against interference. Get someone with a common TV remote (assuming same frequency band) and they can disrupt your IR communication. So the power usage is definitely a tradeoff...

Re:Time to retire IR for remotes

[ircmaxell]

Or even easier. Have a small circuit in the TV that listens to bluetooth frequencies without actually decrypting it. When it detects an active signal, then have it power the full bluetooth module on for a few seconds. It powers on and tries to pair with the device. If it can pair, then it goes into "control" mode (with something like a 30 second timeout). If it can't, it goes back to sleep. Then, on the remote, you only need to enable bluetooth once you press a button. So when you press the power button, the remote first wakes up its bluetooth module, then attempts to pair with the tv. If it can pair, it then sends the "power on" signal to the tv. If it can't pair, it flashes a light or displays a message that "can't communicate with TV"... The whole process should be fast enough for most consumers (and it would only affect the power on of the TV, so even a 1 second delay would likely be tolerable).

Re:Time to retire IR for remotes

[AmiMoJo]

You can't compete with IR if you need a constant radio link. The beauty of IR is that when no button is being pressed there is no need to transmit or receive anything so it can power down to using a few micro-amps.

Bluetooth has to maintain a connection between the devices so you are never going to get years out of a single set of batteries like you can with IR.

That is MOST impressive

[erroneus]

From science fiction to science fact! While the time difference is much less significant than the time difference indicated in the movie "Frequency", performing a radio frequency transaction to devices in the fourth quarter while we are in the first quarter is quite impressive. It should be enough to collect useful information such as lottery numbers.

Re:Not Pedometers!

[maxwell demon]

Quite the opposite: You want to have as many meters as possible between a child and a pedo.

pedometers,

[Chrisq]

pedometers?

Pedometers! Think of the children! Don't let these meters anywhere near our kids

And don't sciken me with your "Bluetooth Special Interest Group", I don't want to know about your special interests.

Re: pedometers,

[Ivan Stepaniuk]

FAIL, this devices do not pose any risk for the children. On the contrary, they are used for measuring how pedophile a person is, wirelessly, and can be used to protect children from the otherwise unnoticeable offenders, either human or running bear.

Lower power devices

[Jurily]

Of course, the act of including Bluetooth transforms them from "run years on a single battery" to "run from outlet to outlet".

Re:Lower power devices

[Chrisq]

No, your running is just confined to a treadmill connected to a generator.

Re:They're rolling out Bluetooth 4...

[I confirm I'm not a]

That's nothing - I'm still waiting for TeX to hit version 4. It seems like it's been around the 3.14159 point forever!

So

[gadzook33]

Does this mean we'll finally get a decent pair of bluetooth headphones?

Re:So

[martas]

wireless headphones suck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RbDe8ftdAw

same ol' bt audio

[distantbody]

They need to improve the music streaming. Currently its decompress the audio > real time lossy recompression with worse codec > transmit and then finally decompress. It's less than ideal for audio quality and battery life. I think data transmission over te skin would be good for the task. My ears get warm and tender after 10 minutes from using a bt headset anyway, maybe I'm just allergic to it...

Re:They're rolling out Bluetooth 4...

[maestroX]

TeX version 4 has problems with rendering circles, stick with the current version for ever.

Bluetooth 3.0

[Crock23A]

I must be getting old. I completely missed Bluetooth 3.0!

Re:Wireless mouse

[gEvil (beta)]

To be fair, having wireless keyboards and mice that show up to the host system as plain old USB HID-compliant devices means there's generally one less thing to have to troubleshoot in case there are problems. Not to mention that you can use them to access the BIOS -- something you can't do with Bluetooth because the Bluetooth stack/driver haven't been loaded yet.

Re:Not Pedometers!

[aylons]

Just the opposite: every children should carry a pedometer. Then, when an individual with a high pedo degree approaches, it beeps on alert.

Re:Not Pedometers!

[davester666]

If such a device could be made, then children would make a game out of getting it to beep the loudest...