When is a phone not a phone? (rant)

tuned by RÄZO wrote:

> A more open WiFi standard would be better than B/tooth..
> Well...here in my place we dont bother much with headsets...lol... wired
> ones if used are more common here

I disagree. The last thing I need is my mobile phone reachable by that
far away. The whole point of the PAN is that it is local to the person.

Apparently you haven't used Bluetooth. It is, quite possibly, the
killer app for mobile phones.

---

› See More: When is a phone not a phone? (rant)

incumbent <[email protected]> wrote:

>> A more open WiFi standard would be better than B/tooth..
>> Well...here in my place we dont bother much with headsets...lol... wired
>> ones if used are more common here

>I disagree. The last thing I need is my mobile phone reachable by that
>far away. The whole point of the PAN is that it is local to the person.

>Apparently you haven't used Bluetooth. It is, quite possibly, the
>killer app for mobile phones.

If you mean it's the application most likely to kill your battery and
your resistance to the urge to throw you phone very hard at a wall,
I'd tend to agree. ;-)

It has it's uses and the idea is great but it's so poorly implemented
on many devices that it's downright frustrating to use.

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

Paul Hopwood wrote:


>>Apparently you haven't used Bluetooth. It is, quite possibly, the
>>killer app for mobile phones.
>
> If you mean it's the application most likely to kill your battery and
> your resistance to the urge to throw you phone very hard at a wall,
> I'd tend to agree. ;-)
>
> It has it's uses and the idea is great but it's so poorly implemented
> on many devices that it's downright frustrating to use.
>

I charge my handsets every night, so as long as the device can make it
through the day I'm fine. When I'm feeling daring, I'll just turn
Bluetooth off when I'm not using it. It doesn't have to run all the time.

I think you should walk into an Apple Store sometime if you have one
near you and have someone demonstrate how iSync works over Bluetooth to
a mobile phone.

I have noticed that using Bluetooth devices on Windows and FreeBSD is
infuriating most of the time, but on my Mac I've never had one single
problem and it has been a breeze to use.

Though it's possible that I'm just more technical than you, the
technology is so stupid-simple these days I can't imagine anyone really
having a problem with it.

What poor implementations have you encountered?

incumbent <[email protected]> wrote:

>> If you mean it's the application most likely to kill your battery and
>> your resistance to the urge to throw you phone very hard at a wall,
>> I'd tend to agree. ;-)

>> It has it's uses and the idea is great but it's so poorly implemented
>> on many devices that it's downright frustrating to use.

>I charge my handsets every night, so as long as the device can make it
>through the day I'm fine. When I'm feeling daring, I'll just turn
>Bluetooth off when I'm not using it. It doesn't have to run all the time.

As do I, mainly because I have a "proper" car kit with a cradle rather
than one of these fangled BlueTooth things without one. Although I do
occasionally have to go several days between charges if I'm traveling
and really don't want to be running anything which might compromise
battery life.

>I think you should walk into an Apple Store sometime if you have one
>near you and have someone demonstrate how iSync works over Bluetooth to
>a mobile phone.

I don't doubt it's good but I don't own any Apple hardware nor have
any intentions of buying one.

>I have noticed that using Bluetooth devices on Windows and FreeBSD is
>infuriating most of the time, but on my Mac I've never had one single
>problem and it has been a breeze to use.

>Though it's possible that I'm just more technical than you, the
>technology is so stupid-simple these days I can't imagine anyone really
>having a problem with it.

While not entirely impossible, I have been in IT for over 15 years,
more than 20 if you count the time it was a hobby before I moved into
it professionally, so I'd hope to be able to handle the complexities
of two devices of supposedly of the same standard to connect to each
other. ;-)

>What poor implementations have you encountered?

Lots on the PC; main irritation being a Microsoft (okay, I know! <G>)
BlueTooth dongle which doesn't include any serial profiles and will
not connect to anything except the devices it was supplied with.
Tried the opposite, to get the devices to connect using a more
"standard" BT receiver and found daft problems with HID security that
require (illegal!) hacking of drivers to get things to talk.

More specifically related to this group I've have issues using BT with
a 6310i with a several PDAs I've owned; it's worked in a fashion but
been no easier easy and less reliable than using wired or IR
connections. Tried a couple of BT headsets and the audio quality and
reliability has been poor compared to wired versions. Paired with a
Nokia BT car kit and, even if they dealt with the issues such as
poorer reception, lack of charging/cradle etc compared with a
conventional car kit, the messing about pairing devices and using the
things is hardly as trouble-free as it needs to be to make it safe for
vehicle use.

Basically, the crux of it is I've owned/tried a number of BT devices
and accessories which haven't really been that great and not offered
sufficient benefit to warrant investing time/effort in making them
work.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure BT has it's uses. If you happen to have
a requirement for it and find a good combination of devices which work
together it can work great, but it's more hassle than it should be for
something which is supposedly a standard. I've yet to find any real
need for it that wasn't easier/better achieved using other methods of
connectivity.


--
>iv< Paul >iv<