backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 104 comment(s) - last by rbfowler9lfc.. on Mar 23 at 11:34 AM

The iPod Touch 2G has Bluetooth built in, but Apple has intentionally disabled this functionality, it recently revealed. Customers who want Bluetooth will have to pay $9.99 for an OS upgrade.  (Source: Engadget)
Users who want Bluetooth will have to pay Apple for OS v3.0 to unlock the built in functionality

When the iPod touch 2G first came out, one feature that was the subject of numerous rumors was Bluetooth compatibility.  The addition of Bluetooth would allow wireless stereo headphones and other cool gadgets to connect to the device. 

Instead, users got Nike+, a curious joint venture from Nike and Apple which used the same 2.4 GHz spectrum.  Apple insisted at the time that Bluetooth was not on the iPod touch and that Nike+ didn't use Bluetooth.

Teardowns late last year, though, told a different story.  The teardown revealed a Broadcom Bluetooth chipset with support for 2.1+EDR.  The chipset, not listed on Apple's spec sheet, was apparently being used to implement Nike+.  Some argued that there must be some hardware difference; Apple wouldn't just lock out working functionality.

Well, they were wrong -- during a Q&A session at the iPhone/iPod touch OS v3.0 press event this week, Apple let slip that Bluetooth is indeed on the iPod touch and that it intentionally crippled it.  The revelation came when some inquisitive bloggers noted that A2DP, wireless accessory control and peer-to-peer connections -- key features of the new OS -- all required Bluetooth.  Apple's Greg Joswiak confirmed what many suspected, admitting that Bluetooth on iPod Touch 2Gs can be "unlocked" via an OS update.

Some are accusing Apple of intentionally crippling this key piece of iPod touch hardware as a ploy to sell its new OS.  Apple is offering the new OS free to iPhone customers, but its charging iPod touch customers $9.99 to upgrade and receive the complementary Bluetooth unlock.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
HAHAHAHAHA
By kattanna on 3/18/2009 10:06:03 AM , Rating: 5
thats all i can say.. LOL




RE: HAHAHAHAHA
By Proteusza on 3/18/2009 10:39:21 AM , Rating: 5
See, this is why I dont buy Apple products.


RE: HAHAHAHAHA
By Moishe on 3/18/2009 11:40:09 AM , Rating: 5
I'll do what I did for OS 2. Bittorrent.


RE: HAHAHAHAHA
By LRonaldHubbs on 3/18/2009 1:27:09 PM , Rating: 5
+1

That is the proper response to this news. People who respect Apple's move will happily hand over $10, and people who do not respect the move will download it for free.

Then there are those of us who simply don't care (perhaps because we don't use Apple products...) and get free laughs out of Apple's antics. Apple has had enough news lately though and it's starting to get boring, I'm eager to hear more out of the other funny crowd...:cough: Sony :cough:


RE: HAHAHAHAHA
By noirsoft on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: HAHAHAHAHA
By Enoch2001 on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: HAHAHAHAHA
By quiksilvr on 3/18/2009 1:42:46 PM , Rating: 5
Or just hack it to run Android and avoid the bullsh|t


RE: HAHAHAHAHA
By lemonadesoda on 3/18/2009 10:54:16 AM , Rating: 2
That's rather a polite way of putting it


RE: HAHAHAHAHA
By FITCamaro on 3/18/2009 2:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a very intelligent or funny comment. But this deserves a 6 more than anything lately. Because its true.


RE: HAHAHAHAHA
By Murloc on 3/18/2009 3:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
LOL

apple zealots will say that dad steve jobs knows what is good for them.


RE: HAHAHAHAHA
By zerocool84 on 3/18/2009 5:32:22 PM , Rating: 5
Yep and they are happy when Apple releases new features when they should have already been in the first itineration. Things like this crap are why I will never support Apple in any way.


RE: HAHAHAHAHA
By FingerMeElmo87 on 3/18/2009 6:12:56 PM , Rating: 5
Does apple at least lubes your ass before handing over that $10?


RE: HAHAHAHAHA
By Gul Westfale on 3/18/2009 10:21:13 PM , Rating: 5
yes, but the lube is $4.99 extra.


By chick0n on 3/18/2009 2:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
Come on now. What you got to say to defend Apple this time?




By akosixiv on 3/18/2009 2:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
they could say that it wasn't in the spec sheet in the first place. Yet guys still bought it. So they have to live with the charges.


By thetruth81 on 3/19/2009 8:08:03 AM , Rating: 1
You can't say bluetooth in the spec sheet if you can't use it that is false advertising. You can't use bluetooth if you don't have the software. Not too bright on your part is it.


By cheetah2k on 3/18/2009 10:17:24 PM , Rating: 3
Life's like a box of Apple(s), you never know what 10 bucks is gonna get ya... Unless you're in Thailand, in which case thats money better spent..

Happy ending anyone? :-p


By xxsk8er101xx on 3/18/2009 10:38:21 PM , Rating: 3
Problem with that theory is that it has never happened ever in the history of the entire universe. Any company that has tried has been sued before the product ever was released.

By law in most countries the company must tell you what is in the product.

There has never ever been a company ever to mislead you into what you're buying and then later charge you an additional fee to use a feature you paid for, that a company never told you about, and then charge you extra to enable a feature you paid for.

You understand? You paid for the hardware already. Apple misled you into thinking it didn't have blue-tooth. This is called bad business practice and I guarantee Apple will be sued and offer the OS for free.


By chick0n on 3/18/2009 11:26:56 PM , Rating: 3
so does that mean you will buy things that you dont even know whats in there?

Im sure someone will start a class action lawsuit against Apple real soon, Since they're selling something that "does not match" its original spec.

This is some fuxked up business practice that only Apple Fanboy/girl would accept. sad.


By rbfowler9lfc on 3/23/2009 11:34:21 AM , Rating: 2
I heard GM will be launching from now on new models without working brakes. All the hardware will be there: discs, pads, ducts, pedals, pumps - We'll only be missing the braking fluid.

However If we want to get our braking fluid, we're gonna have to hand them another 10 grand.

What would everyone do? Buy $5 fluid on their favorite AutoTorrent shop, and screw GM.... I would.

Cheers,
Fowler


Deja Vu?
By Odysseus145 on 3/18/2009 1:04:23 PM , Rating: 5
Didn't they pull the same stunt with wireless N in their laptops a while back?




RE: Deja Vu?
By FITCamaro on 3/18/2009 2:30:05 PM , Rating: 5
Shh......the drones are feeding.....


RE: Deja Vu?
By Dennis Travis on 3/19/2009 4:01:54 AM , Rating: 3
Yes they did but it was not $10 to enable the N. It was something like maybe $3.99 or so. :D

The $10 would not bother me as much but the fact that Apple denied that the touch even HAD a bluetooth chip is what gets to me. I don't like liars.


LOL
By technomat on 3/18/2009 10:36:44 AM , Rating: 5
So they make a product that works with Nike+ and did not enable bluetooth even though fitted at time of manufacture, you don't design & add chips you wont need it costs to much.

Wake up and smell the bacon I like apple products but one thing they have nailed down is how to milk the public.

Design in erks that they can correct in next version, then tell you how it now don't have that problem.




RE: LOL
By psychobriggsy on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: LOL
By murphyslabrat on 3/18/2009 3:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's possibly more of a lockout of third party wireless accessories. If they don't use full blue-tooth, then you can't just go and buy a $30 headset from Kmart.


RE: LOL
By rcc on 3/18/2009 7:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you don't design & add chips you wont need it costs to much.


On the contrary, it's a common practice in electronics. If you know that's where you are headed, you design the hardware and build one design. It's much cheaper to build one circuit board and sell many varieties than to build and provide configuration control on several.

Processor and memory binning is similar, although they typically do it with failed parts. However, when it comes right down to it, if they can sell more of the less model, they'll downgrade them anyway. It's not like they actually cost more to make.


RE: LOL
By Spectator on 3/19/2009 3:42:12 AM , Rating: 2
yes even back in the day.

I broke of a tiny resistor on my 2x cd burner that made it 4x burner. (mitsumi I think? well it was an age ago)

Thats how long I remember sht like this going on.


Support
By dagamer34 on 3/18/2009 12:37:05 PM , Rating: 3
Had Apple enabled support for Bluetooth, what would you have used it for? The 2.2 firmware that Apple shipped with 2G iPod Touches doesn't support A2DP. You'd just be turning it on to waste battery life.

Hell, people would be complaining if the iPod Touch DIDN'T have Bluetooth because they'd be complaining they don't get A2DP at all!

You can't please everyone.




RE: Support
By xxsk8er101xx on 3/18/2009 10:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
Because by law the company must tell you what you're paying for. If it has bluetooth that means you paid for that part to be in the device. That means you paid for something you didn't know existed.

This is illegal.


RE: Support
By goku on 3/19/2009 12:15:47 AM , Rating: 2
can anyone cite this "law" please? I could have sworn I've recalled companies doing such things before hand.


RE: Support
By thetruth81 on 3/19/2009 8:13:22 AM , Rating: 2
Dude it illegal for them to tell you, you have bluetooth and you don't just because you have the hardware and not the software. get your facts straight


Whine whine whine
By psychobriggsy on 3/18/2009 2:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
It did a job you bought it for when you bought it.

Now it can do more for the price of a beer and a burger.

What's the whining about?

(I presume the Bluetooth chip was running in that low power Wibree or whatever it is called now mode for the Nike add-on).




RE: Whine whine whine
By xxsk8er101xx on 3/18/2009 10:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
Because you paid for the hardware already! If you paid for it then it should work!

Not mislead you into thinking it doesn't exist and then later say hey it exist but oh we want another 10 dollars for you to use a feature you already paid for.


RE: Whine whine whine
By chick0n on 3/18/2009 11:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
because you're a dumbass and you love to buy "crippled" product then later "pay them" to "enable" it.

Ford should sell you a car with only 100 hp then later tell you it can go 200 hp u just need to pay another 10 grand. See what you will say.


What about unlocking the FM tuner?
By UNCjigga on 3/18/2009 1:35:29 PM , Rating: 5
That same Broadcom chip is known to contain an FM radio tuner as well. Can Apple unlock that if they so choose to (selling an "FM tuner" via App Store) or would it require some RF engineering and an antenna to actually get it working without interfering with wifi, bluetooth, sound quality etc.?




Pain
By Elementalism on 3/18/2009 12:36:38 PM , Rating: 3
Apple consumers love pain. Most will line up around the corner to pay money for an upgrade that has been intentionally crippled by Apple. I think Steve Jobs sits in his office laughing hysterically at his consumer base while looking at the accounts.




new discovery
By invidious on 3/18/2009 10:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
I think I see a flux capacitor on there as well...

When is time travel going to be unlocked?




Duh
By descendency on 3/18/2009 1:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
It's made by apple... it might be high quality stuff but it's going to nickel and dime you.

Just look at the new iPOD shuffle.




By geawndough on 3/18/2009 6:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that this is also a way for Apple to lure people that have jailbroken their phones to update.
One of two things could happen that is seen as beneficial in Apple's eyes.
1)The new OS takes a long time to update, so the casual iphone "jailbrakees" that had someone else do it are locked into OS3 for a while at least.
2) Since Apple has now taken the official stance that "jailbreaking" is illegal, they can have many more opportunities to go after those that offer assistance in the process.




Wait....
By nixoofta on 3/19/2009 2:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
...weren't these the guys that went before congress and said,..."Inicotine is not addictive!"?




By CZroe on 3/19/2009 11:57:49 AM , Rating: 2
First-gen iPod touch users had to pay for the 2.0 software (renamed iPhone OS 2.0). They never fixed the stability problems or even the keyboard glitch (on-screen keyboard often gets its backspace "key" stuck). Are they gonna branch and continue updating 2.0 or am I going to have to deman that they refund the people who paid for iPhone OS 2.0?




Alternate Hypothesis
By cabjf on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By sprockkets on 3/18/2009 10:41:33 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, like making sure Nike+ worked and stereo BT didn't. Great set of priorities there.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/18/2009 10:45:17 AM , Rating: 4
I gotta agree with you there. Stereo Bluetooth > Nike+


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By cabjf on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By Nick5324 on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By DigitalFreak on 3/18/2009 10:48:47 AM , Rating: 4
There is no license fee for Bluetooth.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By crleap on 3/18/2009 6:01:23 PM , Rating: 1
ever heard of verizon? all their phones are basically the same. if they can do more hardware-wised, not to worry, because verizon will cripple it with the same homogeneous firmware that is on every other phone they offer, in order to make you use their pay services to do what the hardware can already do. this is a common practice, and as long as we keep buying into it, it will continue.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By bebesito21 on 3/19/2009 11:37:04 AM , Rating: 2
+1....verizon wrote the book on crippling devices and charging you toe "enable" features.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By iVTec on 3/18/2009 10:53:32 AM , Rating: 2
Fine.Then why should they charge 10 bucks for it?


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By Forsaken503 on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By technomat on 3/18/2009 11:34:08 AM , Rating: 2
Yes people would happily pay for it but you would still be miffed.

Its a bonus for people with an iTouch but still begs question why it took so long to implement, and why deny chip was there.

You would have thought it a thing that would sell the unit better, so I guess there was some financial incentive not to tell people.

I personally would wonder how hard to implement before now seeing as there other business is writing there own O/S.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By KeithP on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By stubeck on 3/18/2009 2:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
Why does MS not charge for Zune updates though?


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By Shadowself on 3/18/2009 5:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
Because the account for the income of the Zune the way Apple accounts for the income of the iPhone (note that the software upgrade is free to iPhone owners).


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By SuperFly03 on 3/18/2009 3:25:40 PM , Rating: 4
That is completely and utterly false. You are not required to charge for software updates at all.

In order to capitalize research and development costs, yes there must be a sale price associated with the software in order to amortize the R&D. However, if you go MS' route, you expense the R&D as incurred and can either charge for the software update or not. It is the dealer's choice.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By Keeir on 3/18/2009 6:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but its also true that the money comes from -somewhere-.

If Apple had decided to provided free software updates for life for the ipod touch, the initial price would have been higher. Maybe not this 10 dollar price higher, but it would have indeed been higher to offset those future expenses.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By sprockkets on 3/19/2009 1:16:08 AM , Rating: 2
There is a difference btw software update and software upgrade. The law in question is all about accounting. Either Apple can restate the revenue made from before with the new features or they can charge that same revenue now. It might be a silly part of the law, but they'd figure it isn't worth the money or trouble not complying with the law.

Why not a charge on the iphone? They can pad it or claim it over your phone plan.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By SuperFly03 on 3/19/2009 2:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
There is no requirement to restate the revenue based on "adding features". Where do you get such strange information?

Software revenue can be handled multiple ways however this isn't true software revenue. The money made by apple is for selling a piece of hardware. The costs associated with the software development should be a piece of the inventory cost not a separate cost with its own expenses. There is no way to separate the sale of the iPhone/iPod Touch OSes from their related hardware.

In this case Apple has decided to charge, probably in order to capitalize costs, where as M$ doesn't give a flying Fark because the R&D cost of the Zune is so immaterial they just expense it and roll along.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By SuperFly03 on 3/19/2009 2:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
Additionally,

why does apple charge for the iPod touch and not the iPhone? Interesting isn't it? How they can charge for one device but not the other yet they are getting the same "upgrade"?

Hmmmm.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By MrX8503 on 3/18/2009 11:49:55 AM , Rating: 3
"There is no license fee for Bluetooth."

"Do some research before you speak. There are no royalty or license fees for Bluetooth"

https://www.bluetooth.org/ticketing/view_article.c...

It has already been said twice, there are no fees for bluetooth licensing, learn how to read. This means that you have already PAID for the bluetooth chip inside your touch. You didn't save any money by having Apple disable bluetooth, instead they're ripping you off by charging $10 and pushing Nike+ all along.

If Intel did what you said, $10 is incredibly cheap for going from 1.8 to 2.5ghz, but it doesn't really relate to what is being discussed here.

The reason why Apple gets a lot of backlash is because they are notorious for stripping you of every last dollar coupled with licensing fees, restrictions, and a dictatorship business. I admit, Apple has nice products and I would buy them if it weren't for the tied-down-to-every-last-bit-of-Apple-software feeling.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By SlipDizzy on 3/18/2009 12:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the problem I see with your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are assuming that they didn't charge you for bluetooth already. I believe you have already been charged because they need to pay for that bluetooth hardware that is installed in your IPod Touch. Now that you have been charged once and its not working, they are willing to make it work by charging you again.

I think what they should be doing is offering the OS upgrade for $10 which includes copy and paste and the few other upgrades. Also they should provide a patch to the other OS users that enables their Bluetooth (providing the previous OS can handle a patch to use the Bluetooth.) I would consider that to be a respectable act on Apples part.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By inighthawki on 3/18/2009 12:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here's a question: If Intel sent out an email to everyone who bought an Core 2 Duo E4300 saying for an extra $10 we'll unlock the disabled extra 1MB of cache and bump the clock speed up to 2.5ghz, would everyone be as mad as they are at Apple?


That is different. The correct scenario would be, Intel tells people that they released a new cpu, and that it couldnt be any better, then after a ton of people own it, tell them that for x dollars they will release an update to unlock potential in the cpu that it had all along, but they turned it off. It would be more like turning off instruction sets.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By cabjf on 3/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By inighthawki on 3/18/2009 1:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, i actually meant that as disabling "new" instruction sets, it'd be a pretty stupid idea to disable widely used existing ones lol


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By thetruth81 on 3/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By inighthawki on 3/18/2009 3:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
That's a terrible analogy. People used 32-bit windows because it was designed to run on x86 cpu's. Apple included the hardware and purposely did not include support for bluetooth, this is not the case with 64-bit cpus. Nobody "lacked 64-bit support" in their OS, it just wasnt an available feature at all. You can simply include a windows update to make it run 64-bit apps, it was an entirely redesigned system to take advantage of it.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By inighthawki on 3/18/2009 5:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
sorry that should be, you "cant" simply include a windows update


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By thetruth81 on 3/19/2009 8:04:45 AM , Rating: 2
so why didn't the get the updated windows for free? Apple didn't have vers 3.0 ready so they didn't give it to them. Thge bluetooth function is built into the ver 3.0. They also charged for the ver 2.0 upgrage. They have charge for every new ver of software that has come out. When i had windows 98 and 98SE came out i had to pay for that too.

Technically if you have the hardware and don't have the software to run it you can't advertise that you have that function cause in real life you don't!


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By Kalessian on 3/20/2009 2:33:42 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, look at my post below yours.

Tons of people were using 64-bit linux/bsd way when the first A64s came out, and for free.

Anandtech even did some 64 vs 32-bit linux to see if the 64-bit hype amounted to anything.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By Kalessian on 3/18/2009 8:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
I was using 64-bit linux as soon as I got my A64. And all of that software was free.

Look, the reason intel can't get away with that kind of stuff is because they have a close competitor that makes pretty much the same thing they do. They can't hide features and release them later because what if the customer decides to go AMD because, without those extra features, the AMD chip does nearly the same thing but costs $5 less.

The CPU and GPU wars are so close that if someone invented new functionality after the fact you'd bet your ass it will be free, because every little tiny thing will gain marketshare and mindshare. Just like nvidia doesn't charge people who bought an 8800gtx for physx even though nvidia's physx wasn't out then.

Apple has a monopoly on the iphone. No one can make exact iphone clones with bluetooth enabled for cheaper. Whether or not it's ok for Apple to do this is another story, but it's a testament to the quality of the phone and/or the zealotry of Apple's fanbase that they can get away with it.


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By iVTec on 3/18/2009 12:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
We're taling about a rather common ability of modern mobile devices (BT),not something only a small percentage of the users would want in their phone.And i don't think enabling it in the 1st place would increase the price of the iPod...That wouldn't benefit Apple as much as "selling" it afterwards would,like it did here.

As for your C2D example...It's not the same.CPUs are not overpriced like Apple products and secondly, Intel would never do that,as it has a specific lineup to cover all market segments.That would make things complex and cripple tha sales of more powerful (and expensive) Core 2 Duo CPUs...But there's only one iPod...:)


RE: Alternate Hypothesis
By FingerMeElmo87 on 3/18/2009 6:17:51 PM , Rating: 1
you're an idiot. the fact that the iPhone and iPod Touch use the same OS means that they clearly shafted there Touch customers out of bluetooth.


That's one way to twist the story
By Commodus on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: That's one way to twist the story
By Moishe on 3/18/2009 11:48:19 AM , Rating: 3
Not worth mentioning? Are you on drugs?

What company has a feature and doesn't brag about it? Apple's marketing department would talk it up, and rightfully so!

So there had to be a decision made... is it worth more to Apple to have Bluetooth on the iPod touch or to build it in and then charge for it later.

They chose to disable a feature. Partially so they could charge more and partially because it adds "legs" to the Touch product. It's their right to do that and it's our right to think nasty thoughts about them for it.


By VooDooAddict on 3/18/2009 12:11:39 PM , Rating: 1
The point is that the feature may not have been ready for market. Now that's it's ready, it's in the OS update.

What good would mono-bluetooth have been for a music device?

Built in Stereo Bluetooth is the feature I've been waiting for that will make me upgrade from my old 2gig samsung player. I'm so tired of the cords.


So what? It is APPLE'S product.
By RedBeard on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
By Insomniator on 3/18/2009 10:47:05 AM , Rating: 2
People will do exactly that, just like they have been in the computer market for 20 years.

People care or should care because Apple could have just given us bluetooth, but instead used a bluetooth chip to push some bullshit proprietary spec. Hey, does that sound like something they have done before?

The Ipod and Iphone will eventually both lose their grip on their markets as Apple continues with crap like this. Don't even get me, or anyone else started on Itunes.


RE: So what? It is APPLE'S product.
By inighthawki on 3/18/2009 10:49:12 AM , Rating: 4
Why, because Apple had the chip on there, and it was available, but they purposely didn't include support. Now, if you want to access a feature thats already included, you need to buy the new OS for it. This is a classic example of how Apple screws you, then the faithful Apple fanboys say "oh but its ok because of such and such reason" and shrug it off, then complain when someone else does the same thing.


RE: So what? It is APPLE'S product.
By icrf on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: So what? It is APPLE'S product.
By Maximilian on 3/18/2009 11:11:05 AM , Rating: 1
Dont be so stupid, its a dirty cheap move on apples part to include something and then disable it, forcing people to pay for the feature.

I like ipods etc and have never bought anything else but hell even i can tell this is a dick move on apples part.


RE: So what? It is APPLE'S product.
By StevoLincolnite on 3/18/2009 12:09:28 PM , Rating: 1
I never have owned an iPod in my life, I hate being limited to certain applications to use a device, hence why I went with a Creative Zen instead. (Then I got rid of it and use my Sony Erricsson w910i media capabilities).

I love being able to copy and paste my music onto the flash storage and just letting it play, And I don't like Bloated software which comes with most Phones/MP3 players either, hence my decisions in that regard.

However about the Bluetooth, if for instance... Microsoft had a Bluetooth module in it's Xbox 360, but it was disabled, and released an update that you had to pay 1000 gamer points to activate it, everyone would be annoyed, and would jump up and down, why should this be any different?

This is a bad move on Apple behalf, they make good looking products, but unfortunately they lack features, and are high priced. (Copy and Paste, MMS, FM Radio etc).

Thankfully we have alternatives...


RE: So what? It is APPLE'S product.
By Keeir on 3/18/2009 7:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However about the Bluetooth, if for instance... Microsoft had a Bluetooth module in it's Xbox 360, but it was disabled, and released an update that you had to pay 1000 gamer points to activate it, everyone would be annoyed, and would jump up and down, why should this be any different?


I doubt people would be that annoyed if for the same 1000 gamer points you got an additional "99" other features.

The artile is misleading...


By StevoLincolnite on 3/18/2009 8:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think some people would be annoyed regardless of how it plays out, what annoys me is that people buy the hardware, and all of a sudden you have to pay extra on-top to activate a hardware feature for what is a fair while since product release, and lying the entire time to your customers that it's not Bluetooth.


By inighthawki on 3/18/2009 8:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
Its not about the other features. I think $10 is a great price for all of the other features. I just feel it's unfair to release the update for bluetooth support with it when they couldve had it the whole time. Apple LIED about the ipod touch having bluetooth only to tell people they're going to need the $10 update to use it.


By naudi 3oh3 on 3/19/2009 12:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However about the Bluetooth, if for instance... Microsoft had a Bluetooth module in it's Xbox 360, but it was disabled, and released an update that you had to pay 1000 gamer points to activate it, everyone would be annoyed, and would jump up and down, why should this be any different?

ok, so to point out a couple things, the nike+ is bluetooth, it's just that the ipod touch had a preset code locked into the bluetooth settings and the default bluetooth code is locked so it can't be used, and the links to be able to change the security settings are deleted so that you wouldn't be able to access them. the xbox 360 is the exact same way, the controllers and headsets have the access code preprogrammed in. if you read the entire instruction manual for the original 360 wireless headsets, it tells you that they have bluetooth connectivity so you can use them with your cell phone and tells you the code for the device, but it's a secondary code stored in the headsets chip that allows you to connect to it, but doesn't unlock your 360. and if you have a laptop, or certain phones (my voyager picks up my 360, controllers, and my friends itouch. they're all just listed as unknown devices), that have bluetooth connectivity it will pick up a 360 or an itouch, but it can't connect without a lockbreaker algorithm, unless you get lucky and guess the code for it. you can hack your 360 or itouch and unlock the ability. all apples software update is that it reinstalls the link to the bluetooth control and unlocks the default bluetooth code. that's the reason sony didn't lock the bluetooth on the ps3, they hoped it would help them outsell the 360 because people could go spend twenty bucks on a wireless headset, or use one they've got lying around the house.
so they were just trying to maximize they're own revenue stream and when they realized that not a lot of people would pay upwards of sixty dollars for the nike+ they decided that it would be more beneficial for them to just fully unlock the bluetooth. microsoft got lucky only because the controllers didn't come with headsets, and you could either pay thirty five for a wired headset with it's adapter, or pay fifty for a wireless headset with a fifty foot range. what a lot of people didn't realize that any 3.5mm headset would plug into the bottom of the 360 controller without any issue at all.


RE: So what? It is APPLE'S product.
By afkrotch on 3/18/2009 12:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
How about the fact that they lied about it, when asked if it had bluetooth. It has bluetooth. It might not have worked at the time, since they crippled it, but it has it.

How many more times will Apple lie about their products, all the while milking their consumer base?


RE: So what? It is APPLE'S product.
By icrf on 3/18/2009 12:15:36 PM , Rating: 1
Define "had" for me. The physical hardware existed, but it had no general software interface for it. For all intents and purposes, it did not "have" bluetooth.

Yes, it is a money-grubbing policy on Apple's part, the kind I loathe the company for. It doesn't change the fact that it was never advertised as an existing or even potential feature. Don't complain because you could have gotten something more than you thought you were getting. At least Apple isn't saying you have to buy a 3G Touch to get support, which is more their historical norm. $10 is a bargain.


RE: So what? It is APPLE'S product.
By inighthawki on 3/18/2009 12:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
But it's not like bluetooth would have taken years to create drivers for. Apple could have released a simple update to the current OS LONG ago to enable it, but they didnt. (My guess is so you have to buy OS3 to enable it). I wouldn't doubt if apple refused to integrate copy/paste too so they could get more OS3 sales by making it exclusive.


RE: So what? It is APPLE'S product.
By DLeRium on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
By omnicronx on 3/18/2009 1:18:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The same America that gets branded AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint locked bloatware phones is now complaining that Apple implements its own Bluetooth functionality and prevents you from getting full access.
Are you dense? We complain about those providers locking their phones too! Its not like we are singling out Apple here. But for some reason when Apple does it, people like yourself deal out a bunch of excuses as to why a manufacturer would raise the price of a device by adding hardware, but not enabling functionality. It just does not make sense, it is very obvious they are trying to push proprietary hardware.

And your Nvidia example is not comparable, in the case you mentioned, its not only cheaper to produce one model, and disable features afterward, but the GT models could very well be failed GTX cards, that either have broken pipes, or cannot perform to the same level with them.

Apple adding a BT chip and not using it does not lower the price one bit, and serves absolutely no purpose. Other than the obvious of course, more Apple car accessories bought, pushing proprietary hardware etc.. Bluetooth should come standard on all smartphones, especially on a phone that is suppose to be the 'ultra high end'.


RE: So what? It is APPLE'S product.
By joemoedee on 3/18/2009 3:30:40 PM , Rating: 1
So would it be better if it didn't have the chip to begin with?

It was advertised as not having BT. It wasn't purchased or marketed under the guise of having BT. Big deal.

So now a new OS update enables it, and a bunch of other features, for $10, and its a cause for outrage? To me, a non-Ipod Touch owner, it seems like a pretty decent deal.

Most companies would sell it w/o a BT chip, and then release a "New and Improved" version with a BT chip for a bit more money.

If Apple did that, they would probably get lambasted. ("BT chips are cheap, they could have put it in the original one!" "Why do I have an old one without this feature!" "Argh!!!1!!!") In other words, whatever way they did it, the majority here would not be happy about it.


By inighthawki on 3/18/2009 3:59:09 PM , Rating: 3
The outrage is caused because they don't allow the use of a feature that is already there. It wouldn't be a huge issue at all if the OS update was free, or even if there was a free update for OS2 that enabled it, but the fact that Apple is forcing you to pay to enable a feature that has existed the whole time makes some people mad.

Pe3rsonally, i don't care at all as i will never own an ipod touch (or even an iphone) and don't want to. I just feel that this issue is unfair to those who do have one.


WRONG!!!!
By Shadowself on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: WRONG!!!!
By SuperFly03 on 3/18/2009 3:15:50 PM , Rating: 3
And you sir... are in denial.


RE: WRONG!!!!
By Inkjammer on 3/18/2009 3:50:00 PM , Rating: 3
The way Apple is going about it is wrong, wrong, wrong. This Bluetooth "update" is the equilavent Nvidia/ATI charging customers $10 to download the latest graphics drivers that offer new featuers like CUDA, multi-monitor support, improved performance, etc.

Althooough, if Nvidia/ATI operated like Apple, they'd never offer increased performance via a mere driver update... they'd just refuse to release performance patches, put out an entirely new product and tell you to go buy the new one.


RE: WRONG!!!!
By omnicronx on 3/18/2009 4:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is absolutely no reason for Apple to intentionally hobble something from months that would be a selling point for the device.
How do you know? The deal with Nike, plus the increased accessories sales such as car adapters for those with BT sync could be reason enough. I am not saying this with any certainty, but it is just as likely as your theory.

Its also nothing like Push email, or copy and paste. Now if Push email and copy and paste were already coded in OS2 but disabled by Apple until now, then sure, the situations would be comparable.

quote:
Apple couldn't get it done the way Apple wanted it to be done before this software release. Period.)
I just don't believe that, BT is not the most complicated thing in the world. Furthermore it was only partially disabled (i.e they already have it working), only headset sync is allowed, all other features have been disabled by Apple. Now if third party developers can get AD2P etc working on WinMo and Google/Nokia can get it running on their respective (Android and Symbian) environments with minimal effort, why can't Apple?

And just so you know, the same thing happened back in the day with Verizon and the Motorola V710, and guess what, they got sued and there was almost a successful class action suit because of it.


RE: WRONG!!!!
By omnicronx on 3/18/2009 4:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
P.S The iPhone is still marketed as a Bluetooth 2.0 +EDR device, i.e it should not be if they were going to limit functionality. This is exactly the same reason the Verizon got in trouble way back when.


RE: WRONG!!!!
By Shadowself on 3/18/2009 4:55:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The deal with Nike, plus the increased accessories sales such as car adapters for those with BT sync could be reason enough.


Did you even read all of my post? It appears as though the Nike+ implementation is not "standard" BT. Thus equating it to implementations of BT to all BT possible devices is ludicrous.

quote:
Its also nothing like Push email, or copy and paste. Now if Push email and copy and paste were already coded in OS2 but disabled by Apple until now, then sure, the situations would be comparable.


So are you saying that the coding for the iPhone OS was already complete back in mid 2008 and Apple just circumvented that code within the OS? That is just plain ludicrous. It would have taken Apple MORE effort to implement it and then circumvent it.

quote:
I just don't believe that, BT is not the most complicated thing in the world. Furthermore it was only partially disabled (i.e they already have it working), only headset sync is allowed, all other features have been disabled by Apple.


I never said Apple could not have done it. I said Apple did not have it done the way Apple wanted it done. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere to support any other concept -- except a personal belief that Apple hates you and purposely keeps things from you. Could Apple have done a full implementation of all the functions to be offered in iPhone OS 3.0? Absolutely. However, Apple has its own priorities and schedules. No matter how much that set of priorities and schedules pisses off its customers Apple looks at its customers and resources and does what it thinks is best for Apple in the long term. Clearly getting the full set of BT capabilities in the iPhone OS back last summer was not a priority for Apple -- even if that hardware chip shipped in 100% of the iPod touches.

quote:
And just so you know, the same thing happened back in the day with Verizon and the Motorola V710, and guess what, they got sued and there was almost a successful class action suit because of it.


If anyone wants to sue Apple over this then they should go ahead and do so, but they better bring proof that the full functionality was in the iPhone OS (and thus in the OS running the iPod touch) back when the iPod touch 2G first shipped and Apple just intentionally circumvented it. Otherwise I don't believe that there is a prayer of a case to be made to show that Apple intentionally crippled the iPod touch 2G.


RE: WRONG!!!!
By Shadowself on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
Licensing
By littleprince on 3/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Licensing
By DigitalFreak on 3/18/2009 10:58:01 AM , Rating: 5
Do some research before you speak. There are no royalty or license fees for Bluetooth - https://www.bluetooth.org/ticketing/view_article.c...


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki