backtop

Blog: Gadgets FCC: No iPod touch Bluetooth Capability
Wolfgang Hansson (Blog) - September 6, 2007 3:26 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 11 comment(s) - last by grant2.. on Sep 7 at 2:46 PM

iPod Touch with Bluetooth Logo  (Source: Image Via Engadget)
A photo of the iPod Touch surfaced showing a Bluetooth logo leading a speculation of unannounced features

Yesterday Apple announced a completely revamped line of iPod’s along with a few other announcements. Some were hoping that there might be some iPhone announcements thrown in.

The only iPhone announcements were of the $200 price drop and the discontinuation of the 4GB version of the iPhone. One of the most interesting additions to the iPod line was the iPod touch. The touch has much the same look and touch screen as the iPhone.

In the wake of the announcements yesterday there has been much speculation that the iPod touch has Bluetooth built-in. Bluetooth was not a feature mentioned in the press conference yesterday, nor is it a feature listed on the Apple store.

The speculation started as a result of an image posted on Engadget that shows the Bluetooth logo next to the battery life indicator. Engadget wrote in an update to the original post that it had verified the iPod touch does not include Bluetooth.

Today a report came across the FCC of the certification of a WiFi 802.11 b/g module for Apple. The report is dated August 24, 2007 and the only recently announced product Apple has specifically using only 802.11 b/g is the iPod Touch. After reviewing the testing report, DailyTech confirmed no mention of Bluetooth connectivity.

However, Engadget has updated its post again to say that it had learned from a “decent source” that the iPod Touch does in fact have a Bluetooth chip inside, but it is not activated. The Apple Store shows that the expected ship date on the iPod Touch is September 28, so there is time yet for another Apple FCC filing for a Bluetooth equipped device to surface.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Another Incomplete Apple Product
By TomZ on 9/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Another Incomplete Apple Product
By Quiksel on 9/6/2007 9:57:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If the hardware is there, but it isn't enabled, then clearly it is the case that the software is simply not developed yet for it.

/throws hand forward, like the Nintendo DS game lawyer guy
OBJECTION! Speculation! :)

Let's just wait and see... gosh, I don't really care if it has it or not, but would it be so bad if it was in there after all? This certainly is not the time to start grandstanding about more Apple drama when *we really just don't know yet*.

~q


By DigitalFreak on 9/7/2007 2:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
It will be a $9.99 charge to activate bluetooth...


RE: Another Incomplete Apple Product
By therealnickdanger on 9/7/2007 11:05:52 AM , Rating: 3
Perhaps it simply cost less to purchase a generic Wi-Fi/BT chipset than a stand-alone Wi-Fi chip (or they planned to support it) and they have deactivated the BT portion because it eats battery power too quickly?


By therealnickdanger on 9/7/2007 11:07:19 AM , Rating: 3
Instant 1-rating? I don't see any bad language and the page just loaded.


By grant2 on 9/7/2007 2:46:45 PM , Rating: 1
This product is only incomplete in the fevered imaginations of weirdos who take fuzzy ambiguous pictures from 3rd parties as gospel.

The rest of the universe, however, will judge this product against claims made by the vendor.


Is that really a bluetooth logo?
By Etsp on 9/6/2007 6:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
That picture is too small to really see if that is in fact a bluetooth logo. It does look very similar to it, but it is quite blurry and has a weird angle and is really hard to tell for sure. I am not doubting that the logo may have been on a prototype, and that may be what this is a picture of, but the photo isn't really conclusive of anything other than that there is a icon that is bluetooth-esqe next to the battery indicator.




RE: Is that really a bluetooth logo?
By Puddyglum1 on 9/6/2007 6:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
"Bluetooth-esque next to the battery indicator" should be conclusive enough!

This isn't a court of law, this is consumer-law. How many consumers would have voted not guilty for OJ? When it doesn't matter, it's much easier to make a decision =)


RE: Is that really a bluetooth logo?
By Etsp on 9/6/2007 9:15:53 PM , Rating: 1
I'm just saying that a better picture could change the "Bluetooth-esque" symbol into something definite. Why can't we get a better picture?


yeah...
By Hyperlite on 9/6/2007 6:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
it does look like it....




Nokia, now Apple?
By cheetah2k on 9/7/2007 2:23:50 AM , Rating: 2
Well, a classic of this elsewhere:

Before the Nokia E90 was released, all of the people demo-ing the pre-release versions (such as Michal Jerz from www.my-symbian) noted that the E90 supported A2DP. Now, everyone knows the trouble with A2DP, and there are so many compatibility issues foating around between stereo headsets these days.

In any case, before release of the E90, the Nokia website said "supporting Bluetooth", but made no mention of A2DP. In fact, at some stage during the trials with the phone, A2DP was infact turned off in a firmware release.

In the end though, A2DP was enabled (certainly on my E90 anyways), and contrary to the web site too - which to date, still makes no mention of A2DP support..

I would say that Apple have merely turned off this feature, and will work out the bugs rather than holding back the release of the new itouch. Makes sense really, and not advertising BT as a feature, no one will be expecting to have it - all good "value-added-ness" for the consumer really..




"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committee's, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings












botimage
Copyright 2008 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki