Comments on: Bluetooth Over Wi-Fi Around the Corner

By: Blair Poloskey

Blair Poloskey — Mon, 04 May 2009 14:19:46 +0000

Hey Kevin – I work with the SIG and there seems to be a little confusion in this post (I know it was prior to the announcement, but thought I would call some attention to it anyway). Bluetooth 3.0 will actually be using 802.11, not Wi-Fi – while it seems nit picky to harp on that, there are very good reasons for it – Mike Foley explained it really well on his blog last week. If you are interested, check it out here. http://bit.ly/P6MIj
thanks!

By: Kevin C. Tofel

Kevin C. Tofel — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:15:37 +0000

No such luck with this spec, Doug. See my comment above.

By: Kevin C. Tofel

Kevin C. Tofel — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:14:31 +0000

Nope, you’re not making a fool of yourself and I’m glad you asked about my hypothetical situation. You’re 100% correct and I’m dead wrong. In my anticipatory glee over the new spec, I missed out on the fact that Bluetooth over Wi-Fi will leverage an EXISTING Wi-Fi radio, so my scenario was 100% wrong. Sorry for those that have Bluetooth and no Wi-Fi in a smartphone; I was trying to be optimistic for ya! I’ll strike-out the incorrect statement above. Sadly, I might add… sniff. :(

By: Doug Aitken

Doug Aitken — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:00:01 +0000

So a Blackberry 8100 will be able to get Wifi? Sweet!

By: bluemonq

bluemonq — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:49:43 +0000

I think I might be misunderstanding something but I’ll go ahead and make a fool of myself anyways: how would AMP help your hypothetical Verizon customers? I was under the impression that both Bluetooth and WiFi radios would still be required for this to work: the Bluetooth radios would do the handshaking required for the link up and then switch over to the WiFi radios to do the actualy data wrangling. Is this not the case?