Why build a music phone without the ability to stream music wirelessly? Why, Apple, why?
This is what Bluetooth SIG Executive Director, Mike Foley, wants desperately to know (And you haven't called him back yet...or me).
In a recent post entitled "iDisappointment," Foley expressed his, well, disappointment with what he characterizes as Apple's purposeful crippling of Bluetooth on its new iPhone.
"As hard to believe as it is, the iPhone does not enable stereo headphones," Foley complains in the post. He gets more incredulous after discovering that, yes indeed, the phone does have Bluetooth technology somewhere under its slim, glass-covered hood, which allows for things such as voice calls and hands-free operation in the car.
On the other hand, it does not permit: file transfers to a PC, photo printing through a Bluetooth printer, or the streaming audio via Bluetooth to a compatible speaker system or headset.
Foley seems able to forgive the company for its iPod transgressions, but no such lenience is extended toward the iPhone.
"Since the iPod doesn't have a Bluetooth radio in the device, I can almost understand the decision not to add one to support stereo streaming. However, the iPhone already comes equipped with Bluetooth technology capabilities. Supporting stereo for headphones, car stereos, portable speakers and home stereos is a simple extension," Foley goes on to say.
What's curious is that Foley feels it's his duty to make people aware of this perceived shortcoming when the fact remains that plenty of cell phone providers have (and continue to) limit their phone's Bluetooth capabilities--Verizon perhaps being the most notorious.
And although he's a bit more lenient on the iPod, it also seems Foley already has a longstanding bone to pick with the iPod as well, given that those devices still don't allow for the use of Bluetooth stereo headphones without some sort of adapter.
Finishing up the post, Folely takes a trip down Speculation Boulevard, up to where it intersects with Accusation Avenue:
"I can think of only two reasons why Apple may have made this decision," he says.
1. The mandatory SBC codec required for streaming
2. [They] Prefer a proprietary solution
He's not particularly satisfied with either, however.
"The first point would require the iPhone to transcode music on the iPhone into SBC when streaming to a headphone (or other Bluetooth speaker) that only supports the SBC codec," he says. "However, this option doesn't prevent the iPhone (or any other device) from streaming over a different codec if both devices support the other codec."
As for the second theory, perhaps a bit more plausible.
"I think the second point is more likely. (Even many wired headphones don't work with the iPhone.) If the iPhone implements the standardized Bluetooth stereo profile, the device will work with headphones, cars, home stereos and portable speakers from any manufacturer.
"While this is great for the consumer, it isn't as great for Apple's bottom line," Foley says. "Apple may be under the impression that they can create an entire ecosystem of wireless peripherals for the iPhone and iPod in which they control by licensing the proprietary interface into the devices."
So it's surprising that Apple is opting for a decidedly anal approach when it comes to controlling its new device and the way it interacts with outside devices? Has this guy looked at recent figures on how much the company actually makes from licensing accessories for a little music-playing device called the iPod?
Foley concludes by calling the lack of attention the media has paid to the iPhone's stripped down Bluetooth deeply unfortunate, saying that "any review of the iPhone that didn't point out this omission was doing the reader a disservice."
Undoubtedly, Foley has some legitimate points here. But they themselves are undermined by his lack of perspective. The fact remains, in the past three years most Bluetooth phones sold by carriers in the U.S. have been in some way "crippled," and to single out the iPhone as sone ultimate example of Bluetooth dismemberment rings profoundly false.
Stumble
Digg
del.icio.us
Slashdot
July 4, 2007 12:31 AM
Um, I think the OVERWHELMING majority of coverage this week and last has been about the iPhone, yes? So why in the world would you expect Mr. Foley to be expounding on anything else? Apparently you needed to say something negative so the best you could do was to point out that he wasn't calling out the "crippling" of other phones? Read his blog.
July 5, 2007 9:34 AM
I'm glad to hear some people expounding on the negative. And hopefully this "locking down" will spark more complaints about this practice!
I think it's utterly ridiculous the way manufacturers and carriers disable features like this, or designers deliberately force you to buy new (usually proprietary) accessories. It is not only annoying, but it also contributes to the massive amounts of tech-junk piling up.
Sure, this guy's perspective will be skewed, but it's still a valid point. And this is one of the first phones people other than geeks have heard of and might actually use for these features. I don't want an iPhone, but I think it will at least be a swift kick in the pants to other manfacturers.
July 5, 2007 6:08 PM
I don't think is equitable to compare phones from three years ago with what is touted to be the end-all, be-all phone of 2007, 2008 and beyond. Over those years, the tide has shifted in capabilities offered in mobile phones in the US. In the article above, Verizon is singled out for shipping mobile phones with "crippled" Bluetooth implementations. While that may have been true in the past, a quick look on the Verizon web site (http://www.verizonwireless.com and more specifically http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=accessoryMart&action=viewBluetoothDevices&model=Capable%20Devices&make=Bluetooth@reg; ) reveals a wide assortment of phones with varying degrees of Bluetooth support including the models in the Smartphone category that most closely match the iPhone capabilities. Verizon offers many phones that support streaming stereo music over a Bluetooth link.
While I specifically mention the lack of stereo support in my blog posting, it is worth adding a bit of perspective to the major step backward the iPhone provides to Mac users: the Bluetooth support between the iPhone and the Mac is a major step backward from what was supported between the Mac and an Ericsson mobile phone in 2002 and any other phone supporting Bluetooth technology today. (Caller ID, SMS message support, Dial-up networking, etc.)
July 6, 2007 11:12 AM
I don't think is equitable to compare phones from three years ago with what is touted to be the end-all, be-all phone of 2007, 2008 and beyond. Over those years, the tide has shifted in capabilities offered in mobile phones in the US. In the article above, Verizon is singled out for shipping mobile phones with "crippled" Bluetooth implementations. While that may have been true in the past, a quick look on the Verizon web site (http://www.verizonwireless.com and more specifically http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=accessoryMart&action=viewBluetoothDevices&model=Capable%20Devices&make=Bluetooth@reg; ) reveals a wide assortment of phones with varying degrees of Bluetooth support including the models in the Smartphone category that most closely match the iPhone capabilities. Verizon offers many phones that support streaming stereo music over a Bluetooth link.
While I specifically mention the lack of stereo support in my blog posting, it is worth adding a bit of perspective to the major step backward the iPhone provides to Mac users: the Bluetooth support between the iPhone and the Mac is a major step backward from what was supported between the Mac and an Ericsson mobile phone in 2002 and any other phone supporting Bluetooth technology today. (Caller ID, SMS message support, Dial-up networking, etc.)
July 12, 2007 9:18 PM
Bryan,
I completely disagree with your conclusions at the end of the article. In my opinion, Mr. Foley makes an excellent point. Because the iPhone is a convergent device, supporting music and phone calls, it MUST support a wireless stereo audio technology.
As an iPhone user, I am continuously listening to music on my wired apple buds. When a call comes in, iPhone intelligently fades the music and let's me know. I can click to accept the call and have a bloody good chat. Once the call is over, the music resumes right where it left off! Awesome! Sadly, I can only do this while these annoying white wires get caught on my fingers, elbows and hooked on the door handle! Does apple expect me to pull out my bud and quickly insert my bluetooth to take a call?
What's the point of having a wireless device on an iPhone if you can't use the seamless iPhone features?
If apple has other plans in the future, that's great. Right now, they've taken my $600 while leaving me without a reasonable handsfree solution.
Sincerely,
Dave Linhardt
August 10, 2007 1:02 AM
I think that the fact that this (that I own) device does NOT support Bluetooth stereo headphones like the new lighweight Motorola set is nothing but short-sighted. I have 4 MacBook Pro's, Apple TV, 2 Mac Mini's (totally upgraded..grin) and now the iphone......Apple...you "had" me at hello...but you've lost me with the lack of Bluetooth support. My previous phone (now sitting in a draw) is the Nokia E61i. This thing FULLY supports Bluetooth for calls/music/etc. WHY does my $599 iPhone fall short? Maybe Cisco should have had more to do with the product and held off on dropping their lawsuit. I doubt Chambers would have been so short sighted. BTW....I think the author of the Article above is dead on. Anyone that thinks differently must still be living in the days of the ole 8track. Come on folks...its the 21st century...give me my toys without BS limitations.
Balz
September 6, 2007 9:47 PM
Apple, with its 'orchard' mentality, almost always maintains control over its products even though many features in the Apple products are results of industry standards. Once you buy an Apple, you will have to buy the rest of the orchard. BT 2.0 in the iPhone is an example. Without the full implementation of the 2.0 standards, Apple purposefully value its profits from future stereo BT headset sales over its customers' rights as consumers. The iPhone, as good as it is, serious lacks many standard features found in other high end phones. Even many standard wired headphones, e.g., the expensive Shure ear buds sold in the Apple stores, don't fit. Do we need any more evidence? I think the combinations of many of these missing or crippled features are the primary reasons why the iPhone is not taking off as Apples desires. Sure, the recent price cutting may help market to the iPhone to the marginal Apple cult followers but since when Apple products are low price leaders in its chosen field? The iPhone and Apple's actions so far demonstrate how little it understands the mobile phone users, the majority of whom are not iPod-toting worshipers. Apple is missing the marketing chance of this decade to win over the non-iPod owners with the iPhone's music/video functions. Missing stereo BT is, in my humble opinion, is a mistake of arrogance.
September 21, 2007 3:20 AM
I am in agreement with Foley's sentiment. It amazes me that apple (& media) labels iphone as revolutionary yet it lacks such basic feature (bluetooth stereo aka A2DP) that I can find in any decent multimedia phone of today. It is for this reason alone that I did not purchase iPhone. Instead, I went with Nokia 6300 along with Motorola S9 bluetooth stereo headphone, which fulfill my basic requirement of handsfree phone call and music.(saved myself $300)
Vincent put it succintly - lack of bluetooth stereo on iphone is a mistake of arrogance.
September 30, 2007 11:37 AM
I am in total agreement with the rest of the complaints about the iPhone, this next stage in the evolution of technology. NOT! It is incomprehensible to me this phone does not support stereo bluetooth headsets nor a media player. How short-sighted. Half the emails I recieve can't be viewed because there are attachments requiring a PLAYER. It's ridiculous. Also those cumbersome headsets are so inconvenient that I rarely use my iPod feature.
March 18, 2008 2:42 AM
I think the author needs to take off his apple-colored glasses before writing.
The iPhone is great,but that's no reason that it can't be improved. Fanboy worship actually kills innovation.
July 21, 2008 4:07 PM
I am useing the iPhone 3g to post this. There are a cuple of things that I think it needs. For example making your own ring tones. Right now u can but u have to trick iTunes ( I do know how ) or buy/rebuy the songs from them and some times you are not able too. Another thing is what you are talking about right now it is true that iPhone can not stream music. But think of it this way why sell some thing as one and see only one rate of income when u sell it in steps over the years. Like with starting out with iPhone 1.0.0 for a high price witch sold real well. Then with every upgrade you had to pay. Then they saw things slowing down so they decide to do a big jump. By going 3g and comming up with the apps store with was not realy their idea. They saw the people were jailbreaking and installing there own apps. So with that I think that apple is trying to take it slow that way they can make more money.and that's why they have not gone Bluetooth. ( i have went threw 7 headphones because they have snaged on some thing. One time it got smashed in the cardbaord compactor. Allso they allways get tangled up and I have to untie them. I will not buy any more head phones. And unless they unlock that ability I am not going to buy any more apple iteams)