Talk:ANT (network)

Compare with Bluetooth Low Energy Wireless Technology
There is a new version of Bluetooth on the horizon (2009) called Bluetooth Low Energy Wireless Technology - before that it was called Ultra-Low Power (ULP) Bluetooth and before that Wibree.

A comparison between ANT and Bluetooth Low Energy Wireless Technology would be more appropriate than the comparison with basic rate or enhanced data rate Bluetooth. 80.246.32.33 (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bluetooth low energy wireless technology (its official name from the Bluetooth SIG uses lower case letters) won't be commercially available until 2010 (the spec is expected to be release in the (northern) summer of 2009, after which companies will need to test their sample chips before commercialization) so direct comparison is not relevant yet. In addition, Bluetooth low energy wireless technology is an extension of Bluetooth and therefore suited to Personal Area Networks centered round the cellphone (or PC) rather than the extended star, tree or mesh networks supported by ANT 122.106.196.253 (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Open Source Software
Does anyone know of any open source software to use the ANT protocols? --121.91.73.47 (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A&T in Madurai?
This statement doesn't even make sense, and I can't find any other information about it. I plan to remove this line of text if no one objects? Clapre (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What does "ANT" stand for?
Is ANT an acronym for something (usual when something is capitalised)? Jimthing (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ANT used to stand for "Adaptive Network Topolgy" (see ca. 2012 Dynastream documents), but it doesn't seem to be used as an acronym any longer.--46.223.21.230 (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion
While this is not the best written article, it is still informative. ANT is one of the options in the rapidly growing area of Internet of Things development. I mostly develop with Bluetooth LE, but ANT is a proprietary standard that shows up on a number of modules and is useful to know about. I'd vote for keeping and fixing the article. Grhabyt (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)