Talk:Bluetooth/Archive 2014

Comparisons
I had heard that the BT versions of wireless computer peripherals (such as a cordless mouse, which typically does not need two-way communication nor the resultant overhead of supporting it) tend to have shorter useable life between battery recharges than non-BT versions (such as ones that have a static, one-to-one association with a matched USB dongle). I came to this article to see if it could shed some light on that. (It sounds right, but I wanted to know what the specific reasons might be.) However, I found that alternative communication methods are hardly mentioned.

I realize that BT is used for an enormously broad range of applications, but I would like to see, at least with respect to those applications for which BT is most well known and also those that have been most resistant to its adoption, mention of other technologies that serve similar purposes. And, along with that, some discussion of how BT compares. (IrDA is mentioned once, and there is a whole section comparing BT with WiFi, but I did not see much specific about, for instance, how BT relates to other common ISM implementations.)

I would expect such treatment to include, not just how BT is advantageous for some applications (many reasons are, of course, already mentioned throughout the article: BT supports encryption, allows a single device to maintain simultaneous multipoint pairings, is not equipment-vendor specific, and its ubiquity as a built-in feature on many current host devices often precludes the need for external transceivers or dongles), but also its potential disadvantages (such as the aforementioned power concern [if valid], the added cost of license compliance, and that, unlike with many proprietary wireless protocols, BT devices typically need pairing set up prior to operation). Starling2001 (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

History
There is hardly anything here on the history of bluetooth. :-( 211.225.33.104 (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Compatibility claim
I tagged the claim "All versions of the Bluetooth standards are designed for downward compatibility.", my reason being this needs qualification as to up to which version, possibly date, as Bluetooth 4.0 (aka Bluetooth low energy aka "Smart") is supposedly not downwards compatible. This could be improved by giving a compatibilty matrix here. For example, if a user was to buy a Bluetooth 4.0 earpiece and try to use it with an old laptop or mobile telephone using Classic Bluetooth, does the standard truly require the headset to work? And vice versa? -84user (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)