4 edits | BlueTooth 2.0 on Touch is the answer Apple should have put bluetooth 2.0 on the Touch. Then you could connect it to any BT2.0 phone on EVDO or HSDPA and have broadband.
Does Apple have absolutely no foresight anymore?
In the meantime, I'll stick with a 3G PDA. My Treo can play and STREAM most any audio/video codec, has BT, EVDO, real keyboard, SD card, replaceable battery and oh yeah, runs thousands of cool apss and games. Apple is just too limiting. |
|
 justbitsMore fiber than ATT can handlePremium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL | The lack of Bluetooth on the iPod Touch is likely due to a non-competition clause with AT+T for the iPhone. |
|
 intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | reply to xenophon
does ANY iPod have bluetooth? I've never understood Apple's aversion to it.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" |
|
1 edit | reply to justbits
said by justbits:The lack of Bluetooth on the iPod Touch is likely due to a non-competition clause with AT+T for the iPhone. huh? How would this fall under a non-compete? You can't make a call with the Touch. |
|
|
|
justbitsMore fiber than ATT can handlePremium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL Reviews:
 ·AT&T Midwest
·AT&T Yahoo
1 edit | Bluetooth is commonly used for telephony accessories. With that one feature, iPod Touch would be an iPhone without a camera or a cell phone (ignoring the software differences). The less product differentiation there is between feature sets, the more likely it could be claimed to be a competing product. Especially if Apple opens the platform up for development. Then it would be simple for a third party to provide VoIP software using a Bluetooth speaker/microphone. And that's exactly what I want. A Wifi VoIP phone that's as nice as a iPhone, but doesn't have a monthly service fee. And that's exactly what AT+T wouldn't want: a potential competitor. |
|
