Google Drops Bluetooth API From Android 1.0

Ian Lamont writes "Google has dropped Bluetooth and the GTalkService instant messaging APIs from the set of tools for Android 1.0, but says that handsets using the Android OS will work with other Bluetooth devices such as headsets. According to a post on the official Android developer blog, Google dropped the Bluetooth API from the mobile OS because 'we plain ran out of time.' The GTalkService API was removed because of security concerns that included the possibility of applications revealing more details about users than they might want to let out, such as their real names and e-mail addresses."

I think I've seen this before

[bigtallmofo (695287)]

Google: The Microsoft of cell phones.

If they continue to follow the play book, next they'll drop several additional previously planned features and end by hiring a 90's sitcom star to convince people their product isn't as bad as they think.

Re:

[0xdeadbeef (28836)]

Doesn't this make them the Apple of cell phones? Microsoft has been shipping an embedded OS for close to a decade. It was Apple who tried to claim a web browser was an "SDK" while they make a mad scramble to bring the real SDK to a beta state.

Re:I think I've seen this before

[mrsteveman1 (1010381)]

Apple has in fact severely limited bluetooth on the iPhone, and that includes even specific profiles for external devices. As far as i know the headset is the ONLY thing that works with it.

Re:I think I've seen this before

[ptbarnett (159784)]

Apple has in fact severely limited bluetooth on the iPhone, and that includes even specific profiles for external devices. As far as i know the headset is the ONLY thing that works with it.

Handsfree Bluetooth devices work with the iPhone. Mine pairs with my car's stereo system.

However, that's not much different than a headset.

Re:I think I've seen this before

[justdaven (1238962)]

Actually, no different. It uses the same profile

Re:

[Piranhaa (672441)]

How? Okay maybe the Bluetooth API, but Gtalk was left out because of security. I highly doubt that Google would really want to leave out their own chat messenger from an OS they're releasing unless there was a pretty big reason to. That's like Microsoft leaving out Messenger. So, what did Microsoft leave out of Vista? WinFS That's pretty major in itself and was one of the most major marketing points originally. What else? Safe Delete, Start Menu action field.. And the list goes on. It's not like Google's ma

Re:

[andy9701 (112808)]

Lots of companies drop out features before it's released fora variety of reasons or leave it as experimental (just look at ZFS in Leopard and its Read Only capability).

While I agree with your other points, in this case I don't think Apple has ever announced that ZFS would be in OS X - it was all rumors and hearsay, IIRC.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Gtalk was left out because of security. I highly doubt that Google would really want to leave out their own chat messenger from an OS they're releasing unless there was a pretty big reason to.

I'm not convinced that it was due to security concerns. I'd be willing to bet it's due to pressure from carriers. If Android's messenger were to catch on, carriers would say goodbye to text messaging revenue.

Re:

[Zebedeu (739988)]

It was removed temporarily:
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-information-on-apis-removed-in.html [blogspot.com]

Re:I think I've seen this before

[volpe (58112)]

Google: The Microsoft of cell phones.

You think Microsoft would drop a feature due to security concerns?

Re:

[gad_zuki! (70830)]

>previously planned features and end by hiring a 90's sitcom star

I'm picturing Kathy Griffin annoyingly promoting Android. *shudder*

Perhaps Woz can make an awkward guest appearance.

Huh?

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

Google dropped the Bluetooth API from the mobile OS because 'we plain ran out of time.'

I don't get it. Aren't they going to Beta it for a couple of years?

Re:

[Piranhaa (672441)]

I'm actually very surprised that Google has a version "1.0" now. I was afraid they would just add revisions to their v 0.9 and start calling it 0.9.445, 0.9.334454, 0.9.12314434, etc. Just pray they don't change it to b1.0 in the actual OS ;-)

Re:Huh?

[Van Cutter Romney (973766)]

Seriously, they can afford to Beta hosted applications running on their website and claim that if it crashed it was in "Beta". But software running on consumer devices? I don't think so.

Re:Huh?

[ghoti (60903)]

They have to get FCC approval to be able to run their OS on consumer devices, this isn't some little program that people download and run on their machines. The idea of an open source mobile OS is a neat one in theory, but in practice it's just not that simple. The potential for exploits is huge, and with very severe consequences. The way Apple has locked down the iPhone may look draconian, but it also protects its users from all kinds of stuff you really don't want to worry about on your phone.

Re:Huh?

[Colonel Korn (1258968)]

The way Apple has locked down the iPhone may look draconian, but it also protects its users from all kinds of stuff you really don't want to worry about on your phone.

Like reliable reception?

Re:

[Lussarn (105276)]

The idea of an open source mobile OS is a neat one in theory, but in practice it's just not that simple. The potential for exploits is huge, and with very severe consequences. The way Apple has locked down the iPhone may look draconian, but it also protects its users from all kinds of stuff you really don't want to worry about on your phone.

As taken from the DRM lovers textbook. OSS software has been on unsecure networks for decades and if anything it's been more secure than the locked down stuff.

So they say

[bockelboy (824282)]

Plain ran out of time? ... or CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORY!?!

Re:

[Otter (3800)]

It's that mojo they lost yesterday... can't implement Bluetooth without it!

Re:

[gmuslera (3436)]

Considering that the 1st models are about to go to the market (HTC Dream?) out of time is a pretty good explanation.

The good news is that all of this seems to be about software, not hardware. You buy an android phone now, and your phone could have full bluetooth support and gtalk when they release it.

Re:

[Adambomb (118938)]

or CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORY!?!

I can believe it being simply time constraints for their first launch, but i definitely hope they intend to implement the full bluetooth api eventually. I'd hate to see google fall into the "Hey we can fail to implement bluetooth file transfers and force subscribers to send data only over our network with our happy fun usage fees (Subcribe for one of our BndOVR Packages to avoid RedEye)!" camp.

How come developers never do this?

[Drakin020 (980931)]

Why not put up a poll?

1. Delay launch but have x feature
2. Proceed with launch date and remove x feature.

That way you can get a feel of what the majority of buyers want, and their decision can be based on what the consumer wants.

Re:How come developers never do this?

[jonnythan (79727)]

There's a reason companies don't just put up polls for decisions about how to develop products.

Customers don't know what they want, and most of the responders will not be people who have any intention of buying the product anyway.

You've got to be kidding

[ghoti (60903)]

This isn't some CowboyNeal nonsense, this is about getting a product out in time for the Christmas buying frenzy. They have to get things done on time or there won't be any sales. A few missing features can always be added later, but if they don't sell any of those phones, they're done.

Re:

[athakur999 (44340)]

If it's easy to upgrade the OS on the phone after you bought it (meaning something I can easily do at home and not have to go into a store or send it somewhere to do it...), I'm all for option 2, especially in this case where both of these features are in the "nice to have" category instead of reguired features.

Not Google

[Apoorv Khatreja (1263418)]

Running out of time... doesn't seem very Google like to me. There certainly is something that Google is trying hard to bury here, possibly a leak. I think they'll rewrite it from scratch and include it in the next version.

Android *will* have Bluetooth+IM

[jsharkey (975973)]

Android 1.0 phones *will* still have working Bluetooth and IM. This announcement is specifically referencing developer APIs that would allow hackers like us to do awesome stuff. Bluetooth headsets, etc and normal IM will work on Android just like we've always expected.

Re:

[jtolds (413336)]

I think another good clarification is whether the first GPhone hardware (i.e. the G1 from T-Mobile) will allow software upgrades. I assume that's the case. Is it?

iPhone doesn't have it either

[by Anonymous Coward]

Does the iPhone have a Bluetooth API? Nope. Whats the big deal?

I'll probably wait...

[rickb928 (945187)]

...unless I get word that I can sync over Bluetooth. Cables are so yesterday, and IR is 90's...

Re:

[Beale (676138)]

That'll probably come built into the Contacts app or whatever - the basic apps that come with the phone. It's only third party app developers who are affected by this.

Wonderful news

[rmcd (53236)]

It sounds as if the Android team is trying to meet a deadline and do so responsibly. This is a welcome departure for Google!

Now if only they could add a task list to Google Calendar as part of the Android rollout...

Verizon

[zubikov (1172699)]

Verizon has consistently limited Bluetooth capability in all of their devices up to date. They do not want you to send messages and transfer files to/from their devices without charging you every step of the way. It's that simple. Oh, Verizon also happens to be a major backer of Android and is in cahoots with Google. Does anyone think there's a chance that there are external influences to this decision?

Re:

[milamber3 (173273)]

NO, not at all. The loss of the API's will not stop you from transferring files off of an android phone. I'm sure you will be able to email, ftp, or move them in 10 different ways through the wifi, 3G, or USB connections to any computer you want.

The IM is also not gone, just the API is delayed. I'm sorry that your friends wont get automatic IM's from all your programs, you might have to take the time to type something out. The Horror!

Re:

[louks (1075763)]

On the contrary, Verizon has intentionally shunned Android and went with the LiMo Foundation.

References?

Here. [arstechnica.com]

The other articles you likely read are now old.

I left Verizon and went with my wife's T-Mobile account for two reasons: the one you mentioned about Verizon closing out everything they can to squeeze money out of their customers, and T-Mobile's founding support of the Open Handset Alliance.

What Bluetooth features...

[Junta (36770)]

Will be supported at launch? They mention handsets, but what of OBEX?

It's interesting

[greentshirt (1308037)]

How many stupid "smart" people there are on here. Reading skills ftl. The API's have nothing to do with the base functionality, as has already been stated a dozen times.

JSR-82

[bjourne (1034822)]

Meanwhile, other manufacturers have been able to ship phones with a Bluetooth API [jcp.org] for six years or so... A reference implementation and test suite [motorola.com] is available under the APL, and has been for a very long time. Just shows how utterly stupid it is to create new standards when perfectly good ones already exist.

It's all fine and good that they deliver on time

[zullnero (833754)]

But they're competing against mobile OS's like WinMob, Symbian, and Palm that have been around for about 10-14 years now. They've been doing Bluetooth for about 6-7 years. It's no longer a special, cutting edge feature...it's just expected by companies looking to port their applications. If it's not there, companies don't port their applications and don't support the phone. Customers of said company get marketed into buying the phone, find out that the app they need for their job doesn't work, they return the phone and are upset about it. I've seen this before years ago with the Motorola Q, when a company I worked for did not want to port their app to a non-touch screen device. They're going to have to deliver that Bluetooth API pretty quick if they don't want to tank their OS right out of the gate...some of the largest penetration of non-Apple smartphones are into vertical industries where the application provider really makes or breaks the success of a platform.

But wasn't GTalkService "better" than XMPP?

[ishmalius (153450)]

When they dropped exposing XMPP service, they basically said that GTalkService was going to be better anyway. What now? IM as a transport is very important to 3d party apps.

Re:

[Anonymous Monkey (795756)]

Yes, but headsets will still work, it's just the more advanced bluetooth applications that have been put on hold. Then again, if they completely dropped bluetooth I don't think I would miss it all that much. If I'm driving I just don't answer the phone.

Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones

[outZider (165286)]

If you read the article, you'd see the API was for third party applications to extend bluetooth. Android phones will be able to connect to headsets just fine, and a software update will add further support.

Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Headsets are a tiny fraction of what makes Bluetooth useful. Actually, it's a fraction I don't care about at all. OBEX is essential, because it's how you give people your phone number (send them your personal vCard via Bluetooth OBEX) - it's about three button presses on any recent phone. File Transfer is not essential, but is nice since it lets you browse the phone from a computer and copy files on and off it easily (photos, music, a copy of a map for somewhere you're going).

Re:

[outZider (165286)]

Yep. But note that in this posting, it doesn't say what core features are offered, only that developer access to the API has been taken away. It's very possible, and very likely that the core features of most mobiles are there -- OBEX, DUN, Headset.

Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones

[LWATCDR (28044)]

You should read the post link first.
"The 1.0 version of Android and the first devices will include support for Bluetooth; for instance, Android will support Bluetooth headsets."
So headset and I hope A2DP will be supported. I will also bet that some other other functionality like file transfers will be supported.

What will not be supported is direct access to the Bluetooth API to applications. So it will probably be impossible to write things like a bluetooth remote control for it :(. At least in the first release.
The thing is with APIs is if you don't get them right the first time you are left with supporting broken code forever OR you break a lot of apps.
See Windows for an example.

Re:

[isomeme (177414)]

The thing is with APIs is if you don't get them right the first time you are left with supporting broken code forever OR you break a lot of apps.

My all-time favorite software one liner:

"Software is like sex -- make one mistake, support it for twenty years."

Re:

[garcia (6573)]

IM and bluetooth are not minor things for a smartphone.

Apple thought otherwise about IM as it wasn't included until recently and it's still not viable being that it doesn't run in the background -- yet. Seems like it's working for them although I am preparing to buy an iPhone and w/o notification/background support for applications, I'm not 100% sure at this point.

I was waiting for Android devices to come out a few months ago but with their release pushed back into October or later and with news like this,

Re:

[Em Ellel (523581)]

IM and bluetooth are not minor things for a smartphone.

You missed the point - the title of the article is completely misleading. Android will have IM AND Bluetooth, just not IM-over-BLUETOOTH-using-dedicated-api. Assuming there is another way of getting a functional IP stack to the world - is a really a minor thing and will not affect anything.

And also, please don't compare iPhone to a smartphone. iPhone is "a pretty but significantly mentally chalenged" phone.

-Em

Re:IM and bluetooth

[LWATCDR (28044)]

Exposing the Bluetooth API is. The phone supports things like bluetooth headsets.
You can still have an IM with this phone. What they did was take out an IM API! The idea was that other applications could use GTalk as a communication channel. If you read the blog you will see they have some pretty good privacy reasons to pull that API I am sorry to say.
Nothing would stop you form writing a jabber client for the phone.

Re:IM and bluetooth

[Shade of Pyrrhus (992978)]

Read the summary. It's going to be on the handsets, but not accessible via the API. In other words, you can't develop a program that specifically uses bluetooth.
This doesn't mean you won't be able to have something like Skype, and use a bluetooth headset - that's simply the audio input/output that the device will use.

Bluetooth isn't really that big of a deal in this instance. I'd be interested in seeing what applications people would make that need to communicate via bluetooth, though - maybe some interesting games or computer-sync apps...