Google Drops Bluetooth API From Android 1.0 167
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. The iPhone supports both the headset profile (HSP) and the hands-free profile (HFP). You are correct that many hands-free devices use the headset profile (or support both profiles), though.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as i know the headset is the ONLY thing that works with it.
True. The iPhone only supports HSP and HFP.
Currently nothing there for: A2DP, OBEX, AVRCP, DUN, SPP, PAN. Though, there are groups working on adding those profiles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.theiphonewiki.com/ [theiphonewiki.com] :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, even die hard critics of iPhone like me understands what Apple targets and understand it. Of course it doesn't mean I agree with it.
As a very long time, experienced J2ME/Symbian/Smart Phone of all sorts user, I couldn't still understand the point of Google Android. Why are they busy with it instead of giving a huge help to Linux,J2ME, Symbian and WinMo?
Google classes/Framework Linux(embedded), J2ME, Symbian and Windows Mobile. Apple mobile OS X if Apple changes their mind. That is it. That is all need
Re: (Score:2)
How is that congruent? You have to point to an instance where Apple removed a feature from a product before shipping, something Microsoft is known for doing.
Apple has dropped features, btw, such as Quartz 2D Extreme or whatever it was called.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Make plenty sense to prevent using an Android device as a 3G access point or even an pseudo-SMSC.
Sony allowed it back in the GPRS days, but they closed it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was removed temporarily:
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-information-on-apis-removed-in.html [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the primary push behind Android is the ease of third-party development. Anything that reduces third-party functionality is a major blow from this perspective. I personally believe that Android will have major problems due to it's general lack of polish compared to Windows Mobile and iPhones. Also, the relatively small install base won't attract the third parties. I really believe that Android only has a future in Asia, where manufacturers will adopt it solely because it's cheaper than S
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Nobody said they will be "leaving out their own chat messenger" - they said they will not include GTalkService API. I.e. you can not code a program utilizing gtalk services easily. That does not mean THEY (Google) can not code a chat messenger.
Re:I think I've seen this before (Score:5, Funny)
Google: The Microsoft of cell phones.
You think Microsoft would drop a feature due to security concerns?
Re: (Score:2)
>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.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, Push notifications? Dropping features is in Apple's play book lately, as well.
Re: (Score:2)
They haven't dropped the feature if they haven't shipped it yet. What they did is disable it from the latest beta build!
Re: (Score:2)
Android hasn't shipped either.
Re: (Score:2)
Android hasn't shipped either.
Android isn't a product yet.
The iPhone is second generation and moving rapidly to third generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Then how can you claim Apple has dropped push notifications if they haven't shipped it yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Check this out, [thedailywtf.com] specifically the illustration halfway down the page. Axing features is sometimes the only way to avoid failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure - but it would be Will Smith, not Seinfeld ...
Re: (Score:2)
I am compelled to point out that the premise of Google's Android being the "DOS of smartphones" was examined in:
Will Google's Android Play DOS to Appleâ(TM)s iPhone? [roughlydrafted.com]
Will Windows Mobile Play DOS to Apple's iPhone? [roughlydrafted.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I could write a lot about where a lot of his Android comparisons doesn't really work, but that would just make me seem like I don't like the blog, which I actually do.
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't get it. Aren't they going to Beta it for a couple of years?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
You mean electromagnetic death waves? I, for one, am glad Apple is looking out for us, protecting us from the alien technology in use by the KGB even today!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, can you point to an open-source mobile cellular client device that has been in widespread use on cellular networks for decades? or at all?
OSS has been used on physical networks, sure, and wireless ones, but cellular networks are infrastructure. You can't just connect any random device to the cellular network unless it follows the applicable standards.
Re: (Score:2)
So do you think Symbian OS will magically lose all DRM functionality when its open source?
It won't happen. You can embed binary DRM frameworks to open source operating systems. Of course if you are Nokia, you have to be open about it, you just say "To protect content providers rights", you and your fans don't claim ridiculous things like the one you replied to.
For security, the perfect example is "Symbian Signed" which is in fact a mixture of Java sandbox idea and "good side" of Windows ActiveX. It took yea
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to be using Skype, and various IM apps [fring.com] over the 3G network with my Nokia. The integrity of the mobile networks seems to hold up pretty well in spite of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Here it goes. It starting to sound a lot like Windows Longhorn development. Feature being removed step month by month. Until it becomes a sub standard product. And people realizing "Oh the reason it hasn't been implemented before is because it was a lot harder then it seems."
Part of the problem with prerelease buzz about products is that people expect more by the time it comes out they get disappointed.
Great... (Score:1)
But is it coming in September or not? Last date I heard was November. I got an expired T-Mobile contract thats ready to get 'upgraded', for now I still got this ancient Sidekick III.
So they say (Score:5, Funny)
Plain ran out of time? ... or CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORY!?!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's that mojo they lost yesterday... can't implement Bluetooth without it!
Mr. Morrison has his mojo rising, perhaps they should ask him if they could borrow some?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I tell you the crazy conspiracy theory. The Android's target is APPLE!
Apple iPhone has some kind of bluetooth that only allows you stereo headsets and nothing else. So they are copying iPhone!
How come developers never do this? (Score:2, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Absolutely! All these nay-sayers are acting like they did not know that Christmas 2008 is the last Christmas ever! I am being told that everyone who God is talking to daily in a loud voice (or even a chorus of voices) knows that there will be no sales after that, ever again!
Btw, ghoti, since this is Slashdot I gotta ask: do you h
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously have no idea how a company works. They can't just say "oh too bad about this Christmas, maybe we'll get our stuff ready for next year. Happens. Let's just sit around for a year and hope Google can finish all those great features!" A real company needs to sell stuff, and needs to milk Christmas as much as possible to have money to spend on R&D, etc. Skipping Christmas will kill a company, even a large one.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because a typical well-run company depends on 100% of its revenue to come from
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
Android *will* have Bluetooth+IM (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Does the iPhone have a Bluetooth API? Nope. Whats the big deal?
Re: (Score:2)
Because simply doing what the iPhone already does isn't newsworthy?
I'll probably wait... (Score:2)
...unless I get word that I can sync over Bluetooth. Cables are so yesterday, and IR is 90's...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as I was hoping to become a third-party app developer, it looks like core functionality will have to be addressed before the geegaws and doodads work.
Oh, wait, it's really mostly about geegaws and doodads.
You heard it here first - Google is just another corporation. Evil is intrinsic. Do no evil, do no business.
Wonderful news (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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... (Score:2)
Will be supported at launch? They mention handsets, but what of OBEX?
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is slashdot.
That's like saying you read Playboy to read the articles.
It just doesn't happen...
JSR-82 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Only a handful of Nokias do last time I went to look at developing things that work over Bluetooth.
A handful? If I see it correctly all Symbian mobiles after S60 2nd Ed FP1 (without OBEX) and Nokia OS S40 3rd Ed seem to have JSR-82.The support must have been there from around 2004-2005, so I guess you looked to early.
A search today revealed a handful of pages with mobiles supporting JSR-82 [nokia.com]
It's all fine and good that they deliver on time (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Why? Which of these other OSes (WinMob, Symbian, and Palm) has a bluetooth API? None, I think. Of course they all support Bluetooth, but we're talking about a software API to it. Maybe Symbian does, I know next to nothing about it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>Which of these other OSes (WinMob, Symbian, and Palm) has a bluetooth API? None, I think.
Actually, they all do.
Windows Mobile Bluetooth API [microsoft.com]
Symbian Bluetooth API [symbian.com]
Palm Bluetooth API [geekzone.co.nz]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, pretty cool! Thanks for the links!
Re: (Score:2)
Symbian.. maybe... but WinMo, has either the MS stack, or the WIDCOMM stack. both are different. WIDCOMM has arguably more features, but the MS oneis more standard, a similar situation to what is happening on Windows PCs, except on windows PCs it is possible to use both WIDCOMM and MS Stacks, by assigning them to two different USB ports, and plugging yoru dongle into one or the other.
In the end, most ' so called BT applications' just use the COM port exposed, and have been doing so for ages.
More than they want to let out? (Score:2)
But wasn't GTalkService "better" than XMPP? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
File Transfer is not essential, but is nice
In my limited usage pattern file transfer is the essential feature. It let's me backup my phone, while, alas, not too fast, very reliably and convenient.
I'd call that kind of important.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uh, bluetooth's kinda important for cell phones (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
If you read the blog you will see they have some pretty good privacy reasons to pull that API I am sorry to say.
And here I was thinking that PGP was a security measure rather than a security hole. :P
Re:IM and bluetooth (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hello, and where did you see that?