I have written about Bluetooth before. I am very bullish on Bluetooth even though its an old protocol that has its challenges. It may not be as potent as Airplay and DLNA but I feel like its ubiquity and familiarity make up for some of that.
I use Bluetooth every day to stream music from my phone to my home entertainment system and my car entertainment system. It works great for that.
And last week, I installed a Bluetooth wireless webcam in the Gotham Gal's office. I was concerned about video quality and latency. And they are both issues, but she using the webcam on her conference table to skype and hangout and it works fine for that. It's actually really cool to think about the power of a webcam without wires. I can imagine a lot of applications for that sort of thing.
And I am seeing more entepreneurs walking into our office these days with new smart uses of Bluetooth technology than ever before. It's the power of a standard at work. It is evolving and being adopted for more and more uses. Which in and of itself makes it stronger and more useful.
Nice post. I don’t hear many people talk about Bluetooth, because it’s not necessarily a new, sexy technology. I anticipate a lot of technologies with similar functionality popping up, but sImplicity and familiarity will keep Bluetooth around, IMO. If we get more entrepreneurs thinking about it as a platform technology to be leveraged for the development of new applications, we could see some great stuff built.
Second that. Bluetooth as a standard is a basic infrastructure technology, installed in many electronic consumer devices nowadays, leading to a very large number of uses and business models that leverage it. I am glad to see VCs taking an interest in it despite its lack of “sexiness.”
Wonder if Bluetooth has the capacity to support an HD version of that webcam. Either way, an app that can simultaneously record from multiple wireless webcams would be amazing.Fred, can GG charge the device while she uses it, if need be?
yes, it uses a standard microUSB chargernot any of those proprietary form factors that apple forces on us for charging
#upvoted (for incorporating an apple diss)
I never really understood why apple wanted a proprietary form factor for charging/connections. I would personally think that having an open connection ecosystem would be worth more then whatever interop licensing fees they get long term. I mean when you are selling a device for 600 and up, does a few extra dollars really move the needle that much? Perhaps they do it so that when manufacturers make something like a stereo compatible with their products, that no other vendor can use that connection to provide interop with that other vendors devices.For me an open ecosystem just means there are more opportunities for new applications you didn’t imagine to be created. For instance, I think facebook home is a great example of the power of open ecosystems on the Android side. New functionality just happens organically when you are more open. For infrastructure in my opinion, open always wins over time. Sometimes it takes a little more time to get going though.
Micro-USB only emerged in 2007 (wikipedia), by which time Apple already had a pretty decent installed base of iPod connector cables. They needed to drive iPhone adoption; what was going to help them more – some new standard all the phones were going to use, or keeping compatibility with their existing customers who were most likely to move to iPod+phone anyways? I think it made a lot of sense at that point.The other question is Lightning. I’ve used it, and, to my mind, it is far superior to micro-USB from a physical connectivity and ease of use standpoint. If I were Apple doing this back in 2007, I might have driven for Lightning and opened it up royalty-free.If you are already moving your customers off of the classic iPod connector, and you have two options – Micro-USB or Lightning – is Lightning *so* far superior to Micro-USB? I don’t think so.
Mini-USB was released in 2000. I don’t understand why they didn’t use this for the iPod and iPhone. Everything they were doing at the time could have been handled by that standard with a usb driver (handling volume, forward/back, etc.) and it would be easy to make this a very simple interface with a software solution rather than require custom asic’s and connectors. I’m sure there is some technical reason they went with something else, but I suspect it was to lock out others.Obviously mini-USB is depreciated now, but to me it sure makes more sense to use off the shelf for something like this from an engineering standpoint.
I am sure there were some business considerations – IIRC Christensen points out that in the early stages of a market, single integrated supply chain beats out commoditization and standardization – but mini-USB is big, physically, once you account for the connecter inside, I don’t know what IP licensing issues there may have been, and I don’t know the power requirements.I guess you could sum it up as “I don’t know.” 🙂
I think you guys are over thinking it. They did it to be different.
What people fail to realize is that Apple, because of Jobs as supreme leader, operated on what he sees as right, his vision the way he views people and the world. Soft issues. At Apple it isn’t about meetings and arguing technical points I believe as much as what Steve felt given of course input from his underlings. Synergy but he is the ruler and in the end decides based on touchy feely stuff that is hard to put your finger on. So he doesn’t have to convince anyone of the way he feels he just has to decide.Much has been said about Apple retail strategy and Ron Johnson’s role. Forgetting even that Johnson failed miserably at Penney (I’d say the same thing even if he was a success there) what people don’t recognize is that Johnson teaming up with Jobs (and others at Apple) is not the same as Johnson at any other company (even given whoever he may have poached from Apple). Because that’s just Ron Johnson and Apple retail strategy wasn’t just whatever RJ thought with a stamp of approval. It was his ideas and thoughts combined with what Jobs/others thought. (And forget of course the other differences between Apple and Penney or for that matter Apple and any other company that allowed RJ’s ideas to work to begin with).When I got started in this business and needed a server (back in 96) I got a recommendation that the best to use for price vs. power was SGI and that was true. The problem was Sun, even though it was less powerful, was more ubiquitous and that in retrospect would have been the better decision. So the “technical” aspects didn’t matter and that is what the “tech” people that I consulted were considering. What’s surprising was that I had learned this lesson in another business with machinery (always going for the ubiquitous product because at the very least it’s easier to hire people to run that equipment) but hadn’t applied it for some reason.
You are mixing metaphors. There are things you buy for utility. In my case 12 rack mounted Dell servers sitting in our game room getting ready to be deployed in our racks (they are blowing out the quarter making the numbers look good). There is stuff even lower down the stack like the Intel processors. You better get good at commodity pricing.Then there is stuff like Apple. Why would they want you to be able to charge your phone with just any charger??? Damn that makes you a shmoe. I was sitting in LAX and almost left my lightning cable, the bartender said shoot it is a point of pride that he had the Apple cables and he was going to buy one even though he didn’t have a phone.In retail there is JCPenny where you go buy Haines Underwear and there is Hermes. RJ knew how to sell Hermes he didn’t know diddle about marking stuff up and marking it down.Apple is not going to do microUSB precisely because everybody else does.
My points:1) Technical people focus on technical reasons why someone should do something.Numbers people focus on numbers reasons (Accountant: “lease is better than buying”!) without considering the fact that someone might want to pay $20 more per month to have flexibility. So the point of my first example was to illustrate technical thinking to back up my point about Jobs being able to be Jobs and not caring about those issues as the only thing to consider. Same when you deal with any professional they are going to be biased as far as the way they see the world.2) Paragraph two (while certainly a fork) was to try and illustrate the power of a Jobs (both in thinking and absolute power) as opposed to someone (presumably) like Johnson who was strong in a different sense. Probably could have been said better.3) Apple micro usb “because everybody else does” could be the reason of course but then that doesn’t explain other things they did that did conform (such as older monitor cables, usb, wifi) etc. My new iphone connector btw, which everyone complained and whined about when apple introduced it, is really really nice and I”m glad they made that change much better than the older connector.As far as the “schmoe” stuff while there are obviously people that buy it for the reason you stated (like the bartender) I own Apple out the wazoo and that aspect means zilch to me (once again I’ve noted it means something to others but I can’t quantify that).
Unless I’m misinterpreting, wasn’t it a point of pride for the bartender to have the cable in order to be able to offer more patrons a chance to charge up while having a few layover drinks?
I like the gadget posts. Speaking of which what did you settle on for your phone system?
I can’t say how much I hate wires!I was an early adopter of bluetooth headphones, I absolutely loved the technology. Being able to work, workout, go for a walk without having to worry if I’m going to unplug my headphones, if I had enough cord, or if I’ll get tangled in that same cord were gone. I really like bluetooth and related technology. The only thing that bothers me about the current standards is that the music is more compressed. I have switched most of my listening to using kleer headphones these days. Not as widely supported as bluetooth, but the audio quality is measurably better for me. I really wish there was some sort of bluetooth hd spec that was widely supported for audio. That would definitely bring me back to using bluetooth headphones.I think the very cool stuff with bluetooth is the ability to have a personal network between all your devices. I know shared mobile wifi hotspots can do some of this, but bluetooth is more lightweight and makes more sense for peripherals. When your phone, watch, glasses and earphones are all communicating there is a potentially for so many cool and new applications.
To quote a famous man, I agree with you more than you do yourself.Everything about the convenience of Bluetooth headphones is spot on as well as the compressed nature of the audio quality. The convenience wins out for me, hate dealing with wires, but will be taking a look the Kleer phones now. Thanks for that.
It is interesting to see how diverse the quality of implementation is. I travel tons, always renting cars and staying in hotels, and the difference between simplicity, speed and quality in various cars and entertainment systems always surprises me.
Fred – I am 100% with you regarding the usefulness of Bluetooth.As a somewhat fanatical follower of how existing technologies can be used in smarter and more effective ways, I’d really love to hear about some of the ways in which these entrepreneurs who have come through your office have been using Bluetooth (or even other existing technologies used in innovative ways).Given that you are in the unique position of having daily interaction with some of the smarter, more creative people around, would you mind sharing some of the more interesting uses of Bluetooth that you have come across?
What is powerful is that BT is already on all devices. It is open and not proprietary, the same reason we are using SMS and email for eCommerce at BuyReply, because they are the ‘apps’ that are already on all phones. The hardest part about building an app is getting people to download it. Bluetooth has those benefits, but for close range wireless transfer.
In the span of one week I watched my Mom sync her iphone to her car stereo and a 60 year old homebuilder push music to a portable speaker he set up in his golf cart.I’m not sure either one would be able to tell you that they used “bluetooth”…. they both called it “sync”.Just food for thought on both the pervasiveness of the technology and the branding/messaging opportunities surrounding it.
Listening to your parents set up their new iPhones with their new wireless speakers is a thing of pure beauty… key is you have to be on the phone for ‘tech support’
If my folks figure it out, they’ll never invite me down to Naples…
My first though was that it was a strange random name (which is fine for branding actually) but not the best random name. Then I found this which more or less confirms my original hunch:http://curiosity.discovery…. For example “firewire” (which is also arbitrary) makes sense and works very well (which hasn’t helped adoption but that’s beside the point you need every advantage you can get.)
It’s funny how well they figure it out when I’m not around, but when I am, I think they subconsciously dial it down to make my nerdery have more familial relevance.
I really wish BlueTooth would accelerate its efforts in going beyond just having Communication Protocol standards to storing and making avaliable Data (like BP Readings or GlucoseMeter readings) in an XML or XML-like standards. This will really make BlueTooth explode. Currently makers of BlueTooth devices follow the communication protocol but store their data in their own formats, resulting in limited interoperability with apps. I am looking forward to the day when you can walk into CVS or Walgreens and pick up a bluetooth enabled pedometer, Glucosemeter, BP monitor, Weighing Machine, etc all from different manufacturers and they will all work with a variety of apps from various companies. Data standards will help do this easily. BT 4.0 has started along this path but for some reason stalled after their Executive Director left about a year ago. All of the recent smartphones, from iPhone5 to Android phone manufacturing have been retooled with BT4.0 compatibility but because of existing pre 4.0 smartphone base we are hampered a bit!
Wow. That’s so right.
I’m only just exploring this space myself recently, but does the Health Device Profile specification cover the sort of functionality you’re looking for? http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
The “profiles” are the data specifications., There are lots of simpler profiles that store in data form, some simple stuff but BP makers need to agree upon how the Systolic and Diastolic pressures are stored, who the user was (more than one person could be using the same BP monitor), etc. This will work only if some BP monitor makers sit together and come up with a BP Monitor profile. Then they need to go build BP Monitors that are compatible with that. The profiles are all additive – for example for any one BP monitor you may use one profile for setting up synch, one for establishing communication protocols and one for transferring the data.
this is such a pity. If they did probably lots more things would use bluetooth
I agree w Fred. Wow, that IS so right.I also think that the sync process takes too long.
We actually have the humble TV Dinner to thank for all this innovation.Microwave ovens operate 2.4GHz (as does Bluetooth, Wifi and lots others). Despite shields, microwaves belch signal. So when entrepreneurs way back came begging the FCC for spectrum, the FCC dumped them here, in a noisy yet unlicensed land, turned their backs, and next thing you know…boom!
Great comment. I think how ISM came to be open is even cooler than that.The super-abridged version is that Carter tapped Charles Ferris to deregulate so Ferris gave his spectrum team a mandate to identify promising technologies being held back by anachronistic legislation. The work continued under Mark Fowler with Stephen Lukasik and Michael Marcus fighting against strong industry objection and internal FCC politics to eventually see 3 chunks of ISM freed (it took 5 years).Can you imagine a government agency actively looking to get out of the way of promising technological advances in this day and age?
Inside the civil service there are those outliers fighting the good fight
That’s why the new dual-band routers give you the option of a 5Ghz channel for media streaming.
“boom!” -someone at the FCC must have got a roasting for letting that cat out of its bag.
BTW, TV dinners actually started on tin plates and were put in hot ovens. I remember the apple pie dessert very well.http://www.youtube.com/watc…(40 seconds in, after the pre roll commercial you can skip in 5 seconds)
You’re making me hungry!
were these any good?
Didn’t mind them as a kid when tastes weren’t fully developed. Some of it was mystery foodingredients. They were fun because it usually meant movie night 😉 and mom was a lot more relaxed which is always a good thing
“to thank”Other people to thank for many things we have are the Russians, military spending, WW2 villains etc. Much good came out of all those rogue governments. Even the immigrants who fled those countries and came here that would have stayed if things were better.
which we get to thank the guys who invented refrigeration for 🙂
The power of unlicensed spectrum
The power of unlicensed.
Bluetooth has, as any other tech, its pros and cons, and more importantly, it is sometimes the right tool for the job, and sometimes not.I personally use Bluetooth at home as audio transport for both livingroom and outside, pairing to the right receiver. When sitting outside, I often need to keep my phone inside, as the connection is not as stable (we are talking ~6-7m with two glass doors separating the receiver and my phone).If I had a proper WiFi alternative on Android, I’d switch in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, there are none. DLNA is too cumbersome for anyone to implement for audio only, and WiFi Direct, which would be closest to BT as a technology, breaks WiFi model too much to make sense. Other than Skifta DLNA server (now owned by Atheros), I don’t know anyone who has implemented web-services to DLNA gateway, and unfortunately Spotify, Pandora, Songza and others have not considered built-in DLNA in their apps. I hope that Google would wake up and make this a system built service for apps to use.I do use BT for my HRM and for in-car audio, both of which are short range and work perfectly.On using the right tool for the job: When we made the original Boxee Box remote, a few years back, I chose RF technology as it allowed for better range, key discreteness (i.e. perfect for a keyboard), no line-of-sight requirement (i.e. perfect for keyboard, again), and battery drain equal or less than IR tech.I also decided AGAINST Bluetooth RF, because it would have encumbered connectivity requiring a pairing, would have required an always on circuit to keep the stack up depleting the battery, or a second+ delay on every first keypress until the stack is up and running. At the time, the low voltage BT solutions were in their infancy (and they are still not as good, to this day, as custom RF, IMO), and pairing was a mess. In fact, back then, I don’t think there was a good, never-miss, BT pairing implementation except for the Wii remotes..Custom RF allowed me to define a soft-pairing out of the Box, so the remote would work immediately and a hard pairing in case you had two Boxee Boxes so one would not interfere with the other. The range has been tested to over 30 meters, and through walls.
Love bluetooth convenience…but as an audiophile, streaming over bluetooth doesn’t do it for me. Not quite sure if there’s additional compression, but it sounds that way. The compression artifacts in high bit rate mp3’s are annoying as it is.
There is additional compression with BT A2DP, which is what the BT audio receivers use. There is an alternative codec available for A2DP that has better quality, but its a proprietary one with added costs. I don’t know if anyone is implementing it.As you say, the quality for audio is not great. It is good enough for me, especially having no real alternates in Android world, for now. The convenience of streaming and controlling from my phone outweighs the loss of quality in this case.
I’ve been enjoying Plex remote, but it has a long way to go, and of course doesn’t really stream from the Android, just controls your desktop media center over WiFi.
you could string a bunch of these along a marathon route for safety-then take them down after the race. Use gogette.com to communicate with them.
A Kickstarter search on “Bluetooth” shows some interesting products and innovations:http://www.kickstarter.com/…
So, this is coming from someone who really loves Bluetooth. 10 years ago I was working on a system that would use Bluetooth to precisely locate a transponder, and two or three years later I worked on a tiny, Bluetooth enabled computer to let consumers download restaurant menus on their feature phones. I’ve long been enamored with the technology, though felt that it never quite delivered.Right, so with the vast majority of these applications (webcams included) – why Bluetooth? Why not Wifi? Is there a significant cost savings?
Bluetooth solves the “I don’t want a wire” problemWifi solves the “I don’t want to run network cables” problemEthernet solves the “I don’t want to move files with disks” problem.You don’t want Wifi because you don’t want the range, you don’t want to connect to others and others connect to you, you want device to device, not a network. Hell half my neighbors can’t secure their Wifi routers much less all the devices they have.
you have to be on the same wifi network
I’m seeing Bluetooth based beacons for enabling indoor positioning. Lots of companies are working on it.
We’re building our connected car platform (www.dashmobile.co) using the OBD hardware and then bluetooth to your phone to extract the sensor information. Android and BT2 is no sweat, as Google is more open. But Apple is a pain in the ass with their MFI program, that require you to go through their hardware pairing program, can be 6 months, $20k … UNLESS you have a BT4 device and iOS5. Unfortunately, the OBD devices in market right now have BT2 or WiFi only. So we have to build our iOS app for the WiFi devices, which has data quality and on-boarding hurdles to overcome, as well as necessitates software patches to enable smart switching from in-bound WiFi collection to out-bound 3G cellular (e.g. Google Maps/Pandora)…all of which clunkifies the user experience. So yeah, BT is awesome, but as with all standards/formats, it’s a perennial catch-up and conformance game, which no one ever wins.
i had been meaning to write this for a few weeks (since installing the BT webcam) but our meeting was certainly another inspiration
When you look at the growth trajectories of Ethernet and Wifi, and compare them to Bluetooth, it just feels like Bluetooth has been running in place for a decade plus.Ethernet gave rise to Fast and Gigabit variants, hubs, bridges and routers emerged to extend that performance, and of course, every device under the sun came to support it in an optimized fashion. Even Wifi, with its warts, has seen a fairly fast evolution in terms of devices that support it, and a killer app (wireless nets) to drive adoption.Arguably, Bluebooth has suffered from a combination of quirky performance and lack of a killer app — save for handsfree operation in a car.I am not sure if that’s a fundamental failing of Bluebooth as a technology, or alternatives being perceived as good enough or more reliable.A note aside is that the one trend that I expected to see more robust development of is the app-enabled hardware accessories market for all of these iOS and Android devices. A look at Apple’s web site shows a medley of plenty of interesting offerings, but few compelling ones (http://store.apple.com/us/b….We know that smartphone and tablet accessories is a multi-billion dollar market, and we know that apps are a multi-billion dollar market, and we know that 10 billion mobile devices are in our view, yet strangely, this segment seems under-developed. Any sense why?
I think everybody forgets the decades “overnight successes” took to happen.Remember working with Ethernet in the mid eighties when you can 10Base2 and if somebody broke the line connection you had to go find it? I remember buying a super state of the art hub from Bay networks 10Mbit/s total 48 ports and something like $17k in 1992 and we thought that was the state of the art.Wireless ethernet? We were using it from 1985 to 1989 to connect robots at Penn.Now as shown below if you get in a cheap Chevy Cruze you just expect it to have Bluetooth. My older A8L doesn’t even support it.
I think that there’s lots of truth to what you say, and specific to app-enabled accessories, be they thermostats, scale, glasses, health monitors or robots, I think that we are at that stage.Specific to Bluetooth, given its relative ubiquity (phones, computers, cars), it’s been a limited lift-off, but not for the usual reasons.I think of Ethernet as part of the larger toggle of “why do I need a network,” and the inevitable medley of competing standards (EN, Token Ring, ArcNet, LocalTalk), but once the answer arrived (workgroups, client server, network printing, email, internet), it was lift off.In other words, there was a clear catalyst.Specific to Bluetooth, there have been lots of mini-catalysts, but it just seems that at each step, Bluetooth either has too many hiccups (discovery/hookup, reliability, performance, distance) or perhaps, the alternatives solve enough of the problem.
I agree totally about the catalyst its always several. For Ethernet it was file sharing, laser printer, client server. Wifi: home internet, laptops, mobile connection to internet, multiple computers.For Bluetooth its Smart Phones, Wearable Devices, and Handsfree Car.Each had competing standards that did the same but the simple, cheap alternative won. I remember wiring those Token ring connectors, the wireless Ethernet before Wifi was a TDMA standard.Each languished for a decade while everybody said it was a slow liftoff.
This very weekend found a great use for bluetooth.I was driving from LA to SF and back in an old Mercedes. For a lot of the route there is only appalling talk radio but the car only has a 6 CD changer (an invention of the devil) and has no AUX input for my phone. No problem – I used a stand alone bluetooth speaker to access my phone audio. It worked great.
Personal observation: Any technology that will allow you to live free-er intially will get adopted. The question often remains if that freedom is actually freeing.EG: she could have gotten a nicer setup, but why? But now she has to worry about the fact that the mobile setup can be done anywhere, so what is to stop other people from requesting video calls all the time.
Data standards will help do this easily. BT 4.0 has started along this path but for some reason stalled after their Executive Director left about a year ago
Fred, as a music fan, you may appreciate the simplicity and awesomeness of the Jambox by Jawbone. The sound quality is fantastic – as is the ease of use. Anyone can play DJ.
I think the combination of pervasive internet and cloud controlled apps/streaming stunted Bluetooth’s growth. It’s convenient (especially if the nets down) to have an ad hoc network between my phone and my receiver for sure. I think this is one of the areas where Apple’s dominance and the resulting adoption of iTunes/iPod/iPhone by the a/v industry has really hurt the consumer as far as interoperability.As an Android/OS X user, I’m already getting kind of sick of the walled garden, it would be nice to get to a point where our things play with each other nicely, similar to your example of a few months back fredwilson about you, Gotham Gal and the kids passing controls amongst whoever happens to be in the car or living room at the time via Bluetooth.I was happy to hear BMW is going to be releasing an Android SDK to offer developers the same opportunities to integrate into their systems that iOS has enjoyed. Hopefully this trickle down effect will make some lateral moves to the home entertainment industry as well.BMW Apps go Android/Expanding to include Android.From July 2013, smartphones powered by Android platform will also be able to benefit from application-based integration. With a market share of more than 50 per cent, Android has become the most prevalent smartphone operating system. The BMW Group is therefore vigorously driving forward development in this area. By extending application-based smartphone integration to Android users as well, BMW now covers the bulk of the smartphone market and is opening up BMW apps to an even wider community. The first concrete results are currently taking shape. The BMW Group specifically chose Samsung as its pilot partner for Android integration. The company is the world market leader across all mobile phone segments, including Android powered smartphones, making it an obvious choice for the BMW Group to join forces with Samsung for the launch of the app-based integration of Android. Android integration will be gradually rolled out to include further manufacturers. The BMW Group is once more highlighting its leadership claim for in-car smartphone integration.BMW Announces SDK Kit for 3rd Party Apps & Future Android Support
Yes, I would very much like to hear some innovative ideas.
Wow. You are a Bluetooth hacker. Thx for these links.
Yeah, but I think that will be the standard stuff that the big companies and SIG will come up with. I want to hear what smart and innovative people come up with.I like this one: http://www.sticknfind.com
I have seen a GPS-outfitted version – I think they may even sell one – but it drives the price up and the battery life way down. I am a regular traveller, would take one, stick it in my luggage, and just sit back and wait for my iPhone to beep when the luggage is close.But at least it is a different idea. BTW, fitbit uses it to sync up.
Wish I knew. The Chevy Cruze I got from Hertz a few weeks back had an excellent system – linked up within a few seconds of turning on the car, had excellent voice recognition, really easy to use, multiple devices, even understood the difference between music and voice coming from the phone, vs normal activity clicks and beeps, which should not interrupt.My Parrot at home (www.parrot.com) is by far the worst, by every measure, bought it as an aftermarket to connect to my manufacturer stereo, mainly because it was non-standard shape and harness and could not connect a normal aftermarket.
Lexus. I’ll give another worst. Anything Ford/Microsoft SYNC. I had one of our top technology guys with me on a drive from Phoenix to Tucson. Avis upgraded me to a Lincoln. I groaned and said man, I hate that whole radio climate control thing. He scoffed and said I’ll show you how to use it, take the upgrade. Twenty minutes later with his head down the whole time he was left muttering. I also returned one in Boston and told the return guy it was broken and I couldn’t use the radio or set the temp. He said do you have time? I’ll show you how to use it. Told him I was game, ten minutes later he said: the f’ing thing is broken I’ll take it out of service.
Early backers got one for were $15, which means cost of manufacture is pretty low. Nice.It isn’t a new usage or business model, but an enabler of new ones.
That is really cool. Do you own? $50/2 doesn’t seem bad to me. As much “Easter egg hunting” as I do because the kids move things make this seem like a deal.
Nope, they are still preorder. I look at it this way: if I traveled once a year, $50/2 is out of control. I travel (and check bags), 2-4 times per month. That means I am sitting at luggage carousels for at least 20 mins waiting, checking every bag, 50 times/yr, that is 1000 mins/yr or almost 17 hrs. I would pay $50 to save 17 hrs/yr.
Never have checked a bag. 2mm miler. But as much as I get upset at people moving the MitsubishiSplit remote control, or for my wife’s keys that is priceless. I hate the preorder though.
Also 2.4. The chip can be used with different stacks, including BT.