Comments on: iPod Touch 2G supports Bluetooth?

By: bluetooth guy

bluetooth guy — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:54:16 +0000

Ipod 2g now supports bluetooth now.

By: Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:55:27 +0000

FUCK YOU ALL.

By: harry

harry — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 12:00:33 +0000

i nike the only use for the bluetooth? cos that seems a bit stupid.

By: Jek

Jek — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:32:57 +0000

Is it just a reciever or can it transmit too? If it can transmit it might be possible to hack it allowing bluetooth microphones, speakers or headsets.

By: Benson

Benson — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:33:20 +0000

ok guys if anyone nows how to unlock the blue tooth tell me plaese and thank u

By: TRAVISFIEBS

TRAVISFIEBS — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:57:46 +0000

actually apple just commented that the bluetooth is not for the nike+ they have “future plans” so we’ll just have to wait and see what they have planned maybe some apple branded bluetooth headphones

By: George Burnett

George Burnett — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:48:11 +0000

This isn’t really news since Steve Jobs announced that the new iPod Touch 2G has the Nike+iPod functionality built in… and Nike + iPod uses Bluetooth to communicate with the pod in your shoe as well as the Nike watches.

By: pheer6224

pheer6224 — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:21:12 +0000

It’ll take a firmware update that takes about as long to arrive as 3 new bluetooth enabled players from samsung.

By: Rudy

Rudy — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:55:37 +0000

@ Hammariousonstein

LMAO – Thank you – I think?

@ Nate
No need to lash out at me. You originally came in here with your guns blazing at BGR. If the blogs here aren’t of value to you, then you should stick to the ones you like and quit coming in here and complaining. It’s real simple.

By: backbeat

backbeat — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:41:58 +0000

@Nate

Just the noting that there is clearly much higher priority news coming out of CTIA – which rightly takes up the BG crew’s time – than does a story about bluetooth data capabilities in the 2G Touch. That’s all.

@Hamma: I’m going to go pluck out my mind’s eye now.

By: Hammariosiusonstein

Hammariosiusonstein — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:04:56 +0000

Screw all you guys! Why you always gotta pick on Rudy? He’s doing his best. Stop all the hating. If you knew Rudy in real life you would know he is a good guy always helping out people less fortunate. Like one time I was sick and he came over to my house and took care of me. Even helped me go to the bathroom. So how about that Bluetooth EDR 2?

By: Rio

Rio — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:59:40 +0000

you know the only reason I want bluetooth stereo connectivity is because that is the way I have always connected my previous devices in my car to listen to music. It is not as great as a direct connection but it’s definitely lots better than the line in approach, fm transmitter, or god forgive a cassette adapter. Also have you noticed how everything is not “made for iphone” and gives error if you want to put in flight mode? It’s primarily to avoid those annoying as hell gsm buzzing when your equipment is not properly shielded which a lot of makers don’t bother doing. With Bluetooth you never have to worry about that. Leave your iPhone charging on a dock in another room, connected to your stereo and control the playback of music using the stereo’s remote. Too bad apple sees it completely wrong.

By: Nate

Nate — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:05:23 +0000

Sorry backbeat. I’m not quite sure what CTIA has to due with the stupidity of my comment.

By: backbeat

backbeat — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:30:08 +0000

@Nate

With CTIA going on this week, I’d say you’re clinging onto your last figleaf by slamming BG’s 12-hour delay of such a low-priority, second rate “story” to begin with. This really isn’t the hill you want to die on, is it?

By: Nate

Nate — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:35:37 +0000

Looks like I’m an idiot, and didn’t bother reading the last two sentences of the article.

So, congratulations. I’m only half right, and get the added bonus of looking like a complete a-hole.

Does that make it a wash, or does the a-hole part cancel out the right part? I’ve got a feeling it’s the former.

By: Nate

Nate — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:01:45 +0000

Screw you Rudy.

I’d wager that most of the people reading this blog have read this, and most of the other rehashed articles before they show up here.

Not to mention, if it’s going to be posted a day late, it could at least include the final verdict. Instead, we get a rehash of an inaccurate article.

It’s just lazy blogging.

If you enjoy getting half the story, late, that’s your problem.

By: backbeat

backbeat — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:00:25 +0000

@Andrewm

My statement was qualified. “From an audiophile viewpoint” has meaning. It’s not a matter of a person being “better-than”, but different. Glad you’re fully satisfied with the best bluetooth A2DP today has to offer. China luvs you for it even more.

By: hi

hi — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:35:04 +0000

Doesn’t bluetooth mean pairing with a handsfree earpiece? Extending the logic further, doesn’t that mean VOIP? Going further, doesn’t that mean bypassing telcos and saving hundreds/thousands per year? Why are you dudes not excited by this?

So many questions with so little effort.

By: ScottC

ScottC — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:57:56 +0000

More importantly, Bluetooth enables tethering, which is why I got a Nokia tablet that doesn’t pretend “lack of connectivity” is a feature.

By: Rudy

Rudy — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:56:25 +0000

@ Nate

Get a life. Not all of us have the time to surf ‘all the other blogs’ Read it for the first time here. So what if it’s the next day.

By: Andrewm

Andrewm — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:18:57 +0000

The quality of bluetooth audio is no worse that the quality of those shitty white earbuds that everyone prances around in.

By: backbeat

backbeat — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:15:47 +0000

Bluetooth, from an audiophile viewpoint, sucks hard. Apple knows it. The Bluetooth SIG develops at glacial-speed and cannot be taken seriously as a method for music listening until no less than 3.0 although lots of Chinese-made gear is readily available, grossly overpriced, for those gullible enough to not understand that there are significant reasons why 2 questions should always be asked regarding technology developments. 1) Can we?, and 2) Should we? In this case, the latter question was disregarded for cheap economic exploitation. Suckas.

By: Nate

Nate — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:45:29 +0000

This has already been reported, and debunked, by most of the other blogs.

Once again, BGR’s a day late.

By: charlie

charlie — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:24:03 +0000

Actually, I thought Apple had said Nike+ used a low power “modified 802.11 signal” rather than bluetooth.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:17:37 +0000

@bfk – You got there before me…

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:16:41 +0000

Is that really surprising? That’s probably how it connects to the Nike+ product they talked about.

By: zargon

zargon — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:04:29 +0000

Apple didn’t say anything since they will release it as a “feature” and screw of their iPod Touch cusomters yet again with a $10, $20 or even more fee for it.

By: bfk

bfk — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:53:19 +0000

nike+ has always used bluetooth, so of course the touch uses it. stellar journalism again, bgr!

By: DavidB

DavidB — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:34:25 +0000

Isn’t it funny the Apple doesn’t think any of us need wireless listening to an iPod?

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:07:56 +0000

This “Bluetooth” chip is actually just the Nike+ receiver for the iPod Touch.

Too bad though – bluetooth would’ve made me go buy a new iPod Touch.