Hi-

Has anyone heard from Alpine on there iPod ready recievers?

Cheers
Beaker

Belkin makes an FM tranmitter (88.1MH) that hooks to the stereo output
of any MP3 player. @$25. I have one I use with my Karma.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:37:31 GMT, Michael Beacom
wrote:

Hi-

Has anyone heard from Alpine on there iPod ready recievers?

Cheers
Beaker

What does that mean? It just has an AUX input or what? How is it "iPod
ready"??

trey

"Michael Beacom" wrote in message
...
Hi-

Has anyone heard from Alpine on there iPod ready recievers?

Cheers
Beaker

Michael Beacom wrote:
Hi-

Has anyone heard from Alpine on there iPod ready recievers?

Have you contacted alpine? Their press releases gave an email address,
, that you could get more information from.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Trey Bradshaw wrote:

What does that mean? It just has an AUX input or what? How is it "iPod
ready"??

The iPod is controlled by the head unit -- playlists, etc. See their
press release:

http://www.alpine-usa.com/company_in...0804_ipad.html


"With a simple one-cable connection, iPod users will be able to operate
key playback features from the Alpine receiver's buttons and have display
of playlists, album, artist and songs on the head unit. The iPod can then
be safely stored in the glove box or console because it acts like a
portable hard drive connected to the head unit through Alpine's powerful
Ai-Net system bus. The Alpine connectivity solution also provides charging
of the iPod's internal battery. "


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

The aftermarket stereo companies should just start making Bluetooth capable
headunits. Then companies like Apple, Creative, etc... could start making
bluetooth capable portables, or someone could make bluetooth attachments for
portable players.Then we'd have our choice of units and they'd more or less all
be controllable through any Bluetooth enabled decks.

09On 20 Apr 2004 06:47:35 GMT, (Steve Grauman)
wrote:

The aftermarket stereo companies should just start making Bluetooth capable
headunits. Then companies like Apple, Creative, etc... could start making
bluetooth capable portables, or someone could make bluetooth attachments for
portable players.Then we'd have our choice of units and they'd more or less all
be controllable through any Bluetooth enabled decks.

That's a good idea, and I'd like to see a move towards fewer
standards, like we've gotten in personal computers during the last few
years. I think it's going to be a few more years until we see it,
though. Bluetooth (or any other Wi-Fi, for that matter) would
currently add too much to the price of a receiver to make it
worthwhile for anything but high-end aftermarket models, and that
would result in a user base that would be too small for for companies
like Creative or Apple to care about.

Most of us here on this newsgroup are car audio enthusiasts, but if
you look at the total number of cars on the road, the percentage that
have ANY kind of aftermarket stereo in them at all is actually pretty
small. That's why the companies that *do* come out with
car-interconnect kits for their MP3 players usually use some kind of
least-common-denominator interface, like an FM modulator or
cassette-tape adaptor.

Scott Gardner

Bluetooth (or any other Wi-Fi, for that matter) would
currently add too much to the price of a receiver to make it
worthwhile for anything but high-end aftermarket models,

If Bluetooth's cheap enough to build into a mouse, isn't it cheap
enough to build into a receiver?


and that
would result in a user base that would be too small for for companies
like Creative or Apple to care about.

Companies are already making weird 802.11b audio player things for
home use, though IMHO they're absurdly expensive for what they do.
And isn't Apple already catering to a small user base?

On 20 Apr 2004 21:51:33 -0700, (Anthony) wrote:

Bluetooth (or any other Wi-Fi, for that matter) would
currently add too much to the price of a receiver to make it
worthwhile for anything but high-end aftermarket models,

If Bluetooth's cheap enough to build into a mouse, isn't it cheap
enough to build into a receiver?

Well, there are two things in play here. First, I don't know if all
Bluetooth devices have the same data rate, and an MP3 player would
require a significantly higher data rate than a mouse. Also,
Bluetooth isn't really being "built into" the mouse, almost the entire
cost of the mouse comes from the Bluetooth technology. If you look on
eBay, you can buy corded optical mice all day long for $0.99, but the
Bluetooth optical mice go for between $50 and $100.

The people that buy Bluetooth mice obviously want the Bluetooth
technology, and think it's worth the extra $50. Someone that buys a
car receiver may or may not want the Bluetooth functionality, and may
balk at that same $50 price increase. That's why I said that
Bluetooth or any other wireless connectivity would likely show up on
the "flagship" models first, rather then being introduced as a feature
across the company's entire product line.


and that
would result in a user base that would be too small for for companies
like Creative or Apple to care about.

Companies are already making weird 802.11b audio player things for
home use, though IMHO they're absurdly expensive for what they do.
And isn't Apple already catering to a small user base?

The 802.11b and 802.11g home audio setups have a larger potential user
base. They're marketed toward anyone with both a computer and a home
stereo, and the particular brand of computer or stereo isn't
important. Compare that to a wireless iPod, which would be marketed
towards people with both a computer and a compatible wireless-equipped
aftermarket stereo in their car. Aftermarket car stereos are vastly
outnumbered by home stereos, and wireless-equipped aftermarket car
stereos would be an even smaller subset of that.

Apple's user base, at least as far as the iPod goes, isn't that small
anymore now that the iPods work with Windows and they've launched
iTunes for Windows. Apple has sold over 800,000 iPods in the last
fiscal quarter alone, many to people like me that don't even own a
Macintosh.

Wireless connectivity is also much less attractive in a car than in a
home or office environment, simply because the distances involved
aren't that great. It will become more attractive as the cost for
wireless-equipped devices drop, but I think we're still a few years
away. Until then, it's just too easy/cheap to use a wire instead.

I think the most likely "first step" will be a big company like Sony
producing both sides of the equation - the wireless-equipped car
stereo AND the wireless MP3 player. That would solve the
chicken-and-egg problem of car stereo manufacturers not wanting to
make wireless-equipped car stereos unless there's already a wireless
MP3 player out there to connect to. As long as Sony (or whoever does
it first) uses an open standard for both the data transfer AND the
control commands between the car stereo and the portable music player,
other compatible products will follow soon after.

Scott Gardner

Someone that buys a
car receiver may or may not want the Bluetooth functionality, and may
balk at that same $50 price increase

People said the same thing when the first decks with MP3 decoding came out. You
start with 1 or 2 models per manufacturer and increase the number of Bluetooth
enabled devices as price drops. Bluetooth enabled headunits could allow for
wireless integration with outboard MP3/WMA/AAC/ETC... players as well as Cell
phones and other devices as well.

On 21 Apr 2004 21:15:32 GMT, (Steve Grauman) wrote:

Someone that buys a
car receiver may or may not want the Bluetooth functionality, and may
balk at that same $50 price increase

People said the same thing when the first decks with MP3 decoding came out. You
start with 1 or 2 models per manufacturer and increase the number of Bluetooth
enabled devices as price drops.

I don't think MP3 decoding added as much to the cost of a deck, and by
the time MP3 decoding on car decks came out, there were already
millions of people that had CD burners (which is all the hardware you
need to make an MP3 disc), so the user base was already there. In
contrast, if the car stereo companies were to come out with a
Bluetooth-equipped receiver tomorrow, what would people connect it to?

Bluetooth enabled headunits could allow for
wireless integration with outboard MP3/WMA/AAC/ETC... players as well as Cell
phones and other devices as well.

Don't forget that Bluetooth is just a wireless protocol for data
transfer - it doesn't specify the protocol for control or format
signals. Just because two components both have Bluetooth
functionality, it doesn't mean they'll know how to communicate with
each other. The Bluetooth car deck would still have to know how to
tell the MP3 player to "play", "pause", scroll through artists,
playlists, etcetera. Unless all the consumer electronic companies can
come up with a non-proprietary standard for control signals, the
devices still won't be able to communicate.

For a perfect example of this, imagine trying to hook your
USB-equipped MP3 player directly to your USB printer to print off a
list of all of your songs. Of course it won't work. Even though they
both use the USB standard for data transfer, they don't know each
other's control and format signals, so they're not able to talk to one
another directly.

Scott Gardner

In
contrast, if the car stereo companies were to come out with a
Bluetooth-equipped receiver tomorrow, what would people connect it to?

Cell phones and portable players, as I said. And there's potential for other
devices as well.

Don't forget that Bluetooth is just a wireless protocol for data
transfer - it doesn't specify the protocol for control or format
signals. Just because two components both have Bluetooth
functionality, it doesn't mean they'll know how to communicate with
each other.

True. But if Alpine, Pioneer, JVC, Eclipse, Aiwa/Sony and Blaupunkt all
suddenly showed an interest in producing Bluetooth equipped decks, I'm sure
they'd work out protocall issues. My new cell phone has Bluetooth, but my car
does not. Adding a Bluetooth enabled deck would allow me to get wireless
handsfree in the car without the need to use my headset. Even better, if they
figured out how to get the deck's display to show caller-ID info, I'd never
have to grab the phone for a glance at who's calling. It's not perfect, but we
can get there.

On 22 Apr 2004 01:45:07 GMT, (Steve Grauman) wrote:

In
contrast, if the car stereo companies were to come out with a
Bluetooth-equipped receiver tomorrow, what would people connect it to?

Cell phones and portable players, as I said. And there's potential for other
devices as well.

The key point from my sentence was the "tomorrow" part. Even if the
stereo manufacturers produced a Bluetooth-enabled deck tomorrow,
there's no existing peripherals for it to interface with. Thus
there's no installed user base to encourage them to produce the decks
in the first place. I'm going back to my earlier assertion that the
most likely implementation would be an end-to-end solution from a
single manufacturer. For example, Sony could have one or two of their
flagship models in their car-audio lineup programmed to control the
Sony/Ericsson Bluetooth-enabled wireless phones. Since they produce
both the deck and the phone, it would easy for them to write a
protocol to allow the two to communicate. Using the Sony deck with a
Nokia Bluetooth phone likely wouldn't work, though.

Don't forget that Bluetooth is just a wireless protocol for data
transfer - it doesn't specify the protocol for control or format
signals. Just because two components both have Bluetooth
functionality, it doesn't mean they'll know how to communicate with
each other.

True. But if Alpine, Pioneer, JVC, Eclipse, Aiwa/Sony and Blaupunkt all
suddenly showed an interest in producing Bluetooth equipped decks, I'm sure
they'd work out protocall issues.

Whatever protocol they end up using would also have to be written with
the help of all the manufacturers of music players and cell phones (or
whatever other peripherals), since those are the devices that the
decks will actually have to communicate with. What good will it be
for Alpine, Aiwa, and the rest of the stereo manufacturers to figure
out how to communicate wirelessly with an iPod when Creative or
another peripheral company might use a completely different protocol
for their products?

My new cell phone has Bluetooth, but my car
does not. Adding a Bluetooth enabled deck would allow me to get wireless
handsfree in the car without the need to use my headset. Even better, if they
figured out how to get the deck's display to show caller-ID info, I'd never
have to grab the phone for a glance at who's calling. It's not perfect, but we
can get there.

I'm not saying that in-car wireless wouldn't be neat, but Bluetooth
only solves the easy part of the problem (eliminating the wire).
Coming up with the protocols so that the decks and all available
wireless peripherals speak the same "language" - regardless of what
kind of peripheral it is or who manufacturers it - is the hard part.

You could have a Bluetooth-enabled deck in your car this instant, and
it still wouldn't know how to do hands-free with your phone, unless
the deck manufacturer told it how to. And if they got it to work with
one brand of phone, such as Sony-Ericsson, they would have to write a
completely-different protocol for Nokia, Motorola, and whomever else
makes Bluetooth phones.

Rather than trying to come up with a global standard protocol for all
Bluetooth devices, a better solution might be device-specific
software "drivers" like our home computers use to interface with
various peripherals. The driver could come on a CD, and you could use
the CD to "flash" the driver onto an EEPROM inside the car deck. That
way, if Alpine has a Bluetooth-enabled deck, and you buy a
Sony/Ericsson Bluetooth phone, you just have to browse to the Alpine
site (responsibility for writing the drivers would probably fall on
the deck manufacturer rather than the peripheral manufacturer), and
download the driver to interface your Alpine deck with your new phone.
This way, when new phones, music players, and PDAs are released, all
Alpine has to do is write new drivers.

All this will eventually happen, all I said in my earlier post was
that we're a few years away from it being a reality. People (I'm not
referring to you, Steve) talk about Bluetooth like it's some kind of
universal, automatic translator (an electronic "Babel Fish" for you
Douglas Adams fans), when in reality it's just another wireless
protocol. Bluetooth doesn't solve any of the hard problems.


Scott Gardner

The key point from my sentence was the "tomorrow" part.

And the key part of my post was farthur down. When manufactures start making
Bluetooth decks, other comapnies will jump in. Besides I see no reason why my
Bluetooth enabled phone (or ANY Bluetooth enabled phone, they all talk the same
way) shouldn't be immediately compatible, if the stereo guys are smart.

Using the Sony deck with a
Nokia Bluetooth phone likely wouldn't work, though.

Of course it would. Bluetooth phones work under a communication stadarn. That's
why Jabbra's Freespeak wireless Bluetooth headset will work with ANY Bluetooth
enabled phone.

What good will it be
for Alpine, Aiwa, and the rest of the stereo manufacturers to figure
out how to communicate wirelessly with an iPod when Creative or
another peripheral company might use a completely different protocol
for their products?

Ever take a marketing class? 2-way tie-in deals are done all the time. It's a
way for both manufactures to benefit mutually. Alpine gets to advertise a deck
that'll communicate wirelessly with a portable player and Apple gets to be the
only compnay making a portable that'll talk to the Alpine. Besides, I don;t see
why it need work this way. If Alpine, Pioneer and Eclipse all agreed to share
the same bluetooth protocall, someone could produce attachments that would
enable portables to talk to them. Jabbra makes a kit that will let ANY cell
phone, regardless of make or model speak via Bluetooth to a wireless ear
piecee.

You could have a Bluetooth-enabled deck in your car this instant, and
it still wouldn't know how to do hands-free with your phone

This isn't neccesarily true. As I mentioned, Jabbra's Freespeak will
communicate WITHOUT ADAPTERS with any phone that's Bluetooth enabled. There's
no reason that any Bluetooth deck and any Bluetooth phone shouldn't be able to
talk.

And if they got it to work with
one brand of phone, such as Sony-Ericsson, they would have to write a
completely-different protocol for Nokia, Motorola, and whomever else
makes Bluetooth phones.

No they wouldn't. If this were true than Jabbra would be making seperate models
of their FreeSpeak for every different Bluetooth enabled phone. Phones all talk
the same way.

On 22 Apr 2004 05:49:24 GMT, (Steve Grauman) wrote:

The key point from my sentence was the "tomorrow" part.

And the key part of my post was farthur down. When manufactures start making
Bluetooth decks, other comapnies will jump in. Besides I see no reason why my
Bluetooth enabled phone (or ANY Bluetooth enabled phone, they all talk the same
way) shouldn't be immediately compatible, if the stereo guys are smart.

But they DON'T "all talk the same way". Some of the simpler features
have been standardized - many others haven't. (more below)

Using the Sony deck with a
Nokia Bluetooth phone likely wouldn't work, though.

Of course it would. Bluetooth phones work under a communication stadarn. That's
why Jabbra's Freespeak wireless Bluetooth headset will work with ANY Bluetooth
enabled phone.

How much of a phone's functionality does a wireless headset really
need to control? Can you initiate or end calls solely from the
headset? Can you adjust the volume from the headset? How about
storing a number in memory?

I'm not very impressed with a wireless headset that works with several
different brands of phones, because there's simply not much in the way
of control or formatting information being passed between the two
devices. Honestly, it's not much more complicated than me using my
Sony headphones with my Apple iPod.

There's simply not a standard yet for all of the control and
formatting information among the different phones, much less things
like PDAs and music devices. The command sequences you'd need to send
to a Nokia phone to do something like store a number in memory aren't
going to be the same as for a Motorola phone. Pulling up a playlist
in an iPod would require different commands than pulling up a playlist
on a Creative Labs Nomad. To use your example of pulling calling ID
information from the phone and displaying it on your car receiver, not
all phones display the caller ID the same way, or would output it in
the same format to an external display. The control sequences to
initiate the transfer of caller ID information would likely differ as
well.

Go to Bluetooth.org and you'll see how little is actually standardized
yet. There's a wireless headphone standard that was adopted in
Bluetooth v1.1, which is why Jabra and Logitech (among other
companies) now have Bluetooth-compatible headphones. But look at
other features like phone book access and subscriber number
information, and you'll see the standards haven't been developed yet.
The FRDs (Feature Requirement Documents) have been written, but an FRD
is just a wishlist of features, not an actual specification document.
The specifications for those two features haven't been written. When
they are, they'll go into draft form, then they'll go into final
review. Sometime after that, they'll actually be written into the
Bluetooth standard, perhaps several versions down the road.

Right now, if all you want a car stereo to do with a Bluetooth phone
is provide hands-free functionality, you could do that by adopting the
wireless headphone specification from Bluetooth version 1.1. You'd
still have to initiate and end the call from the handset, but the
hands-free part is workable. Things like auto-muting, phone book
access, localization through the GPS phone feature, and other features
will have to wait until the standards for those features are
developed.

Over time, the Bluetooth standard will evolve to a point where a wide
variety of devices will be able to talk to one another and control all
of one another's features, but we're not there yet. I never said any
of this was impossible, just that we were a few years away.

Scott Gardner

Can you initiate or end calls solely from the
headset?

Yes. Every Bluetooth enabled phone I know of also supports Voice Dialing that
can be used through the wireless headset.

Can you adjust the volume from the headset?

It depends on the headset. Usually the volume needs to be set the the phone,
but it's not the kind of thing your constantly adjusting, or should be while
driving.

How about
storing a number in memory?

This isn't something I want/need a Bluetooth enabled device to do for me. I
simply want the ability to add hands-free calling via a Bluetooth enabled deck.
And if Jabbra can make a universal Bluetooth headset, I see no reason why there
can't be "universalized" Bluetooth enabled decks that could all make and
recieve calls through enabled phones.

I'm not very impressed with a wireless headset that works with several
different brands of phones, because there's simply not much in the way
of control or formatting information being passed between the two
devices.

What kind of headset are you using that gives you any extra control of the
phone?Jabbra is the largest company around right now making Bluetooth headsets
for cell phones. All I want the thing for is so that I can make and recieve
calls, hands free and without having to be wired to my phone.

There's simply not a standard yet for all of the control and
formatting information among the different phones, much less things
like PDAs and music devices

My Sony Ericsson T616 has a Minigolf game in it that has a "network" play
feature. Any other phone with Bluetooth and the game installed can play
wirelessly with me. There seems to be a fair degree of conformity.

The command sequences you'd need to send
to a Nokia phone to do something like store a number in memory aren't
going to be the same as for a Motorola phone.

This may be true, but again, I'm not planing on using a deck to add numbers to
my phone. If I can be distracted enough to fitz with the decks "add number"
feature, I can be distracted enough to pick up the phone and add the number
there. I simply want the ability to make and recieve calls, handsfree and
without the need to be wired to my phone.

Pulling up a playlist
in an iPod would require different commands than pulling up a playlist
on a Creative Labs Nomad

Not neccesarily, this is what I'm getting at. NONE of the portable MP3 players
have Bluetooth yet. If the major stereo manufacturers agreed to use the same
variant of Bluetooth in their decks, than any compatible portables that came
out afterward should be able to communicate with any of the decks.

In article ,
Ian wrote:

Michael Beacom wrote:
Hi-

Has anyone heard from Alpine on there iPod ready recievers?

Have you contacted alpine? Their press releases gave an email address,
, that you could get more information from.





I sent an e-mail to get on their mailing list, havn't heard anything
from them. Did speak to a salesman that was going to a meeting with the
Alpine folks, to explain this year's model. Havn't been back to check
with him yet.

Cheers Mike

How hard would it be to produce an AI-Net Bluetooth unit for handsfree phone
operation? Better yet, something that integrates into the Navigation
display? Since BT is catching on in Japan, can this type of unit be that far
off? An AI-Net unit would certainly solve the problem of having to buy the
flagship HU for the feature.


I recently put the Sony Ericsson bluetooth unit into my truck... and its
great. The one complaint is that I couldn't integrate the unit into my
aftermarket HU and amps. The sound differential was too great and it
introduced a lot of noise into the sound system. Now all I have to do is
sound dampen my interior so I can actually use the handsfree while speeding
down the highway!

On 23 Apr 2004 01:50:19 GMT, (Steve Grauman) wrote:


Not neccesarily, this is what I'm getting at. NONE of the portable MP3 players
have Bluetooth yet. If the major stereo manufacturers agreed to use the same
variant of Bluetooth in their decks, than any compatible portables that came
out afterward should be able to communicate with any of the decks.

But that's the whole problem. The most recent version of the
Bluetooth wireless standard (version 1.1) doesn't have the necessary
protocols written to support wireless MP3 players, so there's nothing
the stereo manufacturers could put in their head units today that
would guarantee compatibility with Bluetooth MP3 players that come out
in the future. Once the necessary additions are made to the Bluetooth
standard, stereo manufacturers and MP3 player manufacturers will know
how they have to design their products to meet the new Bluetooth
standard. At that point, any Bluetooth-enabled MP3 player should be
able to communicate with any Bluetooth-enabled deck that uses the same
(or newer) version of the Bluetooth standard.

I think we're at the point in this discussion where we're basically
saying the same thing. Bluetooth looks to be an ideal candidate for
wireless integration of music devices (and other devices) with
aftermarket head units, *once* the necessary additions have been made
to the Bluetooth standard. Some of the standards are already in
place, so we could have wireless hands-free in a car deck right now,
but other features, like being able to select playlists on an MP3
player from the head unit, will have to wait until the appropriate
enhancements to Bluetooth have been written.

Scott Gardner

What kind of bandwidth does bluetooth have? Is it *enough* for high quality
audio?

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
On 23 Apr 2004 01:50:19 GMT, (Steve Grauman) wrote:


Not neccesarily, this is what I'm getting at. NONE of the portable MP3
players
have Bluetooth yet. If the major stereo manufacturers agreed to use the
same
variant of Bluetooth in their decks, than any compatible portables that
came
out afterward should be able to communicate with any of the decks.

But that's the whole problem. The most recent version of the
Bluetooth wireless standard (version 1.1) doesn't have the necessary
protocols written to support wireless MP3 players, so there's nothing
the stereo manufacturers could put in their head units today that
would guarantee compatibility with Bluetooth MP3 players that come out
in the future. Once the necessary additions are made to the Bluetooth
standard, stereo manufacturers and MP3 player manufacturers will know
how they have to design their products to meet the new Bluetooth
standard. At that point, any Bluetooth-enabled MP3 player should be
able to communicate with any Bluetooth-enabled deck that uses the same
(or newer) version of the Bluetooth standard.

I think we're at the point in this discussion where we're basically
saying the same thing. Bluetooth looks to be an ideal candidate for
wireless integration of music devices (and other devices) with
aftermarket head units, *once* the necessary additions have been made
to the Bluetooth standard. Some of the standards are already in
place, so we could have wireless hands-free in a car deck right now,
but other features, like being able to select playlists on an MP3
player from the head unit, will have to wait until the appropriate
enhancements to Bluetooth have been written.

Scott Gardner

The bandwidth for the Bluetooth standard is 1 Mbps, so it should be
enough for any of the common compressed standards like AAC, WMV, or
MP3. An uncompressed CD stream would be asking a little too much of
it, though.

Scott Gardner

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:12:59 GMT, "jw" wrote:

What kind of bandwidth does bluetooth have? Is it *enough* for high quality
audio?

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
.. .
On 23 Apr 2004 01:50:19 GMT, (Steve Grauman) wrote:


Not neccesarily, this is what I'm getting at. NONE of the portable MP3
players
have Bluetooth yet. If the major stereo manufacturers agreed to use the
same
variant of Bluetooth in their decks, than any compatible portables that
came
out afterward should be able to communicate with any of the decks.

But that's the whole problem. The most recent version of the
Bluetooth wireless standard (version 1.1) doesn't have the necessary
protocols written to support wireless MP3 players, so there's nothing
the stereo manufacturers could put in their head units today that
would guarantee compatibility with Bluetooth MP3 players that come out
in the future. Once the necessary additions are made to the Bluetooth
standard, stereo manufacturers and MP3 player manufacturers will know
how they have to design their products to meet the new Bluetooth
standard. At that point, any Bluetooth-enabled MP3 player should be
able to communicate with any Bluetooth-enabled deck that uses the same
(or newer) version of the Bluetooth standard.

I think we're at the point in this discussion where we're basically
saying the same thing. Bluetooth looks to be an ideal candidate for
wireless integration of music devices (and other devices) with
aftermarket head units, *once* the necessary additions have been made
to the Bluetooth standard. Some of the standards are already in
place, so we could have wireless hands-free in a car deck right now,
but other features, like being able to select playlists on an MP3
player from the head unit, will have to wait until the appropriate
enhancements to Bluetooth have been written.

Scott Gardner

The bandwidth for the Bluetooth standard is 1 Mbps, so it should be
enough for any of the common compressed standards like AAC, WMV, or
MP3

That's fine with me. I find 320Kbps AACs (which I believe are totally lossless)
with a 44.000Khz sample rate to be more or less indistinguishable from the CD's
they were ripped from on most speakers. And with anywhere from 5GB on up in a
good players, you can still store plenty of them.

(Steve Grauman) wrote in message ...
The aftermarket stereo companies should just start making Bluetooth capable
headunits. Then companies like Apple, Creative, etc... could start making
bluetooth capable portables, or someone could make bluetooth attachments for
portable players.Then we'd have our choice of units and they'd more or less all
be controllable through any Bluetooth enabled decks.

Seems Alpine was doing operational marketing here...

IMHO:

Bluetooth inside a head unit would 'only' cost an additional $5 to $10
(component cost: depending on QTY, on whether you are using an
off-shelf module or embedding the BT baseband and transceiver inside
your onwn ASIC, etc.). That's not really much, and not what has
prevented integration of Bluetooth inside the audio units from
happening to this date. Starting with the handsfree function.

.... Oops, add an additional $10 for a decent signal processing if you
are going to use beam forming techniques with mikes inside the head
unit (interestingly, mikes and DSPs are appearing inside head units
anyways - but that's to adjust the output of each speaker according to
the dynamics of the environment).

.... oh, and if you want to do a clean integration job, you may want to
use the head unit screen to display phonebook entries, NMEA messages
for your Bluetooth pda-centric GPS nav, or, whatever you need display
for controlling your BT-enabled MP3 player - no big deal. Add a couple
more bucks for that.

.... was about to forget the CAN interface so that you can control
everything from your steering wheel controls (why wouldn't you want
to? CAN do). That adds not much if your chipset was designed to handle
that.

That puts the grand total to 25-30 bucks, component cost only. Not
really a major roadblock...

What's prevented all this integration from happening already is that
you could not reasonably offer Bluetooth head units (necessarily
factory-fitted and NOT after-market (too small fry)) when BT handset
market penetration is around 20%...

We all understand that iPod is big: a couple million units out
already... Well, there's hundreds of millions of cellphones selling
each year. If big is big, what's big? Bluetooth in vehicles has
started addressing the handsfree feature, and will extend to portable
GPS navigation and MP3 players. Remember Bluetooth was started by
handset manufacturers...

Now 50% of all replacement phones in Europe are BT-enabled. So
shortly, you'll have enough of a customer basis there from which you
can start working on ('audio unit'-wise).

You can currently buy in Europe a Peugeot, Citroen, Mercedes, BMW,
Saab, Toyota with the 'Bluetooth option'. It would be in after-market
'black box' form, but you wouldn't know that: they'd install that at
the dealership.

In the US, you can order a Prius or Land Cruiser with Bluetooth
inside, factory-fitted (?). You'd be an early adopter there and still
wouldn't be happy with your iPod. Wouldn't work (yet).

Since its very beginning, Bluetooth has been running after real-world
requirements, with the SIG issuing new application-specific 'profiles'
that would take time before being implemented by manufacturers.

We're at the point we have a fair headset and handsfree profile
implementation on all BT phones. It's taken 2 years to get there. PDAs
are not quite satisfactory yet, except for HP, none have an audio
profile (give it another year).

Yet we have good GPS broadcasting over Bluetooth for graphics-based
PDA Nav on all PPCs, Palm and Symbian...

Quality audio over Bluetooth: give it another 2 years. Unless Apple
surprises us once again.

This article will give you step-by-step instructions on how to
successfully obtain your iPod using freeipods.com for as little as $1.
Many think that this site is a scam but it is not. The guys from Tech
TV proved this. Check out there website:
http://www.g4techtv.com/videos/index...video_key=8872
In order to get your free Ipod, You must get five friends or relatives
to do exactly the following...
Step 1: Click here to go to the free iPod site.
http://www.freeipods.com/?r=13662965
To participate in this great offer you must live in the US
Step 2: Use an email address at the bottom of the page and choose a
password. (they will send you email, so please use a secondary account)
Step 3: Fill out all required shipping information. This tells them
where to send your iPod.
Step 4: (Do not exit at this point) This is the part that over 90% of
the people start thinking: "Maybe this isn't for real." They present to
you 10 different "optional" offers. These offers you can skip without
completing. They are not applied towards getting your iPod.
Step 5: Complete an offer. This is where real companies like AOL, Real
Networks and more are advertising through freeIpods.com. This is what
makes them successful.
Choose an offer and purchase or sign up. (Choose the RealNetworks Real
Rapsody. This cost $1...yes $1 dollar for 30 days. Cancel after 14 days
to get your points. Even if you forget its only $10 a month after the
first month.
For signing up they also give you 5 free songs to burn. This is the
best offer. Nothing is free, but an iPod for a dollar and a little work
is worth it. Some offers change. There is always one offer where you
pay next to nothing or just sign up for a 30 day trial.
Step 6: After you get your points then you can get your friends to do
the same thing by going to the refer friends page. Even if you don't
complete it you get to download five songs.
Note: Completing an offer and not signing up your friends is what they
are counting on. It is more likely you get intreagued and then give up.
This doesn't mean that it is a scam. All you must do is finish. If this
still sounds to good to be true then go pay $300 for a new iPod. Have
patience and good luck.
If you haven't started yet. Get your iPod here!!!
http://www.freeipods.com/?r=13662965

meh, id rather pay 300 dollars and not have to jump through hoops