BT 2.1 vs 3.0

[Suntan]

I see that the D3 supports BT 2.1 and not the newer 3.0 version. Does anyone feel let down by this?

Personally, I have an old BT mouse in a drawer somewhere and every once in a while my wife uses a BT headset to talk with her mom while doing work around the house. Other than that, I really haven?t looked much into BT at all.

Will BT 3.0 offer anything significantly better than 2.1? Or is it much ado about nothing?

-Suntan

 

[Raptor007]

Not a big deal for me I guess, but not a surprise either. Moto really is dropping the ball all over the place. The mighty have fallen and fallen hard. Still so long as I can pair my HF BT in my car and my Moto H710 headset I'm good, for now.

 

[Ekreed]

I don't think many people will spot the difference, since very few devices require BT3. Personally, I'm more interested in BT4, which is probably at least a year away from market, because the low energy mode seems far more useful than a higher data transfer rate, which is the main addition in BT3. Afterall, I have several ways of quickly transferring files from A to B, I don't think I need another.

 

[IceDree]

I reed about it in wikiepida a while ago , I think there's a small differences , more like technological differences , somethings probably won't effect us as users

Motorola could be keeping it phones with BlueTooth 2.1 on purpose , for the Poeple who have the Motorola BlueTooth accessorize , you know Motorola have all kinds of BlueTooth accessorize from headsets & earpieces to Mouses & keyboards (basiclly anything that uses BlueTooth) & these stuff ain't exactly cheap (espcially the MotoROKR headphones , I've always wanted to get one , but its so expensive in Saudi Arabia)

Personally , I don't use the BloothTooth allot , as a manner of fact the last time I used it was when I bought my Sony Ericsson W910i about 3 & half years ago