I just want to make it clear -- I meant no offense to Bluetooth SIG by writing this piece. However, as I stressed in this blog, I am so weary of the world of smart everything. Am I the only one feeling that way?
Smart is the hype now. We have the examples of the past, remember the e- (when e-mail started the branding of everything with e-everything) years ago, or the i- when the i-pod triggered the i-everything, or the web-everything, etc. Later we could have the NG (Next generation) or whatever becomes catchy and hype... but beware of the lawyers in case someone claims patenting the catchy apendage.
I pronounce DAC as "D. A. Conference". "Dack" is a Digital-to-Analog Converter, or maybe Data Acknowledge.
Regarding how to say TNG, I have no opinion. For me, there is only one Star Trek, the one I first watched on a small B&W TV. A friend of mine once said he found the whole concept of TNG to be preposterous. "How can anyone believe that by the 25th Century they haven't developed a cure for baldness?"
@betajet: "How can anyone believe that by the 25th Century they haven't developed a cure for baldness?"
Having just returned from the 25th century myself, you will be happy to hear that they certainly have invented a cure for baldness (I could live without the ladies sporting handlebar moustaches) -- so we can only assume that Captain Jean-Luc Picard was making a fashion statement.
@betajet: I have come across many that use DAC for design automation conference, particularly those in the EDA companies. I am guilty of doing the same though I am fully aware of the long-held claim to this abbreviation by the digital-to-analog crowd!
DAC the conference and DAC the integrated circuit or IP block should both be pronounced "dack." The meaning will be clear from the context -- "Did you go to that awesome DAC party?" would never be confused with "this DAC doesn't have enough resolution to meet my requirements." :)
"In my mind, Bluetooth Low Energy conveys much more clarity. It describes what the thing actually does."
I couldn't agree more. In fact, when I first heard of the name change, I felt it conveyed the opposite message, because the most common "smart" device we all use daily -- our phones -- have terrible battery life. Smart implies processing power, not long battery life. I don't want my BT devices to be smart, I want them to be low energy!
@Frank: I agree with your observations... tacking on an IPv6 stack so Bluetooth can finally establish itself in personal area networks & elsewhere could have been described by other buzzwords by the marketing folks! BluetoothSmart implies the previous incarnations were dumber!
Where I work we already had trouble to fit Bluetooth messages that include the word Bluetooth in some of our infotainment products, and have used BT to abbreviate Bluetooth (for example BT Device connected) adding Smart would make those phrases even worse to fit! Replace T for S in our BT? No way!. For those I'd prefer the BLE abbreviation.
I know, betajet. The first time when I heard people saying "BLE," it took me a while to figure out what they were talking about. But now I get a hang of it, I'd rather like it. Then, I was advised that it is no longerteither BLE or Bluetooth Low Energy, but Blutooth Smart. Ugh.
Junko, I also get frustrated with marketing speak that I don't understand. In my brief investigation of this Bluetooth Smart, I see mainly three changes:
1. Low power, of course. They do this by not requiring a constant transmission, but rather pulsed.
2. Also low data rate. Apparently, usually no more than 64 Kb/s, and sometimes only bits per day.
3. A single profile. This is very important. In Bluetooth Classic, so-called, any new device that wanted to be connectable via Bluetooth had to have its profile entered into the spec. So that when the device comes online, Bluetooth will recognize it and know what comms it is expecting. If this can always be consistent, you're better off. New devices can be connected immediately.
I'm not sure how #3 will keep from becoming a restriction, eventually, unless what this really means is that the profiles are handled always at the application layer.
I should add, by my understanding of what constitutes "smart" devices, this actually make Bluetooth Smart dumber than the Classic. It's slower and it knows less about the connected devices, than Bluetooth Classic.
@Junko: I, for one, believe that BTSmart has a place and can be the energy-efficient alternative to WiFi in some applications -like the example I quoted elsewhere on Vehicular Area Network applications (I hate to use Smart Cars!) where movig vehicles can tag a stationary beacon for traffic management purposes. This can be done efficiently by BTSmart as it can do so with control plane alone whereas WiFi has to do both control and data planes.