General > General Technical Chat

Bluetooth device registration is $8000.

<< < (3/13) > >>

JohnnyMalaria:
Why shouldn't you pay to benefit from their technology? It's part of the cost of doing business. Smacks of entitlement, sorry.

NiHaoMike:
Perhaps a workaround would be to get an off the shelf module that can plug into an expansion port on the product? One example would be a company making PCs offering a Bluetooth option which just adds a USB Bluetooth adapter for the user to install.

AndyC_772:

--- Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on February 19, 2021, 02:39:19 pm ---Why shouldn't you pay to benefit from their technology? It's part of the cost of doing business. Smacks of entitlement, sorry.

--- End quote ---

If I build a product around an ARM microcontroller, I don't have to register my product with ARM and pay them again.

I've already paid for the component, and the cost of that part includes the production cost of the silicon, a profit margin for the silicon manufacturer, and license fees for any and all technology included within that part. So yes, I am absolutely entitled to use that part.

Similarly, if I purchase a Bluetooth module from a certified supplier, I expect to pay a price for that module which covers its production cost plus any and all licence fees required to legally use it.

The issue here seems to be a (new?) requirement that each individual product type, that incorporates a Bluetooth module which has already been paid for, is now also subject to an additional fee.

langwadt:

--- Quote from: AndyC_772 on February 19, 2021, 03:09:48 pm ---
--- Quote from: JohnnyMalaria on February 19, 2021, 02:39:19 pm ---Why shouldn't you pay to benefit from their technology? It's part of the cost of doing business. Smacks of entitlement, sorry.

--- End quote ---

If I build a product around an ARM microcontroller, I don't have to register my product with ARM and pay them again.

I've already paid for the component, and the cost of that part includes the production cost of the silicon, a profit margin for the silicon manufacturer, and license fees for any and all technology included within that part. So yes, I am absolutely entitled to use that part.

Similarly, if I purchase a Bluetooth module from a certified supplier, I expect to pay a price for that module which covers its production cost plus any and all licence fees required to legally use it.

The issue here seems to be a (new?) requirement that each individual product type, that incorporates a Bluetooth module which has already been paid for, is now also subject to an additional fee.

--- End quote ---

isn't similar with USB?

JohnnyMalaria:
OP didn't say anything about that. Just seems upset at having to pay money for something. The devil is in the details and I wouldn't rely on what's on a webpage to be the authority.

If OP thinks ANT+ is fairer at $0.08 per device, then choose that. But it will become apparent that what you get is what you pay for.

I dislike BT - I've never had any BT device that "just works". To me, it's possibly the worst wireless communication system there is. It's prevalence requires that it is controlled strictly. Otherwise, other developers wanting to avoid paying will put crap products out there and just make the entire system unusable.

I agree that if I developed a product was based around something like the RPI but which had BT, then I would certainly not expect to have to pay $8000. But I'd investigate first and no rely on public-facing webpages of summaries.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod