rpdunne

Has anyone heard anything about this?

Just bought a 2001 E320S4 from a dealer in St. Louis. I asked about getting a phone in it, and the salesman said to "wait for about 6 months when the bluetooth stuff is out. It'll then be only a couple hundred dollars to retrofit any system".

What's he talking about? He didn't know any more about it. Is this a Mercedes thing, or is there some aftermarket product coming? Doesn't sound like the MikBox.

weinschela

There is no subject on which there is less accurate or more inconsistent information being disseminated than MB phones. What I have heard -- from someone who works for the telematics company that supplies MB -- is that MB will not implement Bluetooth any time soon. There are new phone systems coming to replace the current Moto v60's -- Moto v600s (GSM) and v710 (CDMA). Nobody can say with any degree of confidence whether you'll be able to use your own phone or will have to buy the handset from MB. I do not believe that the next generation of MB phone systems will be Bluetooth. All of this could be wrong of course, but I think the bottom line is that unless you are completely satisfied with having a v60 as your phone, don't do anything about phones until MB shows its hand on the new ones.

rpdunne

Man, ain't it the truth! Mercedes has never been on top of the "latest and greatest" electronic stuff, but I know that's an asset also, as their stuff usually works well. They do seem to have shown poor planning with all this phone stuff, however.

Wolfman

Actually the UHI phone setup in MB's worldwide (except the US of course) is not that bad.
Not great because you still have to plug in the phone, but at least it's a modular setup which allows to switch cradles as phone models change as well.
Bluetooth works on Bluetooth enabled phones, but what you can do is limited (bt headset, use as wireless modem for PC).

Wolfman

scorchie

Umm, how is that not great? By plugging in the phone, I get my phone charged, I get linked into the vehicle's EXTERNAL antennas, I get a place to put my phone so it doesn't fly around the vehicle(I have AMG models and a G500), and I get a "full" integration that is sometimes not supported in Bluetooth implementations.

-s-

Wolfman

Don't get me wrong. I love the concept of dropping prehistoric proprietary phones and gain flexibility and choice and your arguments are valid for the phone kit. For the first time UHI provide a viable phone choice for MB's

My point is the potential key benefit of Bluetooth, however, which would allow you to keep your phone simply in your pocket (just like you do keyless go) and the car will recognize it and do all things you have just described.

Technically not really a challenge; computer peripherals do that every day. Considering that Bluetooth itself is becoming a bit ancient itself, it's amazing how slow the progress has been, including with phone manufacturers. I assume that Bluetooth may become a non-issue when WiFi/GSM combo phones become pervasive and everything goes TCP/IP...

For the short-term, somebody should just convert the UHI cradle into a Bluetooth adapter and we are there

Wolfman

scorchie

I understand your point... I think.

But you need to examine this a bit more closely.

If I leave my phone in my pocket, how do I gain the benefit of the kit in the car? I will get audio-only functions, that is the car will act like a big headset. The rest of the functionality (charging, external antenna) can't be utilized while the phone is in the pocket. I believe those things are more important, especially the external antenna. Remember, with Bluetooth as you described, the transceiver remains in your pocket, so no RF connection is made; and Bluetooth will not transmit power to charge your phone. So all those things I describe are NOT handled by any Bluetooth implementation.

Not sure about you, but my signal degrade considerably with my phone in my pocket and low in the car.

The only way I see it working close to what you postulate is by using the Bluetooth SIM access profile (I believe that is what it is called), which would allow a phone installed to the car to take on the properties of the SIM present in the car. First you would need a phone that allows this; then you would need a car kit that works with this. Finally, the car kit would have to have pretty much its complete phone hardware (like the Mercedes WAP fixed installation phone). That would drive the price up considerably. The RF would go through the fixed phone, but charging would not occur.

Mercedes has several Bluetooth parts available and I have been unable to get documentation on how they work or what they do, and therefore do not know their benefit. Until we can get more information on what's out there now and what is possible and not, we'll be in the dark.

I'm hoping to uncover more next month.

-s-

ToonArmy

Well, I'll throw in my two cents here. UHI is very nice, and if MBUSA would have made this available in the US market, I think a lot of the grumbling about M-B phones would disappear. Whatever marketing or contractual reasons they have for sticking with the v60, they should realise that it's costing them a huge price in pblic perception. Readers of this board know about UHI, and some can even get their hands on it, but most MB buyers just see an overpriced 5-year-old phone, and will form their perceptions of M-B's technical sophistication based on that, flawed thought it may be.

Regarding the wired/unwired (UHI v. Bluetooth) comparison, there are arguments on both sides. Scorchie's points about the charging, external antenna, and potentially clearer connection are well taken. Against that is the "convenience" factor of a wireless connection. Short trips, hopping in and out of the car, not forgetting the phone in the cradle when arriving at work, that sort of thing.

As far as the completeness of integration goes, in principle at least, that should be a wash. For a Buetooth integration, at least, it should require a single implementation on the MB side, and then it would depend on the phone manufacturer's implementation of the BT "Handsfree" protocol. Not knowing for sure, my gut would say that the BT protocol is better specified and easier to get working across all phones than individual direct connections.

For a best of both worlds, I'd propose a BT-based audio and phonebook integration, with pre-wiring of power and antenna into the armrest console. Then MB or third-parties could provide optional cradles for those who like the external antenna and charging, and the functional integration is done once and standard - it uses the BT whether or not it is in the cradle.

- Anil

Wolfman

Scorchie,

Don't disagree with you on the reception side. That is definitely a plus. Charging has probably become a bit less relevant since the analog days unless, of course, you are on the phone more than 5 hours a day (which I am not).
To ToonArmy's point convenience is a huge factor for me. Since I have Keyless Go, I wouldn't really consider a car with a regular key anymore.

I guess the best of both worlds would be a UHI cradle and bluetooth adapter this would give you either option. Either way, UHI is a significant step forward.
Unfortunately, as so many times, there has been very litlle direction and information coming from MBUSA, leaving its customers dissatisfied and pondering for alternatives...

I, for one will put UHI into our cars asap (right after I dump our Samsung phones, that is )...

Wolfman

W210

I quite agree with the benefits of the MB system (the charging, better reception and the total integration) as I have been using it for over 2 years. First the Timeport and now the v60.

However, it is indeed a slight inconvenience to have to plug in the phone everytime I get in, although it is something I'm quite used to, just like plugging in the radar detector and turning off the iPod everytime I leave the car.

One area I hope MB will continue offering, regardless whether they go the bluetooth way or not, is the alpha numeric keypad on the dash. I see many manufacturers not giving users the keypad (read BMW 5 series) which is a big mistake. An alpha numeric keypad is essential for power users to deal with automated office PBX systems.

I also feel that charging will be essential with bluetooth as it does drain the phone battery quite quickly. Another disadvantage of bluetooth, although a rare problem to many, perhaps, is the security:

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,...w=wn_tophead_2

scorchie

It's a real pain to enter SMS without the keypad!

-s-

W210

Indeed! Although on my US 2004 COMAND, I can only read and not send SMS.

For voice calls, without an alpha numeric keypad, you'll need a cheat sheet to enter the person's name and hit pound!