我最近注意到，這個(gè)世界上充斥各種“智能”產(chǎn)品與技術(shù)，包括智能手機(jī)、智能電視、智能卡、智能家庭、智能電網(wǎng)、智能手表、智能車輛、智能建筑…等等，各種你想得到的東西幾乎都能冠上“智能”兩個(gè)字，包括最新的技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：藍(lán)牙智能(Bluetooth Smart)。 市場(chǎng)營銷人員想借著“智能”這樣的名稱加強(qiáng)產(chǎn)品記憶度，確實(shí)比那些用數(shù)字與英文字母組成的產(chǎn)品型號(hào)有吸引力得多；但把每一種新開發(fā)的產(chǎn)品或技術(shù)都叫做“智能”，看來簡(jiǎn)單明了，其實(shí)感覺是當(dāng)我們想用讓大眾容易理解的方式來形容某個(gè)技術(shù)、又不知道該怎么做，就干脆把它們?nèi)慷冀凶觥爸悄堋薄? 更糟糕的是，那些自稱“智能”的產(chǎn)品或技術(shù)，似乎就認(rèn)為他們擁有不受質(zhì)疑的豁免權(quán)；當(dāng)他們主張自己能被所有生活在這個(gè)“智能星球”的人們叫做“智能”，“智能”就變成他們的品牌。當(dāng)然，我這種觀點(diǎn)現(xiàn)在看來是放馬后炮；但讓我們花一分鐘想想，到底怎樣的產(chǎn)品或是技術(shù)能當(dāng)“智能”之名而無愧？ 我不太能確定，但智能卡與智能手機(jī)似乎是最早搭上“智能”列車的產(chǎn)品；那又是什么讓這兩種產(chǎn)品認(rèn)為自己比先前的產(chǎn)品更具智能？我想，也許是更高性能嵌入式微處理器以及鏈接性的整合，此外還有能執(zhí)行操作系統(tǒng)、應(yīng)用程序的功能。 但我也不能確定這樣的規(guī)則能適用各種所謂的智能產(chǎn)品，智能電視、智能手表應(yīng)該能算在內(nèi)，而Smart汽車(編按：與Benz系出同門的兩人座小型汽車)與Smarter Planet (編按：IBM的整體性解決方案名稱)都真的只是產(chǎn)品名稱而已。支持原創(chuàng)，鄙視抄襲，請(qǐng)?jiān)L問《國際電子商情》網(wǎng)站www.zgwwsyw.com 好了，現(xiàn)在讓我們回到正題，來談?wù)劄楹嗡{(lán)牙低功耗(Bluetooth Low Energy，BLE)技術(shù)要被叫做“藍(lán)牙智能”？當(dāng)我們仔細(xì)檢視，其實(shí)看到的只是為了打品牌。我稍早之前曾采訪過藍(lán)牙技術(shù)聯(lián)盟(Bluetooth Special Interest Group，SIG)的代表，隨后收到了該聯(lián)盟一位發(fā)言人的電子郵件，寫道： “當(dāng)(聯(lián)盟代表)提及藍(lán)牙低功耗技術(shù)，其實(shí)就是指“藍(lán)牙智能”的功能；無論是藍(lán)牙低功耗、BLE、藍(lán)牙LE…它們正確的名稱應(yīng)該是“藍(lán)牙智能”。這是因?yàn)榈凸闹皇?整個(gè)技術(shù)的其中之一個(gè)功能，如果不使用“藍(lán)牙智能”這個(gè)名稱，技術(shù)中的兼容性與智能鏈接等其他功能就被漏掉了；藍(lán)牙低功耗只是“藍(lán)牙智能”的一部分?！? 藍(lán)牙技術(shù)聯(lián)盟的發(fā)言人并指出，低功耗是“藍(lán)牙智能”很重要的一個(gè)部分，但卻不能代表整個(gè)解決方案(像是能實(shí)現(xiàn)連網(wǎng)智能車輛)；他強(qiáng)調(diào)，“藍(lán)牙智能”是低功耗 技術(shù)與智能連結(jié)性的“完美結(jié)合”，如果需要更詳細(xì)的數(shù)據(jù)，請(qǐng)參考藍(lán)牙技術(shù)聯(lián)盟官網(wǎng)。 在此強(qiáng)調(diào)，我并不反對(duì)藍(lán)牙技術(shù)聯(lián)盟把藍(lán)牙低功耗技術(shù)用“藍(lán)牙智能”這個(gè)品牌名稱包裝的市場(chǎng)營銷策略，這以市場(chǎng)營銷觀點(diǎn)來看應(yīng)該是個(gè)明智之舉；但身為一個(gè)工程領(lǐng)域的專業(yè)記者，我的看法是，藍(lán)牙低功耗其實(shí)傳達(dá)的消息更明確，清楚形容了該技術(shù)的實(shí)際功能。 除了“藍(lán)牙智能”，還有“藍(lán)牙智能Ready” (Bluetooth Smart Ready)技術(shù)；根據(jù)藍(lán)牙技術(shù)聯(lián)盟官網(wǎng)上所提供的信息，它們的差別在于前者支持單模低功耗無線電，后者則是：“能有效接收來自經(jīng)典藍(lán)牙(Classic Bluetooth)設(shè)備與藍(lán)牙智能設(shè)備的數(shù)據(jù)，并將之反饋到能將數(shù)據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)換成實(shí)用信息的應(yīng)用中?！?font color="#FFFFFF" >支持原創(chuàng)，鄙視抄襲，請(qǐng)?jiān)L問《國際電子商情》網(wǎng)站www.zgwwsyw.com 我也是最近才知道，舊藍(lán)牙規(guī)格現(xiàn)在被叫做“經(jīng)典藍(lán)牙”；而所謂的“藍(lán)牙智能Ready”其實(shí)就是能支持藍(lán)牙低功耗與經(jīng)典藍(lán)牙的雙模技術(shù)。從這里我已經(jīng)能感受到，在我們這個(gè)產(chǎn)業(yè)界的每個(gè)人要理解那些不同規(guī)格名稱所代表的意義，實(shí)在是件苦差事。 而回到我原先的問題：既然藍(lán)牙低功耗技術(shù)被稱做“藍(lán)牙智能”，是否意味著該規(guī)格已經(jīng)投入了工程師所能發(fā)揮的所有專業(yè)能力？我認(rèn)為不是這樣，而所衍生的另一個(gè)問題是，將某個(gè)技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以“智能”名之，似乎是削弱了該技術(shù)下一次創(chuàng)新所能帶來的影響力。 當(dāng)有更新的藍(lán)牙技術(shù)版本問世時(shí)，我們?cè)摻兴裁茨兀俊癇luetooth Smarter”嗎？也許可以，但這樣豈不是會(huì)讓“藍(lán)牙智能”聽起來比它實(shí)際上更不“智能”？ 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 編譯：Judith Cheng 參考英文原文：Bluetooth Smart: What’s in a Name?，by Junko Yoshida

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 且行且智能，“穿上”飛思卡爾感受物聯(lián)網(wǎng)
• 堅(jiān)決不買谷歌眼鏡的5個(gè)理由
• Bluetooth SIG推出中文版Bluetooth開發(fā)者門戶網(wǎng)站r3xesmc

{pagination} Bluetooth Smart: What’s in a Name? Junko Yoshida, Chief International Correspondent MADISON, Wis. -- Lately, I notice, the world is overrun with smart products and smart technologies. Smartphones, smart TV, smart cards, smart homes, the smart grid, smartwatches, the Smart car, smart buildings -- you name it. It’s hard to think of a new big thing that doesn’t call itself smart. Now, the smart trend has crept into a technology standard: Bluetooth Smart. I don’t begrudge marketing people doing their jobs. I’m all for companies coming up with a more memorable name for their products than a jumble of numbers and letters that reads like a vehicle ID. But calling every new development smart is a trend in today’s market that invokes Orwell. As we dumb down technologies and think nothing of doing it, we call them all smart. Worse, those who call themselves smart seem to assume that they now have a get-out-of-jail-free card absolving them from skepticism, when they claim by sheer assertion the right to be called smart by everyone living on the "Smarter Planet," because smart is their brand. I feel like I’m on the wrong side of the argument, because this train has already left the station. But let’s take a minute and think about what makes a product or technology worthy of being called smart. I can’t be sure, but I suspect smart cards and smartphones are the ones that defined -- early on -- the product category smart. What made both categories smarter than previous product generations were, I think, the integration of more powerful embedded microprocessors and connectivity. Along with these came the ability to run on an operating system and run apps. I’m not certain if these general rules apply to every so-called smart product. Certainly, smart TV and smartwatches fall under that definition. But Smart cars and Smarter Planet are just brand names. Now, what about calling Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) “Bluetooth Smart?” Look closely and all you see is branding. After an interview with representatives of the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) earlier this week, I received an email from the Bluetooth SIG spokeswoman, who writes: When [a SIG representative] says Bluetooth low energy, he is referring to the feature within Bluetooth Smart. The correct way to refer to Bluetooth Low Energy, BLE, Bluetooth LE, etc. is Bluetooth Smart. Again this is because low energy is just a feature not the entire technology. By not using Bluetooth Smart, the compatibility and intelligent connection of the technology is lost. Bluetooth low energy is just a part of Bluetooth Smart -- it is an important part, but it isn’t really what is making all of these things (like the connected smart car) possible. It is a perfect mix of the low energy feature and the smart connectivity -- thus Bluetooth Smart. For more information, visit http://www.bluetooth.com/Pages/Bluetooth-Smart.aspx and see the below. Again, I have nothing against Bluetooth’s marketing machine wanting to rebrand Bluetooth Low Energy as Bluetooth Smart. It’s probably a smart move -- as far as marketing is concerned. But here’s the thing. I’m a reporter trained to write for the engineering crowd. In my mind, Bluetooth Low Energy conveys much more clarity. It describes what the thing actually does. Now, what I didn’t know until this week is that when people refer to the old Bluetooth spec, they appear to call it Classic Bluetooth, like Coke Classic. To complicate the matter further, we’re also expected to distinguish between Bluetooth Smart devices and Bluetooth Smart Ready devices. Bluetooth Smart devices feature a single-mode low-energy radio. Bluetooth Smart Ready devices, according to the Bluetooth SIG FAQ, “efficiently receive data sent from Classic Bluetooth devices and Bluetooth Smart devices and feed it into applications that turn the data into useful information.” Translation? It’s a dual-mode supporting both Bluetooth Low Energy and Classic Bluetooth. I could feel the pains everyone in the industry is taking to make the general public understand what all those different specs mean. Which brings me back to my original question: By calling Bluetooth Low Energy “Bluetooth Smart,” has the industry done a service to all the engineering work engineers put into it? I think not. Here’s one more argument. Calling the technical standard smart seems to dilute the impact of the spec’s next innovative leap forward. What do we call the new version of Bluetooth Smart? Bluetooth Smarter? Maybe, but wouldn’t that make Bluetooth Smart sound less smart than it actually is?