The rule also mandates universal Bluetooth standards and volume control compliance for all smartphones.

  • BussyCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I couldn’t tell from reading the article but are all phones required to have Bluetooth now? Like is the end of dumb phones?

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Dumb phones have had Bluetooth. I remember as far back as the first RAZR having bluetooth.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        I’ve had phones newer than the first RAZR that didn’t have bluetooth but it’s been a while and bluetooth is incredibly cheap – in fact it probably comes for free with the GSM module, just needs the right software the hardware is already capable of doing it. Separate bluetooth modules (ESP32) cost what 1.30, antenna, maybe ten cents.

        • Jeffool @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          A total aside, but I was always annoyed early smart phones had am/fm receivers in them (free on the chip) and relatively few phones ever let them be accessed. I think most of those also could do TV signal, if I’m not mistaken? But that may have been a subset.

          Sure, that probably played hell on the battery, but it would’ve been neat to have the option to DVR TV over the air on my phone back then and cast it, in the early days of Chromecast.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      “We”.

      Try being autistic and not disabled and using smartphones with sweaty hands and tired eyes. And modern UI design in general.

      I’ve been dreaming of a certain legislation for PC user interfaces and the Web since 10 years ago ; in essence that would mandate that everything governmental and commercial should be usable for blind people (because with modern UI\UX I want to close my eyes and pretend I’m blind) with screen readers and Braille terminals.

      That legislation would absolutely kill what clueless crowds call “user-friendly UIs”, and I would be happy and gleeful, because it wouldn’t kill UIs following good old industrial ergonomics.

      It would, of course, present a lot of challenges for such a transition.

      • Anivia
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        So you want to severely inconvenience the vast majority of people for your own personal gain?

        Surely there is a better compromise

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          So you want to severely inconvenience the vast majority of people for your own personal gain?

          That’s what they do with walkways, is it not?

  • Zachariah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    This wasn’t a thing already? We’ve had cell phones a long time.

    edit: punctuation

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      I recall it being required in cars. IIRC all cars after 2012 needed to have bluetooth and hands free.

      Perhaps phones just operated in proxy to that

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 day ago

      Not officially, but nearly every device has supported hearing aids compatibility for years, well before smartphones became the standard.