那些名字带“智能”的产品真有那么智能？

我最近注意到，这个世界上充斥各种“智能”产品与技术，包括智能手机、智能电视、智能卡、智能家庭、智能电网、智能手表、智能车辆、智能建筑…等等，各种你想得到的东西几乎都能冠上“智能”两个字，包括最新的技术标准：蓝牙智能(Bluetooth Smart)。 市场营销人员想借着“智能”这样的名称加强产品记忆度，确实比那些用数字与英文字母组成的产品型号有吸引力得多；但把每一种新开发的产品或技术都叫做“智能”，看来简单明了，其实感觉是当我们想用让大众容易理解的方式来形容某个技术、又不知道该怎么做，就干脆把它们全部都叫做“智能”。 更糟糕的是，那些自称“智能”的产品或技术，似乎就认为他们拥有不受质疑的豁免权；当他们主张自己能被所有生活在这个“智能星球”的人们叫做“智能”，“智能”就变成他们的品牌。当然，我这种观点现在看来是放马后炮；但让我们花一分钟想想，到底怎样的产品或是技术能当“智能”之名而无愧？ 我不太能确定，但智能卡与智能手机似乎是最早搭上“智能”列车的产品；那又是什么让这两种产品认为自己比先前的产品更具智能？我想，也许是更高性能嵌入式微处理器以及链接性的整合，此外还有能执行操作系统、应用程序的功能。 但我也不能确定这样的规则能适用各种所谓的智能产品，智能电视、智能手表应该能算在内，而Smart汽车(编按：与Benz系出同门的两人座小型汽车)与Smarter Planet (编按：IBM的整体性解决方案名称)都真的只是产品名称而已。支持原创，鄙视抄袭，请访问《国际电子商情》网站www.esmchina.com 好了，现在让我们回到正题，来谈谈为何蓝牙低功耗(Bluetooth Low Energy，BLE)技术要被叫做“蓝牙智能”？当我们仔细检视，其实看到的只是为了打品牌。我稍早之前曾采访过蓝牙技术联盟(Bluetooth Special Interest Group，SIG)的代表，随后收到了该联盟一位发言人的电子邮件，写道： “当(联盟代表)提及蓝牙低功耗技术，其实就是指“蓝牙智能”的功能；无论是蓝牙低功耗、BLE、蓝牙LE…它们正确的名称应该是“蓝牙智能”。这是因为低功耗只是 整个技术的其中之一个功能，如果不使用“蓝牙智能”这个名称，技术中的兼容性与智能链接等其他功能就被漏掉了；蓝牙低功耗只是“蓝牙智能”的一部分。” 蓝牙技术联盟的发言人并指出，低功耗是“蓝牙智能”很重要的一个部分，但却不能代表整个解决方案(像是能实现连网智能车辆)；他强调，“蓝牙智能”是低功耗 技术与智能连结性的“完美结合”，如果需要更详细的数据，请参考蓝牙技术联盟官网。 在此强调，我并不反对蓝牙技术联盟把蓝牙低功耗技术用“蓝牙智能”这个品牌名称包装的市场营销策略，这以市场营销观点来看应该是个明智之举；但身为一个工程领域的专业记者，我的看法是，蓝牙低功耗其实传达的消息更明确，清楚形容了该技术的实际功能。 除了“蓝牙智能”，还有“蓝牙智能Ready” (Bluetooth Smart Ready)技术；根据蓝牙技术联盟官网上所提供的信息，它们的差别在于前者支持单模低功耗无线电，后者则是：“能有效接收来自经典蓝牙(Classic Bluetooth)设备与蓝牙智能设备的数据，并将之反馈到能将数据转换成实用信息的应用中。”支持原创，鄙视抄袭，请访问《国际电子商情》网站www.esmchina.com 我也是最近才知道，旧蓝牙规格现在被叫做“经典蓝牙”；而所谓的“蓝牙智能Ready”其实就是能支持蓝牙低功耗与经典蓝牙的双模技术。从这里我已经能感受到，在我们这个产业界的每个人要理解那些不同规格名称所代表的意义，实在是件苦差事。 而回到我原先的问题：既然蓝牙低功耗技术被称做“蓝牙智能”，是否意味着该规格已经投入了工程师所能发挥的所有专业能力？我认为不是这样，而所衍生的另一个问题是，将某个技术标准以“智能”名之，似乎是削弱了该技术下一次创新所能带来的影响力。 当有更新的蓝牙技术版本问世时，我们该叫它什么呢？“Bluetooth Smarter”吗？也许可以，但这样岂不是会让“蓝牙智能”听起来比它实际上更不“智能”？ 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载 编译：Judith Cheng 参考英文原文：Bluetooth Smart: What’s in a Name?，by Junko Yoshida

相关阅读：
• 且行且智能，“穿上”飞思卡尔感受物联网
• 坚决不买谷歌眼镜的5个理由
• Bluetooth SIG推出中文版Bluetooth开发者门户网站EZxesmc

{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?