Slashdot Mirror
Bluetooth Bombs
Carey sent in this story that shows Bluetooth still has a few kinks to work out. Bluetooth's universal standard instead seems to be about 10 different standards, and if these companies think they are going get people to buy devices that only work with other devices from the same manufacturer, I think they're in for a rude awakening.
Average Joe Consumer doesn't know and doesn't care what Bluetooth is. The big manufacturers will still sell those devices. As usualy, whoever gets the market share first will win out and become the defacto standard.
somebody set up bluetooth the bomb!
we get signal!
...
I said, WE GET SIGNAL!
...
god damn bluetooth! we're going back to USB!
Hopefully the technology is young enough that a standardization can be implemented without too much pain being felt at the idea of burning down an existing codebase. I hope they don't try to make everything backwards compatible at the expense of a hobbled proto...
The fact that "Average Joe Consumer" doesn't know what Bluetooth is doesn't mean that it's "done for". People will be excited about it if it's useful to them, regardless of the name. IEEE-1394 is a perfect example. i-Link (Sony's name for it) and Firewire (Apple, duh) are successful in their niches.
The name doesn't mean anything. The technology will evolve and become useful and people will use it. Even if it's not called "Bluetooth" when that happens...
--The space between my ears was intentionally left blank--
This speaks for itself!!
Lets make a network that won't work, then show everyone how it doesn't work......
This space intentionally blank
I work in the mobile industry (where Bluetooth is heralded as a great technology), but I honestly don't see a need for Bluetooth in a world where we already have a great short distance wireless technology - 802.11
I think the delays involved in launching Bluetooth (we've been hearing about it for a few years now) have caused it to become a great technology looking for a problem to solve. It is a nice technology - low power, inexpensive chipsets, etc. But, I don't believe it is a long term viable technology.
Having said that, I still predict that lots of first adopters will buy Bluetooth enabled pens, phones, laptops, etc.
--- There's no place like 127.0.0.1
In regards to getting people to buy things that only work with other things by the same manufacturer... well, I hate to beat a dead horse but...it worked for Microsoft, right? ;)
Every new technology has its teething problems.
Does anybody remember the bad old days of CR-R's? Some drives could read CDR's, other's couldn't. Some machines could read stuff burnt at 4x, other's couldn't. Nowadays, there isn't a drive out there that can't handle CDR's.
For that matter, does anybody remember the bad old days of BIOS'es? Certain OS's like OS/2 required you to have a particular revision, or higher (the AMI BIOSs were particularly bad with OS/2).
How about bi-directional printers. Do any of you remember the heartache when your first inkjet didn't work correctly because you only had a uni-directional printer port?
How about DVD's? There was a time (and there may still be) when certain players couldn't handle certain discs.
How about BIOS support for large IDE devices? Do any of you remember the disappointment when your onboard controller couldn't handle a drive larger than 8 gigs?
How about 5 1/4 floppy drives? Remember not being able to read 360kb formated floppies in certain high density drives?
The list goes on and on...
Bluetooth is at least as complex, and probably more so, than any of these technologies. The manufacturers will get this sorted out in time.
The bleeding edge is exactly that - bloody. And as they say, you can tell who the pioneers are by the arrows in their backs. Don't slag a technology when it's in its infancy, just because things aren't working perfectly yet.
Must be a Windows thing first Windows bluescreens now this
</sarcasm>
Ponder this idea, maybe some of the vendors, in an effort to seem like team players, are not neccessarily tweaking their devices (hardware, software) to work properly with Bluetooth based devices (hw/sw). By attempting to seem as if they're trying to break into the Bluetooth scene, or be "team players", they're using that status to build around Bluetooth, in an attempt to capture on "the next big thing" (could happen).
Major people are banking mega bucks into this technology which in my opinion will be something like firewire, useless to the typical person. The add on (provided your pc isn't bluetoothed already) is a slight bit pricey, provided I could get a used 400mhz for about $200, so why would should I spend on this when technology as I know it changes so fast, by the time I did get it, I'd be looking at something else.
case
rest my
esac
Privacy info
360 degrees of Karma
Now the same people point to a problem with a very complex new technology and start jumping up and down about how it will never work because it has problems?
-Keslin, the naked nerd girl
-Keslin, the naked nerd girl
assuming the companies developed their bluetooth products in a vacuum, this network test can give them tons of valuable input to improve the products so they better work with other products.
either way, it shows there are definately a few problems in the current stages of development, but for a first trial of a large scale network, failure isn't a bad thing
Need a Catering Connection
Um yeah, maybe I missed something but the logic in this statement doesn't seem to be there for me...
Even the developers of Bluetooth devices are having trouble communicating with others!
Interesting... At I type this, I am using an Intel bluetooth pcmcia card in my laptop (purchased because they are proud to say they have a linux driver) and it is transmitting to my DLink WAP (purchased because it was cheap). No problems.
I've also ready *many* user reviews of various WAPs and a lot of people make it a point that they are using different brands of pcmcia cards with no problems. (And yes, I've seen at least a half dozen brands mentioned.) This would seem to indicate that if there are problems they are not widespread and may be limited to a few (possibly smaller) manufacturers.
Meanwhile I love being untethered and would never go back. It was a great investment and my wife agrees.
The first bluebooth implementations are only going to be sold as cable replacements. So it won't really matter that J. Random combinations of bluebooth devices don't work -- because they don't work if you have a cable either.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I figured that I would be diplomatic by referring to problems from few years ago, which only the most deluded zealots will deny.
-Keslin, the naked nerd girl
-Keslin, the naked nerd girl
The Apple Newton never recovered from the over hyped negative journalism of the initial units. The negativity was founded, for the first units, but further journalism and public opinion for the mature product was completely ignorant.
It developed into a fantastic technology that barely got a second look past the teething problems.
So I hope bluetooth quickly gets beyond the teething problems before people form an opinion on something that is apparently not be complete yet.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Are you sure you're not thinking of wireless ethernet, a.k.a IEEE 802.11b? I can't seem to find any bluetooh products on intel's site. Could you provide a link?
802.11 is overkill for the niche Bluetooth is aimed at. You don't need a fullblown NIC in your cell phone, but it might be nice if it could communicate with your PDA.
One of IBM's Bluetooth guys spoke at VanLUG last week, and according to him IBM is aiming at 50 cents/chip for bluetooth. This will never happen with 802.11.
Cheers,
Rick Kirkland
Is this going to stop any of us (Slashdot readers) from buying Bluetooth devices? Personally, I'm waiting until they get it "right", but this is like making a body net - my phone's on my belt, my Palm's in my pocket, my pen's behind my ear, all happily chatting away. Not to mention them tapping into my desktop/laptop when they're in range. It's... like a wearable computer!
Kurdt
Kurdt
I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
Is the Nokia Bluetooth Battery that will allow the lowly 6200 series phones to be connected... We can only sit and wait...
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Because it's to the various companies' advantage to be able to interoperate with each others' equipment, I'm expecting that we'll ultimately see these things working together.
From the sounds of the article, the problem seems to be mostly in the software, not the hardware. For units with upgradable software (eeproms, etc), this can be handled with a simpls software upgrade. For items like the pen, it's going to mean you're throwing the thing out unless the manufacturer is able to make their software dual mode (old protocol + new protocol).
Although I'm not going to buy a bluetooth system tomorrow, I'm definitely not going to write it off, yet.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Oh good, does that mean that my laptop won't inadvertantly connect to the flight director computer on the airplane?
And how do I make sure that my permanently wireless-enabled Bluetooth laptop/pen/Palm doesn't indeed become a Pilot? When the crew tell us to switch off our cellphones, will we be able to do the same with these devices yet still use them normally during the flight?
So what's wrong with 802.11? My academic institution has had it running for several years (!) now. It's not scary fast, but 3Mbps (and now 11Mbps) seems quite adequate for most tasks even when shared among many users. The interoperability is great, and the increased range means fewer base stations and more redundancy.
Is there something I'm missing, or is Bluetooth just a poor substitute for what I have already?
When I first heard of Bluetooth, I thought to myself, "I don't really care about checking the status of my fridge while watching tv". After time however, I came to realize, "I don't really care about checking the status of my fridge while watching tv".
For those companies that are desperately seeking to make this all-american dream a reality, I have some advice;
4 layered transmissions
Layers:
1) Identify yourself uniquely, negotiate unique identities with devices conflicting with your identify. (IPv6 using your SN as a mac address, problem solved).
2) Negotiate Public Key Encryption if required -- using IEEE standard encryption algorithm located on chip mentioned at end of this rant.
3) Identify the number of variables people will be working with, ie: "I am a light. I go on or off. My variable is Boolean"; "I am a fridge, I have 3 variables. On/oFF ; Fridge Temperature (range 0 to -20) ; Freezer Temperature (range 0 to -20).
4) Identify how your interface will be displayed to the user. ie; send a pixilated ICON of your device, with the text to go underneath such as "Fridge #56". Identify Whether your variables are straight-listed, or listed in relation to each other such as a linked-tree.
If the device communicating with you has only text ability, then only text will be displayed. It is up to the individual device to decide exactly how the layout goes, so end-users can say, "I don't like the palm pilot Bluetooth interface". This is probably where the problem occurs, everyone wants their product to have scrolling advertisements and look better than someone elses. Yo, you're designing remote controls; get over yourselves.
Last requirement for Bluetooth to work: IEEE implements a Bluetooth RFC database and refuses to IEEE-BT certify non-compliant devices.
In addition to this, all devices wishing to become BlueTooth certified must have a flashable chip in the event of backwards incompatability. If you need to update your bluetooth protocol, you just broadcast the new protocol from any device to all surrounding devices.
I realize this sounds like security risk, since people could flash their own protocols with backdoors or cause major problems amongst the utilities in your house. However when you think about it logically you'll realize this really isn't such a big problem in light of the fact that your Stove, Cell Phone and Maybe even your furnace will all one day be connected to a worldwide WAN known as the internet.
I hope this dream becomes a reality soon, and I wish all you over-funded capitalist pigs luck when Z3ro-c00li0 shuts off your pilot-light and turns on your stove.
Ace
I personaly think the writer of the article had a bad field day at CeBit, because I saw lots of Bluetooth applications working better than expected (I work in the communication industry, and also work with the technology).
This next friday will also be the next scheduled unplug fest, so there is work actively being done on interoperability, failing a test means back to the drawing board.
Another fact remains that most of the 'new' gizmos will be sold in pairs anyway, you need two chips to connect the sprocket to the widget, and that will give you full functionality for the 'new' gizmo you bought.
Didn't the first IEEE 802.11 cards that came on the market have the same problem ? I sure had problems connecting my set to cards of different vendors. A new eeprom flash that came out 1 year after I bought it solved that. Most Bluetooth gizmos also have flash capabilities (heck, some of them even run the stack using a Linux kernel).
The question remaining to be answered is: is WLAN a superior technology ? My personal experience is that everytime my fridge starts my WLAN is down, I have no such problem using Bluetooth.
I just wish HP JetSend had seen some wider adoption. It was a staggeringly clever protocol that solved many of these "surface based computing" problems you mention. Despite the limited scope of the few use cases we did see, it wasn't just a protocol for printing over IR from handhelds.
I don't understand BlueTooth. I see how it works as a protocol for un-wiring the various devices I own personally. If I want my fridge to talk to my phone, so that it can order more milk on demand, then I can see how to do it. If I want a cellphone that makes me look like Lt. Uhura, and can play MP3's from my PDA over the same earpiece, then I can see how to do that.
What I don't understand is how I use it to do the things I currently do with a Palm and IR. How do I walk into a First Tuesday (sic) meet and beam my business card to one person, in such a way that they trust to receive it, and I don't simultaneously broadcast it to the entire room ? Despite some searching, I can't find a way to do this securely and reliably with BlueTooth, in a manner that allows ad hoc communication between devices who interact only once and fleetingly.
Is BlueTooth really so limited that it can only be useful for "my stuff" that I have previously spent time giving personal introductions to each other ? This seems like they've missed the big picture on usability in a big, big way.
802.11 is basically wireless Ethernet. Bluetooth is supposed to be wireless USB: lower power, lower bandwidth, lower range, etc.
There's certainly a place in the world for a wireless approach to eliminating keyboard and mouse cables, and 802.11 is really overkill for that purpose.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think the article synopsis is very misleading. Especially to someone who knows absolutely nothing about Bluetooth. The author of the synopsis seems to be upset about something the article said about devices not being compatible with each other. I can't find anything in the article other than the fact that Bluetooth is not ready for consumer release and large scale manufacturing yet.
Oddly, Intel took their main Bluetooth page down. The nearest thing I could find was their Personal Area Connectivity page, which mentions Bluetooth. I found this last week while researching links to build a page about Bluetooth with Linux implementations.
World Beach List, my latest project.
I just bought a VAIO SR laptop (Japanese version) that has Bluetooth. It must be one of these pre-standard type deals.
The laptop is pretty sweet anyway so I don't mind as much.
For a perfect example of why this "rude awakening" won't happen, I refer you to practically anything made by Sony in the past few years. In addition to using crap components and producing generally poor-quality equipment, they are hell-bent on pimping proprietary hardware and data protocols. Yet somehow (marketing, anyone?) they enjoy a reputation roughly on par with manufacturers of significantly higher quality equipment. In fact, the first time I heard about these kinds of Bluetooth problems (roughly this time last year), the name "Sony" automatically popped into my head.
Maybe we should generically refer to this as "The Sony Effect".
My personal nags about Sony aside, basically I think the wide array of proprietary stuff already in the marketplace should tell us that if Bluetooth fragments into incompatible Blueteeth, the last person on Earth to "send a message" will be Joe Public, who learns all he knows from 30-second TV ads.
It took a few years for the 'U' of USB to mean something other than "Useless". It seems safe to predict that these Bluetooth compatibility issues will get worked out. Wether there really will be the golden $5 all-in-one-chip bluetooth solution remains to be seen. Until it becomes almost as cheap as the wire, it's hard to imagine it'll really get widespread adoption.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Come up with an exhaustive list of living room gadget functions. Make a universal remote that (a) doesn't require configuration, (b) actually works across vendors.
There is a pile of money under that idea.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
If 802.11 is good enough then pray tell why is it not being embedded in everything from cell phones to laptops to network appliances.
In the first place it is, 802.11b is being integrated into new laptops as standard. Secondly Bluetooth does not meet that test either, in fact bluetooth does not meet any test because it does not yet exist.
The cost of implementing any electronic gadget is mainly a function of the number of units the development costs are spread over. At the last IETF I went to CISCO were selling 802.11B NICs for $50. I have no doubt that in time the cost will fall the same way the cost of an ethernet nic has plumeted.
Since most of the Bluetooth devices will be AC powered I don't buy the power saving argument. I don't think the extra watts will matter. My pocket PC/ MP3 player / camera / cell phone will definitely have 802.11B so the only portable device I intend to carry had better solve the power problem.
If Bluetooth were ready for prime time today it might just have a chance. As it is it looks like it will be another 2 years at least before it is ready for prime time by which time it will be far too late to have any effect.
Beyond that nobody has yet explained to me why I want to have a conversation with my fridge. I can see why I want my VCR to have a conversation with my Internet connection, but every other incompatibility problem I have could be solved much cheaper by manufacturers agreeing to support a common set of Infra Red remote control commands.
Adding Bluetooth to my VCR does nothing for me. I still need to bluetooth enable my computer to be able to program the VCR when I am out. Bluetooth does not have the bandwidth to send the content upstairs to my office PC so I can watch the program there.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Devices won't get certified unless they are subject to compability tests with devices of the same type from other manufacturers.
This is easy today when there are few if any devices to test against, but apart from some 1st generation mishaps which could call for an upgrade, a bluetooth device should work with any other device.
In reality I share your fears that interoperability is an exponentially growing problem still to be solved. The simple protocols in bluetooth won't reach all the way, and even that will be a tough to get working. In the end Bluetooth will only be a carrier of the compete anarchy of XML content... Lets hope for a better standard than "what M$ do"
Wireless 1394!
And you-- yes, YOU! Don't give me any of your criticisms about range, size, price, availability, and other practicalities and trivialities. Let me get away with being wrong. I'm happy here.
IEEE shouldnt even allow anyone to use the name bluetooth unless it complies 100% with the spec, not 99% and not 101%. No mention of the term in marketing or product materials, nothing.
And anyone who does do so without being compliant should be sued into the ground and hunted down like rabid dogs. And have their IEEE memberships stripped of course.
Oh forget it... the very idea of ethics in people who design devices for people that are supposed to work... ha!
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Note to self: When you want to criticize a technology that you don't have the vision to understand, simply come up with the lamest possible use for that technology, and ask yourself why you would need it!
Example: When I first heard of Bluetooth, I thought to myself, "I don't really care about checking the status of my fridge while watching tv". After time however, I came to realize, "I don't really care about checking the status of my fridge while watching tv".
"And like that
Honestly, in my opinion, it doesn't make me look bad, it makes the moderation process look..well..idiotic. You're right, it is ironic, and I don't really know what to say to all that.
Regardless of what all you AC's (with heavy emphasis on the coward part) are posting about, I still stand by what I said originally. The statement made by the bluetooth developer doesn't make any sense. That was all I was trying to point out. If you want irony, there's irony in this case of a post about someone not making sense being replied to in such an incomprehensible and nonsensical manner. That's where the first bit of irony is.
Look the damn artical was written by a buisness reporter with a very apperent agenda. I have been studying the techniques used by journalists to create their "truth" despite the facts for almost 15 years. I've learned the smell of distortion, and this artical smells worse then my dog after he has had too many jalepinios. Okay so one server did'nt get up because it used hardware from an obsoleat (probably beta) specification, big deal. Remember this demo was hastily thrown together with limited resorces at a time when most manufacturers are concentrating on what is making money today and not on what will make money tomorow ( becaus of articals written by techophobic morons like this one.) The other thing to keep in mind is that there is close to zero capacity for manufacturing Bluetooth compliant products as companies are just now starting to ramp up. Finding stuff to use in a demo can be a real challenge when everything is going to filling orders.
Why does the word "disco" (and its partner-word, ecstasy) come immediately in my head? Is that a subtle joke I was meant to get but not talk about? :)
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Why not put ethernet in everything? If we want the embedded device world to be universally compatible with everything else, why jump between two standards?