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.
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...
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
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
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
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
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?
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
But then they have had a monopoly from the start, no-one has a Bluetooth monopoly.
802.11 will never approach che low price of bluetooth; also, bluetooth uses far less power than does 802.11. It is great for wireless networking, but would be way overkill for just connecting your printer and computer, your phone and handset, for wireless mice and keyboards and so on. You would in effect have a $60 cable, and the mouse/keyboard/whatever would have to be connected to a power outlet or be recharged every two or three hours.
/Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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."
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
Newton never recovered from Steve Jobs
Agreed.
He 'liked' the palm. And the Newton group had a palm-sized Newton with no expandability (just like a palm) at a under-$300 possible price point.
Rather than say 'we have this technology, we can't get palm, lets work with what we have' (this assumes you believe Apple should have been in the handheld space), Jobs worked to drive away almost all the Newton staff.
Statements like this at WWDC 1997:
Jobs - "What does Apple make?"
Jobs bootlickers - 'computers'
Jobs - "What do computers have?"
Jobs bootlickers - 'keyboards'
Jobs - "Than what is this?" and holds up a Newton.
Helped create this:
From the back of the room, MP 130's are turned on, dates is selected and a to-do task of 'find new job' is noted by Newton staff.
First Jobs fired Sandy over a rather bogus charge of 'releasing company secrets' (Sandy told the Newton staff that the spin-in was going to happen). And when the spin-in happened, 32 of the Newton engineers left in mass for palm. Jobs was then able to say to sockholders etc all that "We had to kill the product. We had no staff to build it". The people who remained were the ones who were the ones who did NCU. The NCU was 1.5 years late, would not work if you have over 2 gigs of free disk space, and only syncs with long-dead PIMs. (AKA Palm got the cream...)
Had jobs GOTTEN the palm product from 3com, the palm staff would have quit on Jobs again. Thus palm would be dead by now, and the handheld of choice would be Windows for Pen.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
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